From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Apr 1 00:29:43 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:29:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Citizen Cyborg on If Uploads Come First Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060331192912.0238a060@gmu.edu> At 02:15 PM 3/31/2006, James Hughes wrote: > >> I just think you ... do not see redistribution and regulation as > >> desirable or inevitable > > You keep making these false statements about me, which I deny. > >I'm sorry you think I'm misrepresenting you.... >You are associated, for instance, with "ideas markets" and market-based >approaches to aggregating social preferences as a way to replace >democratic mechanisms.... But they do indicate a ... shift from reliance on >democratic deliberation to market mechanisms. Isn't that the case? >Isn't it fair to characterize you as a libertarian economist? No, it is not fair to characterize me as a libertarian economist. Some of my colleagues perhaps, but not me. You have been so far complaining that since I did not talk much about regulation in my uploads paper, that I must be hostile to the idea and unaware of the regulatory issues you hold dear. I have been trying to explain that I am aware of such issues and remain open to regulation, but that a low regulation analysis is usually the best first analysis step in economic analysis. I had thought a bit about upload regulation, but it is a messy situation and I felt uncertain, and so I choose not to say anything in that twelve year old paper. The subject of "idea futures" as applied to government policy is about *how* we should chose regulation. It is not itself pro or anti regulation. Yes, I've advocated trying out markets to choose regulation, but that doesn't make me agaisnt democratic deliberation. For example, I am a fan of James Fishkin's experiments in deliberative democracy mechanisms. >>I gave a long analysis showing how there were at least five >>different ways to conceive of who are the "poor" in such a >>scenario, and I have twice now asked you to clarify which of these >>groups you want to favor with redistribution. You complain that I >>have not supported "redistribution" but without clarification this >>can only be a generic slogan. > >Your examples are interesting, and worthy of additional discussion, >but I really don't have to parse them before I can advocate a >general principle that I want to live in a roughly equal society. Well that is a key difference in our styles. "Equal society" is too vague a slogan for me to endorse. ("Equal in what?" my internal critic screams.) I would rather not take a public position if I cannot find something clearer to endorse. But please do not mistake my lack of many positions on upload regulation in my first uploads paper for not my caring about or being aware of regulatory issues. FYI, regarding the questions I posed, my current leanings are that creatures who might exist should count in our moral calculus, that upload copies will diverge quickly enough that they should mostly be treated separately, instead of as clans, that the ability of humans to earn substantial wages should not matter much beyond its contribution to their income, and that while the fact that the human subsistence levels are higher should be a consideration, that consideration is greatly weakened when humans reject the option to convert into cheaper-to-assist uploads. Your intuitions may differ, but I don't think anyone should feel very confident about such opinions. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From jklos at netbsd.org Sat Apr 1 00:46:36 2006 From: jklos at netbsd.org (John Klos) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 00:46:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [extropy-chat] List problems Message-ID: Hello, The mailing list is having problems because there are issues with DNS. We're working to fix it permanently, so please be patient. We'll post more when everything's been fixed. Thanks, John & Elaine ZiaSpace Productions From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Apr 1 00:30:14 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:30:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Citizen Cyborg on If Uploads Come First Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060331192955.0238a6a0@gmu.edu> At 05:12 PM 3/31/2006, James Hughes wrote: >>my current leanings are that creatures who might exist should count >>in our moral calculus, > >Hmm. A long-standing debate in utilitarian theory as you know. Yup. >Clearly we want to make policy that will ensure the greatest >possible happiness for all the beings that exist in the future, even >though we are not obliged to bring them into existence. I know many disagree on this point, but it seems to me that bringing creatures into existence with lives worth living should count as a moral good thing, just as I appreciate others having created me and I think they did a good thing worth praise. If so, the prevention of vast numbers of uploads must weigh against policies to greatly increase per-upload wages. But this need not be decisive of course. >It seems like your model in Dawn, if we interpret it as normative >rather than descriptive, would fit with >"the repugnant conclusion" of utilitarianism that we should create >as many beings as possible, even if each of them might have less >happy lives, because we will thereby create a greater sum of happiness than by >creating fewer, happier beings. Is that what you mean? The "repugnant conclusion" has never seemed repugnant to me, which is another way I guess I disagree with others in population ethics. But yes this upload scenario offers a concrete application of such issues. >In that sense, if neo-Amish humans refuse to become faster, more >able uploads their case for accomodation of their decision is weak. >But framing all humans who decide to remain organic as undeserving, >self-cripplers in a brave new uploaded world is part of the >political challenge your essay points us to. We need to come up with >a more attractive frame for the co-accomodation of organic and upload life. I don't know if a better frame can be found, but I'd be happy to hear of one. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Apr 1 16:45:16 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:45:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Citizen Cyborg on If Uploads Come First Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060401114403.00ea0048@gmu.edu> At 08:52 AM 4/1/2006, James Hughes wrote: > > As one tries to use regulation to move further and further > > away from those scenarios, the stronger become the incentives > > to get around the regulation, and so the more Draconian the > > monitoring and enforcement process must become. > >... This is the situation we face now with all the potentially apocalyptic >threats - e.g. are we willing to create the regulatory and police >apparatuses to ensure that we don't end up cracked in a future dawn by >runaway AI(s) and uploads. If the kinds of surveillance and prevention >it will take prevent apocalyptic risks are "Draconian" then hopefully we >can have a public debate about what the trade-offs are between security >and risk. At least the cost of surveillance and enforcement should come >down however, making the consideration of effective surveillance and >enforcement fiscally acceptable. Imagine that the hardware cost of supporting another upload is $1/yr, but that regulation has increased the legal wage to $100/yr. Upload John Smith is thinking of starting a new business whose main expense is 10,000 employees. The costs of this business are then $1,000,000/yr if done by the book. John could instead create 10,000 copies of himself to run the business, in which case his costs would be $10,000, plus whatever it takes to hide the computers running his uploads. This would clearly be extremely tempting to John. Presumably John's copies of himself are not going to complain about the arrangement. So to prevent this one might need to inspect every computer capable of running an upload at anything close to the efficiency of computers designed to run uploads, to make sure they aren't running hidden uploads. Alternatively one might need accurate ways to estimate the number of people that must be needed to produce any given product or service. And one would have to prevent the existence of "free wage zones," so global governance would be required. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From amara at amara.com Sat Apr 1 21:20:32 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 23:20:32 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nasa Reinstates Dawn Mission Message-ID: >>Looks like good news for Amara. : ) Good news for my Italian group. It does make it harder for me to leave because I think that it's a very cool mission. My savings is almost run out though, and I don't have a choice. Wherever I find myself after this summer, I hope I can be involved in some aspect of this mission. Keith Henson: >It will be interesting to see what she says when she gets back. It could >be that the embarrassment from the possibility of a project being completed >on private money was a motivating factor for NASA management. I doubt it was me that had any role. My private funding information remained in the hands of the primary science team member as a backup, third-choice solution if their first-choice (NASA) and second choice (ESA,DLR,ASI) solutions failed. I didn't press the idea, since I suspect the mission manager thought my idea was a little bit crazy, anyway. I think more likely why it was reinstated was pressure from, and saving face to, the other government space agencies. If I thought NASA was rational, then perhaps, in addition, the reason was someone at the higher levels listened to the logical arguments against the much-publicized technical and financial 'problems' that were shown to be not 'problems', after all. (But I don't think that NASA is very rational.) Amara P.S. The private funding information is going to be useful for another unfunded space project for which I heard recently, so it is not wasted effort. P.S.S. The solar eclipse was **GLORIOUS** **SPLENDID** **FANTASTIC** Surely there are more superlatives I can use, but none will do it justice. It was the best experience of my life. It took my breath away! -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Apr 1 23:25:44 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:25:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] New mailing list Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060401182508.07403fd8@unreasonable.com> I've created a new mailing list focused on a concern that's likely shared by all of us. Here's the description from Yahoo groups -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autodidactics/ >This is a mailing list for discussion of learning on your own, >acquiring knowledge and competence in your own self-directed program. > >What are the best books for studying topology? Where can you learn >to 180 your car like the Secret Service? > >It's particularly intended for omnivorous autodidacts, who want to >know nearly everything. Whose family has learned it's dangerous to >let them near bookstores. > >Apart from learning something is the issue of convincing the world >that you know it without benefit of formal credentials. Or >identifying an accomplishment that will convince yourself that >you've got it down. > >This list is moderated. Postings are expected to be civil and on-topic. -- David. From starman2100 at cableone.net Sun Apr 2 02:51:07 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 19:51:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Super-longevity in cartoons : ) Message-ID: <1143946267_48566@S1.cableone.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Apr 2 17:53:52 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 10:53:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] An excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist persective Message-ID: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> Giulio Prisco has created an excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist perspective, available at: http://futuretag.net/index.php/Slgp1. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Apr 2 18:23:49 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 13:23:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> My daughters and I want to get some petri dishes and collect samples from what is flying around in the air in the house and see if there is mold and other such things. We plan to collect samples in some kind of medium in the dishes and culture it so we can get decent samples for microscopes. Then we would like to look at it in the microscope and find out what we have. It should be a fun experiment for us all. Does anyone know what kinds of media I should use for collecting and culturing the samples? Or, does anyone know of a website resource for comparing samples with photographs? Our main concern is that we have Strachybotrys running around, but others may be present as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Apr 2 19:42:13 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:42:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes In-Reply-To: <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <22360fa10604021242v326f6db3md00eee1ab3000544@mail.gmail.com> If you google on agar, culture, bacteria, I think you'll find what you're looking for. - Jef On 4/2/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > My daughters and I want to get some petri dishes and collect samples from > what is flying around in the air in the house and see if there is mold and > other such things. We plan to collect samples in some kind of medium in the > dishes and culture it so we can get decent samples for microscopes. Then we > would like to look at it in the microscope and find out what we have. It > should be a fun experiment for us all. > Does anyone know what kinds of media I should use for collecting and > culturing the samples? Or, does anyone know of a website resource for > comparing samples with photographs? Our main concern is that we have > Strachybotrys running around, but others may be present as well. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brentn at freeshell.org Sun Apr 2 19:46:42 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:46:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes In-Reply-To: <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: (4/2/06 13:23) kevinfreels.com wrote: >My daughters and I want to get some petri dishes and collect samples from what is flying around in the air in the house and see if >there is mold and other such things. We plan to collect samples in some kind of medium in the dishes and culture it so we can get >decent samples for microscopes. Then we would like to look at it in the microscope and find out what we have. It should be a fun >experiment for us all. >Does anyone know what kinds of media I should use for collecting and culturing the samples? Or, does anyone know of a website >resource for comparing samples with photographs? Our main concern is that we have Strachybotrys running around, but others may >be present as well. Agar is a good all-around medium for growing bacteria and fungi. It is common, cheap, and you can (or at least, you used to be able to) buy dishes from school supply stores with an agar/sugar medium already prepared. There are other more specialized media, that you will spend more (a lot more) for them, and I'm pretty sure you don't need anything that specialized. Typically, you can inoculate a dish by leaving it uncovered to pick up ambient dust, or by using a tightly wrapped cotton swab to culture a particular surface. If you wanted to be cool and technical, pick up an inoculation loop when you buy your dishes. Its relatively cheap, but IMO, superfluous for what you're trying to do. I don't know any website resource, but you might want to try the Ask-A-Microscopist resource of the Microscopy Society of America. The messages get forwarded to the Microscopy-L listserver, and there are plenty of microbiologists there. I'm just not one of them :) Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From pharos at gmail.com Sun Apr 2 20:05:36 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 21:05:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes In-Reply-To: <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 4/2/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > My daughters and I want to get some petri dishes and collect samples from > what is flying around in the air in the house and see if there is mold and > other such things. We plan to collect samples in some kind of medium in the > dishes and culture it so we can get decent samples for microscopes. Then we > would like to look at it in the microscope and find out what we have. It > should be a fun experiment for us all. > Does anyone know what kinds of media I should use for collecting and > culturing the samples? Or, does anyone know of a website resource for > comparing samples with photographs? Our main concern is that we have > Strachybotrys running around, but others may be present as well. Make sure you're looking in the best places to collect samples. No, not the toilet seat - that's probably the cleanest place! Dr. Charles Gerba, a microbiologist at the University of Arizona, counted bacteria on workplace surfaces for a study sponsored by The Clorox Co., makers of Clorox bleach. Office toilet seats had 49 germs per square inch, he found. But desktops had almost 21,000 germs per square inch. Phones were worse -- more than 25,000 germs per square inch. Desks, phones, computer keyboards and mice are key germ transfer points because people touch them so often, Gerba said, adding that coughing and sneezing can leave behind "a minefield of viruses" that can live on a surface for up to three days. ----------------------------- Taking samples in your house might not be a good idea. You might turn into a fanatic about disinfecting, cleaning, filtering, washing, wiping, etc. There is a school of opinion that the growing number of allergic children is at least partly due to them living in too clean an environment, and never giving their bodies the chance to build up resistance to germs. BillK From bret at bonfireproductions.com Sun Apr 2 21:41:55 2006 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 17:41:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes In-Reply-To: <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: Fun! What a blast! Might be of some help, and is just nice to have - There is an excellent text on microscopes available free online by Mortimer Abramowitz - Microscope Basics and Beyond. It has great explanations for Kohler illumination, depth of field, oil immersion, etc. I've been trying to upgrade my (very) old kit scope since it tops out at 320x and doesn't have a camera adapter. There has been some really nice hardware on eBay - binocular, American Optics, 1000x Oil etc, selling for less than US$300. http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/basicsandbeyond.pdf I think if you leave your spore traps by your heating/cooling vent intakes, or under the front of the couch, you'll have enough sample after one twenty-four hour period, perhaps even one day (8hr) of activity (such as a Saturday). This document also talks about swabbing instead of trapping: http://www.invironment.com/research/v2n12f1.pdf Which works if you have visual keys that are suspect, sooty splotches, etc. Happy Hunting! Bret Kulakovich On Apr 2, 2006, at 2:23 PM, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > My daughters and I want to get some petri dishes and collect > samples from what is flying around in the air in the house and see > if there is mold and other such things. We plan to collect samples > in some kind of medium in the dishes and culture it so we can get > decent samples for microscopes. Then we would like to look at it in > the microscope and find out what we have. It should be a fun > experiment for us all. > Does anyone know what kinds of media I should use for collecting > and culturing the samples? Or, does anyone know of a website > resource for comparing samples with photographs? Our main concern > is that we have Strachybotrys running around, but others may be > present as well. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sun Apr 2 22:57:57 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:57:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes In-Reply-To: <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: It sounds like you already have a microscope, but a rather neat device is the QX-5 digital microscope: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002HLKI2/002-7138711-5560058?v=glance Basically, it lets you view the microscope via a computer, so you can easily save snapshots and such. It's also easier to use with multiple people at once. On 4/2/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > My daughters and I want to get some petri dishes and collect samples from > what is flying around in the air in the house and see if there is mold and > other such things. We plan to collect samples in some kind of medium in the > dishes and culture it so we can get decent samples for microscopes. Then we > would like to look at it in the microscope and find out what we have. It > should be a fun experiment for us all. > Does anyone know what kinds of media I should use for collecting and > culturing the samples? Or, does anyone know of a website resource for > comparing samples with photographs? Our main concern is that we have > Strachybotrys running around, but others may be present as well. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Sun Apr 2 23:14:49 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 16:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] An excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist persective Message-ID: <20060402231449.5916B57FAE@finney.org> Jeff Allbright pointed to Giulio Prisco's essay on Second Life at: http://futuretag.net/index.php/Slgp1 One of the articles Giulio references is this by Vernor Vinge on how the Internet is changing things, which also mentions 2L: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060320/full/440411a.html I've tried out Second Life a little, using a free account. It's a wide open virtual world where residents can build and script objects in a variety of ways. Visually, it looks great, especially when you realize that almost everything you see has been constructed by residents. Most areas have no "zoning" though so it's not unusual to see a medieval castle next door to a 21st century disco with flashing lights, next door to a circus tent, next door to a Jetson's home in the sky. Some users object to such juxtapositions but I enjoy them; they visually illustrate the dynamism and wide range of human creativity. Building and scripting in 2L works great, and avatar customization is also very flexible, but I find that the communication tools are relatively poor. In particular, it is very difficult to use gestures in a flexible way. If you want to, say, point at someone, or wave your arms expansively, or stroke your chin, the only way to do that is to find and (usually) buy a canned animation that performs that gesture. You can then bind it to a hotkey, or select it from a cumbersome menu system. If you have in mind a particular gesture that has not been made available, you need to use a complicated third party animation program like Poser to design the whole sequence, and upload it. Sounds are similarly limited to canned .wav files that can be uploaded and called up by a hotkey. A further problem is that people don't tend to hear the sounds at the moment you trigger them, because they have to be downloaded to each person nearby, so there is a several-second delay the first time you trigger a sound. The same thing sometimes happens with gestures, not everybody sees them at the same time. Another limitation is with object interaction. While 2L has a physics engine, it is inefficient and not often used. Generally you can't pick up, carry or push objects in a realistic way. Mostly you are limited to "touching" scripted objects to activate them. While you can attach an object to your avatar so that it appears to be carrying or wearing it, this often involves some manual adjustment using the editing tools and is generally not a very natural-seeming experience. The bottom line is that as a result, the only real way to communicate in 2L is by typing. Basically it becomes nothing more than a glorified chat room when it is time to engage in conversation. This is what I find most frustrating; it takes me out of the virtual world experience. Conversations tend to be extremely static, a bunch of good-looking avatars standing still and making typing motions with their hands (that's the default animation when someone types). Overall my feeling is that 2L works well as a platform for building and, to a lesser extent, scripting interesting objects and constructions. There are some very beautiful builds and the world is an extremely dynamic place, with new constructions appearing all the time. But as a meeting place or conversational medium, it's still stuck in the 20th century. I engaged in real time computer chat in college in the 1970s, and aside from adding pictures of people standing around, that's still pretty much what you get when you meet people in 2L. Hal From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 2 22:16:32 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Minimal genome should be twice the size Message-ID: <20060402221632.1981.qmail@web60022.mail.yahoo.com> Upon first reading this seemed worthy of posting. http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/minimalgenome290306.html Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 2 22:16:49 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Structural basis of intelligence Message-ID: <20060402221649.76090.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> Why Some Kids Are Smarter http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/wtr_16641,304,p1.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 2 22:17:29 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Rapid Nano Molding Message-ID: <20060402221729.83173.qmail@web60016.mail.yahoo.com> What caught my eye -- and provoked some skepticism -- was "half a nanometer". At that level of resolution one can imagine some interesting lego kits. YMMV. >From the article: "The researchers have used nanotubes and virus particles as masters, for example, and made copies of them with a resolution down to half a nanometer." http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_16640,303,p2.html Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Sat Apr 1 04:00:36 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:00:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Ever wonder what happens to phishing scam profits...? Message-ID: <442DFAE4.8000409@mindspring.com> "Dr." Bill Hancock is another veteran wannabe. See his short bio below. Terry On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:30:00AM -0800, snopes wrote: > Such information isn't necessarily obtained through phishing scams: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11731365/ > - snopes > > Urban Legends Reference Pages --> http://www.snopes.com This ATM card issue is probably a system compromise at a credit card processor similar to the issue that occurred with Card Systems, Inc. in Tucson. Card Systems no longer exists as an independent entity as a result of their Visa contract being cancelled--but they were simply acquired by another processor. I hope they have fixed their issues. Card Systems at one point blamed their auditors for not finding problems--they were audited by a branch of Savvis that used to be Cable & Wireless Security. Savvis is the networking company that fired its CEO, Robert McCormick, after he got involved in a very public billing dispute over a $241,000 bill with the strip club Scores (http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/08/news/newsmakers/scores.suit/index.htm). The chief information security officer at Savvis responsible for the entity that performed the audit was "Dr." Bill Hancock, whose team apparently missed some significant problems (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zd2970/is_200507/ai_n14799307). Hancock has frequently claimed to be a Navy SEAL, a Vietnam vet, and a Vietnam POW, though he's listed on websites as a fake. His M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in "Computer Sciences" are from a defunct diploma mill that operated in Hawaii and then off the coast of Australia, Greenwich University. His bachelor's degree is from Thomas Edison College, which is accredited. (Source: http://blog.netwarriors.org/articles/2003/10/28/the-billfiles-v4-0 and http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1015.htm) Hancock has been CISO of Exodus Communications, Cable & Wireless USA, and Savvis Networks. He has testified before Congress as a security expert, and has been chairman of the cybersecurity committee of the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC). He actually seems to have very good security knowledge, but is also a major bullshitter, which is not a good characteristic for someone in a position of trust. -- Jim Lippard -- "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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Apr 3 00:02:06 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 17:02:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] An excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist persective In-Reply-To: <20060402231449.5916B57FAE@finney.org> References: <20060402231449.5916B57FAE@finney.org> Message-ID: <22360fa10604021702p55091375w9e548e95f2a5c7a3@mail.gmail.com> On 4/2/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > Jeff Allbright pointed to Giulio Prisco's essay on Second Life at: > http://futuretag.net/index.php/Slgp1 > One of the articles Giulio references is this by Vernor Vinge on how > the Internet is changing things, which also mentions 2L: > http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060320/full/440411a.html Overall my feeling is that 2L works well as a platform for building and, > to a lesser extent, scripting interesting objects and constructions. > There are some very beautiful builds and the world is an extremely dynamic > place, with new constructions appearing all the time. But as a meeting > place or conversational medium, it's still stuck in the 20th century. > I engaged in real time computer chat in college in the 1970s, and aside > from adding pictures of people standing around, that's still pretty much > what you get when you meet people in 2L. As a resident of SL for over a year now, I share Hal's observations of inadequacies in the platform. I invested a few hundred dollars on several acres of land on a hill by the sea and near a busy telehub, spent many days learning the scripting language and its quirks and work-arounds, and had constructed a building with an elegant organic design to house a Futurist Museum, a place to present and explore concepts familiar to the denizens of this list. The exhibits would be 3D models, images, video, books with summary contents, all hyperlinked for quick and easy travel between related concepts. All of my work was predicated on the promise of HTML on "prims" and an effective connection between the internal world of SL and the outer world of the web--and my more powerful web server and database adding intelligence and interactively beyond what was available in-world. These capabilities were promised many months ago, and when I met Philip Rosedale (CEO of Linden Labs) in person in September he looked me in the eye and said they'd be coming Real Soon Now. Several months and several hundred dollars later in monthly land "tier" payments, I decided enough was enough and liquidated my virtual holdings. The developments that had been promised by Linden Labs are still off in the indefinite future. Since then, I visit a few times each week, and attend the SL Future Salons and other events. Lizbeth enjoys the social interaction, and hosts blitz-building contests and show&tell events each week. The Metaverse offers great promise as a real-time collaborative environment, but it's not quite ready yet. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Apr 3 01:06:45 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 21:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes In-Reply-To: <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <35922.72.236.103.152.1144026405.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > My daughters and I want to get some petri dishes and collect samples from > what is flying around in the air in the house and see if there is mold and > other such things. We plan to collect samples in some kind of medium in > the dishes and culture it so we can get decent samples for microscopes. > Then we would like to look at it in the microscope and find out what we > have. It should be a fun experiment for us all. > Does anyone know what kinds of media I should use for collecting and > culturing the samples? Or, does anyone know of a website resource for > comparing samples with photographs? Our main concern is that we have > Strachybotrys running around, but others may be present as well. > _ You could look up how to make sourdough starter from scratch using natural yeasts and play with that. Then perhaps you could even eat what you catch... Regards, MB From mstriz at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 03:10:22 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 23:10:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes In-Reply-To: <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 4/2/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > My daughters and I want to get some petri dishes and collect samples from > what is flying around in the air in the house and see if there is mold and > other such things. We plan to collect samples in some kind of medium in the > dishes and culture it so we can get decent samples for microscopes. Then we > would like to look at it in the microscope and find out what we have. It > should be a fun experiment for us all. > Does anyone know what kinds of media I should use for collecting and > culturing the samples? Or, does anyone know of a website resource for > comparing samples with photographs? Our main concern is that we have > Strachybotrys running around, but others may be present as well. I taught several semesters of college microbiology, so I might be of some assistance. If you want to "find out what you have" to the level of identification, basic morphology won't be enough. In fact, you won't see too much interesting stuff with bacteria (cocci vs bacilli, tetrads vs. chains, at best). With fungi you get some interesting colors (blue, green, black even) and smells. I can predict that you'll get a nasty smelling green mold, which is a common bread fungus. Furthermore, you won't see much with bacteria at all unless you purchase some STAINS. Light passes right through single cells them leaving them almost invisible. There are basic stains that you can apply to bacteria, and then more involved ones like the Gram stain or acid-fast stain (several reagents and steps). These also allow for some differentiation (E. coli is gram negative, for examle.). Identification will require selective media on which to subculture your colonies. You can get guides -- if nothing else, a college microbiology lab textbook from Amazon.com. Microbes have different nutritional and environmental requirements, so before gene sequencing technology, microbial identification consisted of going through a heirarchical series of growth media until you narrowed down what you had to a specific genus or species (kind of like identifying a tree with one of those guides that asks a series of questions about the leaves). These media can have different sugars (lactose vs sucrose fermentation), blood extract (hemoglobin lysis), chocolate extract (highly enriched for fastidious organisms), and a lot of other nutrients, pH content, salt, anaerobic conditions, enzymes, etc. Some of them come with indicators that turn the medium yellow, red, purple, green and in one case hot pink (something your kids might enjoy). I don't know if that's the level of analysis that you want, but there it is. Not sure if and how many of those selective and differential media are available to the public, versus exclusively for research purposes, but you can inquire with the relevant companies. I don't know any by name, since we had a tech prepare all that stuff. You may not want to invest that much in bacterial identification. Fungi provide you better colony morphology as I mentioned before, and fungi constitute most airborn microbes, from my experince. Bacteria don't survive dessication (neither does any cell), but fungi form spores to survive. Luckily, therefore, that most fungi aren't pathogenic to man. I know that basic growth medium is available online for sale to the public. Look for agar (or agar extract). Fungi often grow better on YPD medium. Both might be available in enriched forms, although you probably won't need it. Just leave the petri dishes exposed for a couple of minutes (maybe hours but if you overdo it, you'll get undifferentiable growth all over the plate). As for photographs, the lab manual that I taught out of was by Cappuccino and Sherman (ugly long URL: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080532836X/sr=8-1/qid=1144032711/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1138016-3497412?%5Fencoding=UTF8) and we had this Photographic Atlas available in class (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895826569/ref=pd_sim_b_4/103-1138016-3497412?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155). Sorry if that's too high level, but those are the best (i.e. only :) sources I know. Cheers, Martin From mstriz at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 03:18:18 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 23:18:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: I should point out that while the air might not be a good source for bacteria, some of the funnest experiments we had in my class was when we took swabs of the mouth, back of the throat (the flora differ between the two), skin, other surfaces. So you can find good sources of bacteria and do some interesting identification experiments with them. Martin From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon Apr 3 02:49:25 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 19:49:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Welcome to the Machine Message-ID: <44308D35.30704@mindspring.com> April 2, 2006 'Programming the Universe,' by Seth Lloyd [book review] Welcome to the Machine Review by COREY S. POWELL Seth Lloyd certainly gives his readers a lot of bang for their buck. In the space of 221 dense, frequently thrilling and occasionally exasperating pages, he tackles computer logic, thermodynamics, chaos theory, complexity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, consciousness, sex and the origin of life ? throwing in, for good measure, a heartbreaking afterword that repaints the significance of all that has come before. The source of all this intellectual mayhem is the kind of Big Idea so prevalent in popular science books these days. Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at M.I.T., takes as his topic the fundamental workings of the universe, which he thinks has been horribly misunderstood. Scientists have looked at it as a ragtag collection of particles and fields while failing to see what it is as a majestic whole: an enormous computer. Every physical event, everywhere, feeds information into it. And the output of the cosmic computer is nothing less than reality itself. This all has a faddish, Matrix-like ring to it, but Lloyd's argument is rooted in ideas stretching back at least to the mid-19th century. At the time, the prevailing scientific philosophy held that the universe operates like a clockwork: the movement of each piece determines the movement of every other piece, and plugging the right numbers into the right equations could in principle predict the future of the cosmos with unlimited precision. Several prominent researchers recognized problems with that model, however. Any piece of machinery should operate backward as well as forward, but the real world clearly doesn't work that way. Candles don't unburn, the sun doesn't unshine and people never grow younger. Something keeps events moving irrevocably forward, toward a state of ever-greater disorder and complexity. The German physicist Rudolf Clausius made the first stirrings toward Lloyd's information-based worldview in 1865, when he described that tendency toward disorder with a term he called entropy. Entropy is one of those words that almost everyone has heard and almost nobody can really explain. By my count, Lloyd defines it 21 times. Some of the attempts are quite entertaining (one involves his efforts to bond with his British classmates over a game of snooker) but none is entirely persuasive. If you want to follow Lloyd down his rabbit hole, however, this is the pill you have to swallow. Broadly speaking, entropy is the amount of disorder and information in a system. Take, for example, a fresh, unshuffled deck of cards. In that state it has low entropy and contains little information. Just two pieces of data (the hierarchy of suits and the relative ranks of the cards) tell you where to find every card in the deck without looking. Give it a good shuffle and look again. The deck has a lot of entropy and a lot of information. If you want to locate a particular card, you have to hunt through the entire deck. There is only one perfectly ordered state but about 1068 disordered ones, which is why you will never, ever accidentally shuffle the deck back into its original order. Amazingly, this process of generating entropy is universal. It is what happens when a candle burns, when the sun shines and when your stomach digests your lunch. In every instance, there is an inexorable, irreversible trend toward disorder and an increase in the total amount of information in the world. Lloyd traces this growth in data all the way down to the subatomic scale. Just as the shuffling of cards increases the entropy of the deck, the bumping and jostling of particles and atoms and molecules increases entropy in the world around us, with each interaction acting to exchange or create information. Lloyd then goes a step farther, making the case that such an exchange is equivalent to the flow of data in a computer ? but only the right kind of computer. Ordinary desktop computers are a flawed model of the physical world, Lloyd argues, because they handle everything as clear "yes" or "no" commands, while the universe operates according to the rules of quantum physics, which inherently produce fuzzy results. But Lloyd happens to be one of the world's experts in a new kind of computing device, called a quantum computer, which can produce similarly vague answers like "mostly yes but also a little bit no." Such computers ? a handful of labs have built rudimentary prototypes ? mimic the natural world perfectly, Lloyd claims: the two systems are not just similar, they are the same. The universe is a quantum computer whose computations are the movements of information that define the world we experience. These discussions of quantum uncertainty and computer logic are true mind-benders and yet, oddly, they are not nearly so confusing as the section on entropy. Ideas as huge, and hugely weird, as the computational universe draw out Lloyd's visionary side, and he does a commendable job of weaving in jokes and personal anecdotes to leaven the undeniably heavy material. He is consistently charming and fun. He just isn't always entirely convincing. More than once, I found myself recalling a scene in "Animal House" in which one of the Delta House guys has a cosmic epiphany during a cannabis-fueled conversation with his professor (Larry: "That means that one tiny atom in my fingernail could be. . . ." Professor: ". . . could be one little, tiny universe." Pause. Larry: "Could I buy some pot from you?") Is Lloyd doing anything more than playing physics head games? He anticipates the question, asking, "Just what does this picture of the universe as a quantum computer buy me that I didn't already have" thanks to our "perfectly good quantum-mechanical theory of elementary particles?" For one thing, he answers, it could be a powerful new research tool. One of Lloyd's M.I.T. colleagues, David Cory, has used a simple quantum computer to study how information flows through the subatomic world. If these devices truly match the workings of the universe, expanded versions could be used, for example, to develop a more complete theory of gravity, whose essence is still utterly mysterious. On a deeper level, Lloyd thinks he has found a new way to explain one of the most basic questions in science: Why is the world so complex? If the universe began in a formless Big Bang, how did it develop into a place with stars, planets and people? His answer returns to the idea that information always begets more information. In a quantum-computer universe, new information and new complexity are being born all the time. Indeed, Lloyd's universe is hard-wired for complexity. The eventual emergence of DNA, sex and consciousness is practically inevitable. It's a fascinating and profoundly comforting idea, but it lies on the far side of empirical science. For now, a more telling test is how well it works as a metaphysics, a way of understanding the universe and our place in it. That test comes in a startlingly dark passage at the very end of "Programming the Universe," where Lloyd addresses the death of the brilliant physicist Heinz Pagels, one of his mentors. The two men were mountain climbing in Colorado in 1988 when Pagels missed a step and took a fatal fall into a gully. Lloyd stood above, utterly helpless. The pain is still fresh as Lloyd recounts the episode, and his effort at finding solace in information, not in religion, is touching. "We have not entirely lost him," he writes. "While he lived, Heinz programmed his own piece of the universe. The resulting computation unfolds in us and around us." That elegy reveals a central but previously hidden aspect of Lloyd's theorizing: information as thread that binds past and future so that nothing is ever truly gone ? not a great idea, not a great man, not even love itself. Corey S. Powell is a senior editor at Discover magazine. http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?emc=tnt&tntget=2006/04/02/books/review/02powell.html&tntemail1=y -- "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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 05:26:19 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 22:26:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] An excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist persective In-Reply-To: <20060402231449.5916B57FAE@finney.org> References: <20060402231449.5916B57FAE@finney.org> Message-ID: On 4/2/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Building and scripting in 2L works great, and avatar customization > is also very flexible, but I find that the communication tools are > relatively poor. In particular, it is very difficult to use gestures in > a flexible way. If you want to, say, point at someone, or wave your arms > expansively, or stroke your chin, the only way to do that is to find and > (usually) buy a canned animation that performs that gesture. You can > then bind it to a hotkey, or select it from a cumbersome menu system. > If you have in mind a particular gesture that has not been made available, > you need to use a complicated third party animation program like Poser > to design the whole sequence, and upload it. Quick idea: It (hypothetically) wouldn't be too hard to incorporate an off-the-shelf gesture recognition algorithm with the game. One could hit a button, do a simple gesture (like waving your hand), and then have some rough approximation of it replicated by your character. Sounds are similarly limited to canned .wav files that can be uploaded > and called up by a hotkey. A further problem is that people don't tend > to hear the sounds at the moment you trigger them, because they have to > be downloaded to each person nearby, so there is a several-second delay > the first time you trigger a sound. The same thing sometimes happens > with gestures, not everybody sees them at the same time. I wonder why Second Life hasn't taken advantage of VoIP software. Plenty of online games already make use of things like Roger Wilco and TeamSpeak to allow for voice communication between participants. Could also be interesting to try combining it with text-to-speech or speech-to-text software. Actually, after some googling it looks like a company called Vivox is trying to do some related things: http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=1962 "To make the case for what Vivox is capable of, Sharma logged into a test area in Second Life on his laptop to demonstrate an audio technology demo. The environment was a bustling restaurant, where the wireless broadband connection was not ideal. That said, I donned a pair of headphones and listed as Sharma's character walked to an in-game phone booth and punched the digits to his own cell phone, which then promptly rang. Using VoIP calling like other Internet telephony services such as Vonage, Sharma blurred the line between in-game and real-world communications. After that, the avatar was walked into a nearby room, where another Vivox developer was lounging on a couch as a character. Using the laptop microphone, Sharma and I were able to carry on a conversation with him at roughly the quality of a land line phone." Another idea, which may or may not be feasible: Facial expressions taken from a webcam. One could use an off-the-shelf face detection algorithm (e.g. Viola & Jones 2001), and periodically paste a new image of the user's face onto the avatar. It could also display a question mark if the user isn't sitting in front of their computer. The bottom line is that as a result, the only real way to communicate > in 2L is by typing. Basically it becomes nothing more than a glorified > chat room when it is time to engage in conversation. This is what I > find most frustrating; it takes me out of the virtual world experience. > Conversations tend to be extremely static, a bunch of good-looking > avatars standing still and making typing motions with their hands > (that's the default animation when someone types). > > Overall my feeling is that 2L works well as a platform for building and, > to a lesser extent, scripting interesting objects and constructions. > There are some very beautiful builds and the world is an extremely dynamic > place, with new constructions appearing all the time. But as a meeting > place or conversational medium, it's still stuck in the 20th century. > I engaged in real time computer chat in college in the 1970s, and aside > from adding pictures of people standing around, that's still pretty much > what you get when you meet people in 2L. > > Hal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Apr 3 04:50:33 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 00:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... Message-ID: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? (In any form) I've been hearing a lot about copying this, that or whatever and I couldn't help asking myself what would I do if I could copy myself and why would I want to copy myself. I would really like other peoples opinion on this. Thanks Anna Again, I'm still not really sure if this is ok to ask, and if it's not sorry:) --------------------------------- Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 05:58:24 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 06:58:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604022258u682d3ac9l8132440518864a9d@mail.gmail.com> On 4/3/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? > (In any form) > I've been hearing a lot about copying this, > that or whatever and I couldn't help asking myself > what would I do if I could copy myself and why would > I want to copy myself. > I would really like other peoples opinion on this. > Thanks > Anna > Again, I'm still not really sure if this is ok to > ask, and if it's not sorry:) > It strikes me as on topic for the list. My answer is that I don't have a strong opinion either way on the idea of having multiple copies of myself actually running at the same time, but I definitely want the ability to make backups, for the simple reason that this would ensure survival in the event that the currently running copy of me suffered a fatal accident. (To those of you who hold the thread or substrate views of identity, yes, I know this is only guaranteed to be survival if one holds the pattern view.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 06:13:46 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:13:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] An excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist persective In-Reply-To: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520604022313j21891b45g372a8a1454cb1ede@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Jef, I wrote the article to later translate it in Spanish and use it in support of marketing SL projects to companies in Spain and Europe. I think the time is abour right for this. Couldn't agree more on the shortcomings of SL mentioned by you Hal and Neil. The place is not ready for business until html on a prim, flash 8 support and especially VoIP multiuser chat. I am discussing with Linden staff to find out what their plans are, and understand many users are complaning of the same things. They will have to take action if they don't want to be replaced by others. I have built a large office and auditorium in SL for meetings and presentations, come take a look. http://futuretag.net/index.php/MetaXLR8SLscape On 4/2/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > Giulio Prisco has created an excellent overview of SecondLife from a > futurist perspective, available at: > http://futuretag.net/index.php/Slgp1. > > - Jef > From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Apr 3 06:07:19 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 23:07:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001d01c656e4$dfd3cdd0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: Anne-Marie Taylor Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? (In any form) Again, I'm still not really sure if this is ok to ask, and if it's not sorry:) It seems - for some of us who are so self-effacing - in case we really do succeed in completely erasing ourselves, that we just may need to keep a copy of ourselves as a kind of template/backup? Just kidding, somewhat ... Olga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Apr 3 06:21:34 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 02:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604022258u682d3ac9l8132440518864a9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060403062134.41253.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I don't know very much on storing information but I definetely agree that; If you think that you have something to teach somebody then backups would be very important. Thanks for the response. Anna:) Russell Wallace wrote: It strikes me as on topic for the list. My answer is that I don't have a strong opinion either way on the idea of having multiple copies of myself actually running at the same time, but I definitely want the ability to make backups. On 4/3/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? (In any form) I've been hearing a lot about copying this, that or whatever and I couldn't help asking myself what would I do if I could copy myself and why would I want to copy myself. I would really like other peoples opinion on this. Thanks Anna Again, I'm still not really sure if this is ok to ask, and if it's not sorry:) --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 07:27:31 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:27:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520604030027r9bc7130gbb096f2c8a18395c@mail.gmail.com> If someone knows that she is going to die in a few weeks, and if she accepts that the copy is a valid continuation of her consciousness (that is, the copy wakes up thinking and feeling that she is you, and with all your memories and emotions), then the answer is obvious: to stay alive. G. On 4/3/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? > (In any form) > I've been hearing a lot about copying this, > that or whatever and I couldn't help asking myself > what would I do if I could copy myself and why would > I want to copy myself. > I would really like other peoples opinion on this. > Thanks > Anna > Again, I'm still not really sure if this is ok to > ask, and if it's not sorry:) > > > ________________________________ > Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 08:01:54 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:01:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] An excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist persective In-Reply-To: References: <20060402231449.5916B57FAE@finney.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520604030101i5e7d0e6auded077f662e55d39@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Neil for the pointer to Vivox. Their website does not say anythong about availability of the software or service, do you know anything more? I have a TeamSpeak server and also use a Ventrilo server. The quality is not bad at all, but I have not experimented with more than 10 simultaneous users. G. On 4/3/06, Neil H. wrote: > On 4/2/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > I wonder why Second Life hasn't taken advantage of VoIP software. Plenty of > online games already make use of things like Roger Wilco and TeamSpeak to > allow for voice communication between participants. Could also be > interesting to try combining it with text-to-speech or speech-to-text > software. > > Actually, after some googling it looks like a company called Vivox is trying > to do some related things: > > http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=1962 > > "To make the case for what Vivox is capable of, Sharma logged into a test > area in Second Life on his laptop to demonstrate an audio technology demo. > The environment was a bustling restaurant, where the wireless broadband > connection was not ideal. That said, I donned a pair of headphones and > listed as Sharma's character walked to an in-game phone booth and punched > the digits to his own cell phone, which then promptly rang. Using VoIP > calling like other Internet telephony services such as Vonage, Sharma > blurred the line between in-game and real-world communications. After that, > the avatar was walked into a nearby room, where another Vivox developer was > lounging on a couch as a character. Using the laptop microphone, Sharma and > I were able to carry on a conversation with him at roughly the quality of a > land line phone." From HerbM at learnquick.com Mon Apr 3 08:29:47 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 03:29:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <470a3c520604030027r9bc7130gbb096f2c8a18395c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200604030830.k338U1p0028180@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > On 4/3/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? > > (In any form) > From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 > If someone knows that she is going to die in a few weeks, and if she > accepts that the copy is a valid continuation of her consciousness > (that is, the copy wakes up thinking and feeling that she is you, and > with all your memories and emotions), then the answer is obvious: to > stay alive. > G. Extending: Also, if one were inhabiting a body that no longer functioned adequately, such as the presence of intolerable pain or complete paralysis (in one's own opinion) then the termination of the body with the continuation of the mind might make be an easy choice. Especially if suitable body substitutes were available once the mind transfer were completed. Every human being (of certain age) must die*, but there is no rule that one must suffer cruel pain or incapacitation. *This may not be true in the future, and may not be true for SOME people already alive today. One can even imagine that increased capabilities (whatever that might be, or be perceived to be) might entice some to make the shift even with time remaining on a biological body. -- Herb Martin From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Apr 3 12:39:41 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:39:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060403083650.023861f0@gmu.edu> At 12:50 AM 4/3/2006, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: >Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? >(In any form) >I've been hearing a lot about copying this, >that or whatever and I couldn't help asking myself >what would I do if I could copy myself and why would >I want to copy myself. For reasons similar to those for having children: 1) To create creatures who enjoy their lives 2) To create creatures who can help you with your projects 3) To contribute to your empire and legacy. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Mon Apr 3 13:13:35 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 06:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <200604030830.k338U1p0028180@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060403131335.32948.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> It is a valid question; for that matter why would anyone want to live much more than three score and ten? After awhile you might very well feel like a burden to yourself and to those who take care of you. > > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? > > (In any form) --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Apr 3 14:19:06 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 07:19:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604031457.k33EvtLE014411@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? (In any form)... Anna Anna, have you never had a time in your life when two men loved you at the same time? And they were good guys? Wouldn't it be convenient to be with both? {8-] spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 15:10:08 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:10:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Resources for microscopes In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10604021053x400cf956nbb7b74db5c3d90d3@mail.gmail.com> <003c01c65682$9742ea40$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: The problem with agar is that it can get quite expensive if you want quantities of it (though you don't need much to make up a plate full) -- microbiologists can go through lots of plates quite quickly. I've been thinking about how one could use common household materials for this type of work. Plastic coffee can lids come to mind but they aren't as deep or as clear as normal plates (its sometimes useful to look at plates with a light behind them if one wants to pick off individual colonies). I know from a recent experiment done in my fridge hat you can grow fungi on jello, but I think it has too high a sugar concentration for "common" bacteria. Anyone have any ideas for a low glucose concentration substrate? Jello+flour+some fiber mix? Though this too suffers from the lack of transparency problem. Actually, since most bacterial colonies tend to be white one might be able to add food coloring to get around this problem. Here is an experiment I'd like some people to try... We have all heard the "classical" comment that bacteria replicate in 20 minutes. One measures this by growing a "large" quantity in replication phase and taking samples at periodic intervals (hours/days) and doing dilutions 1:10, 1:100, etc. until one can plate a small sample on a plate and do colony counts to determine growth rate. I'd love to know the ideal mix and conditions for maximal bacterial growth using materials commonly found at home. (One question would be how much one could "juice" the growth rate by using an aquarium pump to bubble air through the medium -- or think up another way to "mix" it -- though if one wants to grow anaerobic bacteria one wants to deplete the air.) Another good source for bacteria is garden soil or a compost heap, esp. at the top where the O2 concentration is relatively high. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Mon Apr 3 17:44:54 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] An excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist persective Message-ID: <20060403174454.3C89B57FAE@finney.org> Second Life may be of interest as more than just a platform for business, which I think was Giulio's perspective. The company does promote it for this purpose, and they make a big deal about the fact that the in-game currency, "Linden dollars" (Linden Labs is the company that created SL), is convertable to real money. Many users make enough money from the game to pay their user fees, and a few supposedly make enough to live on. But there is more to SL, or virtual worlds in general, than business. I would like to see them as a place where we can engage in a wide variety of activities. And indeed it seems that the main activities for many or most SL players are dancing, gambling, and "getting it on". Sexual poses, animations, and attachments (you would not believe the ads for some of the attachments!) are sold widely and appear to be very popular. On a more serious note, communities have attempted experiments in self-governance of various flavors. There are themed areas that do have zoning and maintain a consistent experience for residents and visitors. Some areas use democratic voting, others rely on a benevolent dictator to keep things on track. There was a proposal on the FX discussion list a few weeks ago that SL could be a platform to experiment with Robin Hanson's futarchy. Futarchy is described by Robin's slogan, "vote for values, bet on beliefs". The community would use voting to establish what their goals were, and then policy proposals would compete in an Idea Futures market to estimate which had the best chance of realizing the agreed-upon goals. Since Linden dollars can be exchanged for real money, plus of course they are valuable in-game, the IF market would be a real-money market, which should help make it reliable as a judge of what people believe. This could also test the effects of people trying to manipulate the IF market in order to get their favorite proposals accepted. People from outside the futarchy community could be allowed to participate in the IF market (but not the voting) and that should make it even more reliable. Hal From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 18:03:53 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:03:53 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] An excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist persective In-Reply-To: <20060403174454.3C89B57FAE@finney.org> References: <20060403174454.3C89B57FAE@finney.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520604031103m1e14ed30l8aa2a49f021c994c@mail.gmail.com> The discussion on FX-discuss was interesting. Link here: There is a very interesting discussionon the fx-discuss mailing list about "Prediction markets and Second Life virtual economy". The idea is to launch an in-world prediction market where users can bet Linden dollars. Playing Linden dollars maybe a useful workaround against betting regulations. It would be interesting to try. G. On 4/3/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > There was a proposal on the FX discussion list a few weeks ago that SL > could be a platform to experiment with Robin Hanson's futarchy. Futarchy > is described by Robin's slogan, "vote for values, bet on beliefs". > The community would use voting to establish what their goals were, > and then policy proposals would compete in an Idea Futures market to > estimate which had the best chance of realizing the agreed-upon goals. > Since Linden dollars can be exchanged for real money, plus of course > they are valuable in-game, the IF market would be a real-money market, > which should help make it reliable as a judge of what people believe. > This could also test the effects of people trying to manipulate the IF > market in order to get their favorite proposals accepted. People from > outside the futarchy community could be allowed to participate in the > IF market (but not the voting) and that should make it even more reliable. > > Hal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 19:20:38 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 12:20:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] An excellent overview of SecondLife from a futurist persective In-Reply-To: <470a3c520604031103m1e14ed30l8aa2a49f021c994c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060403174454.3C89B57FAE@finney.org> <470a3c520604031103m1e14ed30l8aa2a49f021c994c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/3/06, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > The discussion on FX-discuss was interesting. > Link here: > There is a very interesting discussionon the fx-discuss mailing list about "Prediction markets and Second Life > virtual economy". The idea is to launch an in-world prediction market where > users can bet Linden dollars. > > Playing Linden dollars maybe a useful workaround against betting > regulations. It would be interesting to try. > Indeed... unfortunately, it doesn't look like there were any takers for trying to bring the idea to fruition, and I haven't the spare time to work on it myself. Perhaps I'll try posting it someplace like the Ideas Bank. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 19:34:37 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:34:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060403131335.32948.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200604030830.k338U1p0028180@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060403131335.32948.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604031234l7d541f45h868a1f9a1b85f04@mail.gmail.com> On 4/3/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > It is a valid question; for that matter why would anyone want to live much > more than three score and ten? After awhile you might very well feel like a > burden to yourself and to those who take care of you. > As things currently stand, I wouldn't. If we get to the point where it's possible to live _and be healthy_ much past three score and ten, on the other hand, that's a different ball game altogether - and nothing in that idea is forbidden by the laws of physics. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon Apr 3 19:22:04 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:22:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom Message-ID: <443175DC.7090409@goldenfuture.net> http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html Apparently, Dr. Pianka advocates the elimination of 90% of the Earth's human population because we are overtaxing the planet's natural resources. I certainly cleave to the opposite conclusion; as a Transhumanist, I have a innately positive outlook on the (post)human future, and a confidence that science can and will provide answers to the legitimate questions of how to deal with finite supplies of various resources to support our expanding population. Joseph From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 21:56:51 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:56:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: checking to see if the list is working In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9b9887c80604031456x38cf8c4ereaf479105d3c1bbf@mail.gmail.com> i have had no problems. lovely list! smile, ilsa On 3/22/06, John Klos wrote: > > Hello, > > We had an unfortunate incident last night where the IPs of the primary > mail server needed to be changed, so email may be delayed for a few hours. > We're making sure that everything is back up and running. Feel free to let > us know if you experience any problems. > > Thanks, > John Klos & Elaine Walker > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coletrane www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Apr 3 23:04:19 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:04:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: Organs Grown from Patients' own cells Message-ID: <380-22006413234190@M2W110.mail2web.com> Doctors grow organs from patients' own cells -- Seven living with bladders from new process Monday, April 3, 2006; Posted: 6:32 p.m. EDT (22:32 GMT) "The 16-year-old was born with spina bifida, a congenital birth defect that stunts brain and spinal cord development. The disease left her with a crippling jumble of nerves jutting out from the base of her spine.... 'We're not using any type of stem cell population or cloning techniques, but mainly the patient's own cells that we're using to create these organs and put them back into the patient ...'" http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/04/03/engineered.organs/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From dgc at cox.net Mon Apr 3 23:42:15 2006 From: dgc at cox.net (Dan Clemmensen) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 19:42:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604022258u682d3ac9l8132440518864a9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060403045033.97522.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604022258u682d3ac9l8132440518864a9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4431B2D7.9040705@cox.net> On 4/3/06, *Anne-Marie Taylor* > wrote: > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? > (In any form) > I've been hearing a lot about copying this, > that or whatever and I couldn't help asking myself > what would I do if I could copy myself and why would > I want to copy myself. > I would really like other peoples opinion on this. > Thanks > Anna > Again, I'm still not really sure if this is ok to > ask, and if it's not sorry:) > > Please look at your subject line, and your question answers itself: So when you ask yourself a question, someone will answer :-) From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Apr 4 01:15:44 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604031234l7d541f45h868a1f9a1b85f04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060404011544.2273.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> But when you get to seventy wouldn't you naturally want to see how much longer you can prolong yourself? >Russell Wallace wrote: As things currently stand, I wouldn't. If we get to the point where it's possible to live _and be healthy_ much past three score and ten, on the other hand, that's a different ball game altogether - and nothing in that idea is forbidden by the laws of physics. --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Apr 4 02:32:05 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 03:32:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060404011544.2273.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0604031234l7d541f45h868a1f9a1b85f04@mail.gmail.com> <20060404011544.2273.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604031932x782b0917i14002fb05b58e20d@mail.gmail.com> On 4/4/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > But when you get to seventy wouldn't you naturally want to see how much > longer you can prolong yourself? > Not nearly enough to be willing to sit in a nursing home drooling down my chin for it, no. (Again, if the technology - via biotech life extension, uploading or whatever else - for _healthy_ life extension was available or at least imminent, or if I happen to be dealt a hand that leaves me still active at 70 anyway, that'd be a different matter.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 4 02:56:09 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:56:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604031234l7d541f45h868a1f9a1b85f04@mail.gmail.com> References: <200604030830.k338U1p0028180@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060403131335.32948.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604031234l7d541f45h868a1f9a1b85f04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Whoa. We have people running large segments of the world who are older than 70! These assumptions about what 70 is like come pretty close to ageism. Many people are quite competent and active beyond 70. - samantha On Apr 3, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 4/3/06, Al Brooks wrote: > It is a valid question; for that matter why would anyone want to > live much more than three score and ten? After awhile you might > very well feel like a burden to yourself and to those who take care > of you. > > As things currently stand, I wouldn't. If we get to the point where > it's possible to live _and be healthy_ much past three score and > ten, on the other hand, that's a different ball game altogether - > and nothing in that idea is forbidden by the laws of physics. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 4 02:53:23 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:53:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060404011544.2273.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060404011544.2273.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EC40418-BD9F-497F-9813-997141B1DD0E@mac.com> Not if I was too far gone with aging to care I guess. But the entire purpose of groups like this is to give human beings much better options than to age like that. If I could be young again instead of in lowered health and functioning from aging and in much improved even perfect health then of course I would want that. If I could upload and have countless adventures and possibilities beyond the aging body then I would want that too if it was reasonably perfected. Wouldn't you? If you didn't would you chalk it up to brain deterioration due to aging? - samantha On Apr 3, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Al Brooks wrote: > But when you get to seventy wouldn't you naturally want to see how > much longer you can prolong yourself? > > > >Russell Wallace wrote: > As things currently stand, I wouldn't. If we get to the point where > it's possible to live _and be healthy_ much past three score and > ten, on the other hand, that's a different ball game altogether - > and nothing in that idea is forbidden by the laws of physics. > > New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC > for low, low rates. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Apr 4 03:54:05 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:54:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <4431B2D7.9040705@cox.net> Message-ID: <200604040407.k34477Aj029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan Clemmensen > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:42 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... > > On 4/3/06, *Anne-Marie Taylor* > wrote: > > > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? ... > > > > > Please look at your subject line, and your question answers itself: > So when you ask yourself a question, someone will answer :-) Ja that is one thing you could do with a copy. You could have a *really* evenly matched chess opponent. You could play some truly wicked gags on people. You could make your boss think you work 24 hrs a day. If you didn't mind risking the loss of the other you, you could have him or her pull some wildly dangerous but entertaining stunts. I can think of a million uses for another me. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Apr 4 03:35:51 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 20:35:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom In-Reply-To: <443175DC.7090409@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom > > http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html > > Apparently, Dr. Pianka advocates the elimination of 90% of the Earth's > human population because we are overtaxing the planet's natural resources. Joseph, I do not believe the site is correct because of the following comment: "But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola." I confidently state that a few hundred members of the TAS would not encourage such a horrifying notion. I am not defending Pianka, but something is amiss here. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Apr 4 04:02:10 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 21:02:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604031932x782b0917i14002fb05b58e20d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200604040436.k344aVvj005015@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 7:32 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... On 4/4/06, Al Brooks wrote: But when you get to?seventy?wouldn't you?naturally want to see how?much longer?you can prolong yourself? I was at my wife's 25th high school class reunion this past weekend. An old friend was there, a building contractor I worked for nearly 3 decades ago. He turned 80 last week, still working the building biz, still healthy, walks a little slower than he did then, but other than that he's fine. I told him I want to be like him when I hit 80. He said: When you hit 80? You aren't like me now! How do you figure you will be like me when you are 80? {8^D He always had that sense of humor. spike From neptune at superlink.net Tue Apr 4 03:54:05 2006 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 23:54:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <200604030830.k338U1p0028180@andromeda.ziaspace.com><20060403131335.32948.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com><8d71341e0604031234l7d541f45h868a1f9a1b85f04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003801c6579b$6bd1d960$52893cd1@pavilion> Yep, and a lot of people have a lot more sobering experience by then which would, hopefully, temper their faults and give them a helpful perspective on things. Regards, Dan From: Samantha Atkins To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 10:56 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... Whoa. We have people running large segments of the world who are older than 70! These assumptions about what 70 is like come pretty close to ageism. Many people are quite competent and active beyond 70. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Apr 4 04:58:57 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 05:58:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <200604030830.k338U1p0028180@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060403131335.32948.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604031234l7d541f45h868a1f9a1b85f04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604032158r5ee3840dof4b3e31f34ea383@mail.gmail.com> On 4/4/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Whoa. We have people running large segments of the world who are older > than 70! These assumptions about what 70 is like come pretty close to > ageism. Many people are quite competent and active beyond 70. > Fair point, and I corrected myself in a later message: I wouldn't say I don't (or anyone shouldn't) want to live past X years, for any value of X; only that if I get to the point where I'm drooling on my chin in a wheelchair or a nursing home, I will place negative utility on subsequent existence, however soon or late that may be. As long as I'm capable of making a positive difference, I'm in favor of sticking around. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue Apr 4 06:21:45 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 23:21:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom In-Reply-To: <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <443175DC.7090409@goldenfuture.net> <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 4/3/06, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > > Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom > > > > http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html > > > > Apparently, Dr. Pianka advocates the elimination of 90% of the Earth's > > human population because we are overtaxing the planet's natural > resources. > > Joseph, I do not believe the site is correct because of the > following comment: > > "But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically > significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred members > of > the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing > ovation > to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent > of > Earth's population by airborne Ebola." > > > I confidently state that a few hundred members of the TAS would not > encourage such a horrifying notion. I am not defending Pianka, but > something is amiss here. This part of the wikipedia article on Pianka may be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka "It is alleged by Forrest Mims that, while accepting the Texas Academy of Sciences Distinguished Scientist of the Year award in 2006, Pianka "endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population" through a disease such as an airborne strain of the ebola virus .[1]Pianka claims that Mims misunderstood his argument; however, Mims' characterization of the lecture seems to have been confirmed by a supporter of Pianka.[2] " Plus, it seems that it would be rather peculiar for somebody receiving a "Distinguished Scientist of the Year" award from a scientific organization to -not- get a standing ovation after their acceptance speech, even if part of that speech was disagreeable. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Apr 4 14:29:38 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604032158r5ee3840dof4b3e31f34ea383@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060404142938.40289.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> To my way of thinking it's worth living past seventy only to see what the future has in store; like perceiving the world as a film and wondering 'what will appear next on the screen'. To say "life begins at 60" is a joke, as in substituting the word 'mature' for old, what Orwell warned about albeit in a more sinister context. A word is made longer but has less meaning. It used to be one might say "I'm old and messed up"; now it's, "I have been becoming very mature lately, will be checking into Uptown Polyclinic for tests lasting several days". Tell you the truth I personally haven't enjoyed life-- really enjoyed life-- since I was 25, the ratio of spontaneous to rote is too off. So perhaps a little ageism is beneficial. Bet if you worse a button that reads 'Life Begins At 100' you would have those taking it seriously. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Apr 4 16:18:44 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:18:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <4EC40418-BD9F-497F-9813-997141B1DD0E@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060404161844.75898.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Again, I probably didn't ask the question properly. I thought that mind uploading and cryonics are wonderful ideas. I wouldn' t mind being frozen and then waking up one day in a new body with my original mind intact. (Or maybe one day, not having to die and being able to upgrade.) I think it would be great to be able to see how the world lives in a 100 years from now. I can't see any significant harm that could do to humanity, as long as I don't start having babies every time I come back and over populate the planet. Copying myself seems like a very egotistical thing to do. We already have enough people on the planet. I could only see it being used for the wrong reasons. Power, money and greed. I could see how the army make like the idea or the business man might think it useful but I can't see how it will help humans or technology. Forgive me if I'm way off, maybe I'm not understanding the differences in terms. Thanks again, Anna --------------------------------- Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Apr 4 18:27:29 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:27:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060404161844.75898.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4EC40418-BD9F-497F-9813-997141B1DD0E@mac.com> <20060404161844.75898.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna, the technology, primarily robust nanotechnology, which enables: (a) cryonic suspension reanimation [1], and (b) mind uploading (and therefore self-copies) [2] is also the same technology which enables (c) having to struggle or work for "survival", and (d) living on this planet (and concerns regarding overpopulation) unnecessary. So your arguments based on the "current" reality (the classical business/work oriented struggle to survive and human overpopulation pushing the planetary ecolimits) really have no basis in the future. The resource limits of our current solar system easily supports trillions and trillions of human mind equivalents. The problem is not so much whether people want to make a few or many immature (baby) or mature (adult) copies of themselves. The problems relate more to whether a sociopath or megalomaniac individual or "cults"(s) or amoral AI(s) decide to make many copies of themselves and gain sufficient control over the resources to use them to eliminate those who choose not to make copies, accumulate resources (power), etc. It really comes down to the question of what happens if someone (human or AI) decides "There can be only one" -- and has the power to "Make it so" [3]. Just to cite a simple example of the problem -- lets say the "red" people think they are going to lose the next election -- but they don't want this to happen and they have the resources to make lots of self-copies. If one allows "one copy = one vote" then you can see how they can engineer a "win" (and then vote themselves rights to make more self-copies perpetuating their power). However, if one says copies do not get "votes" then one has two classes of *real* humans with different rights -- the "originals" who get to vote and the "copies" who do not. One could of course subdivide one vote among many self-copies but if you think convincing your "friends" to vote a specific way is difficult -- imagine what it will be like to convince a room full of self-copies (which have had a few years to live independent lives) to cast a single vote. Robert 1. It is possible that cryonic suspension reanimation may be feasible with only advanced biotechnology and micro/robotic surgical methodologies. The requirement for "robust nanotechnology" of the nanorobot variant is not strictly required. 2. It is also possible that mind uploading (recreation) may be feasible using 100-1000nm scanning technologies (in parallel) [think highly parallel AFM readout of solidified brain "slices"] so that "robust nanotechnology" of the nanorobot variant is not strictly required. 3. Apologies for pinching appropriate quotes from The Highlander and STNG. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Apr 4 17:38:28 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:38:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <20060404161844.75898.qmail@web35509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01d401c6580e$95a87730$660fa8c0@kevin> Not at all. There are several reasons. First of all, if you have a copy and you are damaged beyond repair - say in a plane crash or explosion, you can be brought back. Your only loss is the information from the period between the copy and the event that killed you. Then there is the exploration factor. How I would love to go traveling the stars. How I would love to stay here. With a copy I could do both. Then at some point in the future, I could integrate the two and remember the experiences of both. How could that be a bad thing? Power, money, greed? Well, greed isn;t so bad as long as you don't reduce the quality of life for others by being greedy. Money - again, not a bad thing. Power, well, as far as I know, the more copies you have of yourself, the more diluted your power becomes. Of course, you could gain power by making copues of "the perfect soldier" but by the time this technology is available, we are hoping such a soldier is either no longer necessary, or already capable of being produced artificially on a production line. In other words, there are more efficient means of accomplishing the same task and probably with better results. Meanwhile, being in sales, I sure wish I had a few copies of myself now! 1 for marketing, 1 for working existing loans, 1 for sales calls, and 1 for complaints. I could make 4 times as much money. The results would put me besides myself! Copying myself seems like a very egotistical thing to do. We already have enough people on the planet. I could only see it being used for the wrong reasons. Power, money and greed. I could see how the army make like the idea or the business man might think it useful but I can't see how it will help humans or technology. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 4 18:36:08 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:36:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom In-Reply-To: References: <443175DC.7090409@goldenfuture.net> <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Neil H. wrote: > On 4/3/06, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > > Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom > > > > http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/ > index.html > > > > Apparently, Dr. Pianka advocates the elimination of 90% of the > Earth's > > human population because we are overtaxing the planet's natural > resources. > > Joseph, I do not believe the site is correct because of the > following comment: > > "But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise > scientifically > significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred > members of > the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing > ovation > to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 > percent of > Earth's population by airborne Ebola." > > > I confidently state that a few hundred members of the TAS would not > encourage such a horrifying notion. I am not defending Pianka, but > something is amiss here. > > > This part of the wikipedia article on Pianka may be of interest: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka > > "It is alleged by Forrest Mims that, while accepting the Texas > Academy of Sciences Distinguished Scientist of the Year award in > 2006, Pianka "endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human > population" through a disease such as an airborne strain of the > ebola virus. [1] Pianka claims that Mims misunderstood his > argument; however, Mims' characterization of the lecture seems to > have been confirmed by a supporter of Pianka.[2]" > > > Plus, it seems that it would be rather peculiar for somebody > receiving a "Distinguished Scientist of the Year" award from a > scientific organization to -not- get a standing ovation after their > acceptance speech, even if part of that speech was disagreeable. > Disagreeable? If this was really advocated in the speech the audience should have left immediately if they weren't willing to grab this mass-murder advocate and tar and feather him on the spot. I hope that humanity has not sunk to a state where we automatically applaud any claim of distinction without even paying attention to what the recipient says. I also hope that advocating mass murder is a hell of a lot more objectionable than merely "disagreeable". - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 4 18:44:12 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:44:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060404142938.40289.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060404142938.40289.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1319D328-4038-4F61-83E2-7DE2BE0A26AB@mac.com> On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:29 AM, Al Brooks wrote: > To my way of thinking it's worth living past seventy only to see > what the future has in store; like perceiving the world as a film > and wondering 'what will appear next on the screen'. If you intend to be merely passive you probably won't have a lot of reason to stick around. > To say "life begins at 60" is a joke, as in substituting the word > 'mature' for old, what Orwell warned about albeit in a more > sinister context. Some people used to say that about age 30, or 40, or 50. You are whatever age you are in what ever shape you are and you do the most you can with what you have. There is no point in assuming it is over at some fixed age or even below some level of health. It is over when you give up except for the actual dying part. > A word is made longer but has less meaning. It used to be one might > say "I'm old and messed up"; now it's, "I have been becoming very > mature lately, will be checking into Uptown Polyclinic for tests > lasting several days". Tell you the truth I personally haven't > enjoyed life-- really enjoyed life-- since I was 25, the ratio of > spontaneous to rote is too off. If "spontaneous" and "rote" are your only modes then I am hardly surprised that you aren't enjoying yourself. > So perhaps a little ageism is beneficial. Bet if you worse a button > that reads 'Life Begins At 100' you would have those taking it > seriously. I hope to someday wear such a button and utterly mean it and have people believe it is true. - samantha From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Apr 4 20:23:46 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:23:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom In-Reply-To: <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <443175DC.7090409@goldenfuture.net> <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 4/3/06, spike wrote: > Joseph, I do not believe the site is correct because of the > following comment: The blogosphere is abuzz over this scandal. Look at: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/forrest_mims_cr.html as an example. Apparently some guy named Forrest Mims tried to smear him. Pianka never advocated spreading Ebola virus himself. Rather, he predicted that it would spread on its own, and opined that that wouldn't be a terrible thing. Still a bad thing to say, but not nearly of the magnitude that it was made out to be. Martin From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Apr 4 19:44:00 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <1319D328-4038-4F61-83E2-7DE2BE0A26AB@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060404194400.68655.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> Correct, not alot of reason but enough reason all the same. I'm fifty, and have no intention whatsoever of being active anymore after arguing day in day out with ludds of all stripes since, oh, about 1968. You think I don't know how slowly we are evolving in terms of one person's lifespan? Think I don't know what it still means to be a man? Do you think a guy with two inches of forehead would be so foolish at fifty to let a woman advise him on being a man?-- would a sensible woman listen to a man attempting to advise her on being a woman? I'm not angry, but am thoroughly mystified that you would think I don't know what the score is. Am simply nonplussed. There is almost no purpose in trying to explain it. >Samantha Atkins wrote: >If you intend to be merely passive you probably won't have a lot of >reason to stick around. > To say "life begins at 60" is a joke, as in substituting the word > 'mature' for old, what Orwell warned about albeit in a more > sinister context. Some people used to say that about age 30, or 40, or 50. You are whatever age you are in what ever shape you are and you do the most you can with what you have. There is no point in assuming it is over at some fixed age or even below some level of health. It is over when you give up except for the actual dying part. > A word is made longer but has less meaning. It used to be one might > say "I'm old and messed up"; now it's, "I have been becoming very > mature lately, will be checking into Uptown Polyclinic for tests > lasting several days". Tell you the truth I personally haven't > enjoyed life-- really enjoyed life-- since I was 25, the ratio of > spontaneous to rote is too off. If "spontaneous" and "rote" are your only modes then I am hardly surprised that you aren't enjoying yourself. > So perhaps a little ageism is beneficial. Bet if you worse a button > that reads 'Life Begins At 100' you would have those taking it > seriously. I hope to someday wear such a button and utterly mean it and have people believe it is true. - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Apr 4 20:56:48 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:56:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060404194400.68655.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1319D328-4038-4F61-83E2-7DE2BE0A26AB@mac.com> <20060404194400.68655.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604041356k75121760o5e6a40a8b6374563@mail.gmail.com> On 4/4/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > Correct, not alot of reason but enough reason all the same. I'm fifty, and > have no intention whatsoever of being active anymore after arguing day in > day out with ludds of all stripes since, oh, about 1968. You think I don't > know how slowly we are evolving in terms of one person's lifespan? Think I > don't know what it still means to be a man? Do you think a guy with two > inches of forehead would be so foolish at fifty to let a woman advise him on > being a man?-- would a sensible woman listen to a man attempting to advise > her on being a woman? I'm not angry, but am thoroughly mystified that you > would think I don't know what the score is. Am simply nonplussed. > There is almost no purpose in trying to explain it. > None of the contents of this thread have anything to do with the male/female distinction. Samantha was discussing the philosophy of how to be a human being; I find her view perfectly valid and relevant, and I'm a man last I checked. I can sympathize with being tired of arguing with luddites and wanting to hand that task over to people who have more energy, but that doesn't mean you can't do something else instead; a change is sometimes as good as a rest. Of course it's your life to lead as you see fit, and if you find other people's perspectives don't work for you then you should disregard them, but that is equally true whether you are a man or a woman. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 4 20:58:54 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:58:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060404194400.68655.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060404194400.68655.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <29F421AB-20B0-4CEF-9963-9493B55BB022@mac.com> On Apr 4, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Al Brooks wrote: > Correct, not alot of reason but enough reason all the same. I'm > fifty, and have no intention whatsoever of being active anymore > after arguing day in day out with ludds of all stripes since, oh, > about 1968. You think I don't know how slowly we are evolving in > terms of one person's lifespan? Think I don't know what it still > means to be a man? Do you think a guy with two inches of forehead > would be so foolish at fifty to let a woman advise him on being a > man?-- would a sensible woman listen to a man attempting to advise > her on being a woman? I'm not angry, but am thoroughly mystified > that you would think I don't know what the score is. Am simply > nonplussed. > There is almost no purpose in trying to explain it. > It has nothing at all to do with gender. I spoke as one human concerned with the apparent downward spiral of another. Sorry (mostly for you) if you don't want to or can't hear it or benefit. You can dry up and blow away if you so wish. But it is in your power to choose differently. - samantha From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Apr 4 20:00:45 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... Message-ID: <20060404200045.11015.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> [so a moderator doesn't complain this'll be my last post of the day] Sure, no genuine problem with this at all. Except that you didn't address my statement concerning a little ageism possibly being beneficial. And BTW isn't hope itself rather passive? This might seem a bit petty, but you don't hope to have your life be truly livable-- as distinct from having an existence-- at the age of 100 and beyond-- you take mighty good care of yourself. Does a test pilot or mountain climber hope to survive? do they deep down believe in luck? I hope to someday wear such a button and utterly mean it and have people believe it is true. - samantha --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Tue Apr 4 20:29:30 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:29:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4432D72A.9030002@lineone.net> Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? (In any form) I've been > hearing a lot about copying this, that or whatever and I couldn't > help asking myself what would I do if I could copy myself and why > would I want to copy myself. I would really like other peoples > opinion on this. Thanks Anna This is a very good question. I'm writing this before reading the many other replies, so i'm very probably just repeating some things that others have already said, but here are some reasons that occur off the top of my head: To (attempt to) ensure that your mind-pattern survives. The copies could be 'snapshots' of your mind, not active, that are basically backups, to be instantiated if you ever die. Limited consolation to the you that dies, of course, but better than what we have at the moment. To lighten your work-load. Imagine having a twin that thinks exactly like you. They would do any job in exactly the same way that you would. So you could confidently share your workload between the two of you, and get more done in the same time. Now multiply that as many times as you have resources to make copies. For fun. I'm sure you can think of several interpretations of that. To multiply your mind-power. This would presume not only the ability to make copies of your mind, but to link them all together, resulting in a kind of 'hive-mind' that was composed of many copies of you. Making another assumption, that of the ability to not only make copies, but to re-merge them at a later time, then you would be able to effectively have many experiences at the same time. This also reduces the risk inherent in certain activities. You could split into several people, temporarily, while they go off and do all sorts of different things, some of them could be quite risky things. The ones who are still around later (that still want to) could re-merge into one you. You would then have to integrate the experiences into a single mind. I don't know (and neither does anyone else, yet) if this would be easy, difficult or impossible. Or possible, but at the cost of effectively turning you into someone else, perhaps more quickly than you'd be comfortable with (we're all turning into someone else all the time, just at an acceptable rate, so we recognise a continuity between the 'old us' and the 'new us'). To satisfy the urge to procreate in a post-biological state. Maybe. I bet your 'kids' would still disappoint you, though! There are other reasons, but those a few that i can think of without much effort. ben From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Apr 4 21:12:43 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 22:12:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060404200045.11015.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060404200045.11015.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604041412rcdaa936q35cd95c6dc445d2d@mail.gmail.com> On 4/4/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > [so a moderator doesn't complain this'll be my last post of the day] > Sure, no genuine problem with this at all. Except that you didn't address > my statement concerning a little ageism possibly being beneficial. > A little ageism? Maybe. Let's first try and get to the point where we're no longer saddled with a steaming shitload of ageism, as is the case today. And BTW isn't hope itself rather passive? This might seem a bit petty, but > you don't hope to have your life be truly livable-- as distinct from having > an existence-- at the age of 100 and beyond-- you take mighty good care of > yourself. > Does a test pilot or mountain climber hope to survive? do they deep down > believe in luck? > They do their best and hope it's enough, which is all any of us can do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Apr 4 22:23:22 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <4432D72A.9030002@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, Perhaps I just don't fully understand this topic, so anyone feel free to correct me. I have no problems with the production (creation I guess, in the non-religious sense) of new life, regardless of the means employed to do so (eg. natural conception, cloning, from-scratch, or whatever the technology). But so far, no one here seems to be addressing the basic rights of these "copies". As a living, conscious being, I'm not sure it is ethically correct to force specific decisions and lifestyles on these "copies" as if they were simply toys - devoid of basic rights that an "original" version would presumably have. To me it seems there is little difference between the value of an "original" and a "copied" being; once it is created, it has every right to do with itself whatever *it* wishes (short of harming any other being). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich ben wrote: Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? (In any form) I've been > hearing a lot about copying this, that or whatever and I couldn't > help asking myself what would I do if I could copy myself and why > would I want to copy myself. I would really like other peoples > opinion on this. Thanks Anna This is a very good question. I'm writing this before reading the many other replies, so i'm very probably just repeating some things that others have already said, but here are some reasons that occur off the top of my head: To (attempt to) ensure that your mind-pattern survives. The copies could be 'snapshots' of your mind, not active, that are basically backups, to be instantiated if you ever die. Limited consolation to the you that dies, of course, but better than what we have at the moment. To lighten your work-load. Imagine having a twin that thinks exactly like you. They would do any job in exactly the same way that you would. So you could confidently share your workload between the two of you, and get more done in the same time. Now multiply that as many times as you have resources to make copies. For fun. I'm sure you can think of several interpretations of that. To multiply your mind-power. This would presume not only the ability to make copies of your mind, but to link them all together, resulting in a kind of 'hive-mind' that was composed of many copies of you. Making another assumption, that of the ability to not only make copies, but to re-merge them at a later time, then you would be able to effectively have many experiences at the same time. This also reduces the risk inherent in certain activities. You could split into several people, temporarily, while they go off and do all sorts of different things, some of them could be quite risky things. The ones who are still around later (that still want to) could re-merge into one you. You would then have to integrate the experiences into a single mind. I don't know (and neither does anyone else, yet) if this would be easy, difficult or impossible. Or possible, but at the cost of effectively turning you into someone else, perhaps more quickly than you'd be comfortable with (we're all turning into someone else all the time, just at an acceptable rate, so we recognise a continuity between the 'old us' and the 'new us'). To satisfy the urge to procreate in a post-biological state. Maybe. I bet your 'kids' would still disappoint you, though! There are other reasons, but those a few that i can think of without much effort. ben _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Apr 4 22:48:28 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:48:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom In-Reply-To: References: <443175DC.7090409@goldenfuture.net> <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4432F7BC.8000405@goldenfuture.net> Martin Striz wrote: >On 4/3/06, spike wrote: > > > >>Joseph, I do not believe the site is correct because of the >>following comment: >> >> > >The blogosphere is abuzz over this scandal. Look at: > >http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/forrest_mims_cr.html > >as an example. Apparently some guy named Forrest Mims tried to smear >him. Pianka never advocated spreading Ebola virus himself. Rather, >he predicted that it would spread on its own, and opined that that >wouldn't be a terrible thing. Still a bad thing to say, but not >nearly of the magnitude that it was made out to be. > >Martin > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > It certainly appears as if *something* about the story isn't true. However, it appears as if both Mims and Pianka are kooks in their own way. Are we to believe the possible exaggerations and distortions of Mims? Or the possible frantic backpedaling of Pianka? Sadly, without some sort of recording or transcript of the event, we might never know for sure. Although I'm pretty sure I read in one of the gazillion accounts of the speech that the story was corroborated by one of Pianka's students or colleagues or something. I'll check around. Joseph From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Apr 5 01:29:36 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:29:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Ever wonder what happens to phishing scam profits...? Message-ID: <44331D80.2000601@mindspring.com> On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:30:00AM -0800, wrote: > Such information isn't necessarily obtained through phishing scams: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11731365/ > > Urban Legends Reference Pages --> http://www.snopes.com This ATM card issue is probably a system compromise at a credit card processor similar to the issue that occurred with Card Systems, Inc. in Tucson. Card Systems no longer exists as an independent entity as a result of their Visa contract being cancelled--but they were simply acquired by another processor. I hope they have fixed their issues. Card Systems at one point blamed their auditors for not finding problems--they were audited by a branch of Savvis that used to be Cable & Wireless Security. Savvis is the networking company that fired its CEO, Robert McCormick, after he got involved in a very public billing dispute over a $241,000 bill with the strip club Scores (http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/08/news/newsmakers/scores.suit/index.htm). The chief information security officer at Savvis responsible for the entity that performed the audit was "Dr." Bill Hancock, whose team apparently missed some significant problems (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zd2970/is_200507/ai_n14799307). Hancock has frequently claimed to be a Navy SEAL, a Vietnam vet, and a Vietnam POW, though he's listed on websites as a fake. His M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in "Computer Sciences" are from a defunct diploma mill that operated in Hawaii and then off the coast of Australia, Greenwich University. His bachelor's degree is from Thomas Edison College, which is accredited. (Source: http://blog.netwarriors.org/articles/2003/10/28/the-billfiles-v4-0 and http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1015.htm) Hancock has been CISO of Exodus Communications, Cable & Wireless USA, and Savvis Networks. He has testified before Congress as a security expert, and has been chairman of the cybersecurity committee of the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC). He actually seems to have very good security knowledge, but is also a major bullshitter, which is not a good characteristic for someone in a position of trust. -- Jim Lippard -- "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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From sentience at pobox.com Wed Apr 5 02:02:09 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:02:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom In-Reply-To: <4432F7BC.8000405@goldenfuture.net> References: <443175DC.7090409@goldenfuture.net> <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4432F7BC.8000405@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <44332521.80505@pobox.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > > It certainly appears as if *something* about the story isn't true. > > However, it appears as if both Mims and Pianka are kooks in their own > way. Are we to believe the possible exaggerations and distortions of > Mims? Or the possible frantic backpedaling of Pianka? > > Sadly, without some sort of recording or transcript of the event, we > might never know for sure. Although I'm pretty sure I read in one of the > gazillion accounts of the speech that the story was corroborated by one > of Pianka's students or colleagues or something. I'll check around. Joseph, under the circumstances, I would regard the charges against Pianka as refuted unless someone brings forth a recording or transcript. As someone misrepresented in the media, I know how much it stings to be the target, and how often and routinely the media does this. Pianka must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 02:08:05 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:38:05 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <200604040407.k34477Aj029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <4431B2D7.9040705@cox.net> <200604040407.k34477Aj029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0604041908s12eaf24dr4df9c645898b3857@mail.gmail.com> On 04/04/06, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan Clemmensen > > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:42 PM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... > > > > On 4/3/06, *Anne-Marie Taylor* > > wrote: > > > > > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? > ... > > > > > > > > Please look at your subject line, and your question answers itself: > > So when you ask yourself a question, someone will answer :-) > > > Ja that is one thing you could do with a copy. You could have a *really* > evenly matched chess opponent. You could play some truly wicked gags on > people. You could make your boss think you work 24 hrs a day. If you > didn't mind risking the loss of the other you, you could have him or her > pull some wildly dangerous but entertaining stunts. I can think of a > million uses for another me. > > spike > > Well, I like your idea of having another you to try dangerous stunts, but I reckon I'd make the copy and then do the dangerous stunts myself (ie: in the primary instance). Much more fun from this pov. But for that I have to subscribe to the pattern paradigm, as mentioned above. I came to conclusion some time ago that your personal theory on identity (esp continuous consiousness vs pattern) is really just subjective, and you can adopt whichever one you like. I'm trying for pattern, because it is way more fun. I think it's doable too... the longer you examine the idea of identity, the more illusory it looks anyway, so hey. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Music downloads are online again! From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 02:26:48 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:56:48 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4432D72A.9030002@lineone.net> <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0604041926y2112f5fw1685b667ed57b41a@mail.gmail.com> The ethics for it for me are like this: Each copy is as much "me" as I (current existing instance) am. If I were to make copies for a purpose, I'd have to be as willing to fill those purposes "myself" as "they" would be. In fact, I'd have to be happy with a mechanism where there was no way of distinguishing, post copying, who is the copy and who is the original. Once you approach it in this way, there is far more likelihood that your schemes will work. As, at the point of copying, you all hold the same opinions, convictions, etc, there is very little likelihood of a copy saying "hey, that's crap, I'm not doing that". Because it's you, and you were always prepared to do that thing. The more I think about it, the cooler I think being able to be a borg of maybe up to 10 of me would be. I'd need a bigger house, but probably all of us wouldn't need to work to support the lot (and my family, and presumably their extended borganism too ;-) ). So there might be the chance that, unlike now, there'd be a few copies of me completely at liberty to follow their own projects, supported by the rest. That'd be cool, I can't do that now. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Music downloads are online again! On 05/04/06, A B wrote: > > Hello, > > Perhaps I just don't fully understand this topic, so anyone feel free to > correct me. I have no problems with the production (creation I guess, in the > non-religious sense) of new life, regardless of the means employed to do so > (eg. natural conception, cloning, from-scratch, or whatever the technology). > But so far, no one here seems to be addressing the basic rights of these > "copies". As a living, conscious being, I'm not sure it is ethically correct > to force specific decisions and lifestyles on these "copies" as if they were > simply toys - devoid of basic rights that an "original" version would > presumably have. To me it seems there is little difference between the value > of an "original" and a "copied" being; once it is created, it has every > right to do with itself whatever *it* wishes (short of harming any other > being). > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich > > > ben wrote: > > Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > Why would anybody want a copy of themselves? (In any form) I've been > > hearing a lot about copying this, that or whatever and I couldn't > > help asking myself what would I do if I could copy myself and why > > would I want to copy myself. I would really like other peoples > > opinion on this. Thanks Anna > > This is a very good question. > > I'm writing this before reading the many other replies, so i'm very > probably just repeating some things that others have already said, but > here are some reasons that occur off the top of my head: > > To (attempt to) ensure that your mind-pattern survives. The copies could > be 'snapshots' of your mind, not active, that are basically backups, to > be instantiated if you ever die. Limited consolation to the you that > dies, of course, but better than what we have at the moment. > > To lighten your work-load. Imagine having a twin that thinks exactly > like you. They would do any job in exactly the same way that you would. > So you could confidently share your workload between the two of you, and > get more done in the same time. Now multiply that as many times as you > have resources to make copies. > > For fun. I'm sure you can think of several interpretations of that. > > To multiply your mind-power. This would presume not only the ability to > make copies of your mind, but to link them all together, resulting in a > kind of 'hive-mind' that was composed of many copies of you. > > Making another assumption, that of the ability to not only make copies, > but to re-merge them at a later time, then you would be able to > effectively have many experiences at the same time. This also reduces > the risk inherent in certain activities. You could split into several > people, temporarily, while they go off and do all sorts of different > things, some of them could be quite risky things. The ones who are still > around later (that still want to) could re-merge into one you. You would > then have to integrate the experiences into a single mind. I don't know > (and neither does anyone else, yet) if this would be easy, difficult or > impossible. Or possible, but at the cost of effectively turning you into > someone else, perhaps more quickly than you'd be comfortable with (we're > all turning into someone else all the time, just at an acceptable rate, > so we recognise a continuity between the 'old us' and the 'new us'). > > To satisfy the urge to procreate in a post-biological state. Maybe. I > bet your 'kids' would still disappoint you, though! > > There are other reasons, but those a few that i can think of without > much effort. > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > ________________________________ > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates > starting at 1?/min. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Apr 5 03:14:57 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:14:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom In-Reply-To: <44332521.80505@pobox.com> References: <443175DC.7090409@goldenfuture.net> <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4432F7BC.8000405@goldenfuture.net> <44332521.80505@pobox.com> Message-ID: <44333631.9020505@goldenfuture.net> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >Joseph Bloch wrote: > > >>It certainly appears as if *something* about the story isn't true. >> >>However, it appears as if both Mims and Pianka are kooks in their own >>way. Are we to believe the possible exaggerations and distortions of >>Mims? Or the possible frantic backpedaling of Pianka? >> >>Sadly, without some sort of recording or transcript of the event, we >>might never know for sure. Although I'm pretty sure I read in one of the >>gazillion accounts of the speech that the story was corroborated by one >>of Pianka's students or colleagues or something. I'll check around. >> >> > >Joseph, under the circumstances, I would regard the charges against >Pianka as refuted unless someone brings forth a recording or transcript. > As someone misrepresented in the media, I know how much it stings to >be the target, and how often and routinely the media does this. Pianka >must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. > > > I find that someone saying "I didn't say that" doesn't quite rise to my own personal level of proof. One could just as easily say that Mims is "innocent" of lying until proven guilty. I declare myself agnostic on the issue, pending more information. I'll be the first to step to Pianka's defense, should I be convinced the account is inaccurate. Joseph From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Apr 5 05:47:51 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 22:47:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0604041908s12eaf24dr4df9c645898b3857@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200604050547.k355lws3009914@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn ... > Well, I like your idea of having another you to try dangerous stunts, > but I reckon I'd make the copy and then do the dangerous stunts myself > (ie: in the primary instance). Much more fun from this pov... > Emlyn Sure but how could you ever be sure it was you? Perhaps you were accidentally switched when you weren't looking and you didn't notice. This actually happened to a pop singer by the name of Charlene in the early 80s. The result was possibly the most nauseating song ever to make the top 40. Some of the lyrics are as follows: (I've been to Georgia and California, and anywhere I could run) I've been to paradise, never been to me (I've been to Nice and the isle of Greece while I've sipped champagne on a yacht) I've been to paradise, never been to me (I've been to cryin' for unborn children that might have made me complete) I've been to paradise, never been to me (I've been to Georgia and California, and anywhere I could run) I've been to paradise, never been to me... Etc. She copied herself, they were accidentally separated, she went abroad search of herself in a most self indulgent manner, never did find herself. This has led to silly comments such as "I am going in search of myself. Should I show up before I return, keep me here until I get back." spike From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed Apr 5 05:42:20 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 22:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Earth to New Scientist ... Message-ID: <20060405054220.24135.qmail@web52605.mail.yahoo.com> This week the New Scientist is still pushing the theory that red rains that fell in Kerala, India may have been colored by extraterrestrial cells. [*] The scientist they quote, Chandra Wickramasinghe, also argues that bird flu is an ET virus. [**] About the red particles in the rain NS says: "their identity remains a mystery." Earth to New Scientist! I just sent the following email to colleagues of Wickramasinghe at the Cardiff Center for Astrobiology (I emailed him the official study some time ago): ***************************************************** Subject: Red Rain - Official Report Hello, I'm contacting you about preexisting research on the red rains of Kerala that's being overlooked. Attached is the study commissioned by the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India. It was completed in November 2001 and was conducted at the Center for Earth Science Studies [1] and the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute in Kerala. [2] The study concluded that the red particles in the rain were algae spores that were successfully grown in culture. The findings were then published in: Kumar, V.S., Sampath, S., Mohanan, C.N., & Abraham, T. K. (2002). Colored rain falls in Kerala, India. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 83(31), 335. And in: Indian National Report for the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 23rd General Assembly, July 2003. Indian National Science Academy. See pages 31-2: http://www.iugg.org/members/nationalreports/india.pdf Hope this helps in your research. ~Ian [1] http://www.cessind.org/ [2] http://www.tbgri.org/ ***************************************************** [*] "Red rain puzzle is still up in the air" http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19025453.100-red-rain-puzzle-is-still-up-in-the-air.html [**] http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/newsD.htm Also: http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/redrain.html http://IanGoddard.net/redrain.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 08:14:44 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 09:14:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meeting Doctor Doom In-Reply-To: <44333631.9020505@goldenfuture.net> References: <443175DC.7090409@goldenfuture.net> <200604040407.k34477Ai029354@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4432F7BC.8000405@goldenfuture.net> <44332521.80505@pobox.com> <44333631.9020505@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 4/5/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > I declare myself agnostic on the issue, pending more information. I'll > be the first to step to Pianka's defense, should I be convinced the > account is inaccurate. > The original news report that started all the furore is here: "Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine," Eric Pianka cautioned students and guests at St. Edward's University on Friday. Pianka's words are part of what he calls his "doomsday talk" - a 45-minute presentation outlining humanity's ecological misdeeds and Pianka's predictions about how nature, or perhaps humans themselves, will exterminate all but a fraction of civilization. There is a followup article at: Kirk Winemiller earned his doctorate from UT in 1987 and worked as a Fullbright Research Scholar in Zambia in 1988-89. He said alarm over the professor's lecture is, very simply, "making a mountain out of a mole hill." Furthermore, he warns that encroaching upon scientists' freedom could inhibit the important role they play. "There is no controversy in stating that increasing population density tends to be followed by increasing rates of disease transmission and increasing risk that genetic variants of pathogens might quickly spread from one host to a new one," he said. "We've seen this happen in recent years with several nasty viruses, including avian influenza, SARS, etc. I am assuming that Dr. Pianka was using hyperbole in stating that, in the event that an epidemic were to wipe out 90 percent of the human population, natural systems might be allowed to recover in the absence of impacts." BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 12:50:51 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 07:50:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4432D72A.9030002@lineone.net> <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/4/06, A B (Jeffrey Herrlich?) wrote: As a living, conscious being, I'm not sure it is ethically correct to > force specific decisions and lifestyles on these "copies" as if they were > simply toys - devoid of basic rights that an "original" version would > presumably have. > Why? Why can't a "conscious being" create copies of itself and treat them as toys? Where precisely do "basic rights" come from? [1] As spike points out there are all sorts of fun things you can do with the copies. Jeffrey, I'm not sure you were around but this has been discussed (long ago and far far away(?)...) under the topic of "Can you kill your copies?" I sorted ended up as being cast as the "bad boy" of the list for asserting that there is little "wrong" with killing your copies (once they have served the purpose they were created for). This position can probably be put into the same bucket with my consideration of nuking Mecca for the purpose of eliminating the icons which form the fundamental supports for one of the world's religions. [Because that religion is based upon an irrational foundation and is one whose belief systems currently serves to justify the elimination of significant numbers of "copies.] (The only alternative to such "proactive" action (i.e. the "proactionary principle") is to *wait* and slowly watch as more copies are killed in the faint hope that these meme-washed people will slowly come to their senses [2]. (Where is the moral basis for justifying that sins of ommission occupy higher ground than sins of commission?) One has to realize that the basis for most of current ethics is centered around the idea that one should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Of course if one realizes that their are such things as copies and luck of the draw might end up making one a member of that class, then one would have no reason to expect not being treated "badly" as a copy since were the roles reversed you would probably be the one responsible for the bad treatment. Getting back to the topic of copies -- someone please show me where there is a fundamental "right" for copies to engage in independent execution. If that exists I'm being an extremely immoral person because I've got several CDs sitting on my desk with copies of Linux on them that aren't running at all. I need to go find a stick quick and beat myself for being so "bad"... Robert 1. One might argue that it is immoral to treat ones copies cruelly, particularly to cause them physical pain, this can easily be worked around by engineering the copies with the inability to feel pain (there are humans who are born with gene defects which have this property). 2. Daniel Dennet gave a talk at Harvard on his book "Breaking the Spell" (of religion) last night. He pointed out the concept that "Religions being in their death throes" was but one of five(!) possible outcomes for the ongoing religious tsunami humanity has been embroiled in during the last few thousand years. By not taking proactive positions with respect to the elimination of what he refered to as "toxic" religious ideas [3] one is implicitly accepting the position that killing ones (imperfect) copies is acceptable. 3. So as to not misrepresent Dennet, he primarily classed "toxic" religions are those in which certain ideas serve as a basis for killing people. (If one can't promote the survival and replication of ones meme set through a simple (or complex) sales pitch and endless repetition one can eliminate the existance of competing meme sets by eliminating the carriers of those memes.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 13:18:09 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:18:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4432D72A.9030002@lineone.net> <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/5/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Why? Why can't a "conscious being" create copies of itself and treat them > as toys? Where precisely do "basic rights" come from? [1] As spike points > out there are all sorts of fun things you can do with the copies. > It's either a copy or it isn't. If it is a copy, then it *is* you. Nobody would know whether they were killing you or a copy of you. So the copy has the same rights as you have (whatever they may be). And they start to diverge into different people as soon as they are created. It is quite different if you are creating crippled (in various ways) beings. e.g. A simple-minded version to clean house and take the garbage out. A tough being with no pain sensation to clean up disaster areas. A short-lived manic version for armies. But really these tasks are better suited to robots, which will be available by the time you are able to make copies of humans. In fact there will probably be laws against creating crippled human type beings. BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 13:56:47 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 08:56:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4432D72A.9030002@lineone.net> <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/5/06, BillK wrote: > > And they start to diverge into > different people as soon as they are created. My copies start to accumulate different information on top of a very large foundation of information I handed directly to them and they are presumably executing upon a substrate I provided for them as well (unless society as a whole is handing out "free" computronium for "colonization" [think New England ~400 years ago]). To assume that the mere "divergence" of the information base creates a being with the rights and entitlements of the original is highly questionable. We don't hand "children" the rights to do lots of things until they are deemed to have developed sufficently to be considered responsible (and distinct) members of society. But really these tasks are better suited to robots, which will be > available by the time you are able to make copies of humans. In fact > there will probably be laws against creating crippled human type > beings. In *this* society perhaps. But I see little difference between sending a "crippled" human, e.g. an engineered berserker, off to war and a designed and manufactured robot with human (or even superhuman) levels of intelligence off to war or into a reactor melt-down "hot-zone". But since one of the CSPAN channels last night was playing back the testimony of some government official involved in the "crusade" against child-porn on the internet its fresh in my mind... and let me explicitly state I'm *intentionally* tweeking list members who think they are sitting on the moral "high" ground... What is wrong with my creating a society with children engineered to never grow old (not too difficult as some of the genes which would produce some of these effects are already known) and whose "raison d'etre" was to sit around and experience pleasure when being diddled by older folks? Of course this would be done in my Atlantean cities floating in international waters, or perhaps because that meme set would offend most of the people on the planet, on a moon orbiting Jupiter. Wouldn't you feel compelled to enroll others into taking action to stamp out this kind of abhorent activity (i.e. to replace my meme set where the engineering of perpetually young people in support of the "Religion of IPIP" is considered a normal church activity with an alternate meme set supporting the "Religion of not abusing conscious matter"? (Though I'm not sure that is quite right as it would suggest that its ok for one to fiddle the "children" so long as they are asleep and they don't know one is doing it.) The interesting thing about the "Extropians List" is that at least most of the people involved consciously signed up for having their minds fiddled with... :-; There are a few of course whose minds seem fiddle resistant... sigh. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 15:46:12 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:46:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... Message-ID: Straight from the NY Times article on the congressional testimony regarding internet child pornography [1]... "U.S. Official Is Arrested MIAMI, April 4 (AP) ? The deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security was arrested on Tuesday and accused of using the Internet to seduce someone he thought was a teenage girl, the authorities said. According to the sheriff's office in Polk County, Fla., where the charges were issued, the official, Brian J. Doyle, 55, of Silver Spring, Md., had a sexually explicit conversation with a person he believed was a 14-year-old girl whose profile he had seen on the Internet. In reality, the sheriff's office said, Mr. Doyle was talking with an undercover sheriff's detective." I am ROTFL. The *deputy press secretary* -- "Oh, yes Mr. J. Q. Public, we assure you that you are safe from being blown up by a bomb or infected with ebola. We are also actively implementing a variety of solutions to other hazards that terrorists are anticipated to be considering. We do however have this one, ahhh... minor problem, with preventing our staff members from wanting to fiddle with your children." If I didn't have better things to do I'd go online pretending to be a 12 year old and work at entraping the "zealots"(?) who are working at entrapping the people who are seducing the children. What better online role can one imagine than suckering the suckers? In case you haven't noticed it the media are playing one-upping each other broadcasting shows where they have enticed X number of people to come to an entrapment house ostensibly for the purpose of engaging in illegal acts with minors. Gee, before our current society made up laws about certain things it was presumably proper, perhaps even necessary for the survival of the species, for teenagers, or perhaps teenagers and adults to "get it goin on". One didn't spread across the entire globe as small bands of migrating humans (subject to random hazards which might eliminate "proper" breeding partners) and not have situations develop where behaviors deemed "improper" today were absolutely necessary. Robert 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/washington/05porn.html?pagewanted=print -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Apr 5 16:00:28 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 09:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <29F421AB-20B0-4CEF-9963-9493B55BB022@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060405160028.83988.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> No Samantha, you don't know-- I started out down with a thoroughly dysfunctional family and have been very slowly moving up. It's always shocking how those so educated can be unknowing of others' situations because they simply do not wish to know. Last night a woman told me men should always be kind to each other and I agreed with the qualification that there are exceptions. I mentioned how a drunken student threatened me so I picked a rock off the ground and he left immediately without a word. We haven't reached the point in our evolution where we can just for instance escape our gender. You are getting ahead of the present in thinking we have as of yet evolved past gender, nationality, etc. Think of how many decades this country will be squabbling about are 'illegals' to be considered guest workers, resident aliens, undocumented workers, undocumented alien workers, undocumented guest workers, undocumented resident alien workers, or... We have got a long way to go at least measured in terms of a lifespan as a lifespan is known today, and I live for today & the near future-- not for the distant future. >Samantha Atkins wrote: It has nothing at all to do with gender. I spoke as one human concerned with the apparent downward spiral of another. Sorry (mostly for you) if you don't want to or can't hear it or benefit. You can dry up and blow away if you so wish. But it is in your power to choose differently. samantha --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 19:08:38 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 20:08:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4432D72A.9030002@lineone.net> <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604051208l70ece211i7b944fa1fe642f7e@mail.gmail.com> On 4/5/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > My copies start to accumulate different information on top of a very large > foundation of information I handed directly to them and they are presumably > executing upon a substrate I provided for them as well (unless society as a > whole is handing out "free" computronium for "colonization" [think New > England ~400 years ago]). > I think Emlyn has that one right: if for whatever reason you want to abuse copies of yourself, sign an agreement for said abuse up front, then let them be created in such a way that nobody knows which is the original and which is the copy, then flip a coin for the designations. That way any harm comes to someone (you!) who has agreed to it, so you're not violating the moral principle that it's wrong to abuse sentient beings against their will. In *this* society perhaps. But I see little difference between sending a > "crippled" human, e.g. an engineered berserker, off to war and a designed > and manufactured robot with human (or even superhuman) levels of > intelligence off to war or into a reactor melt-down "hot-zone". > Sentient robots should be treated with the respect due sentient beings. If you want disposable machines to fight battles, fix nuclear reactors etc, a simple solution is to make them nonsentient narrow AIs; this isn't hypothetical, we get good mileage out of primitive versions of it today. But since one of the CSPAN channels last night was playing back the > testimony of some government official involved in the "crusade" against > child-porn on the internet its fresh in my mind... and let me explicitly > state I'm *intentionally* tweeking list members who think they are sitting > on the moral "high" ground... What is wrong with my creating a society with > children engineered to never grow old (not too difficult as some of the > genes which would produce some of these effects are already known) and whose > "raison d'etre" was to sit around and experience pleasure when being diddled > by older folks? Of course this would be done in my Atlantean cities > floating in international waters, or perhaps because that meme set would > offend most of the people on the planet, on a moon orbiting Jupiter. > Wouldn't you feel compelled to enroll others into taking action to stamp out > this kind of abhorent activity ( i.e. to replace my meme set where the > engineering of perpetually young people in support of the "Religion of IPIP" > is considered a normal church activity with an alternate meme set supporting > the "Religion of not abusing conscious matter"? > I answered the "nuke Mecca" proposal at some length last time it came up, did you get my reply that time? But yes, if the practical circumstances were similar then I think similar moral and ethical logic would apply. (In other words, the fact that it's more politically correct to respect other people's religion than sexual habits should not in and of itself be a moral distinguishing factor - I agree you have a valid point as far as that goes.) (Though I'm not sure that is quite right as it would suggest that its ok for > one to fiddle the "children" so long as they are asleep and they don't know > one is doing it.) > Again, if you want entities you can abuse with a clear conscience, create nonsentient narrow AI robots or simulations. The interesting thing about the "Extropians List" is that at least most of > the people involved consciously signed up for having their minds fiddled > with... :-; > Fair point :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Wed Apr 5 19:03:26 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:03:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> From: A B : > no one here seems to be addressing the basic rights of these > "copies". As a living, conscious being, I'm not sure it is ethically > correct to force specific decisions and lifestyles on these "copies" > as if they were simply toys - devoid of basic rights that an > "original" version would presumably have. To me it seems there is > little difference between the value of an "original" and a "copied" > being; once it is created, it has every right to do with itself > whatever *it* wishes (short of harming any other being). Sure, i agree totally about the rights of other people, but we're not talking about other people. I'm imagining a copy - an EXACT copy - of me. In other words, it's me (in my view. I know there are those who would disagree with this 'patternist' view). So 'imposing' any kind of behaviour on such a copy is a non-issue, any more than imposing it on yourself would be. If you do force yourself to do anything, you have good reason (i hope!) to, and do it with your own full consent. Granted, over time, these copies would inevitable diverge, and that's something to be considered. But personally, i wouldn't be averse to imposing some kind of mental constraint on myself in order to attain some pre-decided goal (such as sending a copy of myself to Pluto and back, then merging with my stay-at-home version), and be pretty much guaranteed that we would still want to merge. I would certainly not be pleased if some authority tried to tell me that i wasn't allowed to put those kind of constraints on myself. ben From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 19:21:58 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:21:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> References: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> Message-ID: I agree with Ben (regarding what I do with my information is my business). As an aside with a slight spoiler I'll note that I believe the old SciFi novel "The Saga of the Cuckoo" has an interesting sub-plot involving how uncomfortable a space explorer becomes with the idea of stepping into the self-Xerox machine to make yet another copy of himself after having witnessed a dozen or so of his previous copies fail to return from various exploration missions. The argument "Don't worry, you'll be the original" only succeeds just so many times... Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Wed Apr 5 18:43:47 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:43:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44340FE3.5060903@lineone.net> Al Brooks depressingly wrote: > Tell you the truth I personally haven't enjoyed life-- really enjoyed > life-- since I was 25 Wow. Is this really true? If so, sorry, dude. Not wanting to brag or anything, but i'm twice 25, and life just seems to get better and better. Can't wait for 125! You might want to try calorie restriction, that could change your mind (you really do get bright-eyed and bushy-tailed on CR!) ben From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 19:31:31 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 20:31:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604051231t5a143ddbs599a281109f7cfb0@mail.gmail.com> On 4/5/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > As an aside with a slight spoiler I'll note that I believe the old SciFi > novel "The Saga of the Cuckoo" has an interesting sub-plot involving how > uncomfortable a space explorer becomes with the idea of stepping into the > self-Xerox machine to make yet another copy of himself after having > witnessed a dozen or so of his previous copies fail to return from various > exploration missions. The argument "Don't worry, you'll be the original" > only succeeds just so many times... > As a subscriber to the pattern view, I wouldn't rely on that argument! I'd rely on "if I fail to come back, I'll still be alive nonetheless, since both copies are me"... though I'd also be skeptical of the value of sending a stream of expensive manned spacecraft, plus maybe subjecting myself to the unpleasant experience of dying of radiation poisoning/being eaten by aliens with acid blood/etc, on missions where none of them were coming back with data. Why not send cheap unmanned/narrow AI probes first to check whether conditions at the destination are survivable? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Apr 5 19:28:03 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 15:28:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] RELIGION: Jesus walking on ice Message-ID: <380-2200643519283156@M2W130.mail2web.com> "Jesus More Likely to Have Walked on Ice Than Water" (United Press International) "TALLAHASSEE, Fla., April 4 (UPI via COMTEX) -- Florida State University scientists say its more likely Jesus walked on a patch of floating ice than on water, as described in the New Testament. Oceanography Professor Doron Nof says his research points to a rare combination of optimal water and atmospheric conditions for development of a unique, localized freezing phenomenon that Nof and his co-authors call 'springs ice.'" http://www.beliefnet.com/story/188/story_18878_1.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Apr 5 19:07:09 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 15:07:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] BOOK: The Art of Aging Gratefully Message-ID: <380-220064351979814@M2W049.mail2web.com> _The Art of Aging Gratefully_ In her new book, Harvard professor Dr. Muriel Gillick urges readers to stop denying the aging process and focus instead on making the most of it. By Karen Springen Newsweek "April 4, 2006 - Dr. Muriel R. Gillick has some bad news. No matter how well you hide it, there's no avoiding the truth: growing old is hazardous to your health. In her new book, ?The Denial of Aging: Perpetual Youth, Eternal Life, and Other Dangerous Fantasies? (Harvard University Press), she argues that regardless of our vitamin?or plastic-surgery?regime, we?re all eventually going to find ourselves sick and frail. So instead of trying futilely (and expensively) to stay forever young, Gullick urges readers to focus on the quality of their lives." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12110013/site/newsweek/ Natasha I'd rather age gracefully or not at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Apr 5 20:06:54 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 13:06:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <44340FE3.5060903@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060405200654.61866.qmail@web51607.mail.yahoo.com> Yes however this only highlights the subjective nature of the 'aging experience', which is PC for getting old. Feel better mentally, but is 50 the same as 15? No siree bob. But all experience has demonstrated that you are correct concerning caloric restriction. For what it's worth (zilch) I recently lost 95% interest in sex, which leaves the art of the culinary pig out as the major turn-on. Viagra, cialis and all that? Hell no, I would never be so bold with physiology. Tried b3, acetyl l-carnitine; they work like a charm yet what a wrenching jolt-- do not enjoy messing around with hormones, and we are discussing enjoyment aren't we? Again this demonstrates the subjective nature of aging & the attempted thwarting of the aging process. Not wanting to brag or anything, but i'm twice 25, and life just seems to get better and better. Can't wait for 125! You might want to try calorie restriction, that could change your mind (you really do get bright-eyed and bushy-tailed on CR!) ben --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Apr 5 20:13:53 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 13:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060405201353.70704.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Ben, I'm just going to try to clarify for my own understanding. If one accepts that only the 'pattern' of information is necessary and sufficient for establishing identity, then if I made a perfect copy of myself, would I not expect a stream of experiences from both (or all) 'versions' simultaneously? If I made many copies, would I effectively become a hive-mind? But if your answer is yes, then how can this be so? Given that the human mind (as it is now) is incapable of *directly* accessing other minds. Would the bandwidth (direct mind access ability) of my own mind mysteriously double if make a single perfect copy of myself? It doesn't seem like it should - because that would seem to imply an instantaneous and significant alteration to the physical arrangement of my brain (which seems unlikely), but perhaps I'm wrong. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich (I'm going to change the A B thing one of these days) ben wrote: From: A B : > no one here seems to be addressing the basic rights of these > "copies". As a living, conscious being, I'm not sure it is ethically > correct to force specific decisions and lifestyles on these "copies" > as if they were simply toys - devoid of basic rights that an > "original" version would presumably have. To me it seems there is > little difference between the value of an "original" and a "copied" > being; once it is created, it has every right to do with itself > whatever *it* wishes (short of harming any other being). Sure, i agree totally about the rights of other people, but we're not talking about other people. I'm imagining a copy - an EXACT copy - of me. In other words, it's me (in my view. I know there are those who would disagree with this 'patternist' view). So 'imposing' any kind of behaviour on such a copy is a non-issue, any more than imposing it on yourself would be. If you do force yourself to do anything, you have good reason (i hope!) to, and do it with your own full consent. Granted, over time, these copies would inevitable diverge, and that's something to be considered. But personally, i wouldn't be averse to imposing some kind of mental constraint on myself in order to attain some pre-decided goal (such as sending a copy of myself to Pluto and back, then merging with my stay-at-home version), and be pretty much guaranteed that we would still want to merge. I would certainly not be pleased if some authority tried to tell me that i wasn't allowed to put those kind of constraints on myself. ben _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HerbM at learnquick.com Wed Apr 5 21:34:11 2006 From: HerbM at learnquick.com (Herb Martin) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 16:34:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060405201353.70704.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604052134.k35LYRgH029820@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I'm just going to try to clarify for my own understanding. If one accepts that only the 'pattern' of information is necessary and sufficient for establishing identity, then if I made a perfect copy of myself, would I not expect a stream of experiences from both (or all) 'versions' simultaneously? Not unless you hooked up inputs and outputs among all the copies. >From the point in time of the copy you(plural) would be separate individuals under most expected scenarios -- very analogous to identical twins (triplets, etc) except you would be identical in much of your NURTURE up to the moment of copying. Just like when some copies a computer program to another machine. Most of the time the two copies don't even communicate with each other, and if they do it is usually in a limited manner. For such copies their communication would likely be through normal (human) means of conversation OR perhaps through new (computer network and data exchange) methods that only work well (now) for computer based systems. If I made many copies, would I effectively become a hive-mind? Almost certainly no. (i.e., only if you specifically arranged for that and it likely would NOT be the default.) But if your answer is yes, then how can this be so? Given that the human mind (as it is now) is incapable of *directly* accessing other minds. Part of the reason this would not (likely) be the default configuration. Once digitized we made be able to add new capabilities, including new communications and integration modules. Would the bandwidth (direct mind access ability) of my own mind mysteriously double if make a single perfect copy of myself? If you are measuring core bandwidth it probably would but just like multiple computers typically CANNOT take advantage of multiple hardware platforms to work together cooperatively that would be an "extra feature", perhaps not available in "Version 1.0 Mind Upload Kit". It doesn't seem like it should - because that would seem to imply an instantaneou s and significant alteration to the physical arrangement of my brain (which seems unlikely), but perhaps I'm wrong. Assuming you kept the SAME (current) input/output configuration (or a simulation of that) then you would not see these effects. You are confusing the "copy" with a reconfiguration of the Input/Output systems AND/or the Biological Operating Systems, or even extensions to those current systems. Herb Martin _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of A B Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:14 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... Hi Ben, I'm just going to try to clarify for my own understanding. If one accepts that only the 'pattern' of information is necessary and sufficient for establishing identity, then if I made a perfect copy of myself, would I not expect a stream of experiences from both (or all) 'versions' simultaneously? If I made many copies, would I effectively become a hive-mind? But if your answer is yes, then how can this be so? Given that the human mind (as it is now) is incapable of *directly* accessing other minds. Would the bandwidth (direct mind access ability) of my own mind mysteriously double if make a single perfect copy of myself? It doesn't seem like it should - because that would seem to imply an instantaneou s and significant alteration to the physical arrangement of my brain (which seems unlikely), but perhaps I'm wrong. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich (I'm going to change the A B thing one of these days) ben wrote: From: A B : > no one here seems to be addressing the basic rights of these > "copies". As a living, conscious being, I'm not sure it is ethically > correct to force specific decisions and lifestyles on these "copies" > as if they we re simply toys - devoid of basic rights that an > "original" version would presumably have. To me it seems there is > little difference between the value of an "original" and a "copied" > being; once it is created, it has every righ t to do with itself > whatever *it* wishes (short of harming any other being). Sure, i agree totally about the rights of other people, but we're not talking about other people. I'm imagining a copy - an EXACT copy - of me. In other words, it's me (in my view. I know there are those who would disagree with this 'patternist' view). So 'imposing' any kind of behaviour on such a copy is a non-issue, any more than imposing it on yourself would be. I f you do force yourself to do anything, you have good reason (i hope!) to, and do it with your own full consent. Granted, over time, these copies would inevitable diverge, and that's something to be considered. But personally, i wouldn't be averse to imposing some kind of mental constraint on myself in order to attain some pre-decided goal (such as sending a copy of myself to Pluto and back, then merging with my stay-at-home version), and be pretty much guaranteed that w e would still want to merge. I would certainly not be pleased if some authority tried to tell me that i wasn't allowed to put those kind of constraints on myself. ben _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _____ New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Apr 5 21:32:51 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 16:32:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> Message-ID: <01e601c658f8$7ebeb940$660fa8c0@kevin> Of course, looking at this from the copy's perspective is a bit different: I am a copy that was created to go into space on a deep exploration. Well, I'm really angry about this!My original made me for this, but as an exact copy, I have no more desire to go myself than he does. Perhaps the original should go and leave me here. He wants to send me off to what may be certain death. I;ll never see my family again - unless he makes copies of them to go with me. But really, why SHOULD I go? How can he make me go? And once I leave, what makes him think I am going to do what he wants? Maybe I'll just kill the jerk this evening and take his place. Perhaps semi-sentient, copies that replicate part but not all of our personalities will be more practical....... ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Bradbury To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... I agree with Ben (regarding what I do with my information is my business). As an aside with a slight spoiler I'll note that I believe the old SciFi novel "The Saga of the Cuckoo" has an interesting sub-plot involving how uncomfortable a space explorer becomes with the idea of stepping into the self-Xerox machine to make yet another copy of himself after having witnessed a dozen or so of his previous copies fail to return from various exploration missions. The argument "Don't worry, you'll be the original" only succeeds just so many times... Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 23:37:33 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:37:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] BOOK: The Art of Aging Gratefully In-Reply-To: <380-220064351979814@M2W049.mail2web.com> References: <380-220064351979814@M2W049.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 4/5/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > _The Art of Aging Gratefully_: * > *** > In her new book, "The Denial of Aging: Perpetual Youth, Eternal Life, and > Other Dangerous Fantasies" [1], Harvard professor Dr. Muriel Gillick urges > readers to stop denying the aging process and focus instead on making the > most of it. ... > By Karen Springen > Newsweek [2] > [Snip...] Ok, now I'm pissed. While I agree with the sentiment that one should "make the most of it" -- because there is wisdom in the concept of "live for today -- for tomorrow you may die" because the hazard function *isn't* going to go away -- I disagree with any arguments that aging, and to a large extent death, are either (a) inevitable or (b) should be accepted. To begin with, Dr. Gillick, according to [3], is a person with scholarly interest in "medical ethics and care near the end of life". She has an MD from Harvard Medical School. Great. That says nothing with respect to whether she has studied or is an expert in the preservation of or restoration of "information" (which is after all the basis of "life"). Without going into the long winding road that a computer scientist such as myself, Aubrey de Grey, or perhaps people such as Steve Coles, Ralph Merkle, would follow [this involves going into Shannon's theory of information and principles of thermodynamics] [4]) would present, I will simply assert that the indefinite preservation of an information state (i.e. an organized information state capable of being 'alive') is a function of how much energy and resources one is willing to dedicate to preserving that state (in the face of physical processes that would otherwise cause its information to be lost beyond recovery). Thus, in an abstract sense, in the current "reality", there is no "end of life" -- there is only a termination of the will and investment required to maintain the information necessary for life to exist. The secondary effect of this is effectively an "end of life" (as we currently commonly define it). I will go somewhat further and assert that there is no longer a "death sentence" hanging over the heads of *most* individuals who currently reside in developed countries and who have reasonable opportunities, means and will to stand in front of "Death" and say "Oh no you don't." I place some restrictions on making this a blanket statement that "Death is not the inevitable fate of all humans" because there are people for whom the technologies and means are simply not currently, and will not in the near future be+, available to stop death at the threshold [5]. So I utterly reject on the basis of information theory that "aging" and "death" are inevitable and would suggest that people such as Dr. Gillick who are either indirectly or actively promoting such perspectives can reasonably be viewed as promoting generic genocide [6]. Sooo... my question for Dr. Gillick, and people who would promote her perspective is, "So, how many people have you condemned to death today?" Robert Bradbury 1. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674021487/ 2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12110013/site/newsweek/ 3. http://www2.edc.org/lastacts/archives/archivesMay03/gillickbio.asp 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%27s_theorem 5. Which of course, for any human being alive who believes in the fundamental "right to life" for all human beings, presents the question of what one is personally doing to level the playing field between those who are able (whether they choose to do so or not) preserve their life -- and those who simply do not have any reasonable possibility of, but might desire to do so. 6. Dr. Gillick is promoting the concept that people should accept the fact that information (i.e. life) at the point of "death" has irrevocably decayed to a state (i.e. it has effectively become 'noise') from which it cannot be recovered -- *without* any mathematical proof that the information has in fact transitioned to such a state. Dr. Gillick is promoting the concept that "humans must die" at the current "line in the sand" where "death" is defined. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 23:43:41 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:13:41 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604051231t5a143ddbs599a281109f7cfb0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> <8d71341e0604051231t5a143ddbs599a281109f7cfb0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0604051643g5f8f0158udf1f4dd772383994@mail.gmail.com> On 06/04/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > As a subscriber to the pattern view, I wouldn't rely on that argument! I'd > rely on "if I fail to come back, I'll still be alive nonetheless, since both > copies are me"... though I'd also be skeptical of the value of sending a > stream of expensive manned spacecraft, plus maybe subjecting myself to the > unpleasant experience of dying of radiation poisoning/being eaten by aliens > with acid blood/etc, on missions where none of them were coming back with > data. Why not send cheap unmanned/narrow AI probes first to check whether > conditions at the destination are survivable? > Fair enough. Leads me to a thought though... Say you did truly subscribe to the pattern paradigm, so you truly believed that, in facing death of your body, the fact that there were other copies around would mean you wouldn't actually die. Then, what would it be like to experience a really harrowing death (being eaten by aliens with acid blood and space halitosis, say)? With the fear of death really gone, ie: you *know* and *deeply feel* that this is just destroying a body, no big problem existentially. How about if you recorded those sensations somehow, and could send them back to be merged with another "line" of you, so a surviving instance could experience them without dying. How then do you think that kind of terrible "death" would be? Hmm.... -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Music downloads are online again! From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 23:58:07 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 00:58:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0604051643g5f8f0158udf1f4dd772383994@mail.gmail.com> References: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> <8d71341e0604051231t5a143ddbs599a281109f7cfb0@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0604051643g5f8f0158udf1f4dd772383994@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604051658vd8910b4v5ceaa600d41699b7@mail.gmail.com> On 4/6/06, Emlyn wrote: > > Say you did truly subscribe to the pattern paradigm, so you truly > believed that, in facing death of your body, the fact that there were > other copies around would mean you wouldn't actually die. > > Then, what would it be like to experience a really harrowing death > (being eaten by aliens with acid blood and space halitosis, say)? With > the fear of death really gone, ie: you *know* and *deeply feel* that > this is just destroying a body, no big problem existentially. > > How about if you recorded those sensations somehow, and could send > them back to be merged with another "line" of you, so a surviving > instance could experience them without dying. Straightforward enough if you upload and do it in VR, I suppose. How then do you think that kind of terrible "death" would be? Hmm.... > *shrug* Doesn't sound a lot of fun to me, but then I don't really like pain; I imagine you'd get takers. (See 'The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect' for a fictional treatment of this sort of issue - warning, it's very good but more or less necessarily has a rather high squick factor.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 6 00:33:41 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:33:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4432D72A.9030002@lineone.net> <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 5, 2006, at 6:56 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > But really these tasks are better suited to robots, which will be > available by the time you are able to make copies of humans. In fact > there will probably be laws against creating crippled human type > beings. > > In *this* society perhaps. But I see little difference between > sending a "crippled" human, e.g. an engineered berserker, off to > war and a designed and manufactured robot with human (or even > superhuman) levels of intelligence off to war or into a reactor > melt-down "hot-zone". > You would cripple humans or engineer berserker humans to fight wars? Why? How does such or suggesting such lead you any close to your goals? How does it lead toward a world you would want to inhabit? > But since one of the CSPAN channels last night was playing back the > testimony of some government official involved in the "crusade" > against child-porn on the internet its fresh in my mind... and let > me explicitly state I'm *intentionally* tweeking list members who > think they are sitting on the moral "high" ground... So you are attacking people or their sensibility just for fun? > What is wrong with my creating a society with children engineered > to never grow old (not too difficult as some of the genes which > would produce some of these effects are already known) and whose > "raison d'etre" was to sit around and experience pleasure when > being diddled by older folks? You are creating humanlike beings who are not really human and doing so explicitly for a purpose that most humans would find offensive and you are doing so with children which humans are hardwired to protect. You have perverted the human genome to produce mere child sex dolls. Do you have some problem seeing why that would be wrong? Really? > Of course this would be done in my Atlantean cities floating in > international waters, or perhaps because that meme set would offend > most of the people on the planet, on a moon orbiting Jupiter. > Wouldn't you feel compelled to enroll others into taking action to > stamp out this kind of abhorent activity ( i.e. to replace my meme > set where the engineering of perpetually young people in support of > the "Religion of IPIP" is considered a normal church activity with > an alternate meme set supporting the "Religion of not abusing > conscious matter"? I believe it is quite rational to have prohibitions against abuse of sentient creatures. I would not support attacking your perverse enterprise but I would certainly find your activities appalling and would have nothing to do with you. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 6 00:20:24 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:20:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4432D72A.9030002@lineone.net> <20060404222322.37686.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8D222FDA-5BB5-4F14-B54E-37D65F480863@mac.com> On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:50 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 4/4/06, A B (Jeffrey Herrlich?) wrote: > > As a living, conscious being, I'm not sure it is ethically correct > to force specific decisions and lifestyles on these "copies" as if > they were simply toys - devoid of basic rights that an "original" > version would presumably have. > > Why? Why can't a "conscious being" create copies of itself and > treat them as toys? Where precisely do "basic rights" come from? > [1] As spike points out there are all sorts of fun things you can > do with the copies. For the same reason you can't treat other human level beings who are not copies of you as toys with impunity. > > Jeffrey, I'm not sure you were around but this has been discussed > (long ago and far far away(?)...) under the topic of "Can you kill > your copies?" I sorted ended up as being cast as the "bad boy" of > the list for asserting that there is little "wrong" with killing > your copies (once they have served the purpose they were created for). You would make a fine AI overlord. :-) > This position can probably be put into the same bucket with my > consideration of nuking Mecca for the purpose of eliminating the > icons which form the fundamental supports for one of the world's > religions. Let's not go back there again. As such an action would directly enflame nearly 20% of humanity against all others it is demonstrably a really stupid idea leading immediately to major death and destruction. > [Because that religion is based upon an irrational foundation and > is one whose belief systems currently serves to justify the > elimination of significant numbers of "copies.] (The only > alternative to such "proactive" action ( i.e. the "proactionary > principle") is to *wait* and slowly watch as more copies are killed > in the faint hope that these meme-washed people will slowly come to > their senses [2]. (Where is the moral basis for justifying that > sins of ommission occupy higher ground than sins of commission?) > We have been over all this ground before. Why reopen it now? > One has to realize that the basis for most of current ethics is > centered around the idea that one should "do unto others as you > would have them do unto you". Of course if one realizes that their > are such things as copies and luck of the draw might end up making > one a member of that class, then one would have no reason to expect > not being treated "badly" as a copy since were the roles reversed > you would probably be the one responsible for the bad treatment. > The way it works is that we all get to expect relatively as good treatment as we grant to others. Don't do unto others what would really suck if it was done to you. > Getting back to the topic of copies -- someone please show me where > there is a fundamental "right" for copies to engage in independent > execution. If that exists I'm being an extremely immoral person > because I've got several CDs sitting on my desk with copies of > Linux on them that aren't running at all. I need to go find a > stick quick and beat myself for being so "bad"... > Now you are being absurd. - samantha > Robert > > 1. One might argue that it is immoral to treat ones copies cruelly, > particularly to cause them physical pain, this can easily be worked > around by engineering the copies with the inability to feel pain > (there are humans who are born with gene defects which have this > property). > Then they aren't "copies" and you have changed the problem. > 2. Daniel Dennet gave a talk at Harvard on his book "Breaking the > Spell" (of religion) last night. He pointed out the concept that > "Religions being in their death throes" was but one of five(!) > possible outcomes for the ongoing religious tsunami humanity has > been embroiled in during the last few thousand years. By not > taking proactive positions with respect to the elimination of what > he refered to as "toxic" religious ideas [3] one is implicitly > accepting the position that killing ones (imperfect) copies is > acceptable. > You have a lot of explaining to do to make that intelligible. > 3. So as to not misrepresent Dennet, he primarily classed "toxic" > religions are those in which certain ideas serve as a basis for > killing people. (If one can't promote the survival and replication > of ones meme set through a simple (or complex) sales pitch and > endless repetition one can eliminate the existance of competing > meme sets by eliminating the carriers of those memes.) Certain ideas versus your arbitrary right to kill just because you feel like if they are your copies? Is killing for one set of ideas so much worse than your willingness to commit mass murder and embroil humanity in religious war for the sake of the supposed defense of other ideas and persons that you hold dear? Perhaps we can take a page from some religions staying that killing others is generally wrong a bit more seriously. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 00:59:41 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:59:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/5/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > I agree with Ben (regarding what I do with my information is my business). > > As an aside with a slight spoiler I'll note that I believe the old SciFi > novel "The Saga of the Cuckoo" has an interesting sub-plot involving how > uncomfortable a space explorer becomes with the idea of stepping into the > self-Xerox machine to make yet another copy of himself after having > witnessed a dozen or so of his previous copies fail to return from various > exploration missions. The argument "Don't worry, you'll be the original" > only succeeds just so many times... > (There's also some slight spoilers in the message below) This also reminds me of a sci-fi short story. I don't recall the title, but it was in an anthology of hard sci-fi. The gist of it is that there's a "teleportation" technology, given to humans by extraterrestrials. This technology creates a duplicate copy of a person at some remote location, and when a signal is sent back confirming the copy, an operator sends radiation through the original's brain, instantly killing them. The extraterrestrials refer to the killing of the original as "balancing the equation," and consider it of utmost importance. Indeed, they believe that if a species doesn't have the "discipline" to kill off the original, they are unworthy of the teleportation technology. The plot in the story concerns the moral dilemma which arises when there's uncertainty about whether or not the copy was properly sent. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 6 00:41:55 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:41:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] RELIGION: Jesus walking on ice In-Reply-To: <380-2200643519283156@M2W130.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200643519283156@M2W130.mail2web.com> Message-ID: Hey, give me a bit of utility fog and walking on water would be a snap. :-) Makes a lot more sense than this gobbledygook too. - s On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:28 PM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > "Jesus More Likely to Have Walked on Ice Than Water" (United Press > International) > > "TALLAHASSEE, Fla., April 4 (UPI via COMTEX) -- Florida State > University > scientists say its more likely Jesus walked on a patch of floating > ice than > on water, as described in the New Testament. > > Oceanography Professor Doron Nof says his research points to a rare > combination of optimal water and atmospheric conditions for > development of > a unique, localized freezing phenomenon that Nof and his co-authors > call > 'springs ice.'" > > http://www.beliefnet.com/story/188/story_18878_1.html > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.cgi/extropy-chat From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 01:07:21 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:07:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> Message-ID: FYI, it turns out I was thinking of James Patrick Kelly's "Think Like a Dinosaur," which won the 1996 Hugo Award for Best Novelette. There's an audio "Seeing Ear Theatre" version of it here: http://www.scifi.com/set/playhouse/dinosaur/ On 4/5/06, Neil H. wrote: > > On 4/5/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > > I agree with Ben (regarding what I do with my information is my > > business). > > > > As an aside with a slight spoiler I'll note that I believe the old SciFi > > novel "The Saga of the Cuckoo" has an interesting sub-plot involving how > > uncomfortable a space explorer becomes with the idea of stepping into the > > self-Xerox machine to make yet another copy of himself after having > > witnessed a dozen or so of his previous copies fail to return from various > > exploration missions. The argument "Don't worry, you'll be the original" > > only succeeds just so many times... > > > > (There's also some slight spoilers in the message below) > > This also reminds me of a sci-fi short story. I don't recall the title, > but it was in an anthology of hard sci-fi. The gist of it is that there's a > "teleportation" technology, given to humans by extraterrestrials. This > technology creates a duplicate copy of a person at some remote location, and > when a signal is sent back confirming the copy, an operator sends radiation > through the original's brain, instantly killing them. The extraterrestrials > refer to the killing of the original as "balancing the equation," and > consider it of utmost importance. Indeed, they believe that if a species > doesn't have the "discipline" to kill off the original, they are unworthy of > the teleportation technology. > > > The plot in the story concerns the moral dilemma which arises when there's > uncertainty about whether or not the copy was properly sent. > > -- Neil > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Apr 6 01:08:38 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 21:08:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] SPACE: NewSpace 2006, Las Vegas Message-ID: <380-220064461838922@M2W055.mail2web.com> Los Angeles, CA, April 5, 2006 ? The Space Frontier Foundation has announced it is combining its long running Return to the Moon Lunar Development Conference and its annual fall conference into one large event in Las Vegas during the week of July 20th. Commemorating the anniversary of Apollo and humanity?s first steps on another world and celebrating the rise of a NewSpace movement that is opening the frontier to everyone, NewSpace 2006 will build on a foundation of exploration and point the way to the human settlement of space. Running from July 19-22 at the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas, NewSpace 2006 will feature different leading edge subjects each day. A variety of sessions will ensure a variety of speakers and audiences, from entrepreneurs building new rocketships and starting new space companies to space enthusiasts who want to learn about this exciting new movement, to potential space tourists who want to go themselves. ?The permanent opening of space heralds a renaissance in human history,? said the Foundation?s Rick Tumlinson. ?NewSpace 2006 will honor our roots in the exploration programs traditionally led by governments, while bringing them together with the entrepreneurs, visionaries, and leaders of the NewSpace Revolution to discover ways we can all work together to achieve our goals.? As forums of an open frontier in space, the Foundation?s events are gathering places for the leaders and insiders who are creating a whole new breed of space firms designed to open space in our lifetimes. From the so-called ?thrillionaires? to small entrepreneurial start ups, those ?in the know? will join those ?wanting to know? in a unique and intimate gathering in a city known for taking risks, in a place that was, like space, once seen as empty and dangerous to life. ?We are creating synergies,? said conference manager Krysta Paradis. ?Anyone can throw a conference, but the Foundation?s events are the tribal gatherings of the NewSpace movement, drawing pro-frontier leaders from all aspects of the space community. There will be noted speakers from NASA, astronauts, scientists, businesspeople and investors mixing with visionaries, engineers, designers and those who just want to go out there themselves, all talking to each other plainly and directly in a casual and fun environment.? Foundation conferences are known for their focus and shared experience approach. The full first working day is Thursday July 20th ? ?Moon Day?. Following the NASA meetings this spring, where government planners, Foundationers and others will engage in discussions on going back to the Moon and on to Mars, Moon Day will focus on how to stay there. Concepts like mining, processing resources, infrastructure development, property rights, and the roles of NASA and the private sector will be discussed with a spotlight on ways to enhance the NewSpace community?s involvement in this great adventure. Friday will be the first of two NewSpace Days, entitled ?Enabling NewSpace.? It will be a hard-nosed, roll up your sleeves meeting of leaders of the New Space industry grappling with pressing and important issues and opportunities. NewSpace business people, spaceport operators, investors and government officials who are trying to keep up with the pace of growth and change in this exciting field will discuss investment, marketing, business planning, and concerns like regulation, insurance and taxes. The Friday night Black Tie Banquet will feature celebrity guests and pay homage to the heroes of Apollo and early space exploration and business. Honors will go to the best presentation of space in films, TV and commercials, from Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and awards for the greatest accomplishments in Space Journalism and Vision to Reality will be presented. Saturday?s ?Envisioning NewSpace? will feature ?Beyond the Horizon,? with edgy ideas like space elevators, and advanced propulsion and ?Breaking Out of the Greenhouse,? with presentations on space solar power and other potential Earth saving technologies. Other sessions include Teachers in Space, NASA Space Prizes, ?Enabling Mars,? ?Space Colonies,? ?Space Tourism? and ?Sex in Space? ? subjects that are sure to draw crowds and heat things up. Sunday morning?s wrap-up will include discussions on the spiritual meaning of this new movement and a town-hall meeting on public outreach and the ?Next Steps for NewSpace.? ?After all,? said Tumlinson, ?when it comes to NewSpace, it?s important that what happens in Vegas doesn?t stay in Vegas!? For more information on the Foundation or for other inquiries, call 800.787.7223, e-mail information at space-frontier.org. http://www.SPACEFRONTIERFOUNDATION.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 6 00:38:04 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:38:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060405160028.83988.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060405160028.83988.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Al Brooks wrote: > No Samantha, you don't know-- I started out down with a thoroughly > dysfunctional family and have been very slowly moving up. It's > always shocking how those so educated can be unknowing of others' > situations because they simply do not wish to know. For what it is worth, my Dad was a very dysfunctional and damaging disaster that I was lucky to survive. So don't make assumptions. I am checking out of this free association zone. - s From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Apr 6 01:53:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:53:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604060153.k361rwET003501@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury "U.S. Official Is Arrested MIAMI, April 4 (AP) ? The deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security?was arrested on Tuesday and accused of using the Internet to seduce someone he thought was a teenage girl, the authorities said... Robert 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/washington/05porn.html?pagewanted=print Since this kind of thing was not really possible before the internet, it is a new crime. Since he wasn't actually seducing a teenage girl but only thought he was doing so, it is technically a thought crime. We can imagine most *new* ways to offend will be thought crimes. Orwell mighta been right after all. spike From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 00:58:43 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 17:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060406005844.78891.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Naturally there is a grain of truth to what you are writing. However you call yourself libertarian? I can't understand with your moral outlook why you would want to be libertarian or extropian. Don't you know what sort of dislocation radicalism entails? Do you think we can have enormous change on our own terms? Frankly, I'm like you but at least I know it, know that the future wont be the designer future of my ittle wittle bittle dreams. It's like the rednecks I listen to all day here who make it clear without saying so they want change-- but they want the anguish of wrenching change to be felt by others and not themselves. Pertinent to what we are discussing here, they do in fact want maximum pleasure & liberty-- but only on their terms. What do they want? tantamount to a VR world for each and every family? Samantha Atkins wrote: You are creating humanlike beings who are not really human and doing so explicitly for a purpose that most humans would find offensive and you are doing so with children which humans are hardwired to protect. You have perverted the human genome to produce mere child sex dolls. Do you have some problem seeing why that would be wrong? Really? - samantha --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 02:16:25 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 03:16:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060406005844.78891.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060406005844.78891.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604051916g11b934f0l868fb09ffcf10b1a@mail.gmail.com> On 4/6/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > Naturally there is a grain of truth to what you are writing. > Indeed more like a megalith of truth! However you call yourself libertarian? I can't understand with your moral > outlook why you would want to be libertarian or extropian. > I don't understand what you see as the problem here? Abusing sentient beings without their consent is a sin in libertarianism - in fact, in that moral philosophy it's pretty much _the_ sin. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Apr 6 02:00:31 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 22:00:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tartar and plaque remover In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604051658vd8910b4v5ceaa600d41699b7@mail.gmail.com > References: <710b78fc0604051643g5f8f0158udf1f4dd772383994@mail.gmail.com> <4434147E.80606@lineone.net> <8d71341e0604051231t5a143ddbs599a281109f7cfb0@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0604051643g5f8f0158udf1f4dd772383994@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060405215844.02ce0c38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Last year I found something that seems to remove plaque and keep it from building up. There is a good chemical rational for why it works as well. Because of legal reasons I don't want to make it public, but if you want to know more about it privately, send me email. If you do, I will assume you will treat the information as under a standard NDA. I might be able to provide a few research samples if you want to try it on your dog. Keith Henson From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 03:42:18 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 20:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604051916g11b934f0l868fb09ffcf10b1a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060406034219.43440.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> I mean to say there is a grain of truth in Samantha's position because truth is subjective, everyone wants their version of a comprehensive morality to prevail. it's merely likes & dislikes masquerading as morality-- perhaps it's called situational ethics? Whatever the case may be I don't accept your or Samantha's morality any more than you accept mine. Abusing sentient beings is a sin?? Then before we do anything else in politics, let us have the public school system dismantled, or failing that, let's put bars on school windows and have the students wear striped uniforms. > I don't understand what you see as the problem here? > Abusing sentient beings > without their consent is a sin in libertarianism - > in fact, in that moral > philosophy it's pretty much _the_ sin. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 03:55:51 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 04:55:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060406034219.43440.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0604051916g11b934f0l868fb09ffcf10b1a@mail.gmail.com> <20060406034219.43440.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604052055k612442bbs3c3463b7792ff404@mail.gmail.com> On 4/6/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > I mean to say there is a grain of truth in Samantha's > position because truth is subjective, everyone wants > their version of a comprehensive morality to prevail. Even if not all of us are willing to start nuclear war over it :P it's merely likes & dislikes masquerading as > morality-- perhaps it's called situational ethics? > Whatever the case may be I don't accept your or > Samantha's morality any more than you accept mine. > Abusing sentient beings is a sin?? > Then before we do anything else in politics, let us > have the public school system dismantled, or failing > that, let's put bars on school windows and have the > students wear striped uniforms. > Or at least let's undertake drastic reforms in the education system. What, did you think I'd say it's fine the way it is and thereby be inconsistent with my libertarian philosophy? :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 04:10:35 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 21:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604052055k612442bbs3c3463b7792ff404@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060406041035.68497.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> Samantha complained about "free association"; would it be a sin in digressing to say it is clear by now public schools have to be dismantled and replaced by private/charter/homeschool associations? Teachers' unions are necessary to protect the interests of teachers, yet the unions shield mediocre & poor teachers. So public school mediocrity is self-perpetuating. But if you'd like to think public schools can perhaps be reformed then state how you want the reforms to be. It's a worthy topic for many groups, especially for those concerned with protecting sentient beings :) > Or at least let's undertake drastic reforms in the > education system. What, > did you think I'd say it's fine the way it is and > thereby be inconsistent > with my libertarian philosophy? :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 05:24:02 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 06:24:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060406041035.68497.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0604052055k612442bbs3c3463b7792ff404@mail.gmail.com> <20060406041035.68497.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604052224v4de84382q2625cc5f0d7fab38@mail.gmail.com> On 4/6/06, Al Brooks wrote: > > Samantha complained about "free association"; would it > be a sin in digressing to say it is clear by now > public schools have to be dismantled and replaced by > private/charter/homeschool associations? Teachers' > unions are necessary to protect the interests of > teachers, yet the unions shield mediocre & poor > teachers. So public school mediocrity is > self-perpetuating. > But if you'd like to think public schools can perhaps > be reformed then state how you want the reforms to be. > It's a worthy topic for many groups, especially for > those concerned with protecting sentient beings :) I certainly wouldn't be against dismantling public schools and replacing them as you say. I'm not sure it's not possible for public schools to be also reformed. (Note to socialists: I actually agree with you that, where necessary, tax money should _pay_ for childrens' education. I'm just dubious about the government _controlling_ the contents and timescale of said education.) So what I'll do is, given that I don't have the power to do either thing, agree with you that one or the other should be done and let someone else argue about which :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Thu Apr 6 17:22:31 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:22:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Building Gods Rough Cut Message-ID: <44354E57.5010505@posthuman.com> rough cut to the feature film about AI, robots, the singularity, and the 21st century -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 17:11:27 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 10:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... In-Reply-To: <200604060153.k361rwET003501@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060406171127.53182.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Since this kind of thing was not really possible > before the internet, it is > a new crime. Since he wasn't actually seducing a > teenage girl but only > thought he was doing so, it is technically a thought > crime. We can imagine > most *new* ways to offend will be thought crimes. > Orwell mighta been right > after all. Orwell's predictions started coming true back when they arrested Jose Pedillo for THINKING about building a "dirty bomb". He didn't actually build bomb, he didn't even have anything radioactive to build it with. So yeah, I am waiting for the junior anti-sex league to start spying on me. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 6 18:57:58 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:57:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060406034219.43440.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060406034219.43440.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <70994BFB-97FC-4C85-B002-C2907CE1E5C9@mac.com> On Apr 5, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Al Brooks wrote: > Abusing sentient beings is a sin?? > Then before we do anything else in politics, let us > have the public school system dismantled, or failing > that, let's put bars on school windows and have the > students wear striped uniforms. Finally something we agree on! - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 6 18:59:55 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:59:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060406041035.68497.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060406041035.68497.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <703A22EC-E5D1-46C2-8F8C-8D29A5BFD771@mac.com> The short statement is that there should be complete separation between Education and State. - samantha On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Al Brooks wrote: > Samantha complained about "free association"; would it > be a sin in digressing to say it is clear by now > public schools have to be dismantled and replaced by > private/charter/homeschool associations? Teachers' > unions are necessary to protect the interests of > teachers, yet the unions shield mediocre & poor > teachers. So public school mediocrity is > self-perpetuating. > But if you'd like to think public schools can perhaps > be reformed then state how you want the reforms to be. > It's a worthy topic for many groups, especially for > those concerned with protecting sentient beings :) > > >> Or at least let's undertake drastic reforms in the >> education system. What, >> did you think I'd say it's fine the way it is and >> thereby be inconsistent >> with my libertarian philosophy? :) > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 18:09:11 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604052224v4de84382q2625cc5f0d7fab38@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060406180911.8445.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> True, you don't have the power, but you almost certainly have nieces, nephews, young cousins. All you can do is advise the parents not to send their children to public schools. Don't be shy about it. You wouldn't advise parents to send children to mediocre physicians, would you? You'd say "find better doctors". Russell Wallace wrote: So what I'll do is, given that I don't have the power to do either thing, agree with you that one or the other should be done and let someone else argue about which :) --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 18:38:06 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... In-Reply-To: <20060406171127.53182.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060406183806.4124.qmail@web51605.mail.yahoo.com> The irony is when cops confiscate child porn they dispose of almost all of it, but a portion of the good stuff might just somehow end up at some of the cops' residences under lock and key. You know, like one tiny little photo tucked away in a safe. Police aren't in a general sense trustworthy. If you've ever read the book Serpico you know that corruption is not uncommon. 20% of police in a study broke certain laws even though they knew they were being watched because the crimes were minor and they thought their positions gave them a tacit sort of immunity: 'don't get too greedy and you'll come out okay' was (is) the attitude. > Since this kind of thing was not really possible > before the internet, it is > a new crime. Since he wasn't actually seducing a > teenage girl but only > thought he was doing so, it is technically a thought > crime. We can imagine > most *new* ways to offend will be thought crimes. > Orwell mighta been right > after all. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 19:32:28 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <703A22EC-E5D1-46C2-8F8C-8D29A5BFD771@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060406193228.53770.qmail@web51601.mail.yahoo.com> Precisely. Public education is institutionalized child abuse. Even in high school and in higher ed you have academic-abusers such as Jay Bennish & Ward Churchill. And what state do those two teach in? That's right, the most screwed up wedge issue dominated state in the nation. And will they lose their positions? Hell no, and if they were hypothetically to be fired they would make more on the circuit and from book royalties than from teaching. Samantha Atkins wrote: The short statement is that there should be complete separation between Education and State. --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 20:46:14 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:46:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060406180911.8445.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0604052224v4de84382q2625cc5f0d7fab38@mail.gmail.com> <20060406180911.8445.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'd like to ask a question whether anyone on the list adheres to the Buddhist definition of "sentience" -- essentially any organism which breathes. If one accepts that definition then I would suspect that many, if not most, list members are guilty of "abusing" sentient beings (it presumably requires that one not consume meat). If one subscribes to somewhat stricter definitions, e.g. consuming oxygen, having "nerves", or in the simplest case cellular receptors which extract information from the environment, then one would be eliminating fish, insects, nematodes and presumably any "cellular" material as food sources. In fact it would seem that only photosynthetic plants and most single celled organisms would fall into the category of not being "abusers" of sentient life. With respect to the discussion involving "public" education, Dennett's perspective was interesting. He thought a public education about "religions" in the broadest sense -- i.e. one has to learn about *all* religions (sufficiently well to pass 'standardized' test about them) was the solution to current paradigm of religious brain washing. I know that for myself it was an education in science that forced a direct confrontation between evidence-based reasoning (science) and Catholic indoctrination around the time I was 13-14 years old. An education in a variety of religions at an earlier age would quite likely have facilitated the realization that one set of beliefs that I had been taught had some major problems. I would suspect that I would have stopped believing in a "savior" around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. It seems that the removal of ones children from public education is perhaps playing a major role in the revival of Christan fundamentalism (in the U.S.). It is the ability to brainwash children and limit their exposure to other "realities" which allows the manufacture of irrational mind-clones. It is easy to say that one (as a list member) would educate ones children "properly" (in rational thinking, etc.) -- but what is to guarantee that everyone else will do that? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Thu Apr 6 20:37:17 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:37:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44357BFD.8040807@lineone.net> A B doubtfully said: > I'm just going to try to clarify for my own understanding. If one accepts that only the 'pattern' of information is necessary and sufficient for establishing identity, then if I made a perfect copy of myself, would I not expect a stream of experiences from both (or all) 'versions' simultaneously? If I made many copies, would I effectively become a hive-mind? But if your answer is yes, then how can this be so? Given that the human mind (as it is now) is incapable of *directly* accessing other minds. Would the bandwidth (direct mind access ability) of my own mind mysteriously double if make a single perfect copy of myself? It doesn't seem like it should - because that would seem to imply an instantaneous and significant alteration to the physical arrangement of my brain (which seems unlikely), but perhaps I'm wrong. Eek, no! Perhaps i confused the issue by mentioning hive-minds. That would of course require additional capabiilies to allow the different minds to communicate with each other at an intimate level. I'm glad that you doubted that interpretation of what i said. You're perfectly right. I'm really embarrassed now, for saying something that could be easily misinterpreted as a semi-mystical statement. Or not so semi, for that matter. Sorry! ben From benboc at lineone.net Thu Apr 6 20:36:18 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:36:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44357BC2.4070000@lineone.net> "Robert Bradbury" wrote: > MIAMI, April 4 (AP) ? The deputy press secretary for the Department > of Homeland Security was arrested on Tuesday and accused of using the > Internet to seduce someone he thought was a teenage girl, the > authorities said. This has got me confused. It seems to be saying that if someone does something which is NOT illegal, in the belief that it IS illegal, they can be prosecuted?? This guy tried to seduce someone (over the age of consent) over the internet. Which isn't illegal, last i heard. He THOUGHT the 'someone' was underage, so despite the fact that they weren't, he was doing wrong? So does that mean that if someone shot a tree in the mistaken belief that it was a person, they could be prosecuted for murder? Or would it be attempted murder? So what was this guy arrested for, 'attempted paedophilia'? When did your beliefs become a target for the law, rather than your actions? If anything, i'd have thought it was the 'someone' pretending to be underage that was doing something wrong. I'm not trying to condone paedophilia or anything, i'm just wondering how anyone can commit a crime by failing to commit that very crime? Are we in a society where you can be prosecuted for what you think? (yeah, i know about Austria's law against 'holocaust-denial', but i think they can be excused that specific insanity, at least for a while). (btw, the report just said 'teenage girl', not underage girl, which also struck me as strange. Is the age of consent in the US absurdly high, or something, so that all teenagers are under it? - surely not!) ben From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 22:06:24 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:06:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <44357BFD.8040807@lineone.net> References: <44357BFD.8040807@lineone.net> Message-ID: Commenting on the separate-but-one mind integration of copies problem... One way to think about this is the two halves of ones brain. I'm reasonably sure there are a number of documented cases where people have survived following the removal of one half of the brain. Under normal operation your right & left halves have to communicate through a gatekeeper in the middle. Due to the way various senses are delivered (e.g. left ear and right ear) there obviously has to be some integration between the signals taking place -- but there is a time delay involved in this integration. In the multiple copy scenario it is going to depend upon how separated the mind's subcomponents are and how much communication bandwidth there is between them. Obviously one could develop interesting shorthand methods to allow the part of your mind on a moon of Jupiter to effectively keep itself in-sync with the part of your mind on Venus, etc. If you have distinct instantiations of ones mind gathering widely different experience sets one would expect them to slowly become distinct individuals (kind of like identical twins). But if you allow frequent resyncing then the entity is effectively a distributed mega-mind. This is very nearly a requirement for indefinite longevity as it is the only way to trump the local impacts of the hazard function that would destroy subsets of your mind. (I pointed this out at Extro-3 back in '97 -- that if one wanted to live a very long time one had to become a "distributed replicated intelligence".) Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Thu Apr 6 22:17:55 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... Message-ID: <20060406221755.8DAAB57FD1@finney.org> I found at a couple of the Florida statues under which the DHS spokesman is being charged; first, 847.0135: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0135.HTM&Title=-%3E2005-%3ECh0847-%3ESection%200135#0847.0135 > (3) CERTAIN USES OF COMPUTER SERVICES PROHIBITED.--Any person who > knowingly utilizes a computer on-line service, Internet service, or local > bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to > seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, a child or another person believed by > the person to be a child, to commit any illegal act described in chapter > 794, relating to sexual battery; chapter 800, relating to lewdness and > indecent exposure; or chapter 827, relating to child abuse, commits > a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, > s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For the purposes of this statute, a child is anyone under age 18. Note that it applies whether the communication is actually with a child or merely with a person believed to be a child. Probably the reason for the latter is to facilitate "sting" operations like this one. Without that, the only way to prosecute would be to expose an actual child to the materials, which would be counter to the goals of the statute. He is also said to be charged with 847.0138: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0138.HTM&Title=-%3E2005-%3ECh0847-%3ESection%200138#0847.0138 > (2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this > state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, > information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001, > to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this > state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in > s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The language in this one is a little more ambiguous about whether the person must know that the recipient is a minor. It starts off with "knew or believed" but then it says "known by the defendant to be a minor". The "knew or believed" part could be argued to apply to whether the material is in fact harmful to minors, and not to the question of whether the recipient actually is a minor. Hal P.S. I deduced what he is charged with from this article: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060406/NEWS/604060392/1004 "A hearing was scheduled for May 4 to determine whether he should be extradited to face 23 charges, including multiple counts of using a computer to seduce a child and transmission of material harmful to a minor." From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Apr 6 21:45:11 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... In-Reply-To: <44357BC2.4070000@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060406214511.72119.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ben wrote: > So does that mean that if someone shot a tree in the mistaken belief > that it was a person, they could be prosecuted for murder? Or would > it > be attempted murder? Attempted murder. And this scenario can be made less unlikely if you consider the stereotype ninja trick of dressing some appropriately-sized object - say, a log or a tree - with one's clothing in order to make a passable (in bad light) resemblance to oneself. If the wannabe ninja did this in order to flee someone attempting to kill via firearm, and that someone was indeed thus tricked into shooting the tree instead of the real target, and a police officer witnessed all of this - then, yes, the police officer would be legally justified in arresting the shooter for attempted murder, even though all the shooter actually did was shoot a tree (and maybe some clothing). > So what was this guy arrested for, 'attempted > paedophilia'? Yes. At least, that's what the crime should be titled; titles to distinguish between attempt and success seem to get a bit sloppy outside of physical things like murder, rape, and robbery. > When did your beliefs become a target for the law, rather than your > actions? When you believe you are doing a certain action, where that action (regardless of your belief about the law) would be against the law if it were actually performed. Note that this is separate from beliefs about things other than your own actions, such as belief in the existence/nonexistence of supernatural entities, beliefs about your life thus far (memories), and so forth. (Now, if those beliefs drive you towards committing actions that would be criminal if your beliefs were true - well, again, that's separate: the non-criminal beliefs produce criminal intent, but the initial beliefs remain free and legal under the law.) > (btw, the report just said 'teenage girl', not underage girl, which > also > struck me as strange. Is the age of consent in the US absurdly high, > or > something, so that all teenagers are under it? - surely not!) In many states, the age of consent is 18. Not saying whether that is absurdly high or not, but the majority of teenagers (13-19 year olds) are under 18 (and, while technically correct, it is not as common to refer to 18 and 19 year olds as teenagers precisely because 18 is one widely recognized age of majority). From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Apr 6 22:15:33 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:15:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Think About the Future Now? In-Reply-To: <1EDB0E0A-F785-4993-8196-13D27035D611@antipope.org> References: <200509141734.j8EHYZf08446@tick.javien.com> <1EDB0E0A-F785-4993-8196-13D27035D611@antipope.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060406181121.023f1ee8@gmu.edu> Why think about the future now? Why not wait until it gets here to think about it? The best answer would seem to be that there are some problems we could better avoid if we start dealing with them now, or some opportunities that can be better exploited if we start working on them now. So what are these leverage problems and opportunities? It seems to me that outcome-oriented discussions of the future should more consciously be trying to find these leverage points, and once found should be focused on them. Of course those who just discuss the future because it is fun can ignore this issue. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 23:16:40 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 00:16:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <44357BFD.8040807@lineone.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604061616s104d0dcbj62fb8f0f38e962bc@mail.gmail.com> On 4/6/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > If you have distinct instantiations of ones mind gathering widely > different experience sets one would expect them to slowly become distinct > individuals (kind of like identical twins). But if you allow frequent > resyncing then the entity is effectively a distributed mega-mind. This is > very nearly a requirement for indefinite longevity as it is the only way to > trump the local impacts of the hazard function that would destroy subsets of > your mind. (I pointed this out at Extro-3 back in '97 -- that if one wanted > to live a very long time one had to become a "distributed replicated > intelligence".) > You could do it that way, but there's no need; all you have to do is take inert backup copies and store them a safe distance away, to be activated if something happens to the single running copy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 22:17:49 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <44357BFD.8040807@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060406221749.58465.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Ben, No problem. It wasn't so much a criticism, as it was a legitimate (arguably) question of mine ;-) . I have another question though (presented as an experiment). Lets say that in the future it becomes possible to reversibly preserve a human (say through improved vitrification). So I decide to be vitrified, a 'perfect' scan is made of my brain, but is stored as information only (as a giant stack of printed pages), not implemented. I'm revived from the vitrification and go about my daily life (which should be pretty awesome). But, alas, I get killed in an accident one hour after revival. Is it your belief (or anyone elses' here) that if my mind-information later gets implemented (let's say in the form of a physical replica, made of real atoms - not simulated), that I will "reawaken", and it will still be "me". Just to save time I will provide my own answer here for the purpose of discussion. For now, I will say the answer is: yes, it will be "me". But, if I choose to believe this, I don't see how that refutes the "hive-mind" idea. It would seem to support it even. The only way it would seem to refute the hive-mind idea, would be with the assertion that: for some reason, I can only experience *one* identity at a time and not many; why would this necessarily be the case (even in the absence of mind enhancements)? But, you might easily be able convince me that the correct answer is: no, it will not be "me". Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich ben wrote: A B doubtfully said: > I'm just going to try to clarify for my own understanding. If one accepts that only the 'pattern' of information is necessary and sufficient for establishing identity, then if I made a perfect copy of myself, would I not expect a stream of experiences from both (or all) 'versions' simultaneously? If I made many copies, would I effectively become a hive-mind? But if your answer is yes, then how can this be so? Given that the human mind (as it is now) is incapable of *directly* accessing other minds. Would the bandwidth (direct mind access ability) of my own mind mysteriously double if make a single perfect copy of myself? It doesn't seem like it should - because that would seem to imply an instantaneous and significant alteration to the physical arrangement of my brain (which seems unlikely), but perhaps I'm wrong. Eek, no! Perhaps i confused the issue by mentioning hive-minds. That would of course require additional capabiilies to allow the different minds to communicate with each other at an intimate level. I'm glad that you doubted that interpretation of what i said. You're perfectly right. I'm really embarrassed now, for saying something that could be easily misinterpreted as a semi-mystical statement. Or not so semi, for that matter. Sorry! ben _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 22:41:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060406224137.44283.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Robert, I would draw the line at consciousness, assuming that its definition can eventually be pinned down. An entity without a consciousness (including but not limited to a lack of pain sensation - physical and emotional), I think could be treated in any way without ethical violation. I would extend this even to say that intelligence level is irrelevant in this case, even if it is a super-intelligence; if it is not conscious, it cannot be abused because it was never "alive" in the first place. [OTOH, a conscious super-intelligence is "alive" in my books, and deserves protection - which it should be able to self supply ;-) ] I suppose that killing and eating conscious animals could be considered immoral. And I am certainly guilty of this (eating at least - I do *try* not to kill or injure animals myself), and I've recognized that. I'm actually in the early stages of a fully vegetarian diet, for both health related and philosophical reasons. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Robert Bradbury wrote: I'd like to ask a question whether anyone on the list adheres to the Buddhist definition of "sentience" -- essentially any organism which breathes. If one accepts that definition then I would suspect that many, if not most, list members are guilty of "abusing" sentient beings (it presumably requires that one not consume meat). If one subscribes to somewhat stricter definitions, e.g. consuming oxygen, having "nerves", or in the simplest case cellular receptors which extract information from the environment, then one would be eliminating fish, insects, nematodes and presumably any "cellular" material as food sources. In fact it would seem that only photosynthetic plants and most single celled organisms would fall into the category of not being "abusers" of sentient life. With respect to the discussion involving "public" education, Dennett's perspective was interesting. He thought a public education about "religions" in the broadest sense -- i.e. one has to learn about *all* religions (sufficiently well to pass 'standardized' test about them) was the solution to current paradigm of religious brain washing. I know that for myself it was an education in science that forced a direct confrontation between evidence-based reasoning (science) and Catholic indoctrination around the time I was 13-14 years old. An education in a variety of religions at an earlier age would quite likely have facilitated the realization that one set of beliefs that I had been taught had some major problems. I would suspect that I would have stopped believing in a "savior" around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. It seems that the removal of ones children from public education is perhaps playing a major role in the revival of Christan fundamentalism (in the U.S.). It is the ability to brainwash children and limit their exposure to other "realities" which allows the manufacture of irrational mind-clones. It is easy to say that one (as a list member) would educate ones children "properly" (in rational thinking, etc.) -- but what is to guarantee that everyone else will do that? Robert _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 22:47:01 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... In-Reply-To: <44357BC2.4070000@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060406224701.91839.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> Perhaps the age of consent could be lowered to 15? HOWEVER, last night after reading posts here on the topic at hand, I looked in the mirror. It's not something that is done much anymore, as being long in the tooth isn't anything to dance a ballet over.. Anyhow it occurred to me looking at him staring back that if I were a teenage girl's father I wouldn't let the varmint in the mirror anywhere near my daughter. No wonder parents are often nervous, it's not merely the threat of predators, it's creepy-looking guys paying attention to their offspring. ben wrote: (btw, the report just said 'teenage girl', not underage girl, which also struck me as strange. Is the age of consent in the US absurdly high, or something, so that all teenagers are under it? - surely not!) ben --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Thu Apr 6 23:49:57 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 16:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... Message-ID: <20060406234957.7BCC657FD1@finney.org> Jeffrey Herlich (A B) writes): > I have another question though (presented as an experiment). Lets say > that in the future it becomes possible to reversibly preserve a human > (say through improved vitrification). So I decide to be vitrified, a > 'perfect' scan is made of my brain, but is stored as information only > (as a giant stack of printed pages), not implemented. I'm revived > from the vitrification and go about my daily life (which should be > pretty awesome). But, alas, I get killed in an accident one hour > after revival. Is it your belief (or anyone elses' here) that if my > mind-information later gets implemented (let's say in the form of a > physical replica, made of real atoms - not simulated), that I will > "reawaken", and it will still be "me". I think it's instructive that you put "me" in quotes. This suggests that you think it might be just a matter of semantics and definitions. The question of whether it will still be "me" depends on how we define the word "me". If we define it in a restrictive sense, then no, it will not be me. If we define it in an expansive sense, then yes, it will be me. But is the end of the issue? Is it just a matter of semantics, of words and definitions? Or is this a real, substantive question about the nature of the world? In other words, is it a *factual* question whether this kind of revival is still me? Could we imagine a world, or a kind of consciousness, where it is true, and alternatively, a world where it is not true? Is it something that perhaps would be amenable to experimentation? These are rhetorical questions because I am trying to emphasize that there are two very different, incompatible directions that can be pursued in analyzing this issue. One treats the question as a factual one and attempts to discover the truth about whether doing this or that makes it still be "me". The other treats the question as a semantic one and suggests that there is no true fact of the matter, and that you can define "me" any way you want and get the corresponding answer. If it is just a semantic question, then there's not much point in arguing about it. People can pretty much use words the way they want. If you do want to argue about it (as many people do) then you might want to think about whether you could first get past the hurdle of showing that the question is indeed substantive and not just semantic. Are there any experiments that could be done (even thought experiments) that would help to reveal the true facts of the matter? Can you even define the question in an operational or scientific way, relating it to measurable (or at least observable) properties of the world? I'd suggest that this is a good first step - make sure the question is real before spending inordinate amounts of time trying to answer it. Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 6 23:16:50 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 16:16:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... In-Reply-To: <20060406214511.72119.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060406214511.72119.qmail@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <951915D9-A4C6-408E-9AD6-3BA5453924F7@mac.com> The difference is one of alleged will to virtual sex versus actual sex with a minor. I don't see why virtual sex or much of anything else virtual should carry the same penalties as actual acts. As our virtual worlds become more sophisticated the issue gets more complex. Also playing in the background are notions of what a "child" is and is not. Many of us know from our own childhood that many "children" are quite sexually sophisticated by their mid-teens or in some cases even earlier. Yet we have laws that say that sex between someone over a relatively arbitrary and culturally determined age and some one under that arbitrary age is heinously wrong. That may or may not be a reasonable thing. But to take it into the virtual world and to claim that flirtation and sexual play virtually between such two people on different sides of this arbitrary age barrier is equally heinous is more than a little strained. Further, I believe a younger person might more safely explore some things virtually than fumble their way into something similar in meat space. This might be a relatively good thing in some cases. - samantha On Apr 6, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- ben wrote: >> So does that mean that if someone shot a tree in the mistaken belief >> that it was a person, they could be prosecuted for murder? Or would >> it >> be attempted murder? > > Attempted murder. And this scenario can be made less unlikely if you > consider the stereotype ninja trick of dressing some > appropriately-sized object - say, a log or a tree - with one's > clothing > in order to make a passable (in bad light) resemblance to oneself. If > the wannabe ninja did this in order to flee someone attempting to kill > via firearm, and that someone was indeed thus tricked into shooting > the > tree instead of the real target, and a police officer witnessed all of > this - then, yes, the police officer would be legally justified in > arresting the shooter for attempted murder, even though all the > shooter > actually did was shoot a tree (and maybe some clothing). > >> So what was this guy arrested for, 'attempted >> paedophilia'? > > Yes. At least, that's what the crime should be titled; titles to > distinguish between attempt and success seem to get a bit sloppy > outside of physical things like murder, rape, and robbery. > >> When did your beliefs become a target for the law, rather than your >> actions? > > When you believe you are doing a certain action, where that action > (regardless of your belief about the law) would be against the law if > it were actually performed. > > Note that this is separate from beliefs about things other than your > own actions, such as belief in the existence/nonexistence of > supernatural entities, beliefs about your life thus far (memories), > and > so forth. (Now, if those beliefs drive you towards committing actions > that would be criminal if your beliefs were true - well, again, that's > separate: the non-criminal beliefs produce criminal intent, but the > initial beliefs remain free and legal under the law.) > >> (btw, the report just said 'teenage girl', not underage girl, which >> also >> struck me as strange. Is the age of consent in the US absurdly high, >> or >> something, so that all teenagers are under it? - surely not!) > > In many states, the age of consent is 18. Not saying whether that is > absurdly high or not, but the majority of teenagers (13-19 year olds) > are under 18 (and, while technically correct, it is not as common to > refer to 18 and 19 year olds as teenagers precisely because 18 is one > widely recognized age of majority). > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Apr 7 00:33:34 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:33:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060406221749.58465.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060406221749.58465.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <229FD5B9-FE39-4F45-9C1B-BB54321FD30E@mac.com> On Apr 6, 2006, at 3:17 PM, A B wrote: > Hi Ben, > > No problem. It wasn't so much a criticism, as it was a legitimate > (arguably) question of mine ;-) . I have another question though > (presented as an experiment). Lets say that in the future it > becomes possible to reversibly preserve a human (say through > improved vitrification). So I decide to be vitrified, a 'perfect' > scan is made of my brain, but is stored as information only (as a > giant stack of printed pages), not implemented. I'm revived from > the vitrification and go about my daily life (which should be > pretty awesome). But, alas, I get killed in an accident one hour > after revival. Is it your belief (or anyone elses' here) that if my > mind-information later gets implemented (let's say in the form of a > physical replica, made of real atoms - not simulated), that I will > "reawaken", and it will still be "me". That is precisely by construction how it will feel to this replica and to everyone who knew the person. It may of course be to disturbing to those who know the original died. It may even be disturbing to the replica/recreation. But I don't see how you can get from here to a "hive mind" as a dozen odd copies of yourself have greatly similar minds but do not share the same actual conscious awareness or have any extra linkages between your separate but extremely similarly configured brains. - samantha From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Apr 7 00:41:34 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 20:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... Message-ID: <20060407004134.20968.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> robert.bradbury at gmail.com wrote: Anna, the technology, primarily robust nanotechnology, which enables: (a) cryonic suspension reanimation [1], and (b) mind uploading (and therefore self-copies) [2] is also the same technology which enables (c) having to struggle or work for "survival", and (d) living on this planet (and concerns regarding overpopulation) >I'm not sure I understand the significance between a,b and c,d. >Could you please rephrase this? >Honestly, I don't understand. The problem is not so much whether people want to make a few or many immature (baby) or mature (adult) copies of themselves. The problems relate more to whether a sociopath or megalomaniac individual or "cults"(s) or amoral AI(s) decide to make many copies of themselves and gain sufficient control over the resources to use them to eliminate those who choose not to make copies, accumulate resources (power), etc. >Exactly. Can anybody guarantee that some sociopath >wouldn't to that? >I think there is a big difference between cryonics >which is on a one to one basis compared to a scenario >which may involve more than one person. Again, maybe I'm way off, this is of course just my opinion. Thanks again for the feedback. Anna --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 7 01:28:09 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 20:28:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <20060406224137.44283.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <042701c659e2$88395ee0$660fa8c0@kevin> I wouldn;t be so sure about that. The main reason there was a lot of shift to private education had to do with silly things they were starting to do in school - especially the propensity for teachers to automatically assign an unfocused child the label of ADHD and send them to a doctor to get them on ritalin. There was also the "whole word" method of reading being taught (which my daughter was subject to and is just now pulling out of). My daughters still attend a public school and recently my daughter joined the school choir. Shortly after joining she came home to tell me that she felt uncomfortable because they were making them sing all these religious songs. I spoke with the music teacher and the principal and found that of 12 songs, 10 were clearly christian and two were "prouod to be American" type songs. I was told that if she didn;t like it, she didn't have to be in the choir because choir was an optional activity. I think something else is at work here besides private education. Something far bigger, yet more subtle. My thought is that over the last 20 years, christians who were feeling isolated and alarmed by the pace of scientific discovery decided to move into the public education system so that they could directly affect the education of children in that direction. Sometimes I feel I missed my calling and I should be there on the front lines as well because that is where the battle is. Changing the curriculum will have less of an effect than increasing the number of secular leaning teachers. With respect to the discussion involving "public" education, Dennett's perspective was interesting. He thought a public education about "religions" in the broadest sense -- i.e. one has to learn about *all* religions (sufficiently well to pass 'standardized' test about them) was the solution to current paradigm of religious brain washing. I know that for myself it was an education in science that forced a direct confrontation between evidence-based reasoning (science) and Catholic indoctrination around the time I was 13-14 years old. An education in a variety of religions at an earlier age would quite likely have facilitated the realization that one set of beliefs that I had been taught had some major problems. I would suspect that I would have stopped believing in a "savior" around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. It seems that the removal of ones children from public education is perhaps playing a major role in the revival of Christan fundamentalism (in the U.S.). It is the ability to brainwash children and limit their exposure to other "realities" which allows the manufacture of irrational mind-clones. It is easy to say that one (as a list member) would educate ones children "properly" (in rational thinking, etc.) -- but what is to guarantee that everyone else will do that? Robert _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 7 01:49:29 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 20:49:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... References: <44357BC2.4070000@lineone.net> Message-ID: <044201c659e5$82e9c8a0$660fa8c0@kevin> Yes. This is how obsessed the US has become with controlling thought and playing on fears. Although it's not exactly the same, it reminds me of laws that prevent people from owning the materials necessary to manufacture meth. Try it out at Walmart. Go buy the max product with pseudoephedrine they will allow you to buy (which is less than even the state laws allow), and put it in your cart with starter fluid, and a couple other items used to make meth. Then drive home and see if you don;t get pulled over and searched. Every couple months I hear about such a story but of course the only ones reported in the news are the one's where they actually bust someone. From what I can tell, the only charge is "transmitting pornographic material to a minor". I'm not sure how bad a charge that is. I would think it's similar to "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" when you give a kid alcohol. But what will happen next is his computer will be searched and his drive scanned by experts in restoring lost data. If they find illegal materials, they will arrest him for posessing them. If not, the story will quietly go away. > "Robert Bradbury" wrote: > > > MIAMI, April 4 (AP) ? The deputy press secretary for the Department > > of Homeland Security was arrested on Tuesday and accused of using the > > Internet to seduce someone he thought was a teenage girl, the > > authorities said. > > This has got me confused. > > It seems to be saying that if someone does something which is NOT > illegal, in the belief that it IS illegal, they can be prosecuted?? > > This guy tried to seduce someone (over the age of consent) over the > internet. Which isn't illegal, last i heard. He THOUGHT the 'someone' > was underage, so despite the fact that they weren't, he was doing wrong? > So does that mean that if someone shot a tree in the mistaken belief > that it was a person, they could be prosecuted for murder? Or would it > be attempted murder? So what was this guy arrested for, 'attempted > paedophilia'? > > When did your beliefs become a target for the law, rather than your actions? > > If anything, i'd have thought it was the 'someone' pretending to be > underage that was doing something wrong. > > I'm not trying to condone paedophilia or anything, i'm just wondering > how anyone can commit a crime by failing to commit that very crime? > > Are we in a society where you can be prosecuted for what you think? > (yeah, i know about Austria's law against 'holocaust-denial', but i > think they can be excused that specific insanity, at least for a while). > > (btw, the report just said 'teenage girl', not underage girl, which also > struck me as strange. Is the age of consent in the US absurdly high, or > something, so that all teenagers are under it? - surely not!) > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Apr 7 13:34:52 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 06:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] i suport publik skools In-Reply-To: <042701c659e2$88395ee0$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20060407133453.27323.qmail@web51609.mail.yahoo.com> It's not merely actual education, it's also sending children to schools that are safe-- and private schools are safer. Then again, homeschooling is safer still. To prevent orthodox religion from dominating education, all we have to do is promote maximum diversity: everything from anabaptist to zoroastrian schools. Everything in between including rastafarian and sufi. Tell us, what do we have to lose? Teachers' unions shielding mediocre teachers is nothing unnatural-- it is perfectly natural to band together in protecting the incompetent ones. It is all so predictable you can set your clock by it. But perhaps the predictability of educational mediocrity is comfortingly routine? "kevinfreels.com" wrote: I wouldn't be so sure about that. The main reason there was a lot of shift to private education had to do with silly things they were starting to do in school - especially the propensity for teachers to automatically assign an unfocused child the label of ADHD and send them to a doctor to get them on ritalin. There was also the "whole word" method of reading being taught (which my daughter was subject to and is just now pulling out of). My daughters still attend a public school and recently my daughter joined the school choir. Shortly after joining she came home to tell me that she felt uncomfortable because they were making them sing all these religious songs. I spoke with the music teacher and the principal and found that of 12 songs, 10 were clearly christian and two were "prouod to be American" type songs. I was told that if she didn;t like it, she didn't have to be in the choir because choir was an optional activity. I think something else is at work here besides private education. Something far bigger, yet more subtle. My thought is that over the last 20 years, christians who were feeling isolated and alarmed by the pace of scientific discovery decided to move into the public education system so that they could directly affect the education of children in that direction. Sometimes I feel I missed my calling and I should be there on the front lines as well because that is where the battle is. Changing the curriculum will have less of an effect than increasing the number of secular leaning teachers. With respect to the discussion involving "public" education, Dennett's perspective was interesting. He thought a public education about "religions" in the broadest sense -- i.e. one has to learn about *all* religions (sufficiently well to pass 'standardized' test about them) was the solution to current paradigm of religious brain washing. I know that for myself it was an education in science that forced a direct confrontation between evidence-based reasoning (science) and Catholic indoctrination around the time I was 13-14 years old. An education in a variety of religions at an earlier age would quite likely have facilitated the realization that one set of beliefs that I had been taught had some major problems. I would suspect that I would have stopped believing in a "savior" around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. It seems that the removal of ones children from public education is perhaps playing a major role in the revival of Christan fundamentalism (in the U.S.). It is the ability to brainwash children and limit their exposure to other "realities" which allows the manufacture of irrational mind-clones. It is easy to say that one (as a list member) would educate ones children "properly" (in rational thinking, etc.) -- but what is to guarantee that everyone else will do that? Robert _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. --------------------------------- _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 7 14:01:19 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:01:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] H+ CONNECT: University of Arizona Message-ID: <380-2200645714119608@M2W088.mail2web.com> I'd like to connect with H+ in Arizona if anyone is there. Also read below if you are intested in talking to me about the upcoming Confrence in the UK: _______________________ If any one is in Tucson, Arizona, please let me know. I will be at the university for 10 days. I will be with Laura Beloff (Finland, Professor for New Media at the Academy of Fine Arts, Photography from the University of Art and Design, Helsinki). And meeting about the upcoming "Consciousness Reframed 8: art & consciousness in the post-biological era" 8th International Research Conference (21 - 23 July 2006), United Kingdom. "Consciousness Reframed: art & consciousness in the post-biological era (21-23 July 2006) is an international research conference that was first convened in 1997, and is now in its 8th incarnation. It is a forum for transdisciplinary inquiry into art, technology and consciousness, drawing upon the expertise and insights of artists, architects, performers, musicians, writers, scientists, and scholars, usually from at least 20 countries. Recent past conferences were convened in Beijing and Perth Western Australia. Last year the conference, with sixty-six presentations, was organized under the rubric of Altered States, a theme that will be continued this year. Papers are also invited which will explore the theme of Immateriality. The conference will include researchers associated with the Planetary Collegium, which has its CAiiA- hub at Plymouth, and nodes in Peking University, Beijing, the Nuova Accademia di Belle Arte, Milan, and the Hochschule f?r Gestaltung und Kunst, Zurich. The Collegium benefits from the advice of the distinguished members of its New Knowledge Advisory Board." Hope to hear from you! Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 7 14:01:25 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:01:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] H+ CONNECT: University of Arizona Message-ID: <380-2200645714125624@M2W055.mail2web.com> I'd like to connect with H+ in Arizona if anyone is there. Also read below if you are interested in talking to me about the upcoming Confrence in the UK: _______________________ If any one is in Tucson, Arizona, please let me know. I will be at the university for 10 days. I will be with Laura Beloff (Finland, Professor for New Media at the Academy of Fine Arts, Photography from the University of Art and Design, Helsinki). And meeting about the upcoming "Consciousness Reframed 8: art & consciousness in the post-biological era" 8th International Research Conference (21 - 23 July 2006), United Kingdom. "Consciousness Reframed: art & consciousness in the post-biological era (21-23 July 2006) is an international research conference that was first convened in 1997, and is now in its 8th incarnation. It is a forum for transdisciplinary inquiry into art, technology and consciousness, drawing upon the expertise and insights of artists, architects, performers, musicians, writers, scientists, and scholars, usually from at least 20 countries. Recent past conferences were convened in Beijing and Perth Western Australia. Last year the conference, with sixty-six presentations, was organized under the rubric of Altered States, a theme that will be continued this year. Papers are also invited which will explore the theme of Immateriality. The conference will include researchers associated with the Planetary Collegium, which has its CAiiA- hub at Plymouth, and nodes in Peking University, Beijing, the Nuova Accademia di Belle Arte, Milan, and the Hochschule f?r Gestaltung und Kunst, Zurich. The Collegium benefits from the advice of the distinguished members of its New Knowledge Advisory Board." Hope to hear from you! Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc Transhumanist Arts & Culture http://www.transhumanist.biz -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 15:28:54 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:28:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep asking myself...] Message-ID: The recent conversations regarding sentience, consciousness and intelligence have caused me to become more aware of a distinction that I make (to a large extent automatically) which many other people do not make and which may in part explain why I am reviled by some list members. Let us define a hierarchy... 1. Sentient (has a nervous system and senses physical pain) 2. Conscious (in the sense that they 'believe' that they have free will) 3. Self-aware (in the sense that they run their own mind and their mind does not run them) Now, orthogonal to these is "intelligence", which I will classify as information processing capacity and abilities. Obviously a nematode is "sentient" because it has a nervous system and can be induced to respond to stimuli in ways that would be considered a "pain" response. But a nematode doesn't have very many neurons and they are organized very primitively -- so it isn't very intelligent. In contrast Kasparov has lots of neurons and a huge bunch of them have been trained to recognize a variety of chess board positions and draw conclusions about their attractiveness. At some point in the design and organization of a crystallized brain state "consciousness" can emerge -- for example I suspect many people would consider that their pet (adult) dog has significantly more consciousness than a newborn human baby -- even though the baby has significantly more neurons at its disposal. I suspect what we label "consciousness" emerges as a result of developing the capabilities and strategies for fulfilling needs or wants ( i.e. goal seeking behavior that involves selecting between choices). Now, self-awareness, aka 'enlightenment', is a somewhat more ethereal quality. In my opinion it is the fundamental shift from ones mind running you to you running your mind. It is a shift from the memes running you to you running the memes. Many people may be self-aware when they think about specific problems, particularly those which are novel, but they are not generally (universally?) self-aware. Self-awareness may develop naturally but I doubt it happens often. I suspect it can happen if one is trained in debating where one is asked to justify one position and then to reverse oneself and argue the opposite position just as well. It can be developed when one follows particular disciplines such as Zen [1]. I know that for myself it happened as a result of taking the EST seminars [2] in the late 1970s. Those seminars were structured so as to allow people to get to the point where they can disassociate their experiences and thoughts from their "self". I.e. *you* are not *the* thoughts, *you* are the container for, and should you choose to be, the agent for, those thoughts. This was called "getting it" back then. It generally resulted in a large number of people ROTFL at the end of the 4th day (the revelation that one had been living ones life as an unaware meme execution agent can be quite humorous). Some people left the seminar wondering if the "got it". They may have already had it (though I doubt this was true very often) -- some "got it" later -- some never "got it". The development of an understanding of self-awareness is not something new. Zen has developed and been taught for thousands of years. Elements of this perspective can also be found in the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky [3,4]. And of course aspects of self-awareness and rational thought have been elements of everything from Rand's Objectivism to Hubbard's Dianetics [5]. But IMO there is a critical distinction between those who are self-aware and those who are merely conscious. As I view it as highly improbable that those who are enmeshed in religious meme sets whose primary raison d'etre is the endless repetition and replication of ideas which range from highly outdated to completely wrong will magically become self-aware and extract themselves from their fantasy realities. I have no problem classifying them as "children of a lesser god". Subscribing to the idea that sentience or consciousness (or being "human") grants rights (to be free of pain, to exercise free will, etc.) runs into the hurdles of where do you want to go and how do you want to get there. As a "true" extropian, I believe "Its the information stupid!" The un-self-aware pursuit of making endless copies of information (be it copies of the human genome or copies of specific meme sets) is rather pointless once the basic information set is sufficiently redundant that its probability of destruction is very low. In my mind one bowl of jello is very similar to another bowl of jello unless one bowl of jello behaves in a way that produces new, and hopefully more complex, bowl of Super-jello. Being born in the United States, particularly in Massachusetts, one learns very early about the "unalienable" rights such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". However, being somewhat enlightened now I can ask whether this perspective is indeed true or even whether it is useful at this point in time? An extropic perspective, at least *my* extropic perspective (somewhat biased by a background in computer science) would want to know whether or not the bowl of jello contained any unique, potentially useful, information? If so I would want it to be preserved, perhaps in some compressed form. If the information can be truly "productive" then it should be supplied with resources to mutate, create, replicate, etc. If not then it should perhaps be put out in the compost heap where its resources could used to facilitate more mutation and selection, albeit by more primitive organisms. As a self-aware person I would hope that if other self-aware people determine that I am not a productive use of the resources involved in being "me" that they would at least would make a copy or two of the information I contain before returning me to the compost heap. There are a couple of things which come out of this perspective. A highly self-aware person realizes that there isn't really any such thing as "pain" -- physical or emotional -- there is simply a choice to experience a set of sensations (eletrochemical phenomena) as something we label as "painful". (Don't think that I don't feel pain like anyone else -- I do. However I *know* that I have choices about how I choose to experience that pain.) So perhaps it should be considered immoral or evil to inflict "pain" upon organisms which are incapable of choosing how that pain is experienced. This position only stands if it lacks a greater context of the relative value or benefit which may be derived from the pain (witness "no pain no gain"). Now, I suspect when we are hitting the resource limits of the planet and the time comes to send in the nanorobots in to harvest the silicon contained in the Kaaba [6] in Mecca that there may still be around a fairly large number of non-enlightened people who would perceive this as "painful" and most likely would seek to kill those responsible for this (of course its kind of hard to "kill" distributed replicated uploads so the natural fear of retribution which might hold one back from this action now will be of significantly less concern in the future). The question for the enlightened then becomes how one handles this nonproductive use of resources (in silicon in the Kaaba or in carbon in unaware meme replicators) in the long term. Perhaps we should prohibit the use of life-extension technologies by those who are unenlightened and simply wait until they all die. Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Seminars_Training 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._I._Gurdjieff 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_D_Ouspensky 5. http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/ayn-rand-and-hubbard.htm 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 15:42:45 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:42:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604061616s104d0dcbj62fb8f0f38e962bc@mail.gmail.com> References: <44357BFD.8040807@lineone.net> <8d71341e0604061616s104d0dcbj62fb8f0f38e962bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/6/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > You could do it that way, but there's no need; all you have to do is take > inert backup copies and store them a safe distance away, to be activated if > something happens to the single running copy. > In computer database terminology this is known as a "rollback" [1]. The problem is that you lose any changes you have made after the copy was made (which is why I discussed the distance from and bandwidth between the various instances). Now of course we don't consider that when this happens to individuals currently (e.g. loss of memory after a concussion, heavy night of drinking, a minor stroke, etc.) that one is a "different" person -- we simply view it as the person having lost a minor fraction of their memories. Robert 1. Its an actual "keyword" in SQL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollback_%28data_management%29 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 15:53:57 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:53:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... In-Reply-To: <20060406221755.8DAAB57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060406221755.8DAAB57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: On 4/6/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > (2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this > > state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, > > information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001 > , > > to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this > > state commits a felony of the third degree, ... > Hal, can you pull s. 847.001? I wonder what is "defined" as "harmful" and whether it could be applied to spreading beliefs which have no basis in fact or cannot be proven as true (e.g. most religious beliefs). Or perhaps we have such a screwed up system that showing a minor ones willie is harmful but filling their brain with caca is not. Thanks, Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 16:02:08 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:02:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Think About the Future Now? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060406181121.023f1ee8@gmu.edu> References: <200509141734.j8EHYZf08446@tick.javien.com> <1EDB0E0A-F785-4993-8196-13D27035D611@antipope.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060406181121.023f1ee8@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On 4/6/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > > So what are these leverage problems and opportunities? > It seems to me that outcome-oriented discussions of > the future should more consciously be trying to find these leverage > points, and once found should be focused on them. Agreed. Buckminster Fuller referred to this as being a "trim tab" [1]. Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trim_tabs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Fri Apr 7 16:54:20 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Think About the Future Now? Message-ID: <20060407165420.44D3C57FD1@finney.org> Robin writes: > Why think about the future now? Why not wait until it gets here to > think about it? The best answer would seem to be that there are some > problems we could better avoid if we start dealing with them now, or > some opportunities that can be better exploited if we start working > on them now. So what are these leverage problems and > opportunities? It seems to me that outcome-oriented discussions of > the future should more consciously be trying to find these leverage > points, and once found should be focused on them. Of course those > who just discuss the future because it is fun can ignore this issue. I think this makes a lot of sense. We on this list are somewhat unusual in our discussion of medium term and far future issues, say from 10 years on out. Most people don't give too much thought to the specifics of what the world may be like in that time frame, other than to set up retirement accounts and investments that implicitly assume that things will be much the same. While some of our discussions are indeed just for fun, at the same time I think we would hope that they accomplish something useful. The future is obviously highly uncertain, and if you take into account the human tendency to be overconfident in predictions, it's likely that our individual visions of the future will not be as accurate as they seem. It's impossible to predict things in any detail. Nevertheless we could hope for success if we can identify powerful forces which will shape and constrain the future. My feeling is that it makes sense to focus on the medium term, say 10-20 years out, and to identify any factors which could substantially change the status quo in that time frame. Beyond 20 years things become much more uncertain. Particularly I look at negative factors, serious threats to human health and welfare. Positive surprises will be good, of course, but negative ones have greater urgency. This is one reason I have been following the Peak Oil theory, which predicts (in a popular variant) that energy will soon become a serious limitation on economic growth, leading to persistant worldwide recession and possibly increased conflict levels. I don't agree with the detailed scenarios painted by some Peak Oil theorists, but nevertheless if we do enter a regime of much more expensive energy it could have serious consequences that are worth examining. Another potential threat is bird flu. This is not yet transmittable from human to human, only from bird to human (and bird to bird of course). I haven't seen recent figures on human mortality rates but I believe they are above 50%. Now, even if it mutates to be transmittable among people it will probably not kill half the human population. Nevertheless it is not outside the realm of probability that a substantial fraction of the human race could die within a few years if things take a turn for the worse. Clearly this is a threat which bears watching. Another biological threat is bioengineered plagues, either created via terrorism or released from military stockpiles. These could be released intentionally or accidentally into large populations and cause severe damage. We have often discussed transformative technologies like AI or nanotech which could potentially have very bad as well as positive impacts. It will be helpful to understand the probability of developments in these areas as well as likely early signs of progress. These various potential threats don't seem particularly likely (although opinions may differ). And of course we could hope for more positive transformations. Overall it's likely that the popular view is not too far wrong, and that the world won't be totally transformed in 10-20 years. Hal From hal at finney.org Fri Apr 7 17:07:06 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... Message-ID: <20060407170706.A217557FD1@finney.org> Robert Bradbury writes: > Hal, can you pull s. 847.001? I wonder what is "defined" as "harmful" and > whether it could be applied to spreading beliefs which have no basis in fact > or cannot be proven as true (e.g. most religious beliefs). Or perhaps we > have such a screwed up system that showing a minor ones willie is harmful > but filling their brain with caca is not. This was the link I provided previously: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0138.HTM&Title=-%3E20 05-%3ECh0847-%3ESection%200138#0847.0138 If you follow it you will find that all of the sections are hyperlinked together very nicely. This leads to the definition of "harmful to minors": : (6) "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation, : characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or : representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual : conduct, or sexual excitement when it: : : (a) Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest : of minors; : : (b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community : as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and : : (c) Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, : or scientific value for minors. : : A mother's breastfeeding of her baby is not under any circumstance : "harmful to minors." As Robert anticipated, this does not criminalize teaching minors religious views. I'm sure none of us finds this truly surprising. Hal From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Apr 7 16:13:26 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <20060406234957.7BCC657FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060407161326.54918.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Hal, I suppose I meant the question in the non-semantic sense; I meant it in the substantive/factual sense. I guess, the opinion I was trying to present, in a round-about way, was that the identity (the *me*) must reside as something additional to *strictly* the 'pattern' of mind-information (although I think this is also a critical component). Because if the 'pattern' was entirely sufficient to establish identity/me, then I would expect to wake as a hive-mind once several perfect copies were made of my vitrified brain. But, I agree, the hive-mind seems very unlikely; this is why I think that the 'pattern' isn't the *whole* story behind identity or *me-ness*. And to backtrack a little, my belief that the hive-mind effect would not occur, is why I would consider the mistreatment of "copies" as unethical - because, although the copy looks and acts and perhaps thinks just like me, it is not a real component of my own mind (what would be the hive-mind) and so should be regarded as a separate conscious life that should be respected, IMO. I don't have a clue how this could be proven scientifically. But, I could throw out some ideas that I have no buisness talking about (due to lack of knowledge) :-) Perhaps a truly 'perfect' copy is physically impossible because of quantum effects. Or, perhaps a 'perfect' copy requires extra information such as the relative positioning of all of the atomic particles composing a brain with respect to all the other particles throughout the universe (which I would think would not be recreatable due to the universe's expansion, and more quantum effects). I know that my brain is constantly turning over its physical components, so each moment I suppose I could be regarded as a new person (albeit, one who retains the *me-ness*), but perhaps this effect can't physically be reproduced down to the scale of Plank space and time. Maybe the physical changes my brain undergoes following one Plank scale of time would be sufficient to distinguish myself from a 'perfect' copy. I guess if this were true, identity could be described as "pattern-thread" dependent. But I'm just grasping at straws here. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Hal Finney wrote: Jeffrey Herlich (A B) writes): > I have another question though (presented as an experiment). Lets say > that in the future it becomes possible to reversibly preserve a human > (say through improved vitrification). So I decide to be vitrified, a > 'perfect' scan is made of my brain, but is stored as information only > (as a giant stack of printed pages), not implemented. I'm revived > from the vitrification and go about my daily life (which should be > pretty awesome). But, alas, I get killed in an accident one hour > after revival. Is it your belief (or anyone elses' here) that if my > mind-information later gets implemented (let's say in the form of a > physical replica, made of real atoms - not simulated), that I will > "reawaken", and it will still be "me". I think it's instructive that you put "me" in quotes. This suggests that you think it might be just a matter of semantics and definitions. The question of whether it will still be "me" depends on how we define the word "me". If we define it in a restrictive sense, then no, it will not be me. If we define it in an expansive sense, then yes, it will be me. But is the end of the issue? Is it just a matter of semantics, of words and definitions? Or is this a real, substantive question about the nature of the world? In other words, is it a *factual* question whether this kind of revival is still me? Could we imagine a world, or a kind of consciousness, where it is true, and alternatively, a world where it is not true? Is it something that perhaps would be amenable to experimentation? These are rhetorical questions because I am trying to emphasize that there are two very different, incompatible directions that can be pursued in analyzing this issue. One treats the question as a factual one and attempts to discover the truth about whether doing this or that makes it still be "me". The other treats the question as a semantic one and suggests that there is no true fact of the matter, and that you can define "me" any way you want and get the corresponding answer. If it is just a semantic question, then there's not much point in arguing about it. People can pretty much use words the way they want. If you do want to argue about it (as many people do) then you might want to think about whether you could first get past the hurdle of showing that the question is indeed substantive and not just semantic. Are there any experiments that could be done (even thought experiments) that would help to reveal the true facts of the matter? Can you even define the question in an operational or scientific way, relating it to measurable (or at least observable) properties of the world? I'd suggest that this is a good first step - make sure the question is real before spending inordinate amounts of time trying to answer it. Hal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 7 16:40:27 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060407164027.55803.qmail@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > On 4/6/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > > > (2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this > > > state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an > image, > > > information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. > 847.001 > > , > > > to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in > this > > > state commits a felony of the third degree, ... > > Hal, can you pull s. 847.001? I wonder what is "defined" as > "harmful" and > whether it could be applied to spreading beliefs which have no basis > in fact > or cannot be proven as true (e.g. most religious beliefs). Or > perhaps we > have such a screwed up system that showing a minor ones willie is > harmful > but filling their brain with caca is not. Your latter sentence, unfortunately, hits the nail on the head. "Harmful" in this case is defined in the eyes of the observer, and most observers do not see the harm in pseudoscience, yet see great harm in certain natural functions. From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Apr 7 17:49:51 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 13:49:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Why Think About the Future Now? In-Reply-To: <20060407165420.44D3C57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060407165420.44D3C57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060407134217.02397750@gmu.edu> At 12:54 PM 4/7/2006, Hal Finney wrote: > > Why think about the future now? Why not wait until it gets here to > > think about it? ... some problems we could better avoid if we start > > dealing with them now, or some opportunities that can be better > > exploited if we start working on them now. So what are these ... > >My feeling is that it makes sense to focus on the medium term, say 10-20 >years out, and to identify any factors which could substantially change >the status quo in that time frame. ... I look at negative factors, ... >This is one reason I have been following the Peak Oil theory, which >predicts (in a popular variant) that energy will soon become a serious >limitation on economic growth, leading to persistant worldwide recession >and possibly increased conflict levels. ... >Another potential threat is bird flu. This is not yet transmittable from >human to human, only from bird to human ... a substantial fraction of >the human race could die within a few years if things take a turn for >the worse. ... Another biological threat is bioengineered plagues, either >created via terrorism or released from military stockpiles. ... >We have often discussed transformative technologies like AI or nanotech >which could potentially have very bad as well as positive impacts. ... Identifying trends that might lead to big changes is a first step, but by itself it is not enough to be what Robert says is called a "trim tab." The next step is to ask what we could do about these problems now, to make it worth thinking about those problems now. At an individual level, what is there to do other than making sure to have some savings and perhaps a stash of supplies in case things went really bad? Or what is there that the readers of this list can do together to deal with such problems? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From benboc at lineone.net Fri Apr 7 19:13:14 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:13:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4436B9CA.5060008@lineone.net> "Robert Bradbury" asked: > I'd like to ask a question whether anyone on the list adheres to the > Buddhist definition of "sentience" -- essentially any organism which > breathes. > > If one accepts that definition then I would suspect that many, if not > most, list members are guilty of "abusing" sentient beings (it > presumably requires that one not consume meat). Can't claim to be any such, but i'm curious - what if the meat wants to be eaten (a la the cow in The Universe at the End of the Restaurant - No, that's wrong, isn't it?) If a meat creature wants to be eaten (really badly, say - i mean "badly wants to be eaten", not "wants to be badly eaten", like with your mouth open or something), and your morality dictates that you not abuse it by eating it, you are abusing it by NOT eating it. Difficult dilemma. Glad i'm not a Buddhist. The normal definition of Sentience simply means 'capable of sensing', which includes all life, i'd have thought. So i don't see any difference between the 'ordinary' and the 'Buddhist' definitions. 'Consciousness', though, that's a different matter. I have no problem abusing sentient beings (including thermometers and Gatso cameras), but would probably draw the line at abusing conscious ones. Hmm, okay, Self-Conscious ones, anyway (does this include cows, do you suppose?). Now - can somebody satisfactorily define 'Consciousness'? :-P ben From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 19:30:15 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 20:30:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <4436B9CA.5060008@lineone.net> References: <4436B9CA.5060008@lineone.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604071230r47ab3f52w43e85c0f2779a63a@mail.gmail.com> On 4/7/06, ben wrote: > > The normal definition of Sentience simply means 'capable of sensing', > which includes all life, i'd have thought. So i don't see any difference > between the 'ordinary' and the 'Buddhist' definitions. I don't know whether Buddhists think bacteria are sentient, but I'm pretty sure they don't think thermostats are! :P The normal definition of the word means capable of being conscious of what one is sensing. (In my opinion the only sentient beings known to exist in the universe today are humans, though a majority feel higher animals are to some degree sentient, and a significant minority would extend it to at least some kinds of invertebrates.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Fri Apr 7 19:38:16 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:38:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4436BFA8.5080909@lineone.net> A B wrote: > No problem. It wasn't so much a criticism, as it was a legitimate > (arguably) question of mine ;-) I have another question though > (presented as an experiment). Lets say that in the future it becomes > possible to reversibly preserve a human (say through improved > vitrification). So I decide to be vitrified, a 'perfect' scan is made > of my brain, but is stored as information only (as a giant stack of > printed pages), not implemented. I'm revived from the vitrification > and go about my daily life (which should be pretty awesome). But, > alas, I get killed in an accident one hour after revival. Is it your > belief (or anyone elses' here) that if my mind-information later gets > implemented (let's say in the form of a physical replica, made of > real atoms - not simulated), that I will "reawaken", and it will > still be "me". > > Just to save time I will provide my own answer here for the purpose > of discussion. For now, I will say the answer is: yes, it will be > "me". But, if I choose to believe this, I don't see how that refutes > the "hive-mind" idea. It would seem to support it even. The only way > it would seem to refute the hive-mind idea, would be with the > assertion that: for some reason, I can only experience *one* identity > at a time and not many; why would this necessarily be the case (even > in the absence of mind enhancements)? > > But, you might easily be able convince me that the correct answer is: > no, it will not be "me". First, you need to decide what you mean by 'me'. This is difficult, i know, i've thought a lot about it and had many discussions about it. In general, i'm a 'patternist', and think that any exact copy of my mind-state is really 'me'. The difficulty is in envisaging a number of different 'me's. Entirely separate, distinct 'me's, but all just as much 'me' as i am now. I picture a line, dividing or branching as it goes forward. Each branch is a distinct individual, all of them me. No mystical telepathic connection or anything. So they are all 'A me'. The crucial thing is, there is then no 'real me' and 'false me's. They are all really me, and they are all at the same time different people. A bit Zen, i know, but i just can't see any other way of looking at it that makes sense. So, in your scenario, the you that was vitrified, revived and repaired, then later died, is one you. The other copy is also you. So 'you' do survive, but not the 'you' that was woken from vitrification. That one is just as dead as any of us who dies at present. Which is the 'real' you? That's a non-question. They both are. Think of a clock. An old-fashioned one, with gears and springs, and a tick. Think of the tick as being 'you'. If you exactly copy the clock, they will both be indistinguishable, and both have the same tick. Not that they share the same physical tick of course, but the separate tick they each make is exactly the same. And i realise that this will be an unsatisfactory answer to a lot of people. Sorry, but that's all i've got. I've only got a small brain. Thus far. ben From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 19:53:53 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 20:53:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep asking myself...] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0604071253j70f86bcdn6bd332ec4b58d49d@mail.gmail.com> On 4/7/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Now, I suspect when we are hitting the resource limits of the planet and > the time comes to send in the nanorobots in to harvest the silicon contained > in the Kaaba [6] in Mecca that there may still be around a fairly large > number of non-enlightened people who would perceive this as "painful" and > most likely would seek to kill those responsible for this (of course its > kind of hard to "kill" distributed replicated uploads so the natural fear of > retribution which might hold one back from this action now will be of > significantly less concern in the future). The question for the enlightened > then becomes how one handles this nonproductive use of resources (in silicon > in the Kaaba or in carbon in unaware meme replicators) in the long term. > Perhaps we should prohibit the use of life-extension technologies by those > who are unenlightened and simply wait until they all die. > And perhaps we should recognize that: 1. There is no such thing as one group having a monopoly on a technology, at least not as more than a transient phase; if the background knowledge is there for group A to invent something, even if leaks don't occur (which in reality they do) it's there for group B to reinvent it. 2. "Unenlightened" people are perfectly capable of using a technology as a weapon even if they didn't independently invent it themselves. 3. Numbers matter, and there are more unenlightened people than enlightened - this is true no matter whose definition of the terms you use! 4. An awful lot of misery has resulted from people thinking it's a jolly good idea to go out and spread "enlightenment" by force; this misery often falls on the heads of the "enlightened" as well as the "unenlightened"; and being really really confident in the power of one's tools and the righteousness of one's cause is no guarantee of being correct. Yes, there are abhorrent things in the world, and doubtless will be in the future (the real life treatment of women in some Muslim countries; your fictional example of the pedophile civilization; one could continue at length). No, flinging hydrogen bombs/grey goo nanites/etc around the place is not likely to be the right answer. I'll ask again - did you read my post last time this came up where I argued in specific detail why starting a nuclear war over religion is a bad idea? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 22:35:53 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:35:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep asking myself...] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604071253j70f86bcdn6bd332ec4b58d49d@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0604071253j70f86bcdn6bd332ec4b58d49d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/7/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > No, flinging hydrogen bombs/grey goo nanites/etc around the place is not > likely to be the right answer. I'll ask again - did you read my post last > time this came up where I argued in specific detail why starting a nuclear > war over religion is a bad idea? > I don't believe I did more than skim it, but I had reached that specific conclusion (nuclear weapons being an ineffective solution) at the end of my discussions a couple of years ago. Though I would suggest there is a distinct difference between conflicts such as the Crusades or the current Israeli:Palestinian conflict where the goal was to "possess" the land involved and acts which simply seek to remove the symbolic underpinnings of a meme set. Of course history can provide numerous examples where the elimination of an "underpinning" only makes the problem worse. Interestingly enough, the conclusion that I did reach, for communicating non-SOP ideas to the masses was/is actually implemented. The U.S. is spending on the order of $70 million/year to broadcast a semi-legitimate non-Islamic view of reality into the Middle East (this was documented on one of the major news channels about a month ago). I've never done a cost analysis of producing & maintaining nuclear weapons but I suspect that funding a TV channel is a rather less expensive alternative than developing, maintaining and potentially deploying even a small number of nuclear weapons. It is certainly less expensive than spending $10's of billions annually trying to sort out differences of opinion between tribes which although they may be operating rationally (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth perspectives) are doing so based on irrational meme foundations. I would love to know the realistic cost of putting a few million people (hard core fundamentalists of any cloth) into cryonic suspension (one has to account for economies of scale). I suspect it wouldn't be *that* expensive. Don't kill them (as in destroying their meme set) -- simply prevent them from propagating those meme sets until such time as they can be presented to an impartial jury as being valid or invalid. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 22:58:54 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 23:58:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep asking myself...] In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0604071253j70f86bcdn6bd332ec4b58d49d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604071558m3d182634s242e23b4b7818e5d@mail.gmail.com> On 4/7/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Interestingly enough, the conclusion that I did reach, for communicating > non-SOP ideas to the masses was/is actually implemented. The U.S. is > spending on the order of $70 million/year to broadcast a semi-legitimate > non-Islamic view of reality into the Middle East (this was documented on one > of the major news channels about a month ago). > Sounds good to me - I'm certainly in favor of spreading democracy by nonviolent means. I would love to know the realistic cost of putting a few million people > (hard core fundamentalists of any cloth) into cryonic suspension (one has to > account for economies of scale). I suspect it wouldn't be *that* > expensive. Don't kill them (as in destroying their meme set) -- simply > prevent them from propagating those meme sets until such time as they can be > presented to an impartial jury as being valid or invalid. > Cost? Money isn't the issue, the money can be found if there's enough motive to do so. The cost is that most of the world would see it as the equivalent of the Holocaust (and how sure are you that they'd be wrong? it's not proven that people frozen with today's cryonic procedures can and will be brought back); think about what the cost in lives would be by the time all the consequences, direct and indirect, had worked themselves out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 7 23:29:42 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus-Assembled Batteries Message-ID: <20060407232942.96555.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> Too good to pass up. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles **************** http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_16673,296,p1.html Friday, April 07, 2006 Virus-Assembled Batteries A biological template ramps up electrode performance and scales down size. By Kevin Bullis More than half the weight and size of today's batteries comes from supporting materials that contribute nothing to storing energy. Now researchers have demonstrated that genetically engineered viruses can assemble active battery materials into a compact, regular structure, to make an ultra-thin, transparent battery electrode that stores nearly three times as much energy as those in today's lithium-ion batteries. It is the first step toward high-capacity, self-assembling batteries. Applications could include high-energy batteries laminated invisibly to flat screens in cell phones and laptops or conformed to fit hearing aids. The same assembly technique could also lead to more effective catalysts and solar panels, according to the MIT researchers who developed the technology, by making it possible to finely control the positions of inorganic materials. "Most of it was done through genetic manipulation -- giving an organism that wouldn't normally make battery electrodes the information to make a battery electrode, and to assemble it into a device," says Angela Belcher, a researcher on the project and an MIT professor of materials science and engineering and biological engineering. "My dream is to have a DNA sequence that codes for the synthesis of materials, and then out of a beaker to pull out a device. And I think this is a big step along that path." The researchers, in work reported online this week in Science, used M13 viruses to make the positive electrode of a lithium-ion battery, which they tested with a conventional negative electrode. The virus is made of proteins, most of which coil to form a long, thin cylinder. By adding sequences of nucleotides to the virus' DNA, the researchers directed these proteins to form with an additional amino acid that binds to cobalt ions. The viruses with these new proteins then coat themselves with cobalt ions in a solution, which eventually leads, after reactions with water, to cobalt oxide, an advanced battery material with much higher storage capacity than the carbon-based materials now used in lithium-ion batteries. To make an electrode, the researchers first dip a polymer electrolyte into a solution of engineered viruses. The viruses assemble into a uniform coating on the electrolyte. This coated electrolyte is then dipped into a solution containing battery materials. The viruses arrange these materials into an ordered crystal structure good for high-density batteries. [Click here for an illustration of the battery-forming process.] These electrodes proved to have twice the capacity of carbon-based ones. To improve this further, the researchers again turned to genetic engineering. While keeping the genetic code for the cobalt assembly, they added an additional strand of DNA that produces virus proteins that bind to gold. The viruses then assembled as nanowires composed of both cobalt oxide and gold particles -- and the resulting electrodes stored 30 percent more energy. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 8 00:41:32 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:41:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep asking myself...] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25B0D4EC-1FE5-4FAA-BD32-56C8AB261FD9@mac.com> On Apr 7, 2006, at 8:28 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > The recent conversations regarding sentience, consciousness and > intelligence have caused me to become more aware of a distinction > that I make (to a large extent automatically) which many other > people do not make and which may in part explain why I am reviled > by some list members. > > Let us define a hierarchy... > 1. Sentient (has a nervous system and senses physical pain) > 2. Conscious (in the sense that they 'believe' that they have free > will) > 3. Self-aware (in the sense that they run their own mind and their > mind does not run them) > > > Now, self-awareness, aka 'enlightenment', is a somewhat more > ethereal quality. In my opinion it is the fundamental shift from > ones mind running you to you running your mind. It is a shift from > the memes running you to you running the memes. Many people may be > self-aware when they think about specific problems, particularly > those which are novel, but they are not generally (universally?) > self-aware. > Interestingly, a lot of spiritual practices developed by religions (which you roundly disparage) have as their goal (at least an intermediate goal) learning to run your mind rather than being run by it. Granted of course that religions, even the best of them, accrete all matter of nonsense and obfuscation. But then those that "get it" in whatever system and using whatever means are thin on the ground. "Second handers", various hangers on, camp followers, sycophants and so on abound. There are many niches to be filled and few of them are all that interesting from the viewpoint of the few. > But IMO there is a critical distinction between those who are self- > aware and those who are merely conscious. As I view it as highly > improbable that those who are enmeshed in religious meme sets whose > primary raison d'etre is the endless repetition and replication of > ideas which range from highly outdated to completely wrong will > magically become self-aware and extract themselves from their > fantasy realities. I have no problem classifying them as "children > of a lesser god". > It is not magic but growth in critical self-examination does happen. As one's belief system accrues more real costs it becomes easier to question it. If however those with a radically different set of beliefs and world view are directly attacking or oppressing then it is MUCH more difficult to calmly consider the merits of their world view. Making it a matter of physical survival makes it nearly impossible to do such self-examination. > Subscribing to the idea that sentience or consciousness (or being > "human") grants rights (to be free of pain, to exercise free will, > etc.) runs into the hurdles of where do you want to go and how do > you want to get there. As a "true" extropian, I believe "Its the > information stupid!" The un-self-aware pursuit of making endless > copies of information (be it copies of the human genome or copies > of specific meme sets) is rather pointless once the basic > information set is sufficiently redundant that its probability of > destruction is very low. In my mind one bowl of jello is very > similar to another bowl of jello unless one bowl of jello behaves > in a way that produces new, and hopefully more complex, bowl of > Super-jello. > > Being born in the United States, particularly in Massachusetts, one > learns very early about the "unalienable" rights such as "life, > liberty and the pursuit of happiness". However, being somewhat > enlightened now I can ask whether this perspective is indeed true > or even whether it is useful at this point in time? The nature of human beings makes such rights reasonably universal for optimal well being. The nature of human beings hasn't changed. > > An extropic perspective, at least *my* extropic perspective > (somewhat biased by a background in computer science) would want to > know whether or not the bowl of jello contained any unique, > potentially useful, information? If so I would want it to be > preserved, perhaps in some compressed form. If the information can > be truly "productive" then it should be supplied with resources to > mutate, create, replicate, etc. If not then it should perhaps be > put out in the compost heap where its resources could used to > facilitate more mutation and selection, albeit by more primitive > organisms. > And you are qualified to sort out which is which by what? > > There are a couple of things which come out of this perspective. A > highly self-aware person realizes that there isn't really any such > thing as "pain" -- physical or emotional -- there is simply a > choice to experience a set of sensations (eletrochemical phenomena) > as something we label as "painful". This is a monstrously dangerous notion. Go enjoy the opportunity to experience novel sensations while being tortured. > > > Now, I suspect when we are hitting the resource limits of the > planet and the time comes to send in the nanorobots in to harvest > the silicon contained in the Kaaba [6] in Mecca that there may > still be around a fairly large number of non-enlightened people who > would perceive this as "painful" and most likely would seek to kill > those responsible for this (of course its kind of hard to "kill" > distributed replicated uploads so the natural fear of retribution > which might hold one back from this action now will be of > significantly less concern in the future). The question for the > enlightened then becomes how one handles this nonproductive use of > resources (in silicon in the Kaaba or in carbon in unaware meme > replicators) in the long term. Perhaps we should prohibit the use > of life-extension technologies by those who are unenlightened and > simply wait until they all die. > What is the value of this "productivity" that justifies the ignoring of or negation of any rights to life or property? Do I have the right to take everything you own including your very life if I arguably can make better use of it? In such a world every intelligent being must fear the opinions of others and must especially fear that greater intelligences will come along and consider such as itself obsolete and worthless. Is this the type of future you want? Do you think this type of future is inevitable? Do we get to choose differently? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 8 08:57:21 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 01:57:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep asking myself...] In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0604071253j70f86bcdn6bd332ec4b58d49d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5EAB0DA6-786A-450C-9AF4-F76E083F76E0@mac.com> On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Interestingly enough, the conclusion that I did reach, for > communicating non-SOP ideas to the masses was/is actually > implemented. The U.S. is spending on the order of $70 million/year > to broadcast a semi-legitimate non-Islamic view of reality into the > Middle East (this was documented on one of the major news channels > about a month ago). I've never done a cost analysis of producing & > maintaining nuclear weapons but I suspect that funding a TV channel > is a rather less expensive alternative than developing, maintaining > and potentially deploying even a small number of nuclear weapons. > It is certainly less expensive than spending $10's of billions > annually trying to sort out differences of opinion between tribes > which although they may be operating rationally (eye for an eye, > tooth for a tooth perspectives) are doing so based > on irrational meme foundations. > Unfortunately the message is highly diluted in effectiveness by many of our actions. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is not rational in that conflicts cannot end by adhering rigorously to such an approach. It leads to an unending feud. > I would love to know the realistic cost of putting a few million > people (hard core fundamentalists of any cloth) into cryonic > suspension (one has to account for economies of scale). I suspect > it wouldn't be *that* expensive. Don't kill them (as in destroying > their meme set) -- simply prevent them from propagating those meme > sets until such time as they can be presented to an impartial jury > as being valid or invalid. Perhaps you would need to include yourself in the set of those to be bobbled as being too intolerant of the opinions of others to be safely left around. - samantha From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Apr 8 11:11:48 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 06:11:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep asking myself...] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604071558m3d182634s242e23b4b7818e5d@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0604071253j70f86bcdn6bd332ec4b58d49d@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0604071558m3d182634s242e23b4b7818e5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/7/06, Russell Wallace wrote (regarding my proposal that the functioning of 'fundamentalists' be suspended): > Cost? Money isn't the issue, the money can be found if there's enough > motive to do so. The cost is that most of the world would see it as the > equivalent of the Holocaust (and how sure are you that they'd be wrong? it's > not proven that people frozen with today's cryonic procedures can and will > be brought back); think about what the cost in lives would be by the time > all the consequences, direct and indirect, had worked themselves out. > The more I've thought about it, the more I am convinced current procedures will work -- though one has to be more in the "information" camp than the "pattern" or "thread" camps. (The pattern camp is probably a subset of the information camp in that the information camp doesn't have to get back the original pattern but simply be able to reproduce it (as a subset of the patterns which could be generated from the information available for reconstruction.)) I suppose I'm looking for solutions to a hard-takeoff (or semi-hard) because if that happens I don't see how there aren't going to be real problems (potentially making the Holocaust look like a minor warm-up exercise) as the rapid change runs head long into memesets that cannot adapt fast enough. (We have already witnessed this once in Afghanistan as the Taliban attempted to "rollback" modern reality.) Bear in mind Russell -- if the final point is indefinite longevity we are *currently* experiencing the equivalent of roughly 10 Holocausts (~60 million deaths) *each* year. So for every year future reality is delayed that is the cost that humanity is paying (whether they are aware of it or not). I'm guessing that we are probably less than 5 years, max 10, from robust whole genome synthesis (i.e. being "gods"). Once that understanding becomes more widespread there are certain memesets that are going to have real problems. You only see the tip of the iceberg in reactions to that in things like the stacking of the deck in the President's Commission on Bioethics. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Apr 8 11:26:45 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 12:26:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep asking myself...] In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0604071253j70f86bcdn6bd332ec4b58d49d@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0604071558m3d182634s242e23b4b7818e5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604080426k444fdb60u740d0db3b257aeb5@mail.gmail.com> On 4/8/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Bear in mind Russell -- if the final point is indefinite longevity we are > *currently* experiencing the equivalent of roughly 10 Holocausts (~60 > million deaths) *each* year. So for every year future reality is delayed > that is the cost that humanity is paying (whether they are aware of it or > not). > I agree; that's one of the reasons to work as fast as we can. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Apr 8 11:40:41 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 06:40:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep asking myself...] In-Reply-To: <5EAB0DA6-786A-450C-9AF4-F76E083F76E0@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0604071253j70f86bcdn6bd332ec4b58d49d@mail.gmail.com> <5EAB0DA6-786A-450C-9AF4-F76E083F76E0@mac.com> Message-ID: On 4/8/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Perhaps you would need to include yourself in the set of those to be > bobbled as being too intolerant of the opinions of others to be > safely left around. Having anticpated a response from some people along these lines (remember I'm questioning which rights, if any, are "fundamental") I made a point of making it *very* clear that if you can find a better use for my resources that I am willing to make them available. I was however careful to qualify my statement in that I wanted such decisions made by a reasonably "wise" group of individuals. Using my carbon to make more diamonds to be worn by Zsa Zsa Gabor, for example, would probably not be a "better" use. Now, being self-aware, I can of course reverse the argument and say that because I present a "clear-and-present danger" to the continued execution (and replication) of memesets that are clueless but that clearly have a right to continue functioning [1] that the *ideal* disposition of my matter would be inert diamonds decorating the body of one of those memesets. Robert 1. It strikes me as interesting that we are granting specific patterns of matter, i.e. information collections, "rights" without serious consideration of whether that pattern is of any real use. It seems to be a secondary effect of the gene/memset involving self-preservation (which nature had to unconsiously build into all life to get us to where we are). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Apr 8 15:25:40 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 08:25:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Consciousness vs. awareness [was: I keep askingmyself...] In-Reply-To: <5EAB0DA6-786A-450C-9AF4-F76E083F76E0@mac.com> Message-ID: <200604081600.k38G0FuA007818@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... > > Unfortunately the message is highly diluted in effectiveness by many > of our actions. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is not rational > in that conflicts cannot end by adhering rigorously to such an > approach. ... - samantha What this world needs is advanced stem cell technology. Then instead of knocking out the other guy's eyes and teeth, we generate new eyes and new teeth. Then we brutally sue the bastard beyond recognition. spike From aiguy at comcast.net Sat Apr 8 17:13:27 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 13:13:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus-Assembled Batteries In-Reply-To: <20060407232942.96555.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <06dd01c65b2f$c041b500$74550318@ZANDRA2> How would such an improved electrode impact the life span of such a battery. Would it become unable to hold a charge three times faster? Or would battery life expectancy actually improve also? I work in a computer sales kiosk and we find people needing new batteries for their laptops after about 3 years. At $80 to $100 a pop, replacement batteries are big business. Will the battery manufacturers do anything to improve battery life or is this just more industry planned obsolescence? If practical these batteries should be a boon for Wireless PDA sales and laptops which currently only get about 3.5 hours runtime on a battery charge. If you buy the 5.5 hour batteries you spend about a $100 more for the extra two hours. Since only about 15% to 20% opt for the extended battery, I'd say if you could triple the battery life and extend the life from 3 years to 5 years beyond the period of time most people keep their laptops that just about everyone would opt to pay the extra $100 for the better battery. Battery makers would need to recoup the cost of the replacement batteries which would no longer be needed up front or the industry would still experience a overall loss. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:30 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus-Assembled Batteries Too good to pass up. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles **************** http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_16673,296,p1.html Friday, April 07, 2006 Virus-Assembled Batteries A biological template ramps up electrode performance and scales down size. By Kevin Bullis More than half the weight and size of today's batteries comes from supporting materials that contribute nothing to storing energy. Now researchers have demonstrated that genetically engineered viruses can assemble active battery materials into a compact, regular structure, to make an ultra-thin, transparent battery electrode that stores nearly three times as much energy as those in today's lithium-ion batteries. It is the first step toward high-capacity, self-assembling batteries. Applications could include high-energy batteries laminated invisibly to flat screens in cell phones and laptops or conformed to fit hearing aids. The same assembly technique could also lead to more effective catalysts and solar panels, according to the MIT researchers who developed the technology, by making it possible to finely control the positions of inorganic materials. "Most of it was done through genetic manipulation -- giving an organism that wouldn't normally make battery electrodes the information to make a battery electrode, and to assemble it into a device," says Angela Belcher, a researcher on the project and an MIT professor of materials science and engineering and biological engineering. "My dream is to have a DNA sequence that codes for the synthesis of materials, and then out of a beaker to pull out a device. And I think this is a big step along that path." The researchers, in work reported online this week in Science, used M13 viruses to make the positive electrode of a lithium-ion battery, which they tested with a conventional negative electrode. The virus is made of proteins, most of which coil to form a long, thin cylinder. By adding sequences of nucleotides to the virus' DNA, the researchers directed these proteins to form with an additional amino acid that binds to cobalt ions. The viruses with these new proteins then coat themselves with cobalt ions in a solution, which eventually leads, after reactions with water, to cobalt oxide, an advanced battery material with much higher storage capacity than the carbon-based materials now used in lithium-ion batteries. To make an electrode, the researchers first dip a polymer electrolyte into a solution of engineered viruses. The viruses assemble into a uniform coating on the electrolyte. This coated electrolyte is then dipped into a solution containing battery materials. The viruses arrange these materials into an ordered crystal structure good for high-density batteries. [Click here for an illustration of the battery-forming process.] These electrodes proved to have twice the capacity of carbon-based ones. To improve this further, the researchers again turned to genetic engineering. While keeping the genetic code for the cobalt assembly, they added an additional strand of DNA that produces virus proteins that bind to gold. The viruses then assembled as nanowires composed of both cobalt oxide and gold particles -- and the resulting electrodes stored 30 percent more energy. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Apr 8 21:14:02 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 16:14:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Virus-Assembled Batteries In-Reply-To: <06dd01c65b2f$c041b500$74550318@ZANDRA2> References: <20060407232942.96555.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> <06dd01c65b2f$c041b500$74550318@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On 4/8/06, Gary Miller wrote: > > Or would battery life expectancy actually improve also? Gary, I think you are going to find the entire battery "paradigm" is about to change fairly significantly. Manufacturers are pushing hard to move to methanol based fuel cells. I'm fairly sure that these are being designed as plug-in replacements for batteries in most devices. In those cases one simply needs to refill the methanol to "recharge". Now, the only caveats here are whether or not the fuel cells have lifetimes longer than current batteries (I suspect that they do) and how comfortable people will feel carrying around small containers of flammable liquid (though in the past smokers didn't have much of a problem with this). Just keep in mind where we are going... Gadolinium-148 nuclear power supplies for nanorobots have a half-life of 75 years. Though I'll admit you aren't going to see them tomorrow... :-) Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Apr 8 21:20:29 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 14:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] better versus different in education In-Reply-To: <200604081600.k38G0FuA007818@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060408212029.48150.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> It strongly appears it would be best to terminate public ed and have private & homeschooling exclusively. Yet it can't be said the situation would be better but rather merely different. Schools would be safer, there's no reason in a nation that isn't a third world cesspool to have schools where a not inconsiderablre number of students bring knives, chains, whips, and thumbscrews into or just outside school buildings. But would test scores and the immeasurable be improved? Depends where.-- would inner city schools be improved? Can't say for sure. And then there is the question of what private schools do to the students' minds with religion, even if the religious orientation isn't anything like fundamentalism. Do students need to be inculcated with images of angels, avatars, hobbits, elves, and wicca? Doesn't there already exist enough Harry Potter, comic book heroes, and so forth in childrens' minds? But I want the plug pulled on public schools. Let's start anew. Change it or get off the pot. --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Mon Apr 10 07:13:13 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Healthy, wealthy and wise Message-ID: <20060410071313.1C71A57FD2@finney.org> A couple of weeks ago via digg.com I found this article on "How to have a 36 hour day", with various time-saving and efficiency tips. Worth reading, but the part I found most interesting suggested changing sleep habits. It points to a blog by Steve Pavlina, who has a couple of ideas for more efficient sleep, a moderate one and an extreme one. The moderate idea is simply, "early to bed and early to rise". Steve argues that getting up at a regular time will instill good sleeping habits and lead to improved productivity. He also discusses ways to make converting to being a "morning person" easier for those of us who more often are awake at midnight than 6 AM: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/05/how-to-become-an-early-riser/ > The optimal solution for me has been to combine both approaches. It's very > simple, and many early risers do this without even thinking about it, but > it was a mental breakthrough for me nonetheless. The solution was to go to > bed when I'm sleepy (and only when I'm sleepy) and get up with an alarm > clock at a fixed time (7 days per week). So I always get up at the same > time (in my case 5am), but I go to bed at different times every night. The key is to go to sleep when you are tired but to get up when the alarm goes off, regardless. After a few days the body adjusts and you naturally get tired at a time that will give you enough sleep. Steve found that he was sleeping about 90 minutes less a night but still felt well rested, and was very productive in the early morning hours when most people are still sleeping. I'm tempted to try this although it would be a big change for me. I usually go to sleep after midnight and don't get up until about 9, or even later recently with the time change. During college I experimented for a few weeks with a sleep cycle where I went to bed when I was tired and got up when I felt like it. I found that I naturally stayed up about two hours later every day, living a 26 hour day. Getting up early has always been hard for me but maybe Steve Pavlina's ideas would work. The prospect of gaining an extra hour-plus per day is definitely exciting. Steve is actually now using an even more extreme sleeping style: "polyphasic sleep", basically taking short naps several times a day instead of sleeping at night. He switched to this method last fall and has had good results from it. He sleeps about 20-30 minutes every 4 hours, for a total of only 2-3 hours of sleep a day. Few people have been successful with this system but it works great for him. He blogged his whole history of switching to this method, what he went through and what he felt like: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/10/polyphasic-sleep/ It's an amazing case history even if not many of us would be willing or able to make such drastic changes. Hal From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Apr 10 09:45:09 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 04:45:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <4436B9CA.5060008@lineone.net> References: <4436B9CA.5060008@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/7/06, ben wrote: > Now - can somebody satisfactorily define 'Consciousness'? :-P This is problematic since we normally use it in the sense of "conscious" and "unconscious". Using that is how I came around to the perspective of an emergent property of seeking to satisfy needs and/or goals. (I expect there is a huge body of literature in the AI community regarding consciousness and presumably a discussion of that belongs on the SL4 list and not the ExI list.) To my way of thinking consciousness involves free will (freedom to select from choices) and acting upon that free will. Extending it a bit further and it involves the potential to have such free will and actions -- but then of course one is rapidly wading into the swamp as the printer next to my desk, if sufficiently "enhanced", could perform an analysis of whether or not it wanted to print my document. ("I" don't print when my ink is low and I certainly don't print on Sundays.) However, if we assume that for the most part copies are still "me", varying perhaps to the degree that I myself may vary when I wake up on Monday vs. Friday (or a sunny day vs. a rainy day, etc.) then we still have to wrestle with what "rights" should be granted or recognized by society for "me". Now one interesting aspect revolves around the extent to which one has a "collective" consciousness (i.e. the quantity and quality of information being shared between what may be physically separate entities). This is interesting from the perspective considering what happens in individuals with surgically separated brain hemispheres where the right and left halves may be generally unaware (and have little control over) the actions taken by the "other" half. If ones right brain murders someone, does ones left brain have to endure the punishment for that action? I think I can construct scenarios where the left brain could not have prevented the actions of the right brain. Now of course with copies one can get into very interesting scenarios -- copies 1, 3 & 4 knew copy #2 was considering killing someone but cut off communication from copy #2 shortly before and during the act then rejoined the collective consciousness after the action was taken. Who is responsible? Who gets punished for murdering someone and who gets punished for conspiracy to commit murder? And of course, if one says that the solution to this is to punish the actor (i.e. society chooses to shut down copy #2) when of course #2 is only a roughly equal sub-part of the entire consciousness -- then one gets into the question of when society should have the right to reach into your mind and delete "offending" thoughts. This is extending recent discussions of being arrested for *thinking* about doing something "wrong" and things like AT&T being in the news for forwarding a significant fraction of its data traffic to the machines scanning it for the NSA. -- E.g. "society" gets to monitor all of your "thoughts" and gets to eliminate the neurons, hard drives, flash chips, etc. responsible for producing them. Of course the down side to this is perhaps a reality with significantly less creativity because presumably it is thinking outside of the box (heavier than air flight, walking on the moon, etc.) which has given rise to some of the things we consider to be great achievements by humanity [1]. I don't know how one would go about constraining a random thought generator to only produce "good" thoughts and not produce "bad" thoughts. Robert 1. And then of course, heaven forbid one would even *think* about using nuclear weapons to take out Mecca. They should of course only be considered (as the news is reporting today) for the purpose of eliminating underground uranium enrichment plants in Iran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Mon Apr 10 12:19:58 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:19:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Healthy, wealthy and wise In-Reply-To: <20060410071313.1C71A57FD2@finney.org> References: <20060410071313.1C71A57FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: On 4/10/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > A couple of weeks ago via digg.com I found this article on "How to > have a 36 hour day", with various time-saving and efficiency tips. > Worth reading, but the part I found most interesting suggested changing > sleep habits. It points to a blog by Steve Pavlina, who has a couple > of ideas for more efficient sleep, a moderate one and an extreme one. > > The moderate idea is simply, "early to bed and early to rise". Steve > argues that getting up at a regular time will instill good sleeping > habits and lead to improved productivity. He also discusses ways to > make converting to being a "morning person" easier for those of us who > more often are awake at midnight than 6 AM: > > http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/05/how-to-become-an-early-riser/ > > > The optimal solution for me has been to combine both approaches. It's very > > simple, and many early risers do this without even thinking about it, but > > it was a mental breakthrough for me nonetheless. The solution was to go to > > bed when I'm sleepy (and only when I'm sleepy) and get up with an alarm > > clock at a fixed time (7 days per week). So I always get up at the same > > time (in my case 5am), but I go to bed at different times every night. > > The key is to go to sleep when you are tired but to get up when the alarm > goes off, regardless. After a few days the body adjusts and you naturally > get tired at a time that will give you enough sleep. Steve found that he > was sleeping about 90 minutes less a night but still felt well rested, > and was very productive in the early morning hours when most people are > still sleeping. While this may work, it ignores the fact that there are real biological differences between people in tems of their sleep physiology, such as length of circadian cycle, ability to phase shift, rate at which sleep debt gets paid off during sleep, etc. There's a lively debate among sleep researchers over what particular sleep variables differentiate "morning people" from "night people," and there's no clear concensus. The species average circadian period for humans is 24.3 hrs, slightly longer than a day. That's why most people find it easier to stay up/get up later than earlier, and to fly east to west (where time effectively gets delayed) rather than the other way. Of course, some people will be on the low end of the spectrum, right around 24 hrs, or even earlier, so each day they feel a pressure to get up at the same time or even earlier. Those may be morning people. Martin From mstriz at gmail.com Mon Apr 10 12:31:01 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:31:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Healthy, wealthy and wise In-Reply-To: <20060410071313.1C71A57FD2@finney.org> References: <20060410071313.1C71A57FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: On 4/10/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Steve is actually now using an even more extreme sleeping style: > "polyphasic sleep", basically taking short naps several times a day > instead of sleeping at night. He switched to this method last fall > and has had good results from it. He sleeps about 20-30 minutes every 4 > hours, for a total of only 2-3 hours of sleep a day. Few people have been > successful with this system but it works great for him. He blogged his > whole history of switching to this method, what he went through and what > he felt like: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/10/polyphasic-sleep/ > It's an amazing case history even if not many of us would be willing or > able to make such drastic changes. Let me add that polyphasic sleep is bogus. NO drug or method has been demonstrated to replace any amount of sleep under controlled conditions for more than two or three days. If Steve claims that he ONLY sleeps 2-3 hrs per day, then I know some investigators who will pay good money to study him for a week. Most of the time, people who claim to be low sleepers get small naps or microsleeps that they don't even realize they are getting (which you wouldn't notice if you were constantly sleep deprived, say, through polyphasic sleep). The vast majority of people who have come to sleep researchers claiming not to sleep at all have been shown to sleep 4, 5, 6 hrs a day. Also, polyphasic sleep is doubly bad because studies have shown that you need your sleep to be consolidated. In an infamous study at Stanford, people were allowed to get a normal 8 hrs of sleep over the course of a day, but it was broken up into 30, 60 or 90 minute intervals, and all of them showed severe decreases in vigilance and performance after a few days. One woman had problems for months afterwards, so the study was never repeated. A great example of the failure of polyphaseic sleep is this experiment, done over an impressive 51 days, catalogued on a LiveJournal blog: http://ubermannequin.livejournal.com/ As expected, the author felt fine for a day or two and then started crashing out, sometimes for 12 hrs at time. Pure sleep deprivation. As much as everybody wants there to be one, there just isn't a holy grail to replace sleep. The best thing to do is get a good night's sleep. Martin From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Apr 10 14:35:12 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:35:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Autism/Asperger's & face processing Message-ID: The BBC is noting [1] that in brain scans of those with autism spectrum disorders and "normal" individuals there appears to be a difference in whether facial recognition causes an change in focused attention. It suggests what is presumably an evolved "interrupt" pathway to capture/focus ones attention on faces (to deal with the person trying to steal your dinner, whom you are trying to seduce, etc.). This would likely bury or replace what you otherwise might be devoting attention to. So those who are autistic who are also intelligent probably have a greater ability to focus attention and not have it pulled away by such interrupt pathways. Those who don't test as intelligent may simply have their attention focused so completely on something else that it can't be shifted to do the necessary analysis to test as being intelligent. It suggests that we've got some genetic hardware in the genome which is supposed to organize the attention shifting interrupt pathways and it doesn't work particularly well in some people. Robert 1. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4888528.stm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sahynepu at concentric.net Mon Apr 10 16:20:11 2006 From: sahynepu at concentric.net (Sahyinepu) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:20:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Autism/Asperger's & face processing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am a very high functioning autistic and the interrupt system doesn't work in many areas. I cannot feel extreme pain if I am very focused on trying to do something for one example. As a child I could omit sound and even control what area(s) I saw(create tunnel vision for only one specific area of interest), and how I retrieved and processed memory. I still have some of that, but not to the extent that I once had. The part of me that allows me to do all this is what I call the observer mind, and it seems aware all the time...so that I ma analyzing all levels of thought and behavior consciously. Sah On Monday, April 10, 2006, at 09:35 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > The BBC is noting [1] that in brain scans of those with autism > spectrum disorders and "normal" individuals there appears to be a > difference in whether facial recognition causes an change in focused > attention. > > It suggests what is presumably an evolved "interrupt" pathway to > capture/focus ones attention on faces (to deal with the person trying > to steal your dinner, whom you are trying to seduce, etc.).? This > would likely bury or replace what you otherwise might be devoting > attention to.? So those who are autistic who are also intelligent > probably have a greater ability to focus attention and not have it > pulled away by such interrupt pathways.? Those who don't test as > intelligent may simply have their attention focused so completely on > something else that it can't be shifted to do the necessary analysis > to test as being intelligent. > > It suggests that we've got some genetic hardware in the genome which > is supposed to organize the attention shifting interrupt pathways and > it doesn't work particularly well in some people. > > Robert > > 1. > http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ > health/4888528.stm _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From mike99 at lascruces.com Tue Apr 11 21:30:19 2006 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:30:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] PAPER: Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins Message-ID: Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins Daniel M. Weinreich,* Nigel F. Delaney, Mark A. DePristo, Daniel L. Hartl Five point mutations in a particular ?-lactamase allelejointly increase bacterial resistance to a clinically importantantibiotic by a factor of 100,000. In principle, evolution tothis high-resistance ?-lactamase might follow anyof the 120 mutational trajectories linking these alleles. However,we demonstrate that 102 trajectories are inaccessible to Darwinian selection and that many of the remaining trajectories have negligible probabilities of realization, because four of these five mutations fail to increase drug resistance in some combinations. Pervasive biophysical pleiotropy within the ?-lactamase seems to be responsible, and because such pleiotropy appears to be a general property of missense mutations, we conclude that much protein evolution will be similarly constrained. This implies that the protein tape of life may be largely reproducible and even predictab. Abstract and Full text Links at Science http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5770/111 Regards, Michael LaTorra mike99 at lascruces.com mlatorra at nmsu.edu From hal at finney.org Wed Apr 12 18:42:48 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit and Survey Message-ID: <20060412184248.E002E57FD1@finney.org> We have not had much mention of the Stanford Singularity Summity coming up May 13: http://sss.stanford.edu/ . The list of speakers is a who's who of what's what: Nick Bostrom, Cory Doctorow, Eric Drexler, Tyler Emerson, Douglas Hofstadter, Steve Jurvetson, Ray Kurzweil, Bill McKibben, Max More, Christine Peterson, John Smart, Peter Thiel, Sebastian Thrun, Eliezer Yudkowsky. And guess what, the conference is free. When would you ever get this many interesting people in a room together? Sounds like the conference of a lifetime. RSVP is required, probably so they know how big a room to reserve. Meanwhile the Speculist blog posts results of a survey asking readers' opinions about the Singularity: http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000730.html Here are some of the questions with the main answers: Will a technological singularity take place? Yes (overwhelmingly). What kind of singularity are we in for? By far the most common answer was "Silent Singularity: The world changes fundamentally, but once it happens it really doesn't seem like that big a deal." (Seems a bit odd to me!) When do you think this will occur? Biggest answer by far: 2025-2050. Where will the singularity start? Biggest answer: widely distributed, no one location. Almost as common: USA. How will the singularity start? By far the biggest answer: Deliberately, primarily through AI research. If you favor a negative scenario for the singularity, what will be the greatest harm to humanity that will derive from it? Biggest answer: Assumption of power by a group wielding post-singularity technology. Second biggest: Destruction of the human race. Several other answers were popular as well. If you favor a positive scenario for the singularity, what will be the greatest boom to humanity that will derive from it? By far the biggest answer: The elimination of disease, aging, poverty. See the blog for more discussion of other answers and for the many comments from participants. Hal From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Apr 12 19:23:24 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:23:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit and Survey In-Reply-To: <20060412184248.E002E57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060412184248.E002E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: On 4/12/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > We have not had much mention of the Stanford Singularity Summity coming > up May 13: http://sss.stanford.edu/ . The list of speakers is a who's > who of what's what: > > Nick Bostrom, Cory Doctorow, Eric Drexler, Tyler Emerson, Douglas > Hofstadter, Steve Jurvetson, Ray Kurzweil, Bill McKibben, Max More, > Christine Peterson, John Smart, Peter Thiel, Sebastian Thrun, Eliezer > Yudkowsky. It's interesting that Bill McKibben is an invited speaker. I wonder what he will say. Martin From blaseparrot at yahoo.com Wed Apr 12 18:47:40 2006 From: blaseparrot at yahoo.com (Dawn Amato) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit and Survey In-Reply-To: <20060412184248.E002E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060412184740.77522.qmail@web36307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Are they going to webcast this like they did the Oxford conference? It would be much appreciated for people unable to attend due to distance contraints. D. Amato Hal Finney wrote: We have not had much mention of the Stanford Singularity Summity coming up May 13: http://sss.stanford.edu/ . The list of speakers is a who's who of what's what: Nick Bostrom, Cory Doctorow, Eric Drexler, Tyler Emerson, Douglas Hofstadter, Steve Jurvetson, Ray Kurzweil, Bill McKibben, Max More, Christine Peterson, John Smart, Peter Thiel, Sebastian Thrun, Eliezer Yudkowsky. And guess what, the conference is free. When would you ever get this many interesting people in a room together? Sounds like the conference of a lifetime. RSVP is required, probably so they know how big a room to reserve. Meanwhile the Speculist blog posts results of a survey asking readers' opinions about the Singularity: http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000730.html Here are some of the questions with the main answers: Will a technological singularity take place? Yes (overwhelmingly). What kind of singularity are we in for? By far the most common answer was "Silent Singularity: The world changes fundamentally, but once it happens it really doesn't seem like that big a deal." (Seems a bit odd to me!) When do you think this will occur? Biggest answer by far: 2025-2050. Where will the singularity start? Biggest answer: widely distributed, no one location. Almost as common: USA. How will the singularity start? By far the biggest answer: Deliberately, primarily through AI research. If you favor a negative scenario for the singularity, what will be the greatest harm to humanity that will derive from it? Biggest answer: Assumption of power by a group wielding post-singularity technology. Second biggest: Destruction of the human race. Several other answers were popular as well. If you favor a positive scenario for the singularity, what will be the greatest boom to humanity that will derive from it? By far the biggest answer: The elimination of disease, aging, poverty. See the blog for more discussion of other answers and for the many comments from participants. Hal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Wed Apr 12 19:37:23 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:37:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit and Survey In-Reply-To: <20060412184248.E002E57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060412184248.E002E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <443D56F3.90707@posthuman.com> Note, the event title changed slightly to Singularity Summit at Stanford. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Apr 12 19:36:51 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit and Survey In-Reply-To: <20060412184248.E002E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060412193651.93999.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Would it be possible to record the events of the Summit, as a transcript, or audio/video recording? I'm not able to go, but I'd love to know how it all went. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From starman2100 at cableone.net Wed Apr 12 23:12:38 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:12:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: "You'll know it's the Singularity when..." Message-ID: <1144883558_43790@S4.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Wed Apr 12 22:39:04 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:39:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt webcast In-Reply-To: <4424A072.7080807@posthuman.com> References: <200603242239.k2OMdMjf002604@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <44247850.9020700@posthuman.com> <4424A072.7080807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <443D8188.2080201@posthuman.com> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060406_nss_falc1.html Latest news says it was a maintenance guy who apparently forgot to reconnect together a small fuel line after working on the systems prior to the launch, which then leaked prior to the liftoff, causing the fire. Looks like there are no inherent design flaws in the rocket. The full onboard video is now on the spacex site, all the way until it hits the ocean. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed Apr 12 22:45:46 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: "You'll know it's the Singularity when..." In-Reply-To: <1144883558_43790@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <20060412224546.91014.qmail@web81610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- starman2100 at cableone.net wrote: > 9. Units in war computer games actually dare to complain you are a > totally incompetant general and refuse to follow your orders anymore! ...I recall hearing about this feature in a certain recently released game, actually. I think this was triggered if your actions (you're general, plus the controller of a mega-weapon with potential for significant friendly fire if you're not careful, although this could be triggered even if you don't use it and stick to giving orders) cause a large number of friendly casualties. From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Apr 13 03:44:57 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:44:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt webcast In-Reply-To: <443D8188.2080201@posthuman.com> References: <4424A072.7080807@posthuman.com> <200603242239.k2OMdMjf002604@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <44247850.9020700@posthuman.com> <4424A072.7080807@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060412234348.0274ea88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:39 PM 4/12/2006 -0500, you wrote: >http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060406_nss_falc1.html > >Latest news says it was a maintenance guy who apparently forgot to reconnect >together a small fuel line after working on the systems prior to the launch, >which then leaked prior to the liftoff, causing the fire. Looks like there >are >no inherent design flaws in the rocket. Excuse me, but any design that depends entirely on humans not screwing up has a design flaw. Keith Henson >The full onboard video is now on the spacex site, all the way until it >hits the >ocean. >-- >Brian Atkins >Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence >http://www.singinst.org/ >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From user at dhp.com Thu Apr 13 04:32:26 2006 From: user at dhp.com (Ensel Sharon) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... Message-ID: I admit from the outset that I know very little about Magic Johnson except that: - hewas HIV positive - he had a lot of money - word on the street is, if tested, he would be considered HIV negative (now) So ... that in itself is interesting and worth discussing (nad possibly already has been, here). What I am curious about is how he managed to do it without wrecking his health in other ways. It doesn't particularly surprise me that someone with unlimited (compared to the average AIDS patient) resources could buy their way into good health - the part that surprises me is that, even today, many experimental aids/hiv therapies have tremendous side-effects, often fatal or at least health ruining. So was he just lucky ? Did he just manage to buy the experimental drugs (circa, what ? 1994 ?) that happened to be the ones that worked out, or what ? On a related note, what can a healthy person gain from knowledge of his experience ? What did he do ? Was it all drug-based, or did he undergo radical stimulus to his immune system of some kind through diet and exercise, etc. ? Basicalyl, what is the deal with Magic Johnson, and what can I incoroprate from his practice and experience into my own life ? From dmasten at piratelabs.org Thu Apr 13 05:33:27 2006 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:33:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt webcast In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060412234348.0274ea88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <4424A072.7080807@posthuman.com> <200603242239.k2OMdMjf002604@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <44247850.9020700@posthuman.com> <4424A072.7080807@posthuman.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060412234348.0274ea88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1144906408.2909.28.camel@dmlap> On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 23:44 -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > Excuse me, but any design that depends entirely on humans not screwing up > has a design flaw. > > Keith Henson Then *everything* built by humans has a design flaw. Dave From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu Apr 13 07:29:14 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:29:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9b9887c80604130029k312761f0gfeeca2ebe1fddf6@mail.gmail.com> was he ever sick? On 4/12/06, Ensel Sharon wrote: > > > I admit from the outset that I know very little about Magic Johnson except > that: > > - hewas HIV positive > - he had a lot of money > - word on the street is, if tested, he would be considered HIV negative > (now) > > So ... that in itself is interesting and worth discussing (nad possibly > already has been, here). > > What I am curious about is how he managed to do it without wrecking his > health in other ways. It doesn't particularly surprise me that someone > with unlimited (compared to the average AIDS patient) resources could buy > their way into good health - the part that surprises me is that, even > today, many experimental aids/hiv therapies have tremendous side-effects, > often fatal or at least health ruining. > > So was he just lucky ? Did he just manage to buy the experimental drugs > (circa, what ? 1994 ?) that happened to be the ones that worked out, or > what ? > > On a related note, what can a healthy person gain from knowledge of his > experience ? What did he do ? Was it all drug-based, or did he undergo > radical stimulus to his immune system of some kind through diet and > exercise, etc. ? > > Basicalyl, what is the deal with Magic Johnson, and what can I incoroprate > from his practice and experience into my own life ? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coletrane www.mikyo.com/ilsa http://rewiring.blogspot.com www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Apr 13 12:46:33 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:46:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The thing to remember about viruses is that they are very small and if one can control their numbers they are not a problem. So this allows people to live with diseases like TB or Hepatitis for extended periods. It helps if you have access to the technlogy and a physician (so money is a +) which allows you to stay on the leading edge of understanding the virus and its therapies. HIV is a relatively simple virus (only a few genes) and suffers from the benefit / handicap that its genome copying gene/protein (the reverse transcriptase) is relatively sloppy (making inaccurate copies). So this (a) means that the virus can't be *too* productive since many of the copies it makes may not work; and (b) the copies it can make will vary enough that they may develop resistance to the drugs being used to treat the disease. HIV also infects cells in the body (white blood cells) which are designed to be able to replace themselves at a relatively high rate. So if the virus kills the cells, or the other cells in the immune system kill the cells containing the virus, they can be replaced (if one knocks the virus down to low enough levels). The problems with early HIV treatments is that they used only a single drug so it was relatively easy for the virus to develop mutants that that drug was ineffective against. With the development of the so-called "triple cocktail" approach three drugs are used which target different vulnerabilities in the virus reproduction pathways. So to work around the drugs the virus has to develop three mutations which becomes much more difficult. As there are multiple drugs with somewhat different effects and we have sufficient information now about which mutations are bypassing specific drugs physicians can monitor how a viral load is mutating and change drug therapies in response to that. So I suspect Magic simply has access to physicians and labs on the cutting edge of the knowledge curve and might be able to gain access to the newest drugs sooner than knowledge about them is made generally available. I worked in the HIV lab at the Univ. of Washington for a summer in the early '90s - this is a *very* specialized branch of medicine and to get the best quality care you need to get physicians who go to the HIV conferences, have access to the best lab facilities, know what drugs are being developed, are aware of how the virus is evolving (from the perspective of individual patients as well as in cities, countries & world regions), etc.. Fortunately many patients have the self-interest to learn all that they can about the disease (and even go read the journal articles if they have the interest) -- PubMed is a significant public resource now (as are Wikipedia, many open access journals and the non-physician AIDS therapeutic networks). There is also hope on the horizon that a couple of more targets may develop for the virus (so a triple cocktail may turn into a quintuple cocktail). Some simple questions for your physician: a) Do they know how they will change your drug therapy in response to the development of resistance by the virus? (I.e. if the viral load increases.). b) Do they know what mutations make the virus resistant to the drugs you are currently taking? (Specific mutations in specific genes lead to resistance to specific drugs.) c) Have they sequenced (or when do they plan to sequence) your current virus? Most physicians operate at the level of (a) and the general response is that if the standard drugs aren't working to change the recipe. The people who really know what they are doing know which mutations cause the drugs to lose efficacy (b) and know whether or not *you* have them (c). Right now there is no "cure" for HIV (in fact this is probably true for many viruses) -- there a continual effort however to keep confining it to ever smaller boxes (which make it both difficult to transmit and may eventually give your immune system the upper hand with respect to eliminating the cells which harbor it). Eventually there will be nanorobots which will be able to wander through your body identify HIV viruses which are behaving badly (trying to infect other cells) and rip them to shreds -- we are still a few decades away from that however. Robert P.S. If you do not have a strong medical background I would strongly urge you spend some time with Wikipedia, a medical dictionary for terms not in Wikipedia and then perhaps HIV review articles from PubMed (go to PubMed and query on "HIV AND review"). I believe that approach will rapidly get you up to speed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Apr 13 13:16:52 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:16:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/12/06, Ensel Sharon wrote: > > - word on the street is, if tested, he would be considered HIV negative > (now) Just a word about this -- this probably means he has a viral load count of zero. I'm not positive, but I think there are at least 3 tests for HIV: a) An antibody test; b) A DNA test based on PCR amplification and DNA quantity measurement (quantitative PCR); c) A low copy number DNA test based on PCR amplification and/or sequencing. There might also be Mass-Spectrometer tests which could be done. These are listed in order from "standard" types of lab tests to increasingly specialized (experimental). The more specialized (and more expensive) tests have increased sensitivity but may also run the risks of false positive results. It is not unusual I believe for the right drug cocktail to drive HIV levels down to undetectable levels. However there one must be careful that "HIV negative" does not equal "cured of HIV". To be cured it means that the virus is either not present (not in a single copy in your body) or cannot (and will not) mutate into a form that your immune system cannot control. If one is "cured" one can safely stop taking the drugs. I doubt however that is the case with Magic. It may be possible however that the right drug mix combined with his specific immune system may have beaten the virus into an extended undetectable (and non-pathological) state. Eventually there is still some hope that the right amount of ingenuity may produce a relatively robust HIV vaccine. In which case it would be possible to give this to people who are infected, presumably in combination with drugs that hold the virus in suppression. Under these circumstances one may be able to gradually withdraw the drugs and allow your immune system to take over the task of managing the virus. To a large extent you can view the process of vaccinations and immune system adaptation to a virus as the process of in vivo "manufacturing" of nanorobots (white blood cells) designed to eliminate specific pathogens. However the efficacy of vaccinations depends on both how it is engineered as well as the capabilities of the genome (and therefore the immune system) of specific individuals. With many viruses that do not vary significantly (smallpox, polio, etc.) it is possible to produce a "one size fits all" vaccination. With HIV the problem is much more complex, in part because there are different virus strains. To effectively train ones immune system to respond to HIV may eventually require vaccination types which are tuned for both the virus subtype and the immune system type (primarily the MHC genes) of specific individuals. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Apr 13 19:05:25 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics Message-ID: <20060413190525.44739.qmail@web52611.mail.yahoo.com> 'Possible worlds' is a concept underlying Saul Kripke's modal logic. Many express bewilderment with the concept, assuming it refers to spooky quasi-existent worlds. In Kate Kearns' text "Semantics" [*] I just ran into the clearest presentation of possible worlds I've seen that also makes clear that they exist as (imaginary) points of reference in everyday natural language. As Kearns says: "the actual world is not enough to pin down a sentence meaning [...] other worlds are also needed." Kearns gives the example of a brown dog named Midge. (I'll elaborate further by using standard modal notation she does not.) Now, in the actual world where Midge is brown (let's call the actual world w1) these three statements have the same truth value: a) Midge isn't purple. b) Midge isn't white. c) Midge is brown. Where V is a valuation function mapping sentences a, b, and c at w1 to truth values (1 = true; 0 = false): V(w1,a) = 1 V(w1,b) = 1 V(w1,c) = 1 So the *extensional* meaning of all the sentences is the same (the extensional meaning of a sentence is its truth value wrt the actual world). But we know that the meanings of the sentences are not the same. Their meanings reside in their *intensional* meaning, which is found in the unique Truth Set of each sentence. The truth set of a sentence is the set of its truth values in all possible worlds. In the possible world w2 where Midge is purple, we have it that of the three sentences above: V(w2,a) = 0 V(w2,b) = 1 V(w2,c) = 0 In the possible world w3 where Midge is white, we have it that of the three sentences above: V(w3,a) = 1 V(w3,b) = 0 V(w3,c) = 0 Here then are the Truth Sets for the three sample sentences (represented by their respective capital letters) over the three sample worlds: A = { (w1,1), (w2,0), (w3,1) } B = { (w1,1), (w2,1), (w3,0) } C = { (w1,1), (w2,0), (w3,0) } So while the extensional meaning confined to the actual world (w1) is the same for the three sentences, the unique intensional meaning of each sentence exists in its unique truth set. I've read a number of texts on modal logic and from them have gained a good understanding. But the short description in Kearns "Semantics" [*] outlined above just struck me as the clearest I've read. Moreover, her example seems to make it obvious that possible worlds is not some aloof Ivory Tower pipedream, but seems inherent in natural language. When I say "My car isn't orange," my statement refers to a possible, or conceivable, world where it IS orange and denotes that the actual world differs from that world, which is to say the valuation of my statement in this world differs from its valuation in that conceivable world. Ie, this world is not a possible world where my car is orange. ~Ian _____________________________________________________ [*] Kearns, K. (2000). "Semantics." New York: St Martin's Press. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312231830/ http://iangoddard.net "All inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion, that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion." - David Hume __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From acy.stapp at gmail.com Thu Apr 13 21:23:51 2006 From: acy.stapp at gmail.com (Acy Stapp) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:23:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <042701c659e2$88395ee0$660fa8c0@kevin> References: <20060406224137.44283.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <042701c659e2$88395ee0$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: My daughter is almost five and she has started believing in fairies and angels, heaven, and all that magical stuff. I tell her it's all pretend and then let her know that some angels have four or six faces, two or four or even more wings, some of them have lots and lots of eyes or mouths, some are always on fire (but it doesn't hurt them), etc. It's easy for her to imagine that there could be a real creature with wings and a person's body but she really has to think about it to get her head around a really biblical angel. I also like to mix it up and throw an angel or fairy into a story about a talking rabbit or other clearly impossible scenario. Basically I try to mythologize the whole christian pantheon and it seems to work fairly well to convince her of the unreality of it all. On 4/6/06, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > I wouldn;t be so sure about that. The main reason there was a lot of shift > to private education had to do with silly things they were starting to do in > school - especially the propensity for teachers to automatically assign an > unfocused child the label of ADHD and send them to a doctor to get them on > ritalin. There was also the "whole word" method of reading being taught > (which my daughter was subject to and is just now pulling out of). > > My daughters still attend a public school and recently my daughter joined > the school choir. Shortly after joining she came home to tell me that she > felt uncomfortable because they were making them sing all these religious > songs. I spoke with the music teacher and the principal and found that of 12 > songs, 10 were clearly christian and two were "prouod to be American" type > songs. I was told that if she didn;t like it, she didn't have to be in the > choir because choir was an optional activity. > > I think something else is at work here besides private education. Something > far bigger, yet more subtle. My thought is that over the last 20 years, > christians who were feeling isolated and alarmed by the pace of scientific > discovery decided to move into the public education system so that they > could directly affect the education of children in that direction. Sometimes > I feel I missed my calling and I should be there on the front lines as well > because that is where the battle is. Changing the curriculum will have less > of an effect than increasing the number of secular leaning teachers. > > Robert appeared to write: > > > With respect to the discussion involving "public" education, Dennett's > perspective was interesting. He thought a public education about > "religions" in the broadest sense -- i.e. one has to learn about *all* > religions (sufficiently well to pass 'standardized' test about them) was the > solution to current paradigm of religious brain washing. I know that for > myself it was an education in science that forced a direct confrontation > between evidence-based reasoning (science) and Catholic indoctrination > around the time I was 13-14 years old. An education in a variety of > religions at an earlier age would quite likely have facilitated the > realization that one set of beliefs that I had been taught had some major > problems. I would suspect that I would have stopped believing in a "savior" > around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. > > It seems that the removal of ones children from public education is perhaps > playing a major role in the revival of Christan fundamentalism (in the > U.S.). It is the ability to brainwash children and limit their exposure to > other "realities" which allows the manufacture of irrational mind-clones. > It is easy to say that one (as a list member) would educate ones children > "properly" (in rational thinking, etc.) -- but what is to guarantee that > everyone else will do that? > > Robert > -- Acy Stapp "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983) From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Apr 13 22:13:44 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:13:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question re Bibliographic Software Message-ID: <380-220064413221344890@M2W126.mail2web.com> Can someone suggest cross-platform sofware that creates Harvard style bibliographies? Thanks! Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From sentience at pobox.com Thu Apr 13 22:56:37 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:56:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit at Stanford, 5/13 - RSVP now Message-ID: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> http://sss.stanford.edu/ If you wish to attend, RSVP swiftly. Apparently seats are going fast. ------ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contacts: Tyler Emerson Singularity Institute emerson at singinst dot org 650-353-6063 Todd Davies Stanford University Symbolic Systems Program tdavies at csli dot stanford dot edu 650-723-4091 Renee Blodgett Blodgett Communications 617-620-9664 Renee at blodgettcomm dot com (business press, bloggers) Singularity Summit At Stanford Explores Future Of 'Superintelligence' STANFORD, CA April 13, 2006 -- The Stanford University Symbolic Systems Program and the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence announced today the Singularity Summit at Stanford, a one-day event free to the public, to be held Saturday, May 13, 2006 at Stanford Memorial Auditorium, Stanford, California. The event will bring together leading futurists and others to examine the implications of the "Singularity" -- a hypothesized creation of superintelligence as technology accelerates over the coming decades -- to address the profound implications of this radical and controversial scenario. ?The Singularity will be a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed," said Ray Kurzweil, keynote speaker and author of the best-selling The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Viking, 2005). "Based on models of technology development that I've used to forecast technological change successfully for more than 25 years, I believe computers will pass the Turing Test by 2029, and by the 2040s our civilization will be billions of times more intelligent." "Some regard the Singularity as a positive event and work to hasten its arrival, while others view it as unlikely, or even dangerous and undesirable," said Todd Davies, associate director of Stanford's Symbolic Systems Program. ?The conference will bring together a range of thinkers about AI, nanotechnology, cognitive science, and related areas for a public discussion of these important questions about our future." Noted speakers at the event will also include cognitive scientist Douglas R. Hofstadter, author of the Pulitzer prize-winning Godel, Escher, Bach; nanotechnology pioneers K. Eric Drexler and Christine L. Peterson; science-fiction novelist Cory Doctorow; philosopher Nick Bostrom; futurist Max More; Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, research fellow of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence; Acceleration Studies Foundation president John Smart; PayPal founder and Clarium Capital Management president Peter Thiel; Steve Jurvetson, a Managing Director of Draper Fisher Jurvetson; and Sebastian Thrun, Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory director and Project Lead of the Stanford Racing Team (DARPA Grand Challenge $2 million winner). In addition, author Bill McKibben will participate remotely from Maine via Teleportec, a two-way, life-size 3D display of the speaker. The event will be moderated by Peter Thiel and Tyler Emerson, executive director of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Among the issues to be addressed: Bostrom: Will superintelligence help us reduce or eliminate existential risks, such as the risk that advanced nanotechnology will be used by humans in warfare or terrorism? Doctorow: Will our technology serve us, or control us? Drexler: Will productive nanosystems enable the development of more intricate and complex productive systems, creating a feedback loop that drives accelerating change? Hofstadter: What is the likelihood of our being eclipsed by (or absorbed into) a vast computational network of superminds, in the course of the next few decades? Kurzweil: Will the Singularity be a soft (gradual) or hard (rapid) take off and how will humans stay in control? More: Will our emotional, social, psychological, ethical intelligence and self-awareness keep up with our expanding cognitive abilities? Peterson: How can we safely bring humanity and the biosphere through the Singularity? Thrun: Where does AI stand in comparison to human-level skills, in light of the recent autonomous robot race, the DARPA Grand Challenge? Yudkowsky: How can we shape the intelligence explosion for the benefit of humanity? The Singularity Summit is hosted by the Symbolic Systems Program at Stanford, and co-sponsored by Clarium Capital Management, KurzweilAI.net, MINE, the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, the Stanford Transhumanist Association, and United Therapeutics. The free event will be held in Stanford Memorial Auditorium, 551 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305. Seating is limited. Please RSVP to http://sss.stanford.edu/rsvptoday. For further information: http://sss.stanford.edu or 650-353-6063. About the Stanford University Symbolic Systems Program The Symbolic Systems Program (http://symsys.stanford.edu) is an undergraduate and master's interdisciplinary program at Stanford, focusing on the relationships between people and computers. SSP's goal is to prepare students with the vocabulary, theoretical background, and technical skills to understand and participate in interdisciplinary research into questions about language, information, and intelligence -- both human and machine. About Clarium Capital Management Clarium Capital Management (http://www.clariumcapital.com) is a San Francisco-based global macro hedge fund, combining the diligence and prudence of an Old World investment firm with the energy and entrepreneurship of a Silicon Valley start-up. Clarium is a fortress in Greek mythology. Clarium's President and Chairman of the Investment committee is Peter Thiel, the former chairman, CEO, and co-founder of PayPal Inc., acquired by eBay Inc. for $1.5 billion in 2002. Driven by a contrarian bias, CCM pursues opportunities in four areas: currencies, commodities, distressed debt, and micro-cap public equities. CCM also selectively pursues private investments that show exceptional promise. About KurzweilAI.net Founded by Ray Kurzweil, KurzweilAI.net (http://kurzweilai.net) features more than 600 articles by big thinkers examining the convergence of accelerating revolutions in AI, nanotechnology, genetics, and other areas shaping the future of superintelligence. Its free Accelerating-Intelligence News daily newsletter tracks the latest news in these areas and its Mind-X forum allows for open discussion. KurzweilAI.net also manages singularity.com and fantastic-voyage.net, covering Kurzweil's recent two books. About MINE MINE (http://www.minesf.com) was founded with the philosophy that good design is good business, and that working smart beats working big. A multidisciplinary studio, MINE offers innovative and informed solutions as tools to support corporate, enterprise, and nonprofit organizations. Emphasizing intelligence-based design and sound strategic thinking, MINE seeks to create definitive, stand-out work that projects a unique position of leadership and promotes the highest standards of excellence. About the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (http://www.singinst.org) is a research and public interest institute for the advancement of three emerging research fields: beneficial artificial intelligence, the singularity, and global catastrophic risks associated with anticipated technologies. The Institute aims to develop and foster a community of highly gifted interdisciplinary researchers to accelerate these fields, and create the foundation needed to support this research community. The Institute?s main goal is to ensure the creation of beneficial AI. About the Stanford Transhumanist Association The Stanford Transhumanist Association (http://www.stanford.edu/group/transhumanism/blog) was founded in 2004 by Michael Jin (President) and Yonah Berwaldt (Financial Officer), then freshmen. It is a working group dedicated to spreading awareness about the impact of emerging technologies on humanity. The group is a Student Chapter of the World Transhumanist Association, an international nonprofit membership organization advocating the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities. About United Therapeutics United Therapeutics (http://www.unither.com) is a biotechnology company focused on the development and commercialization of unique products for patients with chronic and life-threatening cardiovascular, cancer and infectious diseases. In these segments, United Therapeutics is actively developing four technology platforms: Prostacyclin Analogs, Immunotherapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies, Glycobiology, and Telemedicine. From brentn at freeshell.org Thu Apr 13 23:05:39 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:05:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question re Bibliographic Software In-Reply-To: <380-220064413221344890@M2W126.mail2web.com> Message-ID: (4/13/06 18:13) nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >Can someone suggest cross-platform sofware that creates Harvard style >bibliographies? > >Thanks! > >Natasha > If by cross-platform, you mean Mac and Windows, I'd try Endnote, which I enjoyed using while writing my dissertation. If you're looking for Linux or other Unix/X11 software, I'm clueless. Sorry. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Apr 13 23:14:56 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:14:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question re Bibliographic Software Message-ID: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> From: Brent Neal >If by cross-platform, you mean Mac and Windows, I'd try Endnote, which I enjoyed using >while writing my dissertation. Great, thanks. But I read that Endnote has some glitches and does not produce accurate Harvard style. Thanks, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From brentn at freeshell.org Fri Apr 14 00:47:35 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:47:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question re Bibliographic Software In-Reply-To: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> Message-ID: (4/13/06 19:14) nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >Great, thanks. But I read that Endnote has some glitches and does not >produce accurate Harvard style. At least with Endnote 5, you could make your own templates for formatting the output. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 01:09:14 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:09:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question re Bibliographic Software In-Reply-To: <380-220064413221344890@M2W126.mail2web.com> References: <380-220064413221344890@M2W126.mail2web.com> Message-ID: I'm pretty happy with the open-source JabRef reference manager: http://jabref.sourceforge.net/ I've never tried this feature, but it apparently has "an exporter that produces a Harvard style bibliography in RTF format." On 4/13/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Can someone suggest cross-platform sofware that creates Harvard style > bibliographies? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Fri Apr 14 00:53:00 2006 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:53:00 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question re Bibliographic Software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1144975980.3767.174.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 19:05 -0400, Brent Neal wrote: > (4/13/06 18:13) nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > >Can someone suggest cross-platform sofware that creates Harvard style > >bibliographies? > > > >Thanks! > > > >Natasha > > > > > If by cross-platform, you mean Mac and Windows, I'd try Endnote, which I enjoyed using while writing my dissertation. If you're looking for Linux or other Unix/X11 software, I'm clueless. Sorry. > BibTeX and maybe the following library http://www.mackichan.com/index.html?techtalk/496.htm~mainFrame (Only if you use LaTeX or one of its derivatives) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Apr 14 02:59:36 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:59:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit at Stanford, 5/13 In-Reply-To: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> References: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060414025936.GA27935@ofb.net> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 03:56:37PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > http://sss.stanford.edu/ > Among the issues to be addressed: > > Bostrom: Will superintelligence help us reduce or eliminate existential > risks, such as the risk that advanced nanotechnology will be used by > humans in warfare or terrorism? > > Doctorow: Will our technology serve us, or control us? > > Drexler: Will productive nanosystems enable the development of more > intricate and complex productive systems, creating a feedback loop that > drives accelerating change? > > Hofstadter: What is the likelihood of our being eclipsed by (or absorbed > into) a vast computational network of superminds, in the course of the > next few decades? > > Kurzweil: Will the Singularity be a soft (gradual) or hard (rapid) take > off and how will humans stay in control? > > More: Will our emotional, social, psychological, ethical intelligence > and self-awareness keep up with our expanding cognitive abilities? > > Peterson: How can we safely bring humanity and the biosphere through the > Singularity? > > Thrun: Where does AI stand in comparison to human-level skills, in light > of the recent autonomous robot race, the DARPA Grand Challenge? > > Yudkowsky: How can we shape the intelligence explosion for the benefit > of humanity? Heh. Note how a majority of the questions clearly take the Singularity for granted. Oddly Drexler's question is as open as Hofstadter's, though I expect they'll take opposition answers. Thrun's question could be that of a skeptic. -xx- Damien X-) http://mindstalk.net From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Fri Apr 14 03:02:14 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:02:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060414030214.GB27935@ofb.net> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:46:33AM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > The thing to remember about viruses is that they are very small and if > one can control their numbers they are not a problem. So this allows > people to live with diseases like TB or Hepatitis for extended Pedantic note: TB is a bacterium, not a virus. > that drug was ineffective against. With the development of the > so-called "triple cocktail" approach three drugs are used which target > different vulnerabilities in the virus reproduction pathways. So to > work around the drugs the virus has to develop three mutations which If only we'd been using antibiotic cocktails... -xx- Damien X-) From brian at posthuman.com Fri Apr 14 03:50:11 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:50:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit at Stanford, 5/13 In-Reply-To: <20060414025936.GA27935@ofb.net> References: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> <20060414025936.GA27935@ofb.net> Message-ID: <443F1BF3.9060200@posthuman.com> Damien Sullivan wrote: > > Heh. Note how a majority of the questions clearly take the Singularity for > granted. Actually it's not surprising since the primary idea of the event was to move beyond the previous singularity event at Stanford a few years ago. This one, instead of just debating whether it will/can happen or not, we try to also ask what would the scope and consequences be, can it be guided, etc. Although many of the speakers think a singularity will happen/is possible, their takes on it are wildly varying. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 08:23:20 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:23:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Presentation on transhumanism, April 22 18:50 Euro time, Barcelona and Second Life Message-ID: <470a3c520604140123q36670a4bw43f9760b1118e220@mail.gmail.com> On April 22 I will give a presentation on transhumanism in Second Life, shown also in the festival "26.000 Light Years" in Barcelona. Info in Spanish below. Everyone is welcome to come to SL - see metaxlr8.com or http://futuretag.net/index.php/MetaXLR8 for direction. I will speak in Spanish over a VoIP link (direct to the festival, you won't hear me speaking if you come to SL), but most of the the slides will be in English. G. ---- Presentaci?n sobre transhumanismo el 22 de Abril En Barcelona y en Segunda Vida 22 de Abril 2006, 18:50 - Desde la realidad virtual de Second Life, Giulio Prisco nos cuenta que significa la palabra "Transhumanismo". Presentaci?n en directa tambi?n en el mundo real, en " 26 000 a?os luz ;, que es el nombre del mini-festival astro-art?stico organizado por El Club de los Astronautas el d?a 22 de Abril en Barcelona en una galer?a de arte en colaboraci?n con Amnist?a Internacional de Catalu?a. Tambi?n es la distancia entre la tierra y el centro de nuestra galaxia, donde cient?ficos hoy en d?a suponen vida inteligente. ?Ser? posible alg?n d?a un viaje intergal?ctico de esta distancia? 22 de Abril 2006 - 17:00 horas - Galer?a N?u, C/Almogavers 208, Metro: Llacuna (L4) o Glories (L1), Barcelona. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 11:22:28 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:22:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: <20060414030214.GB27935@ofb.net> References: <20060414030214.GB27935@ofb.net> Message-ID: On 4/13/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:46:33AM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > The thing to remember about viruses is that they are very small and > if > > one can control their numbers they are not a problem. So this allows > > people to live with diseases like TB or Hepatitis for extended > > Pedantic note: TB is a bacterium, not a virus. True. I could have phrased this better. Though TB, unlike the bacteria which may produce sepsis, replicate slowly and live most of their lives within intracellular vacuoles they are generally hidden from the immune system they are relatively non-pathogenic in non-immunocompromised individuals. Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry indicates that TB currently infects ~2 billion people worldwide. It appears that the synergism between HIV and TB coinfections is actually one of the major causes of problems with HIV infections. > that drug was ineffective against. With the development of the > > so-called "triple cocktail" approach three drugs are used which > target > > different vulnerabilities in the virus reproduction pathways. So to > > work around the drugs the virus has to develop three mutations which > > If only we'd been using antibiotic cocktails... I'm not sure I follow (unless some humor is being attempted). Antibiotic cocktails would be ineffective against viruses and would contribute to the ongoing development of antibiotic resistance which would not be good. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Apr 14 15:37:53 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Are there any prospects that before implants, BCIs (brain-computer interfaces), uploading, or AGI (and Molecular Nanotechnology) come around that any really kick-ass 'smart-drugs' are created and used? My impression is that today's 'smart-drugs' confer only modest benefits, if any, to normal healthy people. But maybe a really effective one will enter the pipeline within the near future, that can objectively increase intelligence (by safely increasing firing rates?). A kind of a poor man's version of distributed nanobot enhancers - possibly made from nanoparticles or just plain old pharmacology. Does anyone know of any projects along these lines? I'd be surprised if DARPA isn't working on it. Another useful invention invention might be a "drug" that reliably increases feelings of altruism within a subject (in principle, anti-depressants and the like don't seem too dissimilar). That could prove useful if uploading or BCIs arrive before the others (a real-time upload at least). In any case, a powerfully effective intelligence increasing drug would probably shorten the time to Singularity, if used appropriately. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 16:56:07 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:56:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> On 4/14/06, A B wrote: > > Are there any prospects that before implants, BCIs (brain-computer > interfaces), uploading, or AGI (and Molecular Nanotechnology) come around > that any really kick-ass 'smart-drugs' are created and used? My impression > is that today's 'smart-drugs' confer only modest benefits, if any, to normal > healthy people. But maybe a really effective one will enter the pipeline > within the near future, that can objectively increase intelligence (by > safely increasing firing rates?). > My guess is that no simple chemical tweak will confer large benefits to most people without corresponding disadvantages, simply because if such were easily had, evolution would probably have already found it. (Eliezer called this "Algernon's Law", IIRC.) There are loopholes, of course, e.g. it might be that 90% of people could see a free benefit from some tweak, while any given tweak would only benefit 10% - so just make sure to pick the appropriate one for your brain chemistry. Or you might be able to boost performance in some areas while degrading it in others. I'm not sure this idea is cause for optimism, though... wouldn't the big market be students? For that market, wouldn't the winner be something that boosts rote memorization while e.g. damping creative thought? Good for zero sum status seeking via exam results, but not obviously conducive to progress. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 19:05:57 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:05:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/14/06, A B wrote: > > Are there any prospects that before implants, BCIs (brain-computer > interfaces), uploading, or AGI (and Molecular Nanotechnology) come around > that any really kick-ass 'smart-drugs' are created and used? My impression > is that today's 'smart-drugs' confer only modest benefits, if any, to normal > healthy people. But maybe a really effective one will enter the pipeline > within the near future, that can objectively increase intelligence (by > safely increasing firing rates?). A kind of a poor man's version of > distributed nanobot enhancers - possibly made from nanoparticles or just > plain old pharmacology. Quantitatively, you could get marginal improvements based on blood flow, firing rate, signal speed, etc. To achieve any signficant improvements, particularly to get qualitatively new kinds of thinking, you'll have to rewire the system. Martin From hal at finney.org Fri Apr 14 20:02:14 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics Message-ID: <20060414200214.956B457FD1@finney.org> Ian writes about Kripkean "possible worlds" semantics. I've been trying to learn a little about this because Robin has used it in some of his papers, and it is a widely used framework for economic and game theory analysis of certain issues. I found a good and gentle online introduction to the formalism here. It is a draft of a widely referenced survey by John Geanakoplos: http://www.tark.org/proceedings/tark_mar22_92/p254-geanakoplos.pdf The topic is "common knowledge", information for which we can say that I know it, you know it, I know you know it, you know I know it, I know you know I know it, and so on, indefinitely. This seemingly simple topic produces perhaps the most paradoxical results in economics, some of them due to Robin's original work. It is impossible for people to disagree (or at least to disagree persistently, or to agree to disagree), it is impossible for people to bet, it is impossible for people to trade on futures markets, etc. In other words, rational people would not engage in a great many behaviors which generally seem to be perfectly reasonable, which raises the question of what exactly it means to be rational. Understanding these surprising results requiress understanding the logic behind them, which is developed in a special formalism dealing with Kripke's "possible worlds". Geanakoplos' paper starts off with an introduction to the concept and the formalism, and is the best source I have found for understanding how it works. To whet your appetite I will quote one of the puzzles he mentions, which deals with issues of what we know, what we know of what others know, what we know of what they know of what we know, and so on: "A generous but mischievous father tells his sons that he has placed 10^n dollars in one envelope and 10^(n+1) dollars in the other envelope, where n is chosen with equal probability among the integers from from 1 to 6. Since the father's wealth is well known to be 11 million dollars, the sons completely believe their father. He randomly hands each son an envelope. the first son looks inside his envelope and finds $10,000. Disappointed at the meager amount, he calculates that the odds are fifty-fifty that he has the smaller amount in his envelope. Since the other envelope contains either $1,000 or $100,000 with equal probability, the first son realizes that the expected amount in the other envelope is $50,500. Unbeknownst to him the second son has seen that there is only $1,000 in his envelope. Based on his information, he expects to find either $100 or $100,000 in the first son's envelope, which at equal odds come to an expectation of $5,050. The father privately asks each son whether he would be willing to pay $1 to switch envelopes, in effect betting that the other envelope has more money. Both sons say yes. The father then calls both of his sons in together and tells them that they have each offered $1 to switch envelopes, and asks them to shake hands on the deal, it being understood that if either son refuses the deal is off. The sons take a hard look at each other. What should they do? Suppose instead that the sons were not permitted to look at each other, but instead they had to write their confirmation of the deal on separate pieces of paper and hand them to their father? What should they write?" I will add an additional question, to get the analysis started: is the first part of the reasoning correct? That is, suppose you were the first son in the example above, you opened your envelope to see $10,000, are you correct to say that you would pay $1 to switch? This is before you even know that your brother is going to be asked. Hal From hal at finney.org Fri Apr 14 20:44:09 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Healthy, wealthy and wise Message-ID: <20060414204409.7F11857FD1@finney.org> I posted a few weeks ago about Steve Pavlina, a consultant and blogger who has been experimenting for several months with "polyphasic sleep", where he takes about a 20-30 minute nap every four hours around the clock. In this way he gets by with 2-3 hours per day. Martin Striz responded skeptically: > Let me add that polyphasic sleep is bogus. NO drug or method has been > demonstrated to replace any amount of sleep under controlled > conditions for more than two or three days. If Steve claims that he > ONLY sleeps 2-3 hrs per day, then I know some investigators who will > pay good money to study him for a week. Most of the time, people who > claim to be low sleepers get small naps or microsleeps that they don't > even realize they are getting (which you wouldn't notice if you were > constantly sleep deprived, say, through polyphasic sleep). The vast > majority of people who have come to sleep researchers claiming not to > sleep at all have been shown to sleep 4, 5, 6 hrs a day. Frankly I don't see how you can say so dogmatically that sleeping 2-3 hours per day is bogus when you grant that some people sleep only 4 hours per day. Given how little we konw about sleep, and given that people apparently are known who sleep only 4 hours per day, how can we rule out that someone could sleep only 3? Anyway, Steve Pavlina has now announced that he has ended his polyphasic sleep experiment. He enjoyed the extra time but in the end it was too much trouble being out of phase with the rest of the world. His blog entry describes his reasons, and also links back to all of his entries that detail his journey into the strange world of polyphasic sleep: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/04/polyphasic-sleep-the-return-to-monophasic/ I think if you read these, they make for a convincing story. I can't rule out the possibility that it's a fabrication; Steve does sell himself as a "personal development" expert and has donation links on every page. I gather that his sleep experiment has garnered quite a bit of publicity. But in the end the story has to stand on its own. To me, his extensive journal entries and the comments from his wife have the ring of truth. But I can't say for sure. Hal From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Apr 14 21:32:12 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:32:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10604141432q2d5492bpa844fbe649c0e80f@mail.gmail.com> On 4/14/06, Martin Striz wrote: > On 4/14/06, A B wrote: > > > > Are there any prospects that before implants, BCIs (brain-computer > > interfaces), uploading, or AGI (and Molecular Nanotechnology) come around > > that any really kick-ass 'smart-drugs' are created and used? My impression > > is that today's 'smart-drugs' confer only modest benefits, if any, to normal > > healthy people. But maybe a really effective one will enter the pipeline > > within the near future, that can objectively increase intelligence (by > > safely increasing firing rates?). A kind of a poor man's version of > > distributed nanobot enhancers - possibly made from nanoparticles or just > > plain old pharmacology. > > Quantitatively, you could get marginal improvements based on blood > flow, firing rate, signal speed, etc. To achieve any signficant > improvements, particularly to get qualitatively new kinds of thinking, > you'll have to rewire the system. I agree the benefits of smart drugs promise to be marginal and won't significantly raise the overall intelligence of our society, but marginal increases in certain capabilities, such as being able to work effectively for longer periods without sleep, can and will be influential in certain competitive scenarios. - Jef From wingcat at pacbell.net Fri Apr 14 20:52:23 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics In-Reply-To: <20060414200214.956B457FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060414205223.97986.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > The topic is "common knowledge", information for which we can say > that > I know it, you know it, I know you know it, you know I know it, I > know > you know I know it, and so on, indefinitely. > I will add an additional question, to get the analysis started: is > the > first part of the reasoning correct? That is, suppose you were the > first son in the example above, you opened your envelope to see > $10,000, > are you correct to say that you would pay $1 to switch? This is > before > you even know that your brother is going to be asked. The problem is, the answer to this relies on one crucial part of non-common knowledge: what the contents are of the other brother's envelope. Each brother must decide based on the information that that brother possesses. From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 22:46:01 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:46:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/14/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 4/14/06, A B wrote: > > > > Are there any prospects that before implants, BCIs (brain-computer > > interfaces), uploading, or AGI (and Molecular Nanotechnology) come around > > that any really kick-ass 'smart-drugs' are created and used? My impression > > is that today's 'smart-drugs' confer only modest benefits, if any, to normal > > healthy people. But maybe a really effective one will enter the pipeline > > within the near future, that can objectively increase intelligence (by > > safely increasing firing rates?). > > > > My guess is that no simple chemical tweak will confer large benefits to > most people without corresponding disadvantages, simply because if such were > easily had, evolution would probably have already found it. (Eliezer called > this "Algernon's Law", IIRC.) > Not necessarily. For example, one might imagine some sort of "tweak" which would enhance intelligence at the cost of dramatically increased energy consumption. Something like this would be selected against over the millenia of human evolution, as energy/food was generally hard to come by. In contemporary society however, energy/food is quite easy to get -- indeed, we have huge diet/exercise industries dedicated to trying to get people to consume less food or use more energy. In sum, something which may have been an evolutionary disadvantage may not be a disadvantage today. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 23:02:54 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:02:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604141602j4fd1f3dbx23a69f737b493c52@mail.gmail.com> On 4/14/06, Neil H. wrote: > Not necessarily. For example, one might imagine some sort of "tweak" which > would enhance intelligence at the cost of dramatically increased energy > consumption. Something like this would be selected against over the millenia > of human evolution, as energy/food was generally hard to come by. In > contemporary society however, energy/food is quite easy to get -- indeed, we > have huge diet/exercise industries dedicated to trying to get people to > consume less food or use more energy. > In principle, sure; the extreme case of this would be uploading to a digital substrate that gives 1000-fold speedup by using 20 kilowatts of power instead of 20 watts. My guess, for what it's worth, is that you won't get any significant degree of that with a simple chemical tweak to the existing hardware. (I remember reading that the mitochondria in the brain aren't far from their limits already.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 23:07:45 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:07:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Healthy, wealthy and wise In-Reply-To: <20060414204409.7F11857FD1@finney.org> References: <20060414204409.7F11857FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: On 4/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I posted a few weeks ago about Steve Pavlina, a consultant and blogger > who has been experimenting for several months with "polyphasic sleep", > where he takes about a 20-30 minute nap every four hours around the clock. > In this way he gets by with 2-3 hours per day. > > Martin Striz responded skeptically: > > > Let me add that polyphasic sleep is bogus. NO drug or method has been > > demonstrated to replace any amount of sleep under controlled > > conditions for more than two or three days. If Steve claims that he > > ONLY sleeps 2-3 hrs per day, then I know some investigators who will > > pay good money to study him for a week. Most of the time, people who > > claim to be low sleepers get small naps or microsleeps that they don't > > even realize they are getting (which you wouldn't notice if you were > > constantly sleep deprived, say, through polyphasic sleep). The vast > > majority of people who have come to sleep researchers claiming not to > > sleep at all have been shown to sleep 4, 5, 6 hrs a day. > > Frankly I don't see how you can say so dogmatically that sleeping 2-3 > hours per day is bogus when you grant that some people sleep only 4 > hours per day. Given how little we konw about sleep, and given that > people apparently are known who sleep only 4 hours per day, how can we > rule out that someone could sleep only 3? Sleeping less is pointless if you are less vigilant and less productive as a consequence. Some people naturally sleep as little as 4 hrs per day, but they are rare. They are out somewhere around the fifth or sixth standard deviation, so I have reason to question whether someone is really sleeping that little. Reducing your natural sleep time even further and claiming that you don't lose cognitive ability or productivity is even more dubious. There's reams of data to back that up, that's how I can say it so confidently. > Anyway, Steve Pavlina has now announced that he has ended his polyphasic > sleep experiment. He enjoyed the extra time but in the end it was too > much trouble being out of phase with the rest of the world. His blog > entry describes his reasons, and also links back to all of his entries > that detail his journey into the strange world of polyphasic sleep: > > http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/04/polyphasic-sleep-the-return-to-monophasic/ > > I think if you read these, they make for a convincing story. I can't > rule out the possibility that it's a fabrication; Steve does sell himself > as a "personal development" expert and has donation links on every page. > I gather that his sleep experiment has garnered quite a bit of publicity. > But in the end the story has to stand on its own. To me, his extensive > journal entries and the comments from his wife have the ring of truth. > But I can't say for sure. If he wants to prove himself, there dozens of people who would love to examine him under controlled conditions. If he can demonstrate the ability to function productively under controlled conditions, then he is truly rare, truly an anomaly. His methodology won't work for 99.9% of the population, but he'll get rich hawking it anyway. Martin From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Apr 14 23:35:21 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:35:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604150006.k3F06sJp002519@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Acy Stapp ... > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... > > My daughter is almost five and she has started believing in fairies ... > and throw an angel or fairy into a story about a talking rabbit or > other clearly impossible scenario... > Acy Stapp Off the top of my head, I can think of two instances where animals spoke in the bible: the talking serpent in the garden of Eden, and Balaam's ass. I too have been pondering this lately, with the child on the way. Many people know I am into dinosaurs, so we have been given a lot of dinosaur baby stuff. There are two categories of baby dinosaur stuff: images of dinosaurs which are more or less anatomically correct, even identifiable by species, and cartoony dinosaur images like Barney etc. The former category is much more rare and way more expensive. I have a special challenge in that most of my own family members regard anything written in the bible as unquestionable fact, even the talking ass. spike From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Apr 14 23:32:24 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:32:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy Easter animation Message-ID: <00ec01c6601b$d84a76a0$0200a8c0@Nano> Come download the Easter animation I made for you by clicking the link below: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/easter06.htm Hope you enjoy it! Happy holiday. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Everything else blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org 3D/Animation http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/index.htm Microscope Jewelry http://www.nanogirl.com/crafts/microjewelry.htm Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Apr 15 00:03:26 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:03:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Healthy, wealthy and wise In-Reply-To: <20060414204409.7F11857FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <200604150037.k3F0b3lC022923@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" ... > > Frankly I don't see how you can say so dogmatically that sleeping 2-3 > hours per day is bogus when you grant that some people sleep only 4 > hours per day... > Hal My own experience with this was in college where I heard that the first few hours of sleep are more efficient than the last few. So I reasoned that if I could split my sleep into two 3-hour naps a day instead of the usual about 6.5 hours, that might work. That summer I had a job from 0400 to 0800 as a front desk guy, which didn't require a lot of concentration, but did require me to be awake and alert. I tutored students in the afternoons, and the evenings were spent with my sweetheart, to whom I have been married for the past 22 years. So I slept from about 0030 to 0320, then again from about 0830 to about 1030. I was able to sleep less, but I went about in a hazy dreamlike state for much of that time. That was kinda cool actually. In a couple months I will begin a new experiment in sleep deprivation, but this time I will be required to produce a much higher level of concentration on my job. Report to follow in about August. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Apr 15 00:43:30 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:43:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] infinite fun but finite tunes? In-Reply-To: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Eliezer has assured us that there is an infinite amount of fun. I have never doubted that notion, but I had a disturbing thought while on a business trip this week. I was driving and going thru the radio channels, when I heard one of those good old songs that gets stuck in one's head: Stevie Wonder just called, to say, he loves you. He just called to say how much he cares. He just called to say he loves you, and he means it from the bottom of his heart. OK that tune is stuck in your head now, right? And you can't get rid of it, right? And you hate me for mentioning it? {8^D That is an example of a viral tune: pleasant, something you might hear violinized and played in elevators, nice enough that you don't even need the words, not particularly profound are these lyrics anyway. There are a lot of viral tunes. Roy Orbison wrote a bunch of them (peace be upon him), the Beatles wrote a buuunch of these tunes, and there are others, many from the 60s, 50s and before. One often finds oneself humming the compelling melodies. Here is the disturbing part: Stevie called to say he loves us somewhere around 1984-ish. But I cannot think of a single viral tune that was written after that one. Did we really run out of them over twenty years ago? There were other good tunes, but not really the simple, pleasant, hummable, violinizeable tunes like that one and the others before it. Is it just that I do not listen to the right stations? Is it possible to hum a rap... um... performance? Who is writing pleasant viral tunes today? The newer stuff seems more complex in rhythms and such but the melodies will never be played as background music in an elevator perhaps. Did we already write all the good songs? Or did they just migrate over to the country western stations? Or what? spike From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Apr 15 00:04:00 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics Message-ID: <20060415000400.74401.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Hal Finney hal at finney.org wrote: >What should they do? >Suppose instead that the sons were not permitted to look at each other, >but instead they had to write their confirmation of the deal on separate >pieces of paper and hand them to their father? What should they write? >I will add an additional question, to get the analysis started: is the >first part of the reasoning correct? That is, suppose you were the >first son in the example above, you opened your envelope to see $10,000, >are you correct to say that you would pay $1 to switch? This is before >you even know that your brother is going to be asked. Based on the information, I would say they will gamble with each other. Not that I can quote it, but I recall reading that three-quarters of adult Canadians spent money on some form of gambling . I don't know about USA. Without more information, is the best policy to go with the statistics? Just Curious Anna "A generous but mischievous father tells his sons that he has placed 10^n dollars in one envelope and 10^(n+1) dollars in the other envelope, where n is chosen with equal probability among the integers from from 1 to 6. Since the father's wealth is well known to be 11 million dollars, the sons completely believe their father. He randomly hands each son an envelope. the first son looks inside his envelope and finds $10,000. Disappointed at the meager amount, he calculates that the odds are fifty-fifty that he has the smaller amount in his envelope. Since the other envelope contains either $1,000 or $100,000 with equal probability, the first son realizes that the expected amount in the other envelope is $50,500. Unbeknownst to him the second son has seen that there is only $1,000 in his envelope. Based on his information, he expects to find either $100 or $100,000 in the first son's envelope, which at equal odds come to an expectation of $5,050. The father privately asks each son whether he would be willing to pay $1 to switch envelopes, in effect betting that the other envelope has more money. Both sons say yes. The father then calls both of his sons in together and tells them that they have each offered $1 to switch envelopes, and asks them to shake hands on the deal, it being understood that if either son refuses the deal is off. The sons take a hard look at each other. --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 01:46:32 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:46:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604141602j4fd1f3dbx23a69f737b493c52@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0604141602j4fd1f3dbx23a69f737b493c52@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/14/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 4/14/06, Neil H. wrote: > > > Not necessarily. For example, one might imagine some sort of "tweak" > > which would enhance intelligence at the cost of dramatically increased > > energy consumption. Something like this would be selected against over the > > millenia of human evolution, as energy/food was generally hard to come by. > > In contemporary society however, energy/food is quite easy to get -- indeed, > > we have huge diet/exercise industries dedicated to trying to get people to > > consume less food or use more energy. > > > > In principle, sure; the extreme case of this would be uploading to a > digital substrate that gives 1000-fold speedup by using 20 kilowatts of > power instead of 20 watts. My guess, for what it's worth, is that you won't > get any significant degree of that with a simple chemical tweak to the > existing hardware. (I remember reading that the mitochondria in the brain > aren't far from their limits already.) > You're probably right, but a quick random thought: Children are able to learn things like new languages much better than adults, presumably because their brains are in a state of enhanced plasticity. Perhaps having the brain in such an enhanced plasticity mode consumes more calories, and after the critical period the brain switches out of that mode to conserve calories. If this is true, it may be possible to apply some sort of chemical which switches the brain back into the "enhanced plasticity mode," which consume more calories but can learn faster. Of course, this may also have some other side-effects. I wonder if anybody's used techniques similar to those of Simon Laughlin (Zoology prof. at Cambridge) to estimate how the caloric usage of a human brain changes at various ages. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 01:55:30 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:55:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604141602j4fd1f3dbx23a69f737b493c52@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0604141602j4fd1f3dbx23a69f737b493c52@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/14/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 4/14/06, Neil H. wrote: > > > Not necessarily. For example, one might imagine some sort of "tweak" > > which would enhance intelligence at the cost of dramatically increased > > energy consumption. Something like this would be selected against over the > > millenia of human evolution, as energy/food was generally hard to come by. > > In contemporary society however, energy/food is quite easy to get -- indeed, > > we have huge diet/exercise industries dedicated to trying to get people to > > consume less food or use more energy. > > > > In principle, sure; the extreme case of this would be uploading to a > digital substrate that gives 1000-fold speedup by using 20 kilowatts of > power instead of 20 watts. My guess, for what it's worth, is that you won't > get any significant degree of that with a simple chemical tweak to the > existing hardware. (I remember reading that the mitochondria in the brain > aren't far from their limits already.) > Another random thought: What if something managed to increase the mitochondria count? Of course, if one did this too much, you'd probably also need to pursue artificial cooling measures so one wouldn't be in a permanent fever from all the waste heat: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128223639.htm (article on a brain cooling helmet for sick newborns) In relation to my post a few minutes ago, I wonder if there are any substantial differences in neural mitochondria counts for people of different ages/intelligences. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 02:26:44 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:26:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] infinite fun but finite tunes? In-Reply-To: <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 4/14/06, spike wrote: > > OK that tune is stuck in your head now, right? And you can't get rid of > it, > right? And you hate me for mentioning it? {8^D That is an example of a > viral tune: pleasant, something you might hear violinized and played in > elevators, nice enough that you don't even need the words, not > particularly > profound are these lyrics anyway. > ... > Here is the disturbing part: Stevie called to say he loves us somewhere > around 1984-ish. But I cannot think of a single viral tune that was > written > after that one. Did we really run out of them over twenty years > ago? There > were other good tunes, but not really the simple, pleasant, hummable, > violinizeable tunes like that one and the others before it. Is it just > that > I do not listen to the right stations? Is it possible to hum a rap... > um... > performance? Who is writing pleasant viral tunes today? The newer stuff > seems more complex in rhythms and such but the melodies will never be > played > as background music in an elevator perhaps. > > Did we already write all the good songs? Or did they just migrate over to > the country western stations? Or what? For my generation (raised in the 80s and 90s), a few songs from various Disney movies (Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Lion King, etc.) would probably qualify as viral tunes/earworms of a sort. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Apr 15 02:40:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:40:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] testing Message-ID: test From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sat Apr 15 03:47:05 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:47:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics In-Reply-To: <20060414200214.956B457FD1@finney.org> References: <20060414200214.956B457FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <44406CB9.10106@mydruthers.com> > Both sons say yes. The possible combinations are as follows: 1 10, 100 2 100, 1,000 3 1,000, 10,000 4 10,000, 100,000 5 100,000, 1,000,000 6 1,000,000 10,000,000 If you have 10M, you don't want to switch (you will only get worse.) If you have 1M, you don't want to offer to switch (Your offer will only be accepted by someone with less than you.) If you have 100K, it won't do you any good to switch. (Your clever brother would only trade if he had 10,000, not if he had 1M.) The analysis can be run further, but it's starting to stretch thin. If I had 10, 100, or 1000, I might be willing to switch. I can't see why I'd switch with 10,000. I wouldn't switch with 100K or 1M. > The father then calls both of his sons in together and tells them > that they have each offered $1 to switch envelopes, and asks them to > shake hands on the deal, it being understood that if either son > refuses the deal is off. The sons take a hard look at each other. > What should they do? If I'm face to face with my brother, and he's willing to switch, I give him credit for being as smart as me. > Suppose instead that the sons were not permitted to look at each > other, but instead they had to write their confirmation of the deal > on separate pieces of paper and hand them to their father? What > should they write?" They should think this far through it, and the one with 10K shouldn't say yes. The other one is stuck thinking that only someone with 10 or 100 dollars would be willing to switch. > I will add an additional question, to get the analysis started: is the > first part of the reasoning correct? That is, suppose you were the > first son in the example above, you opened your envelope to see $10,000, > are you correct to say that you would pay $1 to switch? This is before > you even know that your brother is going to be asked. You want to know whether it's equally likely that the other envelopes has n+1^10 and n-1^10. The answer is yes, in the absence of information about whether the other party would be willing to switch. But someone with n+1^10 is much less likely to be willing to switch, especially if you have more than $100. If you have to give an estimate of the value of the other envelope, (n+1^10 + n-1^10)/2 is the right number, but that's a different question of whether you'd go for a voluntary trade. An involuntary trade? Now I think you have to make the trade if you think the draws were random. In any case but the 10M, you gain more than you lose in the long run by trading. The asymmetry at the top makes it possible. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Apr 15 05:29:31 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:29:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics In-Reply-To: <44406CB9.10106@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <200604150530.k3F5TxQi020896@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Chris Hibbert > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics > > > Both sons say yes. > > The possible combinations are as follows: ... > > An involuntary trade? Now I think you have to make the trade if you > think the draws were random. In any case but the 10M, you gain more > than you lose in the long run by trading. The asymmetry at the top > makes it possible. Chris... Chris remember what messed us up on this last time around? Modify the question only slightly by saying the envelopes contain 10^x, the other contains 10^(X+1). X need not be an integer for this to work: one envelope contains ten times the amount in the other, with no hard limits. By the line of reasoning presented, one would trade. But with the given information one might be tempted to trade even without looking in one's own envelope. What have you actually learned by looking? Even if there is a one dollar charge to trade, one would still want to trade. But after paying a buck and trading, the same line of reasoning would still apply. So one would pay another buck to trade back. The smirky gift giver is up four dollars so far and the receivers are back where they started, at which time the original line of reasoning still applies. Do the silly proles keep paying a dollar and trading themselves into chapter 11? That sounds too much like playing the stock market. Since we are in puzzle mode, consider this one: For a plane to fly around the world without landing, its tank would need to hold sufficient fuel to go all the way around. But what if you had two identical planes, with fuel transfer capability. They could take off together, fly some distance, one transfers a quantity of fuel into the other plane and immediately turns back, returning to the point of origin. The other plane, which received the fuel, flies on around. 1. What is the necessary minimum range of the two planes such that the two could fly a ways, do a transfer, one plane turn around and go back to the start and the other go around? 2. What is the necessary minimum range capability if one had three such planes? 3. What is the necessary range capability if one has N planes? (This one is cool). spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Apr 15 06:27:19 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:27:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] forward from Amara Angelica Message-ID: <200604150700.k3F70sIX019397@andromeda.ziaspace.com> -----Original Message----- From: Amara D. Angelica [mailto:amara at kurzweilai.net] ... KurzweilAI.net is sponsoring a video recording and we plan to make it available in the future. _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of A B Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:37 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Singularity Summit and Survey Would it be possible to record the events of the Summit, as a transcript, or audio/video recording? I'm not able to go, but I'd love to know how it all went. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 08:57:21 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:57:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0604141602j4fd1f3dbx23a69f737b493c52@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/15/06, Neil H. wrote: > You're probably right, but a quick random thought: > > Children are able to learn things like new languages much better than > adults, presumably because their brains are in a state of enhanced > plasticity. Perhaps having the brain in such an enhanced plasticity mode > consumes more calories, and after the critical period the brain switches out > of that mode to conserve calories. > > If this is true, it may be possible to apply some sort of chemical which > switches the brain back into the "enhanced plasticity mode," which consume > more calories but can learn faster. Of course, this may also have some other > side-effects. > Hey, don't use popular urban myths as a base for 'scientific' speculation! :) Children learning languages is a field in which much research has been done, due to immigration and resulting education problems. Young children learn second languages easily, and the younger the child, the more skilled he or she will be in acquiring a second language. FALSE. The impression that children learn languages faster than adults arises because a young child does not have to learn as much as an adult to achieve competence in communicating. However, research does not support these beliefs, particularly in learning more abstract, academic language skills. Other than in pronunciation, younger children are often at a disadvantage compared with older children and adults in learning second languages quickly and effectively because they don't have access to prior knowledge, memory techniques and other learning strategies and cognitive skills. (McLaughlin, 1992; August and Hakuta, 1997). You've probably heard that children have a natural ability to learn languages. For them it is literally child's play. This is because humans are born with special internal "wiring" in the language centers of the brain that literally drives them to learn to speak at an early age. Even infants who are born deaf still try to make talking sounds. You've probably also heard that once a child reaches a certain age, that window of opportunity to learn a second or third language closes, and as an adult it's much, much harder to pick up a new language, right? Wrong! Research shows that adults retain the hard wiring they used as children and can learn a second language surprisingly easily if they use good learning methods. In fact, in about six months an average adult can reach the same proficiency level that a child reaches in about five or six years. BillK From benboc at lineone.net Sat Apr 15 09:01:14 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 10:01:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4440B65A.2030406@lineone.net> Robert wrote: > Antibiotic cocktails would be ineffective against viruses and would > contribute to the ongoing development of antibiotic resistance which > would not be good. Doesn't the same logic apply, though? (wrt resistance, i mean. I hope we all know that antibiotics are useless against viruses!). Bacteria will acquire antibiotic resistance in a similar way to viruses acquiring drug resistance, through genetic mutation (and horizontal gene transfer, but with the same results, i think), so if they are hit by more than one drug at the same time, they will have less chance of being immune to that combination. Or will the fact that (AFAIK) most of their resistance comes from gene transfer mean that they are transferring already-tested mechanisms of resistance that will have a better chance of working in combination with other such mechanisms? In other words, horizontal gene transfer is less likely to go wrong for the individual bacterium in a specific environment (i.e. a combination of drugs) than a set of random (or semi-random) mutations is for a virus? Maybe i've just answered my own question, but i don't know enough genetics to know if i'm talking rubbish or not. Let me restate it and perhaps someone who actually knows what they're talking about can answer it sensibly: Will a combination of antibiotics be less likely to give rise to antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria than using a single antibiotic? And is this the same mechanism we see at work in multi-drug therapies for viral infections? If antibiotic cocktails are not a good idea, why is this, exactly? ben From aiguy at comcast.net Sat Apr 15 13:05:51 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:05:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604141602j4fd1f3dbx23a69f737b493c52@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00ad01c6608d$52885740$74550318@ZANDRA2> On 4/14/06, Neil H. wrote: Not necessarily. For example, one might imagine some sort of "tweak" which would enhance intelligence at the cost of dramatically increased energy consumption. Something like this would be selected against over the millenia of human evolution, as energy/food was generally hard to come by. In contemporary society however, energy/food is quite easy to get -- indeed, we have huge diet/exercise industries dedicated to trying to get people to consume less food or use more energy. I have read a good deal about many geniuses being manic depressive or bipolar and producing their best work during their hypomania phases. Wikipedia States: "Hypomania is a less severe form of mania without progression to psychosis . Many of the symptoms of mania are present, but to a lesser degree than in overt mania. People with hypomania are generally perceived as being energetic, euphoric, overflowing with new ideas, and sometimes highly confident and charismatic, yet they are sufficiently capable of coherent thought and action to participate in everyday life. It is questionable whether hypomania occurs without being part of a cycle of mania or depression. Patients rarely, if ever, seek out a psychiatrist complaining of hypomania. Johns Hopkins psychologist John Gartner in The Hypomanic Edge contends that many famous people including Christopher Columbus, Alexander Hamilton , Andrew Carnegie , Louis B Mayer, and Craig Venter (who mapped the human genome ) owed their ideas and drive (and eccentricities) to their hypomanic temperaments (it is called the hyperthymic temperament in clinical research). The creativity and risky behavior associated with hypomania (and bipolar disorder in general) may suggest why it has survived evolutionary pressures. Although hypomania sounds in many ways like a desirable condition, it can have significant downsides. Many of the negative symptoms of mania can be present; the primary differentiating factor is the absence of psychosis . Many hypomanic patients have symptoms of disrupted sleep patterns, irritability, racing thoughts, obsessional traits, and poor judgment. Hypomania, like mania, can be associated with recklessness, excessive spending, risky hypersexual activity, general lack of judgment and out-of-character behaviour that the patient may later regret and may cause significant social, interpersonal, career and financial problems. Hypomania can also signal the beginning of a more severe manic episode, and in people who know that they suffer from bipolar disorder, can be viewed as a warning sign that a manic episode is on the way, allowing them to seek medical treatment while they are still sufficiently self-aware before full-blown mania occurs." Current drugs for manic depression tend to try and level you out not maximize the happy hypomania side of the disorder. My thought is that a drug that could be closely regulated by dosage to control the level of hypomania could be both pleasurable and of great positive benefit to society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Apr 15 16:15:40 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:15:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crash Boom Bah Message-ID: <00d801c660a7$d70d5d20$6600a8c0@brainiac> Posting with permission from "Damien Broderick" http://www.tax-lawyer-texas.com/If%20Everything%20is%20Wonderful,%20Why%20is%20Life%20So%20Hard.html> (It may be spring, but this is no time to be starry-eyed and vaguely discontented. This is scary stuff. Olga) From jonkc at att.net Sat Apr 15 15:52:59 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 11:52:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com><20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> Russell Wallace Wrote: > My guess is that no simple chemical tweak will confer large > benefits to most people without corresponding disadvantages, > simply because if such were easily had, evolution would > probably have already found it. Not necessarily because an entire galaxy of solutions are unavailable to evolution, but not to intelligence. Every large change evolution makes consists of lots of small changes, and every single one of those small changes must confer an IMMEDIATE advantage to the organism; evolution just doesn't understand the concept of one step backward two steps forward. Imagine if you had to turn a prop airplane engine into a jet with a million tiny changes and ever change must improve the performance of the engine, and you had to make the changes while the engine was running. It just couldn't be done. That's probably why evolution was never able to come up with some apparently simple things, like a macroscopic body part that could move in 360 degrees. John K Clark From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Apr 15 16:38:58 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:38:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <22360fa10604150938u617b1f1bl5e45f7b6a3cae1e9@mail.gmail.com> On 4/15/06, John K Clark wrote: > Russell Wallace Wrote: > > > My guess is that no simple chemical tweak will confer large > > benefits to most people without corresponding disadvantages, > > simply because if such were easily had, evolution would > > probably have already found it. > > Not necessarily because an entire galaxy of solutions are unavailable to > evolution, but not to intelligence. Every large change evolution makes > consists of lots of small changes, and every single one of those small > changes must confer an IMMEDIATE advantage to the organism; evolution just > doesn't understand the concept of one step backward two steps forward. > Imagine if you had to turn a prop airplane engine into a jet with a million > tiny changes and ever change must improve the performance of the engine, and > you had to make the changes while the engine was running. It just couldn't > be done. That's probably why evolution was never able to come up with some > apparently simple things, like a macroscopic body part that could move in > 360 degrees. John - I agree with your statements within the (biological) context in which they were intended, but it seems clear to me that in the bigger picture, evolution has been responsible for every "invention" you can name. - Jef From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 16:39:56 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:39:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604150939y1bc03667x6fe2d49e2c304f77@mail.gmail.com> On 4/15/06, John K Clark wrote: > > Not necessarily because an entire galaxy of solutions are unavailable to > evolution, but not to intelligence. Every large change evolution makes > consists of lots of small changes, and every single one of those small > changes must confer an IMMEDIATE advantage to the organism; evolution just > doesn't understand the concept of one step backward two steps forward. > Imagine if you had to turn a prop airplane engine into a jet with a > million > tiny changes and ever change must improve the performance of the engine, > and > you had to make the changes while the engine was running. It just couldn't > be done. That's probably why evolution was never able to come up with some > apparently simple things, like a macroscopic body part that could move in > 360 degrees. > That's why I said "simple chemical tweak". I'm sure the current system isn't a global optimum, and there are improvements to be had if you can make the sort of _big_ jumps something like mature nanotech might make possible. But the sort of little tweaks that could be effected by taking a simple drug, are also the sort that usually are within reach of evolution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sat Apr 15 17:25:32 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:25:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com><20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com><003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> <22360fa10604150938u617b1f1bl5e45f7b6a3cae1e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006f01c660b1$a5388360$c0084e0c@MyComputer> "Jef Allbright" > it seems clear to me that in the bigger picture, evolution > has been responsible for every "invention" you can > name. Even after 4 billion years of effort Evolution never came up with supersonic flight, or plants that produce light, or a wheel you could see without a microscope, or even fire. Evolution is a lousy inventor, it's just that until is stumbled upon brains it was the only inventor. John K Clark From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 18:36:44 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:36:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Athiest perspectives... Message-ID: Some of you may be interested in the Easter Quiz posted 4/12/06 by Stephen F. Roberts on his blog. http://core.wildlink.com/index.php I ran across a quote from him (which I added to my quotes page) when googling for something completely different (ext2 file system drivers for Windows XP)... "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 19:13:18 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:13:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: <4440B65A.2030406@lineone.net> References: <4440B65A.2030406@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/15/06, ben wrote: > Will a combination of antibiotics be less likely to give rise to > antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria than using a single antibiotic? If the antibiotics target different essential aspects the bacteria requires to be pathogenic (e.g. protein production, cell division, cell wall maintenance, etc.) then a multi-drug approach will be more successful. It is easier to acquire resistance by horizontal gene transfer than it is to create de novo mutations. Many of the original antibiotic resistance genes (or a minor variant) probably in bacteria or fungi that needed those defenses long before humans started discovering and using antibiotics. Generally speaking one has to have many larger numbers of organisms to get the right set of mutations when more mutations are required. Antibiotic overuse contributes to the possibility that a bacterial strain will evolve and be selected for that has organized one a single small piece of DNA with a multi-gene antibiotic resistance set. The reason to limit antibiotic misuse or overuse is to attempt to lower the probability of such developments. Bacteria for the most part have relatively similar machinery and most of them have DNA repair mechanisms that make it difficult to create lots of new mutations on short notice -- millions or billions of years of evolution between competing organisms in the soil, lakes or water has a much greater chance of producing weapons and counter-weapons. Penicillin was produced by Streptococcus. Presumably the penicillin resistance genes came from a different bacterial strain competing for resources with Streptococcus. The restriction enzymes in most bacterial species which are key tools in molecular biology were evolved by bacteria as defenses against bacterial viruses. The microorganism world has lots of wars taking place. And is this the same mechanism we see at work in multi-drug therapies > for viral infections? Yes. HIV has relatively few genes and we are throwing weapons at several of the most important (Wikipedia has a good discussion [1]). If antibiotic cocktails are not a good idea, why is this, exactly? In most cases, you identify the bacteria causing the problem (or at least species it most probably is) and prescribe the single antibiotic generally known to be successful. Only with the emergence of resistant bacterial strains (esp. in hospitals) are multi-drug approach being given more attention. I think the success with the HIV cocktail may be contributing to people considering this to be a reasonable strategy. *But* overprescribing cocktails would increase the probability that you might select for the strains which can resist more types of antibiotics. Once bacteria have acquired "essential" genes it is much harder to lose them -- particularly in the relatively nutrient rich environment that human hosts provide. Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiretroviral_drug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Apr 15 18:40:42 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 11:40:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] brains, everything else, natural In-Reply-To: <006f01c660b1$a5388360$c0084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200604151914.k3FJEfZ3024838@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs ... > > Even after 4 billion years of effort Evolution never came up with > supersonic > flight, or plants that produce light, or a wheel you could see without a > microscope, or even fire. Evolution is a lousy inventor, it's just that > until is stumbled upon brains it was the only inventor... John K Clark Ja, but of course brains evolved, so every product of the brain would need to be considered natural. In that sense, an unnatural act would truly be that which is physically impossible to perform. Consider non-human species use of technology. My folks' ranch: beaver family built a dam in the stream that goes thru the property, awww isn't that cute, perhaps they will have baby beavers, how sweeeeet. Then last month all those rains came down, water rose, branches floated down the stream, got caught on the beaver dam, brand new pump house flooded, now they want to introduce the furry bastards to Mister Twelve Gage and his nephew Buckshot. Is the beaver dam natural? Kinda sorta? If so, then the pump house is natural too. Tearing the beaver dam out of there is also natural, as is the natural grappling hook and a natural John Deere Diesel tractor. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Apr 15 19:22:40 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:22:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Athiest perspectives... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604151924.k3FJOt6Z006911@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Great stuff Robert, thanks! One could make a terrific little party game with this quiz, especially if you have a churchy crowd. Make up the quiz to be automatic scoring software, then have the people come in, type their name, then take the quiz. Afterwards have the software calculate the scores and create a printout. The gag is this: fix it to where the local heathen philistine (that would be me) gets a perfect score, regardless of what he answers, and everyone else gets a big goose egg. {8^D Wouldn't that be a kick! Nowthen, here is my insight. I mentioned before that I was a theology major in a fundamentalist christian school of thought during my tragically misspent youth. I was already aware that the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are in reasonably good agreement until one hits the whole crucifixion misadventure and the subsequent resurrection. I was puzzled about that at the time, but with my current perspective it makes sense: the synoptics were more or less eyewitness accounts for the early years, but after the crucifixion every writer was on his own to make up his own version of the story. In case anyone is still reading, I will offer the gospel according to spike: Jesus ran afoul of not the Roman authorities, but rather the Jewish religious leaders, especially the Pharisees and zealots. They were the ones who arranged to get him arrested. If you read the stories, it is clear that the Romans couldn't see any crime and tried everything they could to release the guy. Fearing a riot by the Jews, they agreed to have him crucified, but being decent sorts, they arranged with the executioners to use the "special" whip, a de-leaded cat-o-nine-tails, which would create a bloody mess of one's back that would certainly look impressive but would not create any lethal wounds. They gave him a good old fashioned country ass-whooping, hung him on the cross, waited until the crowd went away, told him to play dead, took him down, whispered to him to get on outta Dodge and don't come back. Friends such as Joseph of Aramathea helped him escape. He probably kept a low profile for a while, then after a time to heal, visited with his old friends, who would have considered it completely unimaginable, a physically impossible outcome, for anyone to actually survive a Roman crucifixion. So they had to go back after the fact and piece together some kind of theory to explain what must have happened. A new religion was born, amen. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:37 AM To: ExICh Subject: [extropy-chat] Athiest perspectives... Some of you may be interested in the Easter Quiz posted 4/12/06 by Stephen F. Roberts on his blog. http://core.wildlink.com/index.php I ran across a quote from him (which I added to my quotes page) when googling for something completely different (ext2 file system drivers for Windows XP)... "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sat Apr 15 18:49:25 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 11:49:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics In-Reply-To: <200604150530.k3F5TxQi020896@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200604150530.k3F5TxQi020896@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <44414035.1080909@mydruthers.com> Spike responded: > By the line of reasoning presented, one would trade. But with the > given information one might be tempted to trade even without looking > in one's own envelope. What have you actually learned by looking? In my interpretation, you learned that you didn't have $10M. In all but the extreme positions, two possibilities remain out of the original 6, and in each of those 4 middle cases, the expected value of trading (as long as the other party doesn't have to consent) is better than keeping. > Even if there is a one dollar charge to trade, one would still want > to trade. But after paying a buck and trading, the same line of > reasoning would still apply. So one would pay another buck to trade > back. If you look at your envelope and then trade, and then look at the new envelope, there's no doubt about whether you improved your chances. If you look, trade, and then don't look at the new envelope, then you're happier with the expected value of the current unviewed envelope than the one you've seen. If you don't look before trading (in the original problem) then you don't know whether you have the $10M and so there's no reason to trade. (Out of order): > Modify the question only slightly by saying the envelopes contain > 10^x, the other contains 10^(X+1). X need not be an integer for this > to work: one envelope contains ten times the amount in the other, > with no hard limits. By the line of reasoning presented, one would How do the edge conditions change in your reformulation with X rather than N? I think a hard limit on the max value matters, but the continuity or lack thereof of the payouts doesn't. If there's a max, and my envelope contains within a factor of 10 of the max, then I absolutely wouldn't trade. If my envelope is between a factor of 10 and 100 of the max, then I would swap if my brother's consent isn't required. If my brother has to agree, then I wouldn't swap, since I know he'd only do so if his envelope weren't within a factor of 10 of the max. I don't know how to analyze it if there's no claimed maximum. You have to convince me that I believe in an equal probability distribution up to and including unimaginable sums. If there isn't an EPD, then the game is completely different. Chris -- Pictures from my trip to the Four Corners area: http://discuss.foresight.org/~hibbert/Canyon02/canyon.html Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Apr 15 23:18:21 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 19:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com><20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <35357.72.236.102.83.1145143101.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Not necessarily because an entire galaxy of solutions are unavailable to > evolution, but not to intelligence. Every large change evolution makes > consists of lots of small changes, and every single one of those small > changes must confer an IMMEDIATE advantage to the organism; evolution just > doesn't understand the concept of one step backward two steps forward.[...] I thought there were many changes that were "not detrimental" - or at least appear to be benign. Also, no change is going to be of immediate advantage to *the organism*, though it may be of advantage to the organism's progeny. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're really saying here? Regards, MB From sjatkins at gmail.com Sun Apr 16 04:22:41 2006 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:22:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <22360fa10604150938u617b1f1bl5e45f7b6a3cae1e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> <22360fa10604150938u617b1f1bl5e45f7b6a3cae1e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46B56146-2DDF-4234-A5B6-A729C7E5E97B@gmail.com> On Apr 15, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 4/15/06, John K Clark wrote: >> Russell Wallace Wrote: >> >>> My guess is that no simple chemical tweak will confer large >>> benefits to most people without corresponding disadvantages, >>> simply because if such were easily had, evolution would >>> probably have already found it. >> >> Not necessarily because an entire galaxy of solutions are >> unavailable to >> evolution, but not to intelligence. Every large change evolution >> makes >> consists of lots of small changes, and every single one of those >> small >> changes must confer an IMMEDIATE advantage to the organism; >> evolution just >> doesn't understand the concept of one step backward two steps >> forward. >> Imagine if you had to turn a prop airplane engine into a jet with >> a million >> tiny changes and ever change must improve the performance of the >> engine, and >> you had to make the changes while the engine was running. It just >> couldn't >> be done. That's probably why evolution was never able to come up >> with some >> apparently simple things, like a macroscopic body part that could >> move in >> 360 degrees. > > John - > > I agree with your statements within the (biological) context in which > they were intended, but it seems clear to me that in the bigger > picture, evolution has been responsible for every "invention" you can > name. > Careful on context. This comment doesn't seem to be within it. - samantha From starman2100 at cableone.net Sun Apr 16 07:07:32 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:07:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Athiest perspectives... Message-ID: <1145171252_31177@S1.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Sun Apr 16 07:10:33 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:10:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] infinite fun but finite tunes? In-Reply-To: <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060416071033.GA3947@ofb.net> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 05:43:30PM -0700, spike wrote: > Here is the disturbing part: Stevie called to say he loves us somewhere > around 1984-ish. But I cannot think of a single viral tune that was written Personal earworms include Cat Faber's "The Word of God", 2001; Leslie Fish's "The Horse-Tamer's Daughter", 1984 on the dot; "The World Inside the Crystal" which has to be later than 1984. And some I've made myself. -xx- Damien X-) From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sun Apr 16 07:11:56 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics In-Reply-To: <20060414200214.956B457FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060416071156.82219.qmail@web52609.mail.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > Ian writes about Kripkean "possible worlds" > semantics. I've been trying to learn a little > about this because Robin has used it in some of > his papers, and it is a widely used framework for > economic and game theory analysis of certain issues. Last year Technotranscendence recommended the modal logic text "Possibilities and Paradox." [1] I found it to be wonderful and amazingly rapid overview of modal logics. Highly recommended! But be sure to review its errata page. [2] [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199259879 [2] http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/Possib¶dERRATA.htm More rigorous and even more recommended is: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226280888 But it also covers a lot more than modal logic. > the first son looks inside > his envelope and finds $10,000. Disappointed at > the meager amount, he calculates that the odds are > fifty-fifty that he has the smaller amount in his > envelope. Since the other envelope contains either > $1,000 or $100,000 with equal probability, the > first son realizes that the expected amount in the > other envelope is $50,500. Unbeknownst to him the > second son has seen that there is only $1,000 in > his envelope. Not sure if that last sentence means the first son may expect the second NEVER looked in his envelope. Or does "unbeknownst" apply only to the first son knowing WHAT the second saw in his envelope? I'll assume the latter, and thus that both brothers know the other knows what's in their own envelope, but each does not know the content of the other's envelope. Assuming that, I'll dare to answer one question: > Suppose instead that the sons were not permitted > to look at each other, but instead they had to > write their confirmation of the deal on separate > pieces of paper and hand them to their father? > What should they write?" Given: First son = A Second son = B A's envelope has $10^4 B's envelope has $10^3 Answer: B should write: "If A wants to know if I say 'yes' to the switch, then I agree to switch." A should write: "If B wants to know if I want to know if he says 'yes' to the switch, then I do NOT agree to switch." Trying to explain my answer runs into describing a thicket of nested possible worlds where each brother needs to know what the other needs to know about the other in order to know/infer if the other has a higher or lower valued envelope. The critical parameters are the max and min values and knowing that someone with the max will necessarily say "NO switch," and someone with the min will necessarily say "switch." Given the indicated amounts, neither can assume the other has the max or min. However, the effect of those necessary answers flows through the nested set of "other minds" in possible worlds each builds in trying to sense what the other got. ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From benboc at lineone.net Sun Apr 16 08:33:17 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 09:33:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] testing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4442014D.2010504@lineone.net> Samantha Atkins essayed: > test Congratulation! You passed the test! 10/10 (sorry, silly mood) ben From pharos at gmail.com Sun Apr 16 10:23:47 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:23:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Athiest perspectives... In-Reply-To: <200604151924.k3FJOt6Z006911@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200604151924.k3FJOt6Z006911@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 4/15/06, spike wrote: > A new religion was born, amen. Yes, but it wasn't the Xian religion. The Jewish sect that were followers of this particular Messiah, (there were many so-called Messiahs during this turbulent period) was led by James and was resident in Jerusalem and only interested in Jewish traditions. This sect was virtually wiped out during the Jewish rebellion of 66-73 CE against the Roman occupation. Paul took it over and made it suitable for a Greco-Roman audience by adding lots of Greek and Cynic philosophy (totally alien to the Jewish origins). The gospels were written to make the Romans more into the nice guys and the Jews into the bad guys because the new religion was being marketed (very successfully) to the Roman empire. BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Apr 16 13:18:34 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:18:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <006f01c660b1$a5388360$c0084e0c@MyComputer> References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> <22360fa10604150938u617b1f1bl5e45f7b6a3cae1e9@mail.gmail.com> <006f01c660b1$a5388360$c0084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 4/15/06, John K Clark wrote: > > Even after 4 billion years of effort Evolution never came up with > supersonic > flight, or plants that produce light, or a wheel you could see without a > microscope, or even fire. Evolution is a lousy inventor, it's just that > until is stumbled upon brains it was the only inventor. John, can you *prove* that evolution never came up with supersonic flight? Falcons in a dive for example achieve relatively high speeds (~100 mph???). Just because we don't see it as an current characteristic in Nature doesn't mean that it wasn't invented at some point in time (it doesn't violate any laws of physics -- it just requires very high strength materials -- perhaps lightweight bird bones coated with a spider silk fiber matrix). As there is little survival advantage associated with supersonic flight it is not surprising that it hasn't evolved -- that doesn't mean that it couldn't evolve if you created an environment which gave distinct survival advantages to creatures able to attain supersonic speeds. If you think about the history of the human creation of supersonic capabilities it was developed primarily to destroy other humans (or defend oneself against them)). It isn't exactly needed to kill woolly mammoths, bears, wolves, etc. for example. Spears and guns solved those problems quite well. It is reasonable to view the brain as an extension of "natural" evolution which in humans has the primary advantage of "lightweight" (and therefore rapid) mutation and selection. Imagination (manipulation of virtual realities) allows one to create, modify and select good ideas before one has to pay the cost (in materials and time) of the real-world testing that such ideas entail [1]. A good example would be Edison's invention of the light bulb -- according to the story he tried something like 1000 different types of filaments before he found that carbonized thread worked effectively. The invention process would have been much faster if he hadn't had to actually build the light bulbs to test the ideas. Mutation and selection (evolution) is much faster when you can do it virtually esp. if you have the means of applying selection criteria which match real-world physics and/or relatively fast computational capabilities. One thing that people are missing which relates to our other discussion about the development of drug resistance is the ability to simultaneously evolve along multiple vectors. It is very hard for natural evolution to realize that it has to change 3 genes simultaneously to get around the selection function imposed by the HIV "triple cocktail". To get a protein structure which is resistant to the drugs which also does its intended job may require changing multiple amino acids (and therefore DNA bases) within those genes simultaneously. Where humans have an advantage, because imagination is relatively cheap (and computer "thought" time even cheaper) is that they can follow paths which have no immediate benefit and view the entire multi-dimensional space of evolving towards a goal. For example it was realized some complex problems involving systems of linear equations (minimax problems) could be solved by proceeding along multiple sequential vectors until the best solution was found. The only problem is this doesn't work if the solution space includes optimal solutions which cannot be easily reached from the initial starting point. The Simplex Algorithm [2] was invented in 1947 to solve the "simple" cases (and natural evolution can be viewed as following a similar scheme) but it wasn't until the late '70s and '80s that the Ellipsoid Algorithm [3] and Interior Point Methods [4] provided relatively low cost methods for exploring the entire phase space of solutions. [5] Now, with respect to the brain and "smart drugs" one of the fundamental problems you have in communication rates is diffusion time across the synapses in the brain. Neurotransmitters are small molecules but they are larger than they probably need to be (and thus diffuse more slowly). So it would be better if you could engineer the brain to use "lightweight" neurotransmitters. NO comes to mind as a lightweight signalling molecule which the body already knows how to produce and detect (though it can cause damage to proteins). Drugs might be able to impact the quantity of specific neurotransmitters released (or increase their availability such as SSRI drugs do) but it is going to take genome engineering to change the neurotransmitters to "lightweight" (faster) molecules. You could change the signal transmission architecture completely but that would inventing a completely different electrochemical computational system. With respect to the learning rates of young people, you have to realize that young people have more neurons and many more synaptic connections than those who are older. The rapid learning process involves the deletion of synapses and the death of neurons which are not "useful" (i.e. those which are exercised at some level). The learning one does as an adult is a much slower process that involves slow neuron replacement and tuning of the existing neural network (changing the relative strengths of various synaptic connections). Think of it as the difference between casting a bronze statue (molten metal assuming a crystallized state where there was nothing previously) and the finishing and polishing of the statue after you take it out of the mold. If you want to get back to the rapid state of "form" creation you have to remelt the bronze (regenerate an unpatterned neural network) and it isn't easy to do that without losing the pattern which is already present. [6] Robert 1. William Calvin's books have very good discussions of these concepts. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex_method 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsoid_method 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_point_method 5. For those of you unfamiliar with these terms think of it as "You are standing at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and want to reach the highest peak in North America -- *without* having to climb each and every peak so you can see the next peak which is higher. The Simplex Algorithm would result in your scaling the highest peak that was nearest to the Grand Canyon (probably someplace in S. Nevada, perhaps somewhere in the southern Sierras). The Elipsoid Algorithm and Interior Point methods effectively move a virtual plane through all of the peaks in N. America until it is left touching only Mt. McKinley. That tells you to go directly to Alaska and avoid wasting time elsewhere. 6. I miss Anders. :-( -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sun Apr 16 13:26:39 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics In-Reply-To: <20060416071156.82219.qmail@web52609.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060416132639.12782.qmail@web52607.mail.yahoo.com> Correction to my last post (a missing "NOT")... --- Ian Goddard wrote: > > Suppose instead that the sons were not permitted > > to look at each other, but instead they had to > > write their confirmation of the deal on separate > > pieces of paper and hand them to their father? > > What should they write?" > > Given: > > First son = A > Second son = B > > A's envelope has $10^4 > B's envelope has $10^3 > > Answer: > > B should write: "If A wants to know if I say 'yes' > to the switch, then I agree to switch." MAKE THAT: "... then I do NOT agree to switch." Or B could write: "If A wants to know if I want to know if he wants to know if I say 'yes' to the switch, then I agree to switch." > A should write: "If B wants to know if I want to > know if he says 'yes' to the switch, then I do NOT > agree to switch." > > Trying to explain my answer runs into describing a > thicket of nested possible worlds where each brother > needs to know what the other needs to know about > the other in order to know/infer if the other has > a higher or lower valued envelope. The critical > parameters are the max and min values and knowing > that someone with the max will necessarily say "NO > switch," and someone with the min will necessarily > say "switch." Given the indicated amounts, neither > can assume the other has the max or min. However, > the effect of those necessary answers flows through > the nested set of "other minds" in possible worlds > each builds in trying to sense what the other got. > ~Ian > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jonkc at att.net Sun Apr 16 14:42:37 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:42:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com><20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com><003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer><22360fa10604150938u617b1f1bl5e45f7b6a3cae1e9@mail.gmail.com><006f01c660b1$a5388360$c0084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002d01c66164$095977c0$850a4e0c@MyComputer> Robert Bradbury wrote: > John, can you *prove* that evolution > never came up with supersonic flight? No of course not. Outside of pure mathematics you can never *prove* that something has never existed; but I think we can be as sure as we can be sure of anything that there has never been a supersonic bird. I would estimate the existence of such a bird about as likely as the existence of Jesus as described in the bible. > it doesn't violate any laws of physics True, a supersonic bird wouldn't violate the laws of physics but it probably would violate the laws of evolution. There is probably no way to make a million tiny changes in a falcon and turn it supersonic, not if each and every one of those changes must be immediately beneficial; and even if such paths did exist they would be so extraordinarily astronomically rare that evolution could never find them among the tangle of dead ends. > As there is little survival advantage associated > with supersonic flight it is not surprising that it hasn't evolved I am far from certain there would be no survival advantage to supersonic flight, but it wouldn't matter even if you're right. You are giving reasons why evolution was unable to come up with something, but that doesn't change the fact that it was unable to come up with it. I'm not interested in excuses why evolution is incompetent, the fact is that it is. And I find it imposable to believe that a macroscopic part that could turn in 360 degrees wouldn't come in handy from time to time. And I think an animal with bones made of steel, or that could breathe fire, or had a heart powered by a nuclear reactor could find uses for his talents, but the design problem was just too hard. Evolution was stumped. John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Apr 16 14:53:14 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:53:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Athiest perspectives... In-Reply-To: <1145171252_31177@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200604161455.k3GEtRKY029249@andromeda.ziaspace.com> You may be right John. I propose the theory as the best explanation for why the disciples decided to spend their lives teaching religion: they themselves thought that Jesus had perished and risen. Pilate would have had a good explanation for the emperor if the facts became known: he ordered a feigned execution in order to quell a riot, then after the crowd went away, he let the guy go because he was mostly innocent. Even the Romans didn't like to slay proles for no reason. spike ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of starman2100 at cableone.net Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:08 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Athiest perspectives... Spike, You make the Romans out as nicer guys than I think they actually were. lol? Despite Pilate trying to be a decent guy, he didn't want potential?trouble brewing?which would result in a major reprimand from the emperor for not maintaining the peace of the land he had been sent to govern.? The impression I get of Christ in?the Gospels is of a man who would not have backed down and so killing him would have been necessary.? And I don't see?his disciples going?out to their eventual?martyrdom?in the cause of his message if?what they were teaching was a fraud.??? Happy Easter! Best wishes, John Grigg : )? From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun Apr 16 06:52:35 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:52:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] (offlist) RE: I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <4436BFA8.5080909@lineone.net> Message-ID: > Which is the 'real' you? That's a non-question. They both are. Hi Ben, Congratulations! You figured out the right answer to what I used to call "The Identity Paradox" back in the '60s. No, I'm not inviting you to become a member of a secret cult, but sometimes these ideas about identity seem *so* perplexing to folks that all I can do is hope that over time more people begin to understand. On these lists, over many, many, many, many, long years we've had INNUMERABLE arguments about it. Yet I take it as a good sign that no one responded to your post! After all, you did explain it very well. So maybe... Nah. Many people simply do not and never will understand. Some of them may even be so immune to understanding that were they to branch into separate instances and then recombine (by merging memories), they'd *still* refuse to believe that duplicates are selves. For me, I just cannot imagine the hostility that most people (would) have towards their duplicates. It grates them in some deep hidden way, as though their identity were being threatened ... hmm, there's a thought. Usually when you bring up duplicates the very first thing that occurs to people is to make slaves of their duplicates. (This shows you how deep the antipathy towards regarding them as other selves goes; they would normally never think of enslaving even *other* people---but their copies? Not only are they seen as not-self, they are seen as even sub-human. While I'm at it I might as well copy this to the list. NO, everyone, I don't want to get into more arguments about it. No one ever changes his minds, as you know. Lee [Ben wrote] > > A B wrote: > > > No problem. It wasn't so much a criticism, as it was a legitimate > > (arguably) question of mine ;-) I have another question though > > (presented as an experiment). Lets say that in the future it becomes > > possible to reversibly preserve a human (say through improved > > vitrification). So I decide to be vitrified, a 'perfect' scan is made > > of my brain, but is stored as information only (as a giant stack of > > printed pages), not implemented. I'm revived from the vitrification > > and go about my daily life (which should be pretty awesome). But, > > alas, I get killed in an accident one hour after revival. Is it your > > belief (or anyone elses' here) that if my mind-information later gets > > implemented (let's say in the form of a physical replica, made of > > real atoms - not simulated), that I will "reawaken", and it will > > still be "me". > > > > Just to save time I will provide my own answer here for the purpose > > of discussion. For now, I will say the answer is: yes, it will be > > "me". But, if I choose to believe this, I don't see how that refutes > > the "hive-mind" idea. It would seem to support it even. The only way > > it would seem to refute the hive-mind idea, would be with the > > assertion that: for some reason, I can only experience *one* identity > > at a time and not many; why would this necessarily be the case (even > > in the absence of mind enhancements)? > > > > But, you might easily be able convince me that the correct answer is: > > no, it will not be "me". > > First, you need to decide what you mean by 'me'. > > This is difficult, i know, i've thought a lot about it and had many > discussions about it. In general, i'm a 'patternist', and think that any > exact copy of my mind-state is really 'me'. The difficulty is in > envisaging a number of different 'me's. Entirely separate, distinct > 'me's, but all just as much 'me' as i am now. I picture a line, dividing > or branching as it goes forward. Each branch is a distinct individual, > all of them me. No mystical telepathic connection or anything. So they > are all 'A me'. The crucial thing is, there is then no 'real me' and > 'false me's. They are all really me, and they are all at the same time > different people. A bit Zen, i know, but i just can't see any other way > of looking at it that makes sense. > > So, in your scenario, the you that was vitrified, revived and repaired, > then later died, is one you. The other copy is also you. So 'you' do > survive, but not the 'you' that was woken from vitrification. That one > is just as dead as any of us who dies at present. > > Which is the 'real' you? That's a non-question. They both are. > > Think of a clock. An old-fashioned one, with gears and springs, and a tick. > Think of the tick as being 'you'. If you exactly copy the clock, they > will both be indistinguishable, and both have the same tick. Not that > they share the same physical tick of course, but the separate tick they > each make is exactly the same. > > And i realise that this will be an unsatisfactory answer to a lot of > people. Sorry, but that's all i've got. I've only got a small brain. > Thus far. > > ben From pharos at gmail.com Sun Apr 16 15:05:33 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:05:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: References: <380-220064413231456372@M2W093.mail2web.com> <20060414153753.95398.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604140956naf1e882u595d21ee6020b510@mail.gmail.com> <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> <22360fa10604150938u617b1f1bl5e45f7b6a3cae1e9@mail.gmail.com> <006f01c660b1$a5388360$c0084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 4/16/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > With respect to the learning rates of young people, you have to realize that > young people have more neurons and many more synaptic connections than those > who are older. The rapid learning process involves the deletion of synapses > and the death of neurons which are not "useful" ( i.e. those which are > exercised at some level). The learning one does as an adult is a much > slower process that involves slow neuron replacement and tuning of the > existing neural network (changing the relative strengths of various synaptic > connections). Think of it as the difference between casting a bronze statue > (molten metal assuming a crystallized state where there was nothing > previously) and the finishing and polishing of the statue after you take it > out of the mold. If you want to get back to the rapid state of "form" > creation you have to remelt the bronze (regenerate an unpatterned neural > network) and it isn't easy to do that without losing the pattern which is > already present. [6] > I don't think this paragraph tells the whole story and thus may be misleading. As Chomsky (1969) demonstrated, children between 5 and 10 years old are still acquiring the structures of their first language. Chomsky, N. (1969). The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Young children (up to 10 yrs) in a foreign country can quickly learn to communicate with other children. But it is in a very simplified 'here and now' environment. Current theory in educationalists is that age 11-13 is probably the best age to learn a second language thoroughly. But with proper training and 'incentive' older ages are not much behind them. Reference: Quote: Now, imaging technologies let us visualize even more remarkable changes in the brains of children and teens. Using MRI scans, we can watch teenagers' brains change in miraculous patterns as they grow up. We recently created the first maps of brain growth in individual children and teens. To our surprise, an extraordinary wave of tissue growth spread through the brain, from front to back, between the ages of three and 15. Frontal brain circuits, which control attention, grew fastest from ages three to six. Language systems, which are further back in the brain, underwent a rapid growth spurt around the age of 11 to 15, and then drastically shut off in the early teen years. End quote -------------------- But there is a lot more involved in learning than just the raw capability. You know how in many fields more skill and experience can easily defeat untrained ability. Also: Quote: Scientists once thought the adult brain was set in its ways. Using mice, they've now discovered that adult neurons have a remarkable ability to grow and change: some neurons can sprout new branches and retract old ones. These findings add to a growing body of evidence that older brains are still agile. The researchers used mice that had a few neurons labelled with fluorescent dye. They shaved off a small piece of a mouse's skull and covered the opening with glass. Using this 'window', they took high resolution pictures of the fluorescent neurons in the living brain. They captured images of the same neurons over several weeks. They found that dendrites (treelike extensions on neurons which receive information from other brain cells) grew, shrank, and changed over time ? types of growth typical during development. Throughout life we learn things so synapses must change in some way, but this suggests that some changes may involve wholesale formation of new synapses or loss of old ones. End quote ------------------ The full report is at Quote: Here we show the first unambiguous evidence (to our knowledge) of dendrite growth and remodeling in adult neurons. Over a period of months, neurons could be seen extending and retracting existing branches, and in rare cases adding new branch tips. End quote ------------------ BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Apr 16 15:05:04 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 08:05:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604161507.k3GF7HRU000980@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________________ bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury ... 6. I miss Anders.? :-( Robert, we all miss Anders. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Apr 16 16:07:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 09:07:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <002d01c66164$095977c0$850a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200604161609.k3GG9bfU022942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs > > Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > John, can you *prove* that evolution > > never came up with supersonic flight? > > No of course not. Outside of pure mathematics you can never *prove* that > something has never existed... John K Clark If we are talking about this particular planet, we can prove that natural supersonic flight never existed (until 1947 when evolution produced Chuck Yeager's plane.) The proof would go thus: evolution produced jet propulsion in some sea creatures (defined loosely, in squids) but not in land beasts. Supersonic flight cannot be achieved by flapping wings or with screw propellers. That leaves freefall as a means of achieving high speeds. The ballistic coefficient required to get that much speed is a straightforward calculation, but suffice it to say the beast would need to be very long and very massive with an extremely low frontal area. The longest skinniest modern python would not do, but it is getting in the right range. Of course it would need to fly to great altitudes, then be able to fold its wings for the plunge. If it ever managed the feat, it is unclear how it could recover from the dive, which would at least explain the lack of recognizable fossilized remains of such a beast. {8^D If the panspermia theorists are correct, Yeager would not be the first beast to travel at supersonic speeds, but rather the title would go to the bacteria that were on the rock that fell to Earth from elsewhere, perhaps Mars. If the panspermia theorists are not correct, Yeager still loses out to those beasts that resided in or upon the earth based rock that was struck by an incoming meteor that then exited at supersonic speeds from the impact. What a silly topic for a Sunday morning. {8-] spike From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Apr 16 16:13:03 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:13:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] infinite fun but finite tunes? In-Reply-To: <20060416071033.GA3947@ofb.net> Message-ID: <000501c66170$a442caf0$74550318@ZANDRA2> I find portions of some rock songs very viral. Godsmack's Voodoo... "I'm not the one who's so far away when I feel the snakebite enter my brain. Never did I want to be here again, and I don't remember why I came." If I hear this on a car radio it will keep popping back into my head at least three or four more times that day for no apparent reason. Also some recent viral stuff from System of a Down "Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they only send the poor? Where the fuck were you?" This pops into my every head every time I see Bush on TV and sometimes plays in my head for quite a while. More amazing still is when I latch on to an CD that I don't know why I like it and keep listening to it over and over like Lesiem - Mystic Spirit Voices. Much of this CD is in Latin or vocalized in such haunting ways that much of the lyrics are a complete mystery to me. Their subsequent CDs did not affect me this way at all. I would categorize the whole CD is viral. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Sullivan Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 3:11 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] infinite fun but finite tunes? On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 05:43:30PM -0700, spike wrote: > Here is the disturbing part: Stevie called to say he loves us > somewhere around 1984-ish. But I cannot think of a single viral tune > that was written Personal earworms include Cat Faber's "The Word of God", 2001; Leslie Fish's "The Horse-Tamer's Daughter", 1984 on the dot; "The World Inside the Crystal" which has to be later than 1984. And some I've made myself. -xx- Damien X-) _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Apr 16 16:59:53 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 09:59:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <200604161609.k3GG9bfU022942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <002d01c66164$095977c0$850a4e0c@MyComputer> <200604161609.k3GG9bfU022942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10604160959r5025818dgf8d537678c5a8686@mail.gmail.com> On 4/16/06, spike wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs > > > > Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > > John, can you *prove* that evolution > > > never came up with supersonic flight? > > > > No of course not. Outside of pure mathematics you can never *prove* that > > something has never existed... John K Clark > > If we are talking about this particular planet, we can prove that natural > supersonic flight never existed (until 1947 when evolution produced Chuck > Yeager's plane.) The proof would go thus: evolution produced jet propulsion > in some sea creatures (defined loosely, in squids) but not in land beasts. ... > If the panspermia theorists are correct, Yeager would not be the first beast > to travel at supersonic speeds, but rather the title would go to the > bacteria that were on the rock that fell to Earth from elsewhere, perhaps > Mars. If the panspermia theorists are not correct, Yeager still loses out > to those beasts that resided in or upon the earth based rock that was struck > by an incoming meteor that then exited at supersonic speeds from the impact. > > What a silly topic for a Sunday morning. {8-] Your silliness is appreciated, Spike, and it's (almost) always in the way of expanding our view of a topic, which is also appreciated. Agree that Anders is truly missed from this list, but it's good to see that he remains active in developing awareness and understanding of extropian issues. I understand he'll be speaking at Stanford late in May. Regarding Bill K's comment on neuronal growth, I think the point was that upon adulthood, the mode is one of *slow* growth of neuronal variation generating the requisite variety for selection. During childhood the process is dominated by the selection (pruning) of many times more neuronal connections. An article on the front page of the LA Times just this week referred to recent developments in this area confirming growth of new neurons in several areas of the brain, but the spin for the popular audience seemed to be on the plasticity of personality rather than the more fundamental process of evolution (variation followed by selection) as fundamental to growth of knowledge models. - Jef From mstriz at gmail.com Sun Apr 16 19:01:41 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:01:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: <4440B65A.2030406@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/15/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > It is easier to acquire resistance by horizontal gene transfer than it is to > create de novo mutations. Many of the original antibiotic resistance genes > (or a minor variant) probably in bacteria or fungi that needed those > defenses long before humans started discovering and using antibiotics. > Generally speaking one has to have many larger numbers of organisms to get > the right set of mutations when more mutations are required. Antibiotic > overuse contributes to the possibility that a bacterial strain will evolve > and be selected for that has organized one a single small piece of DNA with > a multi-gene antibiotic resistance set. The reason to limit antibiotic > misuse or overuse is to attempt to lower the probability of such > developments. There's a remarkable symbiotic relationship that was discovered among a species of ant that grows bacteria which produce antibiotics against parasites that infect the ant's food. As parasites evolve resistance, the bacteria evolve new antibiotics. http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/fungus.htm The lesson: fight evolution with evolution. > Bacteria for the most part have relatively similar machinery and most of > them have DNA repair mechanisms that make it difficult to create lots of new > mutations on short notice -- millions or billions of years of evolution > between competing organisms in the soil, lakes or water has a much greater > chance of producing weapons and counter-weapons. Penicillin was produced by > Streptococcus. Where are you getting this information? It is produced by Penicillium moulds. > Presumably the penicillin resistance genes came from a > different bacterial strain competing for resources with Streptococcus. Penicillin binds and inhibits the transpeptidase enzyme in bacteria, which prevents the formation of peptidoglycan cross-links in the cell wall, so the cell ruptures. The bacteria that develop resistance are those that evolve new transpeptidase enzymes. > > If antibiotic cocktails are not a good idea, why is this, exactly? Because creating stronger selection pressures increases the rate of evolution, in this case, of resistant strains. Martin From mstriz at gmail.com Sun Apr 16 19:28:04 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:28:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] infinite fun but finite tunes? In-Reply-To: <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 4/14/06, spike wrote: > Here is the disturbing part: Stevie called to say he loves us somewhere > around 1984-ish. But I cannot think of a single viral tune that was written > after that one. Did we really run out of them over twenty years ago? I can't find anything on the Internet about it now, but I remember reading once that John Stuart Mill calculated the number of possible musical compositions based on the average length of a composition, the number of musical notes and the combinatorial rhythms that they can produce. I don't remember the exact number that he derived, but I'm pretty sure that I remember he was worried that we would soon run out of new music. That was before the invention of big band, jazz, blues, rock, reggae, rap, techno, country, etc. etc. etc. Combinatorial systems have a way of running away from you. Pinker has a nice discussion about this in The Language Instinct. As to why there aren't any more "viral tunes," how old are you? Maybe you just don't find modern music catchy. :) Martin From jonkc at att.net Sun Apr 16 19:43:37 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:43:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs References: <200604161609.k3GG9bfU022942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001e01c6618e$2ebfcd50$3e084e0c@MyComputer> "spike" Wrote: > If we are talking about this particular planet, we can prove > that natural supersonic flight never existed (until 1947 >when evolution produced Chuck Yeager's plane.) I would bet my life that you are correct, but I can't *prove* you're correct, I can't prove some paleontologist won't dig up a fossilized supersonic bird tomorrow. > The proof would go thus: evolution produced jet propulsion in > some sea creatures (defined loosely, in squids) but not in land beasts. For that matter, why didn't evolution ever produce a supersonic fish? > Supersonic flight cannot be achieved by flapping wings Probably not, but I'm not certain. > or with screw propellers. The Russian screw propeller TU-95 "Bear" bomber could reach Mach .82 (575 mph) in level flight, and that was more than 50 years ago. I imagine if somebody could think of a really good reason for doing so a supersonic prop airplane could be built. Incidentally the tips of the TU-95's propellers did exceed the speed of sound making the TU-95 the loudest airplane ever made by Human Beings, the flight crews absolutely hated it, as did anyone within 10 miles of the beast . And that's another thing, if evolution wanted a big bird, a REALLY big bird, it would need to invent a fixed wing and a screw propeller, but it just never could manage it. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sun Apr 16 22:24:49 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:24:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... Message-ID: Ben wrote: > So, in your scenario, the you that was vitrified, revived and repaired, > then later died, is one you. The other copy is also you. So 'you' do > survive, but not the 'you' that was woken from vitrification. That one > is just as dead as any of us who dies at present. Is there really any difference between death before vitrification and death after revival? There is none so a person who is dead before vitrification "is just as dead as any of us who dies at present." And if so, then I must ask: "What is the point of cryonics?" When I die, does it really matter to me if all that's left after my death is a bunch of photographs of me or identical copies of my brain? No amount of recorded information about me, including photographs, videos or structure of my brain can ever bring my original instance of mind process back to life. The awful truth is that when minds die, they die forever, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. S. From blaseparrot at yahoo.com Sun Apr 16 23:55:52 2006 From: blaseparrot at yahoo.com (Dawn Amato) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs In-Reply-To: <003801c660a4$b89a97c0$c0084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060416235552.94445.qmail@web36309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Well, here is a way to expand the size of your brain, today. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=5615 ( I actually keep trying but so far I can't get past the count of 5 with out tossing everything to the dogs.) D. Amato John K Clark wrote: Russell Wallace Wrote: > My guess is that no simple chemical tweak will confer large > benefits to most people without corresponding disadvantages, > simply because if such were easily had, evolution would > probably have already found it. Not necessarily because an entire galaxy of solutions are unavailable to evolution, but not to intelligence. Every large change evolution makes consists of lots of small changes, and every single one of those small changes must confer an IMMEDIATE advantage to the organism; evolution just doesn't understand the concept of one step backward two steps forward. Imagine if you had to turn a prop airplane engine into a jet with a million tiny changes and ever change must improve the performance of the engine, and you had to make the changes while the engine was running. It just couldn't be done. That's probably why evolution was never able to come up with some apparently simple things, like a macroscopic body part that could move in 360 degrees. John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Apr 17 01:06:50 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:06:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] juggling In-Reply-To: <20060416235552.94445.qmail@web36309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604170109.k3H193m5002378@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dawn Amato Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Singularity Drugs Well, here is a way to expand the size of your brain, today. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=5615 (?I actually keep trying but so far I can't get past the count of?5 with out tossing everything to the dogs.) ? D. Amato HAAAAAA! Cool! I independently thought this was right approximately 30 years ago when I started juggling. It does expand the mind, as well as being good aerobic exercise that doesn't wreck your body. OK here is my own take on it: do not read books about juggling. Try to think thru what must happen, then figure out for yourself how to do it. By reasoning it out on your own, you get twice the benefit: the exercise and the satisfaction of being an inventor, rather reinventor. Try to invent variations, such as bouncing the balls against a wall or off the floor, or tossing every third ball behind the back or under the leg. Its a hoot! As a side benefit you get to look silly, which harmlessly burns off excess dignity. {8-] spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 06:16:22 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:46:22 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] infinite fun but finite tunes? In-Reply-To: References: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0604162316i5de46882tfaefec10a70062c8@mail.gmail.com> There's a good chance you are listening to the wrong stations, Spike. The great majority of stations, certainly commercial stations, seem to have a date cutoff past which they don't play music - you know, 80s, 70s, 60s, some are bold enough to play 90s (not late 90s...). There's plenty going on, especially plenty of hooky pop cringemusic, but you might need to talk to a different demographic to find out about that. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com * blogs * music * software * Music downloads are online again! On 17/04/06, Martin Striz wrote: > On 4/14/06, spike wrote: > > > Here is the disturbing part: Stevie called to say he loves us somewhere > > around 1984-ish. But I cannot think of a single viral tune that was written > > after that one. Did we really run out of them over twenty years ago? > > I can't find anything on the Internet about it now, but I remember > reading once that John Stuart Mill calculated the number of possible > musical compositions based on the average length of a composition, > the number of musical notes and the combinatorial rhythms that they > can produce. I don't remember the exact number that he derived, but > I'm pretty sure that I remember he was worried that we would soon run > out of new music. > > That was before the invention of big band, jazz, blues, rock, reggae, > rap, techno, country, etc. etc. etc. > > Combinatorial systems have a way of running away from you. Pinker has > a nice discussion about this in The Language Instinct. > > As to why there aren't any more "viral tunes," how old are you? Maybe > you just don't find modern music catchy. :) > > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon Apr 17 06:12:03 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 23:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Possible Worlds Semantics Message-ID: <20060417061203.77118.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> I bemoaned: > Trying to explain my answer runs into describing a > thicket of nested possible worlds ... But it's an attractive challenge! Here's an effort to explain my answer [1] to the puzzle Hal posted. [2] The following models the range of possible envelopes from $10^1 to $10^7. Below the envelope values are two lines, the first shows the position of the second son (let's call him 'B') who got $10^3; so he's placed directly under $10^3. From there B wonders if along the second line A's position falls under $10^2 or $10^4 (fixed-pitch font necessary): $10^1 $10^2 $10^3 $10^4 $10^5 $10^6 $10^7 B *-------*------(B)------*-------*-------*-------* A *-------A?------*-------A?------*-------*-------* B has $10^3 and wonders: "Does A have $10^2 or $10^4?" All B really needs to know is if A has $10^2; thus B constructs a possible world wherein A has $10^2 and deduces the probable consequences of such: ---------------------------------------------------- B's mentally modeled possible world (where 'I' = B): ---------------------------------------------------- 1. I have $10^3 and so I want to know if A has $10^2. 2. If A has $10^2, he wants to know if I have $10^1. 3. If I had $10^1, then I'd ONLY want to switch. Ergo: if A has $10^2, then he wants to know if I definitely want to switch. Therefore, if I know that A wants to know only that, then I can infer with likelihood that A has only $10^2, and if A has that, then I do NOT want to switch. ---------------------------------------------------- Of course B can also look at BOTH of A's possible states. Here's what B wants to know about A if (1) A has $10^2 (as exampled above) or (2) A has $10^4: 1. B(A(B)) 2. B(A(B(A(B)))) 1. B: "What's A's view about me?" 2. B: "What's A's view about my view about A's view about me?" For the sake of exploration lets just keeping looking up the $10^n scale from B's fixed position to higher positions along A's possible-position line: 3. B(A(B(A(B(A(B)))))) 3. B: "What's A's view about my view of A's view about my view about A's view about me?" 4. B(A(B(A(B(A(B(A(B)))))))) B: "What's A's view about my view of A's view about my view of A's view about my view about A's view about me?" Woh, I'm getting dizzy! Seems like it can just keep going without limit... And note that the sentences seem to be grammatical, making sense both syntactically and semantically even as they grow more "ridiculous" with each iteration. Assuming a model with no upward bound, it seems like a recursively defined generative language involving an immediate language-model isomorphism such that both the language and the model share a common structure; almost like at a higher level of abstraction there's a structure of which both the language and the model are individual instantiations. Maybe that higher level is 'natural logic' (some underlying ontic logic of which our formal systems merely try to model). Well, maybe that's just pipe dreaming, whatever, I sense a potent avenue of inquiry in this topic of nested models of knowledge states Hal brings to our attention! ~Ian _____________________________________________________ [1] My effort to answer a question http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-April/026273.html [2] to a Puzzle Posted by Hal: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-April/026233.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Apr 17 06:57:24 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 02:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...just curious In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604162338n20b34d4i2e12bf29c9f22173@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060417065724.16720.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Russell Wallace wrote: You can try asking that one on the list. On 4/17/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: Ok, that's fine:) Then why bother ignoring religion if it's only to conjure up science fiction? What's the Singularity then? A new theory of fiction? I'm confused? If there are no real facts other than cryonics at the present moment, then what's the difference between the zodiac and Singularity? Anna Russell Wallace < russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: That one you can google ;) On 4/17/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: ok then, so what is mind-uploading? Russell Wallace < russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: On 4/17/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: Ok, then i'm really not understanding cryonics properly for what it is today. At what point are we in terms of cryonics today? We can freeze people, hopefully for revival in years to come. We can't do the revival yet. --------------------------------- Make Yahoo! Canada your Homepage Yahoo! Canada Homepage --------------------------------- Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers --------------------------------- Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Mon Apr 17 07:46:33 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:46:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] infinite fun but finite tunes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <444347D9.4040304@lineone.net> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 05:43:30PM -0700, spike wrote: >> Here is the disturbing part: Stevie called to say he loves us >> somewhere around 1984-ish. But I cannot think of a single viral >> tune that was written after that one. I was going to say The Grateful Dead, but no, the tune i have had resonating in my head for the last few days was written in 1980! But i have had a couple of Gorillaz songs, going on and on and on in my head over the last couple of weeks. I think there are probably plenty of tunes, but maybe not quite so many good musicians these days, that's all. But that's ok, it means the tunes will last that much longer. If they are indeed limited - but who knows what an enhanced intelligence will find catchy? I remember reading a story by A E van Vogt in which some of the characters were listening to music that sounded like a monotonal hum to normal human ears, but to them it was like Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto. And before anybody gets indignant, no, i'm not calling Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto a 'catchy tune'. ben From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 10:28:36 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:28:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: <4440B65A.2030406@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/16/06, Martin Striz wrote: > > I said... "Penicillin was produced by Streptococcus." > > Where are you getting this information? It is produced by Penicillium > moulds. My very bad. I was reading the wikipedia entry on penicillin too quickly, read Staphylococcus (which I have a hard time keeping straight with Streptococcus) and entirely missed Penicillium chrysigenum (the mould) entry. I actually thought I knew it was a fungus that produced penicillin (which is why I checked it) so I'm going to have to do some brain rewiring to double check things when I'm doing them too quickly without sufficient coffee in the morning. :-( But many of the antibiotic genes are from bacteria -- tetracycline comes from streptomyces (which is a soil bacteria). Interestingly, fungi and streptomyces have rather large genomes so perhaps having a large genome gives one the extra carrying capacity for weapons to throw at other microorganisms should the need arise. Penicillin binds and inhibits the transpeptidase enzyme in bacteria, > which prevents the formation of peptidoglycan cross-links in the cell > wall, so the cell ruptures. The bacteria that develop resistance are > those that evolve new transpeptidase enzymes. Yep. Though they don't have to be "new" (as in completely novel) -- just sufficiently different that the penicillin doesn't inhibit the activity. > > If antibiotic cocktails are not a good idea, why is this, exactly? > > Because creating stronger selection pressures increases the rate of > evolution, in this case, of resistant strains. A nice succinct answer. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 11:33:34 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:33:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...just curious In-Reply-To: <20060417065724.16720.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0604162338n20b34d4i2e12bf29c9f22173@mail.gmail.com> <20060417065724.16720.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In response to Anna's questions to Russell (below)... A. The Singularity isn't "fiction", certainly not "science fiction" [1]. Briefly, "The Singularity" is simply a label for the time when human evolution becomes so rapid it significantly exceeds our ability to grasp it (and potentially manage it). Read the wiki entry for more [2]. The idea is based on concepts of (a) the determinants of the rate of change (evolution) of our "reality" and (b) the mathematical derivative of the rate of change (the rate of change of the rate of change). So formally studying the singularity has a basis in the study of rates of evolution and determinants of the rates of evolution -- and also consequences of changes in those rates & determinants. So it isn't a religion (which generally try to explain things we observe by invoking some "magical" power). It also is *not* fiction if one believes Kurzweil's numbers. Side examples -- rapid rates of change are usually viewed as "disasters" (tsunamis, earthquakes, your house burning down, etc.) On the other hand rapid some semi-rapid rates of change, e.g. humanity going from "putting a human on the moon is impossible" to "we put a human on the moon every few months" can be viewed as producing positive benefits. People concerned with "The Singularity" are worried that the rate of change will reach the point where it ends up being a monumental disaster rather than a positive benefit. B. Cryonics is not "science fiction". It is simply a technology which exists today that allows long term *preservation* of the information that bodies (or more importantly minds) contain. It stands in significant contrast to being cremated or buried which are disposal methods which have the general result of *destroying* the information in bodies & minds. People who follow the cryonics path generally believe that the technology will exist someday to allow reanimation and/or reconstruction of their mind and/or body. Cryonic reanimtation does *not* depend on science fiction, religion *or* the singularity. It simply depends on the continued existence of the facilities maintaining the bodies in a suspended state and our eventual development of technologies which allow the recovery of the information preserved in those bodies. The only interaction between The Singularity and cryonics is that *if* The Singularity happens, cryonic reanimation is likely to be feasible within decades rather than perhaps a century or two. C. The Zodiac (Astrology) is an attempt to explain the past and probable futures based on an arbitrary system which was invented thousands of years ago (and changed as more planets were discovered). As I understand it it requires "magical" physics to explain itself. [My Catholic grandmother was very big on astrology (try that for mixing two rather different explanations for reality...)]. The Singularity on the other hand *depends* largely on the *real* physics upon which our reality is based. It is in large part the physics of micrometer and nanometer sizes, Maxwell's Laws, quantum mechanics, etc. which drive things like Moore's "Law" which in turn are major reasons for believing in "The Singularity". Anna, without being critical (since I view your questions as useful because they encourage a community with its own "reality" to consider the "realities" in which much of humanity lives) you may wish to do two things -- (a) start with wikipedia -- it is usually quite good as a resource on these things since its pages are semi-peer reviewed; (b) if you take an idea which is in your head -- ask yourself is it really reproducible or verifiable? If I hold a ball in my hand and let go and you hold a ball in your hand and let go will they *both* fall? If so we are both on the planet Earth (where the physical law of gravity exerts a lot of influence) and both using balls that are not filled with helium. If on the other hand your astrologer says you are going to fall in love today and my astrologer says I am going to fall in love today what is the probability that we will indeed both fall in love? Then what is the probability that 1000 people told by their astrologers that they will fall in love today actually do? (501 out of 1000 falling in love doesn't make Astrology true because one has to take into account the power of suggestion and statistical variation [tomorrow only 499 people may fall in love].) The Singularity is largely about relatively high probabilities (and their positive and negative consequences). So too is hitting the accelerator instead of the brake while driving your car (maybe you will have an accident depending upon what is in front of you, maybe you will not). But with the ball dropping experiment *and* the car *and* The Singularity we can explain how known physical laws (and their consequences) produce specific results. Astrology cannot do that, neither can most religions. Robert 1. Science fiction should be divided into two categories -- that which requires violation of known laws of physics and that which does not. For example creating wormholes to achieve faster-than-light travel is skating on the very edge between these two categories. There is a body of older "science fiction" which is now "science reality". There is also a body of science fiction literature which 999 out of 1000 physicists will say relies on things which will never be possible (except in a virtual reality where one changes the laws of physics). 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 4/17/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > *Russell Wallace * wrote: > > You can try asking that one on the list. > > On 4/17/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > > Ok, that's fine:) > > Then why bother ignoring religion if it's only to conjure up science > > fiction? > > What's the Singularity then? A new theory of fiction? > > I'm confused? > > If there are no real facts other than cryonics at the present moment, > > then > > what's the difference between the zodiac and Singularity? > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 12:53:05 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:53:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/16/06, Heartland wrote: > The awful truth is that when minds die, they die forever, and there's > nothing > anyone can do about it. "Minds" do not die until the information contained in them assumes a form which can never be recreated [1]. Just because an a single instantiation of a mind is destroyed does not mean that *the* mind is "dead" -- it simply means that the unique information contained within that single instanation is lost (subject to [1]). Since copies of various types contain most of the information in the mind one can only lose the information which uniquely contained in a single instantiation. In our current world minds only have a single instantiation so when you lose *that* copy of the mind you lose that mind. For people who write their own autobiographies or whose life histories are well known (certain famous people, perhaps presidents with libraries, etc.), perhaps whose personal genome is available or may be derived, one may be able to recreate a reasonable approximation of the original mind. Sure, one camp [3] can claim its not "my" mind but the question arises whether or not it would pass the "Turing" mind identity test [4]. For people who are attached to the idea that *their* instantiation is *their* mind that is *their* choice. However making an assertion that "nothing can be done about it" would place us right into a semantic discussion regarding ones own (single) "mind" and what *precisely* is "death" [5] and the fact that should society choose to do so (assuming the AI vector moves along a path that "information" has rights to existence) then it seems reasonable that laws may be passed which would actually make it illegal and difficult to destroy the information content of ones "mind" ( i.e. *you* can cease conscious operation but your information is the property of the hive mind). Before some people start screaming, I'd suggest you go look at how the "hibernate" function works under Windows or the Suspend 2 functionality works under Linux and then compare and contrast those with the non-REM states of sleep. Robert 1. I.e. to perform such a recreation would either violate accepted laws of physics (e.g. pulling the "mind" out of an alternate universe in the multiverse) or would exceed the total computational capacity of this universe (i.e. you cannot simulate reality in reverse and get back to the original mind state [2]). 2. There are limits on how far back you can run "reality" depending upon how much disorder (entropy) has been absorbed by the mind. Cremation injects disorder more rapidly than burial. 3. I don't know if there is such a test. It would be like the differentiation the classical Turing test attempts (is it human or is it an AI?) -- but applied to the perspective of copies, e.g. "Is this the original or is this a copy?" or "Is this a copy or is this a recreation?". We should make up some names for these different types of tests if they don't currently exist. 4. When I first wrote this I got confused about the precise positions of the "identity camp" vs. the "thread camp" (or whatever names they go by). If these aren't defined someplace in philosophy or neurophysiology or computer science *someone* with a clearer understanding than I should consider adding them to Wikipedia so they can be discussed by the general population. 5. Go watch ER for a while. One begins to understand that currently "death" is when a MD asserts that an individual has reached a physiological state that *current* technology cannot return them to a functional state. "Death" is a moving concept. It used to be when your heart stopped beating (but they solved that problem decades ago) or when your brain flat-lines (but cooled drowning victims can recover from that state). Now it has reached the point where for people like Terry Schiavo you have a bunch of people *voting* on whether or not someone is *really* dead. What they are really voting on is "we don't want to preserve a person in this state because we aren't going to *ever* have the technology to return them to a functional state". Unfortunately most of the people voting have virtually no concept of what advanced biotechnology or nanotechnology may be capable of. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 13:07:21 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:07:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] First transhumanist presentation in Second Life Message-ID: <470a3c520604170607i77ed139dn8f4e2a5231fb73bb@mail.gmail.com> The presentation for the Club de los Astronautas on 22 is ready on one of the screens at the ground floor, all transhumanist SL residents are invited to take a look. See message quoted below for directions. Advance slides by clicking on the screen, but leave 10 seconds at least between one slide and the next to give time to preload next textures (still no good PPT like tool in SL, but things will change soon I believe). G. On 4/14/06, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > On April 22 I will give a presentation on transhumanism in Second Life, > shown also in the festival "26.000 Light Years" in Barcelona. Info in > Spanish below. > Everyone is welcome to come to SL - see metaxlr8.com or > http://futuretag.net/index.php/MetaXLR8 for direction. > I will speak in Spanish over a VoIP link (direct to the festival, you won't > hear me speaking if you come to SL), but most of the the slides will be in > English. > G. > ---- > Presentaci?n sobre transhumanismo el 22 de Abril > En Barcelona y en Segunda Vida > > 22 de Abril 2006, 18:50 - Desde la realidad virtual de Second Life, Giulio > Prisco nos cuenta que significa la palabra "Transhumanismo". Presentaci?n en > directa tambi?n en el mundo real, en " 26 000 a?os luz;, que es el nombre > del mini-festival astro-art?stico organizado por El Club de los Astronautas > el d?a 22 de Abril en Barcelona en una galer?a de arte en colaboraci?n con > Amnist?a Internacional de Catalu?a. Tambi?n es la distancia entre la tierra > y el centro de nuestra galaxia, donde cient?ficos hoy en d?a suponen vida > inteligente. ?Ser? posible alg?n d?a un viaje intergal?ctico de esta > distancia? 22 de Abril 2006 - 17:00 horas - Galer?a N?u, C/Almogavers 208, > Metro: Llacuna (L4) o Glories (L1), Barcelona. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 13:12:30 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:12:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... Message-ID: Its nice (or maybe not so nice) to know, on those days when I'm thinking about how far extropian concepts are from 'mainstream' concepts that the NY Times can serve up an example of some real 'whack jobs' in our midst. E.g. "Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act" NY Times, April 17, 2006 by Lizette Alvarez http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17picket.html?pagewanted=print In particular, "Over the past decade, the (Westboro Babtist) church, which consists almost entirely of 75 of Mr. Phelps's relatives, made its name by demonstrating outside businesses, disaster zones and the funerals of gay people. Late last year, though, it changed tactics and members began showing up at the funerals of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, has put it on its watch list. Embracing a literal translation of the Bible, the church members believe that God strikes down the wicked, chief among them gay men and lesbians and people who fail to strongly condemn homosexuality. God is killing soldiers, they say, because of America's unwillingness to condemn gay people and their lifestyles." Spike, just for my information -- *what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to homosexuals? (If it isn't too much trouble.) Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 14:13:48 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:13:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...just curious In-Reply-To: <20060417065724.16720.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0604162338n20b34d4i2e12bf29c9f22173@mail.gmail.com> <20060417065724.16720.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604170713s72006643y128b9da590f5ccfd@mail.gmail.com> Robert Bradbury correctly answers the factual side of the question; now that I'm awake, I'll take a shot at the methodological side. God and the Singularity are not substitutes for each other. Whether there is or isn't a God and Heaven is something we can't influence either way (apart from live a moral life to improve our chances of getting into Heaven; but we should try to live a moral life anyway because it's the right thing to do). Furthermore, if there is a God, the one thing that's clear is that He expects us to solve our problems using our faculty of reason, not sit on our arses pestering Him to solve them for us. I don't say you should believe in God or that you shouldn't, but that whether or not you do shouldn't influence your attitude to the Singularity. As for astrology - honestly, what's the _point_ in believing in that? What can you do with that belief? Start shifting the planets' orbits around to improve their influence? But even if you could, which way? For every astrologer who says move Mars a million kilometers north there's another one who'll say move it a million kilometers south. What do you get out of believing in astrology? Nothing. The Singularity isn't just something to passively believe in, it's something to _work towards_. Even if you don't believe in it as something that'll actually happen in our lifetimes (and I'll certainly grant we can't put a knowable date on it), it can be thought of as the horizon of the long road of progress - and every step we take down that road is one worth taking for the benefits that step can bring us, for the lives it can save and enrich. Maybe "close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades - but "forward" counts in life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 14:15:41 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:15:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/17/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Spike, just for my information -- *what* precisely is the Biblical basis for > objecting to homosexuals? (If it isn't too much trouble.) > It all depends on how you interpret biblical verses, of course. This covers it pretty thoroughly. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 14:21:51 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:21:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] infinite fun but finite tunes? In-Reply-To: <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <443ED725.7070306@pobox.com> <200604150043.k3F0hXDN001450@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604170721i1bef7628j742619bdbf31992e@mail.gmail.com> On 4/15/06, spike wrote: > > Did we already write all the good songs? Or did they just migrate over to > the country western stations? Or what? > Seems to me there was a drift; music wandered from the simple and catchy into areas of greater strangeness and complexity as the 70s, 80s and 90s went by, ultimately losing its form and disintegrating. (It's been awhile since I've listened to the radio, but when I hear it played in shops, current music seems to be a 50/50 mix of random noise and corrupted versions of older hits.) That's in the West, mind you; the Japanese still seem to be doing some good stuff, though I don't know all that much about their end of things. Speaking of Japanese music, there's... I'm not sure how to describe it, an _inverse_ viral tune? The Matsuri Uta from the anime series 'Blue Seed', one of the most divinely brilliant pieces ever composed; one could quite believe it has the properties ascribed to it in the story... and it cannot be retained in memory. Not just the lyrics (since they're in a language I don't speak, of course I can't remember them), but the tune itself... oh, if I heard it played again in a thousand years I'd recognize it instantly, but a day after hearing it, I can't reproduce a note of it from memory. Anyone else ever come across tunes like this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Apr 17 14:43:23 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:43:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604171443.k3HEhkUO028810@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury ... Spike, just for my information -- *what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to homosexuals?? (If it isn't too much trouble.) Robert There isn't much there actually. The apostle Paul seems to have a hardon for it, commenting that feminine men will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. I figure a lot of it is actually derived from the notion that copulation is to be for procreation only, thus the condemnation of Onan, who was doing it only out of a sense of duty, and was clearly practicing an early form of birth control: Gen 38: 8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line." 9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. Lesson: no seed spilling. Mr. Damn might slay you. Then there is that unfortunate incident in Sodom, which only demonstrates how screwed up Lot was. He would sacrifice his two virgin daughters to save on visitor: Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Gen 19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, Gen 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. Ooooookaaaaay. This is one seriously messed up father, eh? "Hey no problem! Take these two beyotches." spike From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Apr 17 18:08:01 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...just curious In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060417180801.21656.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: Anna, without being critical (since I view your questions as useful because they encourage a community with its own "reality" to consider the "realities" in which much of humanity lives) you may wish to do two things -- (a) start with wikipedia -- it is usually quite good as a resource on these things since its pages are semi-peer reviewed; (b) if you take an idea which is in your head -- ask yourself is it really reproducible or verifiable? If I hold a ball in my hand and let go and you hold a ball in your hand and let go will they *both* fall? If so we are both on the planet Earth (where the physical law of gravity exerts a lot of influence) and both using balls that are not filled with helium. If on the other hand your astrologer says you are going to fall in love today and my astrologer says I am going to fall in love today what is the probability that we will indeed both fall in love? Then what is the probability that 1000 people told by their astrologers that they will fall in love today actually do? (501 out of 1000 falling in love doesn't make Astrology true because one has to take into account the power of suggestion and statistical variation [tomorrow only 499 people may fall in love].) >Thank you Robert for your explanation. >I have already read Vinge, Kurzweil, SL4 and anything I could find about >the Singularity. >Astrology and Religion have been around for thousand of years, although >I am not religious (I have my own belief system) and I don't believe in >the probability factors of Astrology, I can't seem to grasp that just because >something can't be explained scientifically that it is "craziness". I truly >believe that most religious writings are teaching tools to understand the >past, that's all. I also believe that Astrology was once a teaching tool to >learn about the stars and planets. >The point I was trying to make is that although the Singularity seems like >the most plausible future, I 'm still finding it hard to believe, based on the >current information, how it will occur and when. If at this point, if I >understand properly, we only have the technology for cryonics, nothing >else. All talk about mind-uploading and copying is no more real than >Astrology and Religion, it may one day occur or it may not. Am I not >understanding this properly? I understand the high probabilities of the >Singularity but I'm just not convinced that their is enough information >to base a belief system on it. >Could someone give me an opinion on what they think could halt the >Singularity from occurring? >Do you feel that we will have clear signs that we are approaching >the Singularity or do you feel that won't notice it and it will happen >gradually? Again, sorry if I'm way off and thanks for the responses. Anna:) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 4/17/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: Russell Wallace wrote: You can try asking that one on the list. On 4/17/06, Anne-Marie Taylor < femmechakra at yahoo.ca > wrote: Ok, that's fine:) Then why bother ignoring religion if it's only to conjure up science fiction? What's the Singularity then? A new theory of fiction? I'm confused? If there are no real facts other than cryonics at the present moment, then what's the difference between the zodiac and Singularity? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Mon Apr 17 18:23:39 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:23:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> "Heartland" wrote: > Ben wrote: >> So, in your scenario, the you that was vitrified, revived and >> repaired, then later died, is one you. The other copy is also you. >> So 'you' do survive, but not the 'you' that was woken from >> vitrification. That one is just as dead as any of us who dies at >> present. > Is there really any difference between death before vitrification and > death after revival? There is none so a person who is dead before > vitrification "is just as dead as any of us who dies at present." And > if so, then I must ask: "What is the point of cryonics?" Well, i think there's a big difference (assuming that 'death after revival' means permanent death, not death then another cyronic suspension). The point of cryonics is that you *come back from death*. There is no magical 'alternate you' created when the dead, vitrified, then revived and repaired you wakes up again. Ever been under general anaesthetic? It would be similar to that. (As it happens, i did go under general anaesthetic recently. For about an hour and a half, i didn't exist, as a running, integrated mind. i may as well have been cryonically suspended or transcribed into a gazillion bits in a digital memory. When i woke up, i was the same old me. Well, a slightly improved me, actually. I'm not dead, though. The post-anaesthetic me is the same person as before) > The awful truth is that when minds die, they die forever, and there's > nothing anyone can do about it. Agreed. So, best not to let them die, eh? Of course, we now have to define 'death'. I define it as /irrevocable loss of information/. Some people define it as /loss of the soul/. How do you define it? Some people seem to think that a temporary cessation of processing equates to death. I think that Eleizer has satisfactorily demonstrated in an earlier post that this can't be true. Cryonics (on a living person) is equivalent to a temporary cessation of processing. Death, followed quickly enough by cryonic suspension (quickly enough so that no significant loss of information occurs) is also equivalent to a temporary cessation of processing (so long as processing can and does resume at some future point, of course). A person who dies and is then cryonically suspended is not the same as someone who dies and is say, cremated. The whole point of cryonics is an attempt to make death non-permanent. You can only do that if you preserve a certain minimum amount of information. We don't yet know what that minimum is, but we know that it will be a hell of a lot. > When I die, does it really matter to me if all that's left after my > death is a bunch of photographs of me or identical copies of my > brain? No amount of recorded information about me, including > photographs, videos or structure of my brain can ever bring my > original instance of mind process back to life. There's a big difference between a bunch of photographs of you and a detailed copy of your mind! I hate to get into hackneyed old computer analogies, but it's still probably the best we have. When you turn your spreadsheet program off, is it somehow a different program when you turn it on again? Is there any way of telling? Is there any difference in it's behaviour? As long as all of the information it was using is correctly stored on disk before it is switched off, then properly loaded again when it's re-started, there is no difference. The only way there can be a 'difference' is if you posit some hypothetical non-physical component which is lost then not restored. But, of course, this makes no difference, anyway. A difference which makes no difference. In other words, a nonsense. I don't understand why you think that "No amount of recorded information about me ... can ever bring my original instance of mind process back to life". If enough information is recorded, how could it fail to bring back the original mind process? We are of course, assuming that the information can be recorded in sufficient detail, and that it can be properly reassembled and 'run' in exactly the same was as before. Saying "ah, but it's a different /instance/ of that same information" is meaningless. How do you know you are you? Your memory tells you that you existed yesterday, or two seconds ago. If that memory came from a different body on a different planet hundreds of years ago, it makes absolutely no difference. You are still the same you. Difficult as it is to wrap your head around, this also applies to any copies made of that mind, no matter how many or when. It also applies to any temporarily suspended, and then later resumed instances of it. The 'different instances are different people' argument is a red herring, equivalent to arguing that the same DVD played twice produces different films. You seem to be asserting that the mind is more than a dynamic pattern of information-processing. In other words, something non-physical, that is irretrievably lost at death. That's getting into metaphysics again. Where, as i've said before, i refuse to go. As Lee has already remarked, people don't seem to change their minds on this. I propose we drop it until some of us actually do upload or wake up after cryonic suspension, etc. Or fail to, despite repeated attempts and no apparent reason for them to fail. I'll be convinced that the 'patternist' view is false when an exact copy of a mind is made, and there's NOBODY THERE! . ben ----- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't" From benboc at lineone.net Mon Apr 17 18:23:44 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:23:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4443DD30.6000206@lineone.net> Martin Striz wrote: >> If antibiotic cocktails are not a good idea, why is this, exactly? > Because creating stronger selection pressures increases the rate of > evolution, in this case, of resistant strains. Um, then why does it work against HIV? If this is right, then given the extremely fast rate of mutation in HIV, multi-drug therapy should fail. It should make HIV stronger. I don't think it's quite accurate to say that stronger selection pressures increase the rate of evolution. At the most, this would only be true up to a certain point. If the selection pressure became TOO strong, nothing would be able to adapt fast enough, and the organism would die off. So, for either bacteria or viruses, the way to avoid resistant strains arising would be to hit them hard enough, from enough different directions, that they had no chance of adapting. It might be possible to devise a treatment strategy that traps the disease organism in an evolutionary local maximum, then changes the landscape so that the only way to survive is to leap to another peak, which is too far away for natural evolution to manage in a few steps. If we had 3 or 4 such treatments for any one organism, we could keep it at bay indefinitely, by switching treatments periodically. Any new strain would develop from the wild population, and have no evolutionary memory of the previously treated ones (cos they're all dead), so there would be no adaptation to this strategy over time. There's bound to be a catch with this idea, isn't there? ben --- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand Ternary, those who don't, and those who are just showing off. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 17 20:29:14 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:29:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> Message-ID: > "Heartland" wrote: > >> Ben wrote: > >>> So, in your scenario, the you that was vitrified, revived and >>> repaired, then later died, is one you. The other copy is also you. >>> So 'you' do survive, but not the 'you' that was woken from >>> vitrification. That one is just as dead as any of us who dies at >>> present. > >> Is there really any difference between death before vitrification and >> death after revival? There is none so a person who is dead before >> vitrification "is just as dead as any of us who dies at present." And >> if so, then I must ask: "What is the point of cryonics?" > > > Well, i think there's a big difference (assuming that 'death after > revival' means permanent death, not death then another cyronic suspension). > The point of cryonics is that you *come back from death*. There is no > magical 'alternate you' created when the dead, vitrified, then revived > and repaired you wakes up again. Let's focus on the meaning of "come back from death" which should illustrate why cryonics tries to offer something that is logically impossible. To come back from death means that a person experiences death as something that is similar to sleep where you lose consciousness and then wake up few hours later. In other words, the process responsible for subjective experience hasn't stopped running during sleep. There's a common and false expectation that this continuation of subjective experience would take place after death also but there is a huge difference between sleep and death. The whole mind process no longer exists after death which makes it impossible for any technology to restore that original instance of the process. A revived person would obviously *feel* similar to what people feel after waking up and outside world would agree that you really "came back from death." But the truth is that revival merely *creates* a new mind process that happens to be of the same *type* of mind process while the original *instance* and original subjective experience process is gone forever. What this means in practice is that when you die you will never experience sensation of waking up. It's the other created instance that will but you will "feel" eternal nothingness instead. In light of this I suggest that preservation of one's instance is infinitely more important than preservation of one's type. > Ever been under general anaesthetic? It would be similar to that. Anytime mind process stops running a person dies. It doesn't really matter that the newly created process can be created within the original hardware or not. It's still death. > (As it happens, i did go under general anaesthetic recently. For about > an hour and a half, i didn't exist, as a running, integrated mind. i may > as well have been cryonically suspended or transcribed into a gazillion > bits in a digital memory. When i woke up, i was the same old me. Well, a > slightly improved me, actually. I'm not dead, though. The > post-anaesthetic me is the same person as before) What you feel is a copy's illusion. If your mind process really stopped execution then your original instance has died. Sorry. >> The awful truth is that when minds die, they die forever, and there's >> nothing anyone can do about it. > > Agreed. So, best not to let them die, eh? Of course, we now have to > define 'death'. > I define it as /irrevocable loss of information/. Some people define it > as /loss of the soul/. How do you define it? Death is a cessation of a mind process. > Some people seem to think that a temporary cessation of processing > equates to death. I think that Eleizer has satisfactorily demonstrated > in an earlier post that this can't be true. Can you point me to it? Thanks. >> When I die, does it really matter to me if all that's left after my >> death is a bunch of photographs of me or identical copies of my >> brain? No amount of recorded information about me, including >> photographs, videos or structure of my brain can ever bring my >> original instance of mind process back to life. > > There's a big difference between a bunch of photographs of you and a > detailed copy of your mind! If you consider the state of your subjective experience after death there is no difference at all. You wouldn't feel anything more than nothingness even if people created 1000 copies of you. It's a difference between type vs. instance. No approximation of type can ever restore instance so photographs (approximations of type) are logically equivalent to a perfect copy of your mind (perfect approximation of type). > I don't understand why you think that "No amount of recorded information > about me ... can ever bring my original instance of mind process back to > life". If enough information is recorded, how could it fail to bring > back the original mind process? I mean instance of the original mind process. No continuation of subjective experience. Death. > Saying "ah, but it's a different /instance/ of that same information" is > meaningless. How do you know you are you? Your memory tells you that you > existed yesterday, or two seconds ago. If that memory came from a > different body on a different planet hundreds of years ago, it makes > absolutely no difference. Don't rely on memory to make that determination. There is an objective way to do this. A theoretical log of space and time trajectory of your mind hardware would always tell you if you are indeed the original or the copy. > You seem to be asserting that the mind is more than a dynamic pattern of > information-processing. In other words, something non-physical, that is > irretrievably lost at death. That's getting into metaphysics again. > Where, as i've said before, i refuse to go. No. I'm saying that the mind is a dynamic information processing. It's just physics and logic. S. From mstriz at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 20:40:26 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:40:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: <4443DD30.6000206@lineone.net> References: <4443DD30.6000206@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/17/06, ben wrote: > Martin Striz wrote: > > >> If antibiotic cocktails are not a good idea, why is this, exactly? > > > Because creating stronger selection pressures increases the rate of > > evolution, in this case, of resistant strains. > > Um, then why does it work against HIV? First, I want to make sure that you understand the distinction: we use antibiotic cocktails against bacteria and antiretroviral cocktails against viruses like HIV. Second, drug cocktails work against bacterial infections as well, they just aren't preferred for the reason I outlined. So the question is, why would you prefer them for HIV and not bacteria? Because it's the only thing that suppresses HIV to a significant degree. Each of the drugs alone does a poor job. Obviously you don't want to accelerate the evolution of any microbe, but preventing people from dying trumps that. Of course, our overuse of antibiotics has created multi-drug resistant TB, which is immune to almost everything, so that's your trade off. As to why there aren't new immune strains of HIV yet, it's probably because the cocktails we use attack multiple points in the viral life cycle, so that the fitness path is too discontinuous to a totally immune viral particle. Most antibiotics act on the cell wall or the ribosome, with a few exceptions. It's easier to alter fewer subsystems. That's my guess, anyway. > If this is right, then given the extremely fast rate of mutation in HIV, > multi-drug therapy should fail. It should make HIV stronger. I don't > think it's quite accurate to say that stronger selection pressures > increase the rate of evolution. At the most, this would only be true up > to a certain point. If the selection pressure became TOO strong, nothing > would be able to adapt fast enough, and the organism would die off. > > So, for either bacteria or viruses, the way to avoid resistant strains > arising would be to hit them hard enough, from enough different > directions, that they had no chance of adapting. That's my explanation above. > It might be possible to devise a treatment strategy that traps the > disease organism in an evolutionary local maximum, then changes the > landscape so that the only way to survive is to leap to another peak, > which is too far away for natural evolution to manage in a few steps. > > If we had 3 or 4 such treatments for any one organism, we could keep it > at bay indefinitely, by switching treatments periodically. Any new > strain would develop from the wild population, and have no evolutionary > memory of the previously treated ones (cos they're all dead), so there > would be no adaptation to this strategy over time. That's probably the situation we have with HIV (crosses fingers). Martin From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Apr 17 20:58:32 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:58:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...just curious In-Reply-To: <20060417180801.21656.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060417180801.21656.qmail@web35502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/17/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > >All talk about mind-uploading and copying is no more real than > >Astrology and Religion, it may one day occur or it may not. Am I not > >understanding this properly? > You understand it almost completely properly. The primary difference is that with copying you can do it today (at least in its simple form). Lets say I have a computer with 160GB hard drive (true). On said hard drive is almost all of most of the work I've done over the last 15 years. I install a second 160GB hard drive and create a copy of the first (something I'm in the process of doing). I remove said 160GB hard drive and walk onto a plane with it and fly to Moscow, install it in a PC there and boot it up. Voila, a second functional copy of "Robert's work". This isn't that "unusual". >From ~1992-1997 I devoted a significant amount of time to maintaining multiple copies of "Robert's work". One copy on my home PC in Seattle, one copy on my laptop, a copy or two in Moscow. Keeping them in sync with each other was non-trivial and perhaps 10-15% of it has been lost for various reasons but most of it is still shouting, "But I'm not dead yet...". But Robert's mind contains a bit more information than Robert's work. Problem #1) Can I store "Robert's mind?" The information in the human mind will not fit onto a 160GB disk drive, but neither is it a PB (10^15 bytes). The entire Library of Congress contains perhaps 1/50th of a PB. See [1] for some good comparisons. We should easily have TB disk drives by 2010 (perhaps even for laptops) and PB disk drives by 2020 -- so long -- as increases in storage density continue at 2x/year (this is significantly more conservative than [1]). So there shouldn't be any problem storing all of Robert's mind on media we are capable of manufacturing. Problem #2) How do I get a copy of Robert's mind? This is a bit trickier. Ray discusses it somewhat in TSIN on pages 157-166 and 198-203 (wondering if this is online in Amazon's "In the book"?) The best related discussion on the web is Merkle's Molecular Repair of the Brain paper discussing Cryonics reanimation [2]. [Bear in mind that [2] is now over a decade old and predates the Nanomedicine book series -- we now have a much better understanding of what is required and how to do it.] Suffice to say that probably moderately higher resolution scanning techniques (parallel highly resolution NMR or AFM or STED microscopy, etc. will be required). But I could "read" the molecular contents of your (frozen) brain *today* with several different microscopy methods -- they would simply require a very long time to read the entire contents. Nanorobots or highly parallel bulk microscopy methods would be required to shorten the time required to something "reasonable". Problem #3) How does one reactivate a copy of Robert's mind? This is a little trickier than plugging the disk drive into another computer but the principles are the same. The question is whether you want a "soft" substrate copy or a "hard" substrate copy. If "soft" is ok you copy the information into a computer and/or computer program which is able to reconstruct Robert's mind and execute it. This is similar to what your computer does when you restore it from a "hibernated" state -- you can restore from hibernation on any machine which is similar to the machine on which you entered the hibernation state *or* which can simulate that machine [3]. The requirement here is for computational capacity equivalent to the level of the human brain and/or the ability to reconstruct that information into a functioning brain equivalent. Not here yet for either criteria but can clearly be foreseen (by most people who are educated in the technology paths). If you want a "hard" substrate copy you use the information to reconstruct an exact precise atomic copy of "Robert's brain" (and therefore his mind) and return it to an operational state presumably by sticking the brain into a body which allows it to operate normally. Now before you grumble that "precise" atomic copies are impossible you should think about what DNA polymerase does each time the cells in your body divide. Generalizing this to the level of reassembling a precise atomic brain copy probably requires robust general purpose molecular assembly methods, i.e. robust nanotechnology, probably 20-40 years away. But before the grumbling starts again you have to acknowledge that every living thing you see around you is the product of "moderately" precise molecular assembly. > I understand the high probabilities of the Singularity but I'm just not > convinced that their is enough information to base a belief system on it. > It is difficult. That is why it is important to ask tough questions and educate yourself as to whether or not people are telling you what may really be true or whether they are just making wild-ass guesses. >Could someone give me an opinion on what they think could halt the > >Singularity from occurring? > Start with the obvious things. (a) A relatively big asteroid hitting the Earth; (b) a very widespread plague (Influenza H5N1, SARs, etc.) (HIV is *already* effectively slowing things down a little.); (c) global thermonuclear war; (d) a nearby supernova in our galaxy; (e) some Matrioshka Brain deciding we stand in the way of its future development and taking our solar system (galactic eminent domain); (f) the overlord who assembled the solar system as an experiment in the development of intelligence deciding that we have yielded all the information of any interest and discontinuing it; (g) the entity "owning" the resources which this simulation is consuming deciding it has better use for those resources. Unless some disaster wipes out humanity *completely* or *every* human being decides to prevent it from happening (i.e. chooses no future development and eventual death) then The Singularity *will* happen. The real questions are things like (a) whether there will be significant setbacks along the way; (b) how much control do we really have over the rate of change; and (c) what are the *real* limits? If humanity collectively acts to slow down the rate of technological change then The Singularity *will* happen (i.e. you end up with the same developments) but you end up with them happening over a sufficiently long period of time that it doesn't *seem* like *THE* Singularity. Remember the basis for "THE* Singularity is the change is occurring faster than the rate at which humans can adapt. If tomorrow we suddenly started reanimating cryonics suspendees there would be a *lot* of people who would have significant problems with that. The difference with copying and uploading is that I can tell you reasonably precisely *how* to do it (and not violate any laws of physics or invent any new ones). Astrology cannot explain how it works and Religions cannot explain what "god" is or how s/he/it works. Astrology and Religions ask you simply to believe and have faith. Copying and uploading are simple (cough) engineering problems that you yourself could contribute to moving from the envisioned reality into the actual reality. >Do you feel that we will have clear signs that we are approaching the > >Singularity or do you feel that won't notice it and it will happen > gradually? > Many people, ranging from those on the list to perhaps very young people [5] may be able to adapt to a medium-to-rapid Singularity. But there are many others who will not be able to adapt to even a slow Singularity -- the more extreme consequences *significantly* change our current reality and a lot of people are *not* prepared to deal with that. We already have "clear signs" if you look for them in things like Moore's Law, nanotechnology developments, etc. The question is whether the rate of change can be managed to save the greatest number of people? If it is too slow you will lose people (we are losing 60+ million a year now). If it is too rapid you may lose "humanity" entirely (presumably replaced by some mega-Borg AI). This is perhaps the ultimate "Goldilocks problem" -- how does one get the temperature, i.e. the rate of change, "just right". Robert 1. http://www.mercola.com/2003/feb/22/petabyte.htm 2. http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html 3. Some people have a hard time with simulations. Interestingly they don't have as much of a hard time with voice or visual impersonators (in fact the more people are convinced of its "originality" the better the impersonator is). Back in the 1960's and 1970's there were two popular computer lines made by Digital Equipment Corp. -- the PDP-10 and the PDP-11. The first is a 36 bit machine and the second a 16 bit machine. Wildly different architectures, instruction sets, etc. Kind of like the difference between an elephant and a Chihuahua. Well the company I worked for had a need for running PDP-10 programs and all it had available was a PDP-11/70 (which wasn't doing all that much). So Forrest Howard and I had to write a simulator for the PDP-10 which ran *on* the PDP-11. A lesson in problems one really shouldn't try to solve... But we managed it. The simulator ran rather slowly (perhaps 10-50 times slower) but it *did* run. (It recompiled DEC's PDP-11 Fortran compiler successfully over a couple of weeks [4].) So I have real life personal experience that simulations function *exactly* as the "real thing". So at least in *my* mind one really can make a Chihuahua function as a replacement for an elephant (though this analogy may be a bit stretched...). 4. The DEC PDP-11 Fortran compiler was written in Bliss-11. The only Bliss-11 compilers which existed ran only on PDP-10's. An alternative might have been write a Bliss-11 compiler which ran on the PDP-11 but that was viewed as being a much larger problem than writing the simulator. (Both the Bliss-11 and DEC Fortran compilers were highly optimizing compilers the writing of which had consumed more than a few person years.) 5. The news today was citing the studies being done in San Diego where Sony is putting small robots into pre-schools and/or nursery schools and the kids readily "adopt" the robot as something more than a toy but less than a person. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Apr 18 02:28:58 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:28:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> Message-ID: <7155BC2D-CA4F-43F0-81F3-F453063D655C@mac.com> On Apr 17, 2006, at 11:23 AM, ben wrote: > "Heartland" wrote: > > I define it as /irrevocable loss of information/. Some people > define it > as /loss of the soul/. How do you define it? > As loss of information of sufficient (not yet known how much this is) detail to realistically continue the existence of the person (not necessarily in the same or any biological body). > Some people seem to think that a temporary cessation of processing > equates to death. I think that Eleizer has satisfactorily demonstrated > in an earlier post that this can't be true. > > Cryonics (on a living person) is equivalent to a temporary > cessation of > processing. > > Death, followed quickly enough by cryonic suspension (quickly > enough so > that no significant loss of information occurs) is also equivalent > to a > temporary cessation of processing (so long as processing can and does > resume at some future point, of course). > As many writers have also mentioned, keeping a deep enough non- destructive scan of this information would also be sufficient to continue the entity's existence with starting state up to the moment of the scan in case of death. Thus I suspect that cryonics will go out of favor as soon as we get such scans plus the ability to create a suitable body. We need the latter ability to revive those people who don't go for full body suspension anyway. - samantha From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 06:26:47 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:26:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9b9887c80604172326m33b120a4q12a199785df2fd7d@mail.gmail.com> *what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to homosexuals? (If it isn't too much trouble.) there is NO biblical bases for objecting to Homosexuals. it is a reconstruction of words to fit a persons picture of how the world should be according to that person. it is pure soap box. sincerely, ilsa -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coletrane www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 10:51:55 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 05:51:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/17/06, Heartland wrote: > > > No. I'm saying that the mind is a dynamic information processing. It's > just physics > and logic. It isn't physics or logic. Its a semantic claim on your part. If you assert that the "mind" is a dynamic information processing system which ceases to exist when it ceases to be "dynamic" or "process information" that is fine. I would choose to assert that the "mind" is the information content. Straight from Wikipedia, "Mind refers to the collective aspects of human intellect and consciousness that originate in the brain and which are manifest in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination." These are individual and distinct aspects of a "mind" and there are certainly physical accidents or drug induced conditions that can result in the loss of one or more of these aspects. When that happens most people do not believe that the person has died. I would assert that without the information content that most of these aspects, excepting perhaps perception and emotion, cannot be present. So losing the information content completely and utterly means losing the mind. You seem to be asserting that a continued processing of information is required for a mind. Since "mind" is such a loose term in the first place it seems difficult to refute that. But from my perspective... If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck -- its a duck. It doesn't matter whether or not its a duck that burst out of an egg and has lived its life for a few years or whether I work very hard, as Tom Hanks did in Cast Away, and at the end magically appears a "duck" (in Tom's case it was fire). Either path works for me. "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours." -- Richard Bach, Illusions Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 11:43:14 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:43:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: <4443DD30.6000206@lineone.net> Message-ID: Related to the discussion of resistance is an article in the NY Times today [1] discussing the development of Salmonella infections in humans which may be antibiotic resistant. These bacteria are theorized to be the product of fish farm overuse of antibiotics in SE Asia leading to resistant salmonella in aquarium fish leading to human transfer. They may have 5 resistance genes to various types of antibiotics. A more general information source is [2]. This raises one point that should be made with respect to antibacterial cocktails vs. viral cocktails. Viruses, for the most part, have extremely compact genomes. They do not easily add genes to bypass or eliminate drugs being used to prevent their replication. Bacteria on the other hand are quite comfortable adding genes because they don't have the genome size constraints that viruses do. So evolving resistance in viruses generally means that you have to mutate the existing genome (and not break anything in the process) while evolving resistance in bacteria simply means that you have to incorporate resistance genes that may have evolved long ago in the environment. Mind you bacteria tend to have defenses against incorporating foreign DNA (as defenses against bacteriophages) but once those have been worked around there is little selection pressure for bacteria to lose genes which may be useful in some particular environment. So the long term evolutionary path for bacteria is to develop and spread antibiotic resistance at a much higher rate than viruses will be able to manage. Robert 1. "Nemo Beware: Fish Tank Can Be a Haven for Salmonella" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/health/18cons.html 2. Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Tue Apr 18 12:12:10 2006 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:12:10 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: <4440B65A.2030406@lineone.net> Message-ID: <1145362331.13392.96.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 05:28 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Because creating stronger selection pressures increases the > rate of > evolution, in this case, of resistant strains. > > A nice succinct answer. > And wrong, I think, in this case. If you want to train a GA to do something very tricky, a standard thing to do is to split the problem into easier problems and you feed it to the population one by one, so that at each step you get a large-sized population having a crack at the next not-so-large problem. Giving bacteria one anti-biotic problem at a time seems like helping them to me. If you've got a population m of bacteria trying to solve anti-biotics J and K, which need a mutation with probability 1/j and 1/k respectively of arising, where j and k on the order of the product of m * average mutations per bacteria, then the probability of one of the bacteria having a mutation for either drug is quite high, but the probability for any of the bacteria having both is almost zero (as long as bacterial mutations look anything like normal/binomial distributions). (please do supply references to studies showing otherwise if you know of them so that it will clarify why doctors continue this strange practice) From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 18 12:20:35 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:20:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/17/06, Heartland wrote: > > > No. I'm saying that the mind is a dynamic information processing. It's > just physics > and logic. Robert wrote: It isn't physics or logic. Its a semantic claim on your part. If you assert that the "mind" is a dynamic information processing system which ceases to exist when it ceases to be "dynamic" or "process information" that is fine. I would choose to assert that the "mind" is the information content. Information is static and mind can only exist as a dynamic process so mind cannot be just information. It's obviously one of the ingredients that allows minds to exist but it's certainly not the mind itself. If it was, then a static copy of the mind should be "alive" regardless of whether this information was being executed upon or not. You couldn't have a conversation with a static copy, for example. Robert wrote: Straight from Wikipedia, "Mind refers to the collective aspects of human intellect and consciousness that originate in the brain and which are manifest in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination." The key word is "manifest" which implies execution of mind process. It's not just static content that matters here. Robert wrote: These are individual and distinct aspects of a "mind" and there are certainly physical accidents or drug induced conditions that can result in the loss of one or more of these aspects. When that happens most people do not believe that the person has died. I would assert that without the information content that most of these aspects, excepting perhaps perception and emotion, cannot be present. So losing the information content completely and utterly means losing the mind. Anytime there exists perception there has to be a mind there. Something must generate that perception and if is not the mind then what is? And if it is indeed the mind that exists in the absence of information content then doesn't that prove that the mind isn't exclusively an information content? Robert wrote: But from my perspective... If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck -- its a duck. Sure, but this only satisfies the "same type" requirement while ignoring the "same instance" requirement which is actually the only thing worth paying attention to. S. From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Apr 18 13:03:41 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:03:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060318172237.02424920@gmu.edu> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060318172237.02424920@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060326112425.023ae2f0@gmu.edu> On 3/18/2006, I wrote: >Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >BTW, the Rand study he quotes is junk. > >The RAND study is the single most informative study we have about the >overall (marginal) health value of medicine in rich nations today. I know >Rafal has complaints about it, but one can find imperfections in any >study. I challenge Rafal to point to another study he thinks is more >informative. We could then compare flaws. Well it has been a month now, and Rafal hasn't offered a study he prefers, using the method he says he prefers, i.e., aggregating studies of specific treatments. Let me suggest that this is because there are no such studies. Rafal prefers the conclusion he guesses would be the result of such a study to the conclusion of the actual studies I have pointed him to. The actual studies have flaws, while of course his hypothetical study need have none. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Apr 18 14:13:32 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:13:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604181413.k3IEDrGc006209@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Thanks Robert! I have not heard a clearer or succincter explanation of this. spike ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:43 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... Related to the discussion of resistance is an article in the NY Times today [1] discussing the development of Salmonella infections in humans which may be antibiotic resistant... Robert From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 15:22:52 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:22:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/18/06, Heartland wrote: > Sure, but this only satisfies the "same type" requirement while ignoring > the "same > instance" requirement which is actually the only thing worth paying > attention to. > > As it is virtually impossible to reduce the hazard function for "living" to zero. Instances at some point *will* be terminated. Therefore the only way to transcend the hazard function (and have an indefinite lifespan) is to become a distributed replicated intelligence. In practice if my "intelligence" is distributed all over the solar system in little pieces and/or non-executing backup copies I have done a relatively good job reducing my hazard function to nearly zero. My distributed intelligence *and* any reactivated backup copies *know* that evolving to that state of existence is the only way to beat the hazard function. Collective-I also knows that there are people who chose not to realize that who over time will cease to be present within my local reality, perhaps completely. I am perfectly happy with that. Others may not be. If you are trying to get me to believe that my "mind" is its thread and "I" "die" when that thread ceases to function or exist that *isn't* going to happen. Don't change your beliefs -- transform the believer. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 16:51:30 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:51:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: <1145362331.13392.96.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <4440B65A.2030406@lineone.net> <1145362331.13392.96.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: On 4/18/06, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 05:28 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > > Because creating stronger selection pressures increases the > > rate of > > evolution, in this case, of resistant strains. > > > > A nice succinct answer. > > > > And wrong, I think, in this case. If you want to train a GA to do > something very tricky, a standard thing to do is to split the problem > into easier problems and you feed it to the population one by one, so > that at each step you get a large-sized population having a crack at the > next not-so-large problem. Giving bacteria one anti-biotic problem at a > time seems like helping them to me. > > If you've got a population m of bacteria trying to solve anti-biotics J > and K, which need a mutation with probability 1/j and 1/k respectively > of arising, where j and k on the order of the product of m * average > mutations per bacteria, then the probability of one of the bacteria > having a mutation for either drug is quite high, but the probability for > any of the bacteria having both is almost zero (as long as bacterial > mutations look anything like normal/binomial distributions). Within a population of bacteria, there is a pantheon of polymorphisms already in existence from which to begin selection. Some are not killed off as quickly as others, or remain sickly in response to a particular antibiotic. At any point many bacterial cells may be marginally resistant to a few of the antibiotics, enough so that a fully poly-drug resistant strain eventually emerges. That's why you should always complete your antibiotic prescription. Martin From mstriz at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 17:00:46 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:00:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] magic johnson, aids, longevity ... In-Reply-To: References: <4440B65A.2030406@lineone.net> <1145362331.13392.96.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: On 4/18/06, Martin Striz wrote: > On 4/18/06, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 05:28 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > > > > > Because creating stronger selection pressures increases the > > > rate of > > > evolution, in this case, of resistant strains. > > > > > > A nice succinct answer. > > > > > > > And wrong, I think, in this case. If you want to train a GA to do > > something very tricky, a standard thing to do is to split the problem > > into easier problems and you feed it to the population one by one, so > > that at each step you get a large-sized population having a crack at the > > next not-so-large problem. Giving bacteria one anti-biotic problem at a > > time seems like helping them to me. > > > > If you've got a population m of bacteria trying to solve anti-biotics J > > and K, which need a mutation with probability 1/j and 1/k respectively > > of arising, where j and k on the order of the product of m * average > > mutations per bacteria, then the probability of one of the bacteria > > having a mutation for either drug is quite high, but the probability for > > any of the bacteria having both is almost zero (as long as bacterial > > mutations look anything like normal/binomial distributions). > > Within a population of bacteria, there is a pantheon of polymorphisms > already in existence from which to begin selection. Some are not > killed off as quickly as others, or remain sickly in response to a > particular antibiotic. At any point many bacterial cells may be > marginally resistant to a few of the antibiotics, enough so that a > fully poly-drug resistant strain eventually emerges. > > That's why you should always complete your antibiotic prescription. In other words, GAs are too simple a model of evolution to be analogous in this situation. They employ discontinuous fitness assignments, whereas biological systems have totally smooth ones. Martin From jonkc at att.net Tue Apr 18 17:25:07 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:25:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> Message-ID: <001b01c6630d$1108c570$140a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > A revived person would obviously *feel* similar > to what people feel after waking up And that's all I'm interested in, I want to *feel* alive. You can tell me tell you're blue in the face that objectively I'm dead but if subjectively I feel alive then I am. > It's the other created instance that will but you > will "feel" eternal nothingness instead. Even at a cutting edge place like the Extropian List your conventional ideas that you are an object and atoms give you individuality are agreed with by the majority of list members, and in the general population a similar na?ve world view is shared by 99% of the people in our culture. And 99% are wrong. The error is caused by people looking at themselves as a noun, a proper noun even, when in fact they are an adjective; an adjective that would take a good number of bits to fully spell out but an adjective nevertheless. > What you feel is a copy's illusion. But you said it yourself, "you feel". And there is nothing wrong with illusions, they are a perfectly reputable subjective experience. And there is nothing wrong with copies either. > Anytime mind process stops running a person dies. So I guess if you ever need major surgery you would refuse a general anesthetic. What would you do, tell the surgeons to cut quickly and just bight down on a stick? After all, under a general anesthetic there is no mind, your brain is no more conscious than your liver. John K Clark From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 19:15:00 2006 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:15:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80604172326m33b120a4q12a199785df2fd7d@mail.gmail.com> References: <9b9887c80604172326m33b120a4q12a199785df2fd7d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > *what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to homosexuals? (If it > isn't too much trouble.) As one of the very very few people in North America familiar with both transhumanism, extropianism, and Christian Evangelicalism, I may be able to help with this question. :) There are three main areas in the Bible that build a case against homosexuality. The first and arguably most important area is the specific commands in the Old Testament, which are, per hypothesis, the direct commands of an SI, which say that there is something seriously wrong with homosexuality. It doesn't say exactly what, but it makes it very clear that there is a problem with this sort of behavior. [As a side note, other seemingly arbitrary command of God from this portion of Scripture, like the Jewish dietary laws, have been found by modern science to be, by and large, really good advice. So they might be worth looking into.] The second is, of course, the Apostle Paul. Now it's important to remember that the homosexuals Paul was writing about are very different from modern homosexuality. The homosexuals Paul was referring to were, by and large, male temple prostitutes in the local non-Christian religions. Temple prostitution: the use of sex [homosexual and hetero] as an element of the actual act of worship was very VERY common in the ancient world, and was diametrically opposed from the Jewish and early-Christian understanding of the role of sex in the universe. The Old Testament speaks extensively on the bad consequences that can come from worshipping in this manner. The best argument against homosexuality in it's modern form is no more and no less than the same argument that exists against any kind of sex occurring outside of marriage. Even secular sociologists will tell you that when casual sex exists as a social institution, the stability of families goes way down, and you get a whole host of social ills accompanying that [STDs, victimization of prostitutes, associated crime and narcotic use thereof, etc]. Many religions believe that something cosmically significant occurs between people's [souls / consciousnesses / qualia] when they have sex. A link is formed between those two people. When people have a large number of sexual [hetero or homo] partners serially [or simultaneously, it doesn't matter] , what they are doing is repeatedly forming and dissolving this link. This invariably damages the ability of the person to form intimate relationships down the road. Now Christians take this one step further and argue that there is a genuine qualitative difference between the way this link occurs in a heterosexual coupling or a homosexual coupling. Christians would argue that, because the souls in a homosexual relationship are of the same gender, the link does not form properly, if it can form at all, and that this will also cause damage to the person's ability to form and maintain intimate relationships down the road. At this point it's important to make two things clear. First: Fred Phelps is a whackjob of the highest order. He operates his "church" as a tightly bound, highly authoritarian cult consisting mostly of his extended family. His views have been disowned by even the most conservative Christian denominations in North America. The man protested the funeral of those miners who died in the mine explosion in West Virginia for no other apparent reason then that they were West Virginians [there may be some kind of unspoken steroetype regarding West Virginians and homosexuality, but this was not made clear in any of his materials]. I honestly wish I was making this up! He brings shame and disgrace to the name of the God he claims to worship. By his behavior he turns countless people away from the Gospel message that might otherwise be at least willing to listen, and he will have to give an account of his behavior on Judgement Day. Second: As regards the eternal destinty of homosexuals, their homosexuality is literally the least of their sins. All of us, including Christians, every day, break all ten of the Ten Commandments. We fail to put the God who made us first in our lives [breaking the First Commandment] , we tell white lies [breaking the Ninth Commandment], we look with lust at others [committing adultery in our hearts according to Jesus, therefore breaking the seventh Commandment.] Christians believe that God's standard, when He judges us on Judgement Day is not going to be "Were you an OK person?" or "Were you better then most people?". It's going to be "Were you morally perfect." None of us can say that, so we're all in deep trouble. We will be found guilty and be sentenced, quite reasonably, to Hell. We commit crimes against God on an ongoing basic, and have no way to pay the fine. The good news, the Gospel, is that God made a way for us to be freed. Jesus paid our fine for us by voluntarily sacrificing Himself on the Cross for us. If we turn from our sins and trust in Him to save us from the justice we deserve on Judgement Day, He will. Whew. OK. That got a little preachy. I apologise. But it's still important to say. Most people think they know what Christian Fundamentalists believe, but there are a lot of confusions and misconceptions. I know that message was very new to me when I first heard it, and I'd been debating Christians in chatrooms all my life. I'd just never heard it laid out that way before. Darin Sunley dsunley at gmail.com dsunley at shaw.ca From Alan_Baltis at progressive.com Tue Apr 18 19:50:29 2006 From: Alan_Baltis at progressive.com (Alan Baltis) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:50:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I couldn't help but notice (and now comment on) the remarkable difference between this post and 98% of the other posts to this list. Virtually every other message here emphasizes facts, cites references, uses logic to build from a set of facts or assertions to a conclusion. And in fact often cite footnotes for support, or state known limitations to that conclusion. This post does not and, being composed of religious belief, of course can not. A series of unsupported statements, nearly unrelated though otherwise is implied, leading to unfounded conclusions. The contrast is startling. I know which style of message I prefer. I know what I need to be willing to share things with friends with confidence and enthusiasm. But I also know that higher standard doesn't seem too popular, that for many people the dogma is sufficient and convincing, and rigorous thought is more confusing, even threatening, than the "easy" version. Heartbreaking. - Al "Darin Sunley" To Sent by: "ExI chat list" extropy-chat-boun ces at lists.extropy cc .org Subject Re: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way 04/18/2006 03:15 over the edge... PM Please respond to ExI chat list > *what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to homosexuals? (If it > isn't too much trouble.) As one of the very very few people in North America familiar with both transhumanism, extropianism, and Christian Evangelicalism, I may be able to help with this question. :) Whew. OK. That got a little preachy. I apologise. But it's still important to say. Most people think they know what Christian Fundamentalists believe, but there are a lot of confusions and misconceptions. I know that message was very new to me when I first heard it, and I'd been debating Christians in chatrooms all my life. I'd just never heard it laid out that way before. Darin Sunley dsunley at gmail.com dsunley at shaw.ca _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 20:24:30 2006 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:24:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Exactly which part are you objecting to? Most of what I'm giving you is a qualitative description of the beliefs of a group of people. The question was "What is the Biblical basis for X"? I'm explaining, without going into an excessive amount of pendantic detail, how most Christians would answer that question. If you want systematic theology with lots and lots of scripture references, descriptions of the minutinae of translating Hebrew into Greek, and quotes from Church fathers and leading theologians, there's lots available. I refer you to the works of Norman Geisler, but primarily to the Bible itself. The Pauline Epistle to the Romans contains the bulk of his writings regarding sexual morality. I also refer you to the Old Testament book of Leviticus, particularly chapters 18-20. As the ancient Hebrew worldview was radically different from our own, you'll probably want to read several translations in order to eliminate spurious cultural transliterations. A good online facility for this exists at blueletterbible.org. On this list, I cangenerally assume my audience has a very solid, nigh encyclopedic background on, and interest in history, physics, computer science, and mathematics. I cannot assume any particular knowledge in systematic theology, and I certainly cannot assume a lot of interest in it. Let's be real here: If I HAD written a 30 page tome on Systematic Theology, deriving Christian theology as it pertains to marriage from an exhaustive list of scriptural quotes, cross referenceing with a dozen noted theologians you had never heard of, you wouldn't even have read the message, would you have? Logical proof has certain very specific limitations. I cannot prove to you, even to the lackadaisical standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" that I posess subjective conscious experience, and that I experiance qualia of colour and sound. If I can't do that for myself, I hardly see how anybody could do it for God. Virtually nothing of any significance in the universe will fit into the end of a syllogism. Salvation certainly will not. I thank you for you comments on the form of my message. I invite your comments on the actual content of what I wrote. Sincerely, Darin Sunley dsunley at gmail.com On 4/18/06, Alan Baltis wrote: > I couldn't help but notice (and now comment on) the remarkable difference > between this post and 98% of the other posts to this list. Virtually every > other message here emphasizes facts, cites references, uses logic to build > from a set of facts or assertions to a conclusion. And in fact often cite > footnotes for support, or state known limitations to that conclusion. > > This post does not and, being composed of religious belief, of course can > not. A series of unsupported statements, nearly unrelated though otherwise > is implied, leading to unfounded conclusions. The contrast is startling. > > I know which style of message I prefer. I know what I need to be willing to > share things with friends with confidence and enthusiasm. But I also know > that higher standard doesn't seem too popular, that for many people the > dogma is sufficient and convincing, and rigorous thought is more confusing, > even threatening, than the "easy" version. Heartbreaking. > > - Al From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 21:05:54 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:05:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/18/06, Darin Sunley wrote: > Let's be real here: If I HAD written a 30 page tome on Systematic > Theology, deriving Christian theology as it pertains to marriage from > an exhaustive list of scriptural quotes, cross referenceing with a > dozen noted theologians you had never heard of, you wouldn't even have > read the message, would you have? > > I thank you for you comments on the form of my message. I invite your > comments on the actual content of what I wrote. > The site I referenced does quote chapter and verse and discusses what the writers were actually talking about 2,000 years ago and how different modern schools of religion interpret those verses. It basically comes down to the fact that Xians take those verses to mean whatever they want them to mean. Very useful technique. Of course, Xians should not be using the Old Testament at all, as Paul wrote that If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). i.e. you have to obey all the cleansing laws, sacrifices, death and other severe penalties for crimes, slavery, treatment of women as property, polygamy, etc. etc. The Old Testament is obviously very silly in modern society. BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Apr 18 23:08:43 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:08:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [Bulk] Re: Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060418185422.0273a7c8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:50 PM 4/18/2006 -0400, Al wrote: >I couldn't help but notice (and now comment on) the remarkable difference >between this post and 98% of the other posts to this list. Virtually every >other message here emphasizes facts, cites references, uses logic to build >from a set of facts or assertions to a conclusion. And in fact often cite >footnotes for support, or state known limitations to that conclusion. > >This post does not and, being composed of religious belief, of course can >not. A series of unsupported statements, nearly unrelated though otherwise >is implied, leading to unfounded conclusions. The contrast is startling. There was a request out on the list to explain something that could only be explained in the terms he used. I think he did a good job. >I know which style of message I prefer. I know what I need to be willing to >share things with friends with confidence and enthusiasm. But I also know >that higher standard doesn't seem too popular, that for many people the >dogma is sufficient and convincing, and rigorous thought is more confusing, >even threatening, than the "easy" version. Heartbreaking. Maybe so, but consider--there are very few of us and many of them. Understanding them at both the level of the post you deplore and at the deeper level of why evolved humans have belief systems *at all* could make the difference in your survival at a point in the not so distant future. Consider. There are people working on drugs that take people out of the addicted state that are in experimental testing now. There are strong reasons to believe the same drugs will snap people out of cults. On the other hand, the percentage of people who can be sucked into a cult is relatively low. I am fairly sure there are drug treatments that could bind most people who were given them into a cult. And no, I won't go into the details except to say you can find them if you look. Keith Henson From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Apr 18 23:24:18 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:24:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Market forces, state ownership (Re: Even M**x showed signs of authoritarianism?) Message-ID: <44457522.1050208@mindspring.com> At 11:19 AM 4/18/2006, Beth Wolszon wrote: >>>You seem to have the mentality of Fred: - I managed to make it, >>>so the system works and all the losers who cannot make it >>>are just lousy lazy thickos who deserve to suffer. >> >>An attitude so common among US "libertarians" that it could be >>promulgated as The Libertarian Creed. > >I've always taken their motto to be: "I got mine, Jack - the hell with you." Pretty much the same thing. The Libertarians I know (and I use the upper case "L" for a reason) cast it in terms of superior knowledge and ability. They were "smart" enough to plan for the future, and "smart" enough to invest wisely, work hard, etc., and anyone who, say, had a child develop a catastrophic disease resulting in medical bills which bankrupt them obviously weren't "smart" enough, and those losers should be allowed to eat cat food if they don't have enough money to both eat and meet their other bills. Though I may just be meeting the true lunatic fringe. >My favorite bit with libertarians came from a radio show hosted by >Jesse Ventura before he ran for state governor. He had the chair of >the state's Libertarian Party on as a guest. After letting the guy >spout off about rights and freedoms and explaining that Libertarians >believed that gov't shouldn't compel contributions to the public >good via taxation, but instead rely on voluntary contributions, >Ventura asked the guy two questions: > >1. How many people were registered members of the State Libertarian >Party? (It was in the tens of thousands.) > >2. How many people made political donations to the Libertarian Party >in the past year? (Just a couple thousand, far fewer than the number >of actual registered Libertarians in the state). > >Jesse noted that proved the failure of the Libertarian Party's >premise that people would willingly voluntarily pay their fair share >of the costs of government. Since, as he pointed out, they had one >hell of a lot more people voting Libertarian than they had >voluntarily contributing to the Libertarian Party. Precious. I'm convinced that the liberty so beloved by USAnian Libertarians (upper case "L" used deliberately again) is the liberty to be a free rider. Cheers, LRC -- Brokaw says he draws his directness from his red-blooded American childhood. (Between him and Little Russ [Tim Russert], NBC must pass red-blooded childhoods out at the door.) --Bryan Carter [slate.com, on retiring NBC anchor Tom Brokaw] -- "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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Apr 18 23:49:23 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:49:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: <9b9887c80604172326m33b120a4q12a199785df2fd7d@mail.gmail.com> <9b9887c80604172326m33b120a4q12a199785df2fd7d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060418191018.027d22c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:15 PM 4/18/2006 -0500, Darin Sunley wrote: > > *what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to > homosexuals? (If it > > isn't too much trouble.) > >As one of the very very few people in North America familiar with both >transhumanism, extropianism, and Christian Evangelicalism, I may be >able to help with this question. :) snip > [As a >side note, other seemingly arbitrary command of God from this portion >of Scripture, like the Jewish dietary laws, have been found by modern >science to be, by and large, really good advice. So they might be >worth looking into.] They were for the time, though they were as much economic laws as anything else. snip > Even secular sociologists will tell you >that when casual sex exists as a social institution, the stability of >families goes way down, and you get a whole host of social ills >accompanying that [STDs, victimization of prostitutes, associated >crime and narcotic use thereof, etc]. I have real doubt about the direction of the causal arrow here. >Many religions believe that something cosmically significant occurs >between people's [souls / consciousnesses / qualia] when they have >sex. That's actually true. Only it is the result of a hormone dump. The pair binding has been studied in meadow voles and the receptors are known. >A link is formed between those two people. When people have a >large number of sexual [hetero or homo] partners serially [or >simultaneously, it doesn't matter] , what they are doing is repeatedly >forming and dissolving this link. This invariably damages the ability >of the person to form intimate relationships down the road. Again, the direction of causality is a concern here. My bet is that people who have a large number of relations may lack either the receptors or the hormone dump at orgasm. Or there may be other factors involved. snip >At this point it's important to make two things clear. > >First: Fred Phelps is a whackjob of the highest order. He operates his >"church" as a tightly bound, highly authoritarian cult consisting >mostly of his extended family. He gets discussed on alt.religion.scientology as heading a tiny cult even more loony than the couch jumping, space cooties, UFO cult. snip >He brings shame and disgrace to the name of the God he claims to >worship. By his behavior he turns countless people away I really doubt people blame the rest of the Christian community for what this attention hound does to get in the news. I know a few people who read Fred's web site for the inadvertent humor. Do you understand why he acts this way? I do, but Fred probably does not. >from the >Gospel message that might otherwise be at least willing to listen, and >he will have to give an account of his behavior on Judgement Day. . . . . Possibly. I can't see him as being important enough to write a special script for when he is uploaded. (Transhumanist version of the rapture and much more likely to happen.) >Second: As regards the eternal destinty of homosexuals, their >homosexuality is literally the least of their sins. All of us, >including Christians, every day, break all ten of the Ten >Commandments. We fail to put the God who made us first in our lives >[breaking the First Commandment] , we tell white lies [breaking the >Ninth Commandment], we look with lust at others [committing adultery >in our hearts according to Jesus, therefore breaking the seventh >Commandment.] Christians believe that God's standard, when He judges >us on Judgement Day is not going to be "Were you an OK person?" or >"Were you better then most people?". It's going to be "Were you >morally perfect." None of us can say that, so we're all in deep >trouble. We will be found guilty and be sentenced, quite reasonably, >to Hell. We commit crimes against God on an ongoing basic, and have no >way to pay the fine. The good news, the Gospel, is that God made a way >for us to be freed. Jesus paid our fine for us by voluntarily >sacrificing Himself on the Cross for us. If we turn from our sins and >trust in Him to save us from the justice we deserve on Judgement Day, >He will. Good example of the coupling of memes. >Whew. OK. That got a little preachy. I apologise. But it's still >important to say. Most people think they know what Christian >Fundamentalists believe, but there are a lot of confusions and >misconceptions. I know that message was very new to me when I first >heard it, and I'd been debating Christians in chatrooms all my life. >I'd just never heard it laid out that way before. I think you did a good job. I exposed to this so I can verify your statements. For me though, 46 years ago the silliness of a god that could whump up a universe being concerned with the doings of social primes on a minor planet around an insignificant star just got to me. None the less, I appreciate that there may be features of religion that are more important than the local meme set tends to credit. I have recently come to suspect that religions provide seed xenophobic memes when the population needs to be cut back by wars. Best wishes, Keith Henson From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Apr 18 23:46:34 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Quick question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060418234634.23096.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, I'm trying to put together a new post, but I have a basic question: What would be a high upper bound on the firing rate of the most active of human neurons (from anywhere in the human brain)? < 2000 Hertz ? I tried to find this info by Googling but I wasn't succcessful. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Apr 18 23:51:51 2006 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:51:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/18/06, BillK wrote: > > The site I referenced does quote chapter and verse and discusses what > the writers were actually talking about 2,000 years ago and how > different modern schools of religion interpret those verses. > > > > It basically comes down to the fact that Xians take those verses to > mean whatever they want them to mean. Very useful technique. Christians will frequently disagree on how much emphasis to place on varoius verses. While there is a tendency in certain denominations to torture certain verses into meaning the opposite of what they actually say, this is the same kind of postmodern sillyness that we see in secular society, e.g. the Supreme Court deciding that "right to private property" is consistent with "we can get more property taxes from another owner, so we can seize anything we want with emminent domain." Postmodern sentence-torturing is ridiculous no matter what the context is, and the Bible actually speaks out against it specifically. "Woe to them who call good evil and evil good." There is really very few places in a the Bible that can't be understood with a Grade 8 literacy level. The King James Version is a little more archaic, but that says more about modern education than it does about the language. The Old Testament is more susceptible to misinterpretation than the New Testament, because it was written in a very concrete worldview very different from our modern Greco-Roman culture. The New Testament was written in a Greco-Roman cultural worldview fundamentally similar to ours, so it's not as hard, assuming some basic ideas common to their culture are held in mind. > > Of course, Xians should not be using the Old Testament at all, as Paul > wrote that If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, we are > obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). > i.e. you have to obey all the cleansing laws, sacrifices, death and > other severe penalties for crimes, slavery, treatment of women as > property, polygamy, etc. etc. This is a common misconception that relates to the aforementioned concepts that were common to their culture but are not so much in ours. Paul's central theme in Galatians, what he is talking about, is the means by which people get right with God. It was a common idea among the Jewish religious leadership of the time that people earned their resurrection and place in Heaven by keeping all of the Old Testament laws. The central message of Christianity is that Salvation is a free gift from Jesus Christ, and that there is no way any human beng could earn it on their own, even if they lived like Mother Theresa for a million years. Jesus said in the Gospels that [slight paraphrase] "You can only go to Heaven if you are more righteous than the Pharisees [the most law-keeping Jews of the day]". The idea is that if we had to depend on our own works to get to Heaven, no one would make it. What Paul is saying is that if you are depending on keeping the Law to save you, you need to keep all of them, and keep them more perfectly than no human being ever has. Now here's the subtle concept, and this is a piece of theology that confuses even a lot of Christians. One of the books of the New Testament (James, for those of you keeping track :)) discusses at length the idea that good works are necesary to salvation. A lot of people see this as being a complete contradiction between James and Galatians. One says salvation is a free gift by grace, and the other says that faith without works is dead. How it plays out in real life is that, when a Christian has had an authentic conversion experience [bear in mind this may be as few as 10% of professing believers] , they begin to desire to do good works that they had never desired to do before. So a saved Christian will be doing good works, and starting to obey God's laws, but they do so because they are already saved. They do not become saved by doing the good works, they do the good works because they are already saved. > The Old Testament is obviously very silly in modern society. Much of it is aimed fairly precisely at a very different culture than ours, and all of it is expressed in language that, because of the different worldview, if it were to be rendered literally, would be almost unintelligible to us*, but the New Testament summarizes it's role thusly: "The Law [Old Testament] was our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ." The Old Testament lays out God's laws, and shows us how terribly short of moral perfection we all are. It shows us that we need someone to pay the fine for our sins, because we have broken most of the Commandments on an ongoing basis and can't pay that fine ourselves. The New Testament, on the other hand, shows us how much God loves us and how He arranged for our find to be paid. *for more info on the vast differences between the worldviews of eastern and western ancient cultures, see www.ancient-hebrew.org. It's really quite fascinating whether you believe in the religions or not. Darin Sunley dsunley at gmail.com > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From sti at pooq.com Wed Apr 19 00:17:07 2006 From: sti at pooq.com (Stirling Westrup) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:17:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Quick question In-Reply-To: <20060418234634.23096.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060418234634.23096.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44458183.1090205@pooq.com> A B wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to put together a new post, but I have a basic question: > What would be a high upper bound on the firing rate of the most > active of human neurons (from anywhere in the human brain)? < 2000 > Hertz ? I tried to find this info by Googling but I wasn't > succcessful. According to Kurzweil in "The Singularity is Near", a neuron-firing cycle takes under 20 milliseconds to perform, which works out to 50Hz Elsewhere he mentions something like a neuron performing 200 'operations' per second, which you might interpret as 200Hz. In either case, its way less than 2000Hz. From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 00:42:39 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:42:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9b9887c80604181742g5cef3736we05c26634c52b295@mail.gmail.com> all very interesting comments. brings me closer to saying the human family is ready for a paridgm shift. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Apr 19 00:53:10 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:53:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... Message-ID: <20060419005310.26972.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com wrote: >*what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to homosexuals? (If it >isn't too much trouble.) there is NO biblical bases for objecting to >Homosexuals. it is a reconstruction of words to fit a persons picture of >how the world should be according to that person. it is pure soap box. Not that I'm an expert but my mother is a diocese and I have read the Bible numerous of times. Their is no clear message from "God" per say that says that homosexuality is wrong, it was man that decided that it was "BAD". In cegep, the best explanation I ever received from one of my teachers; "Homosexuality is just as important as heterosexuality as is regulates the amount of people reproducing on the planet. If too many women and men copulate too quickly it may endanger society, therefore, humans are born differently to unsure the safety of our survival." I'm not sure of the statistics behind it but it made a huge amount of sense to me. I believe many smart and educated men that wrote the Bible as much as I believe that there where a bunch of idiots that wanted to deny scientific data:) I hope I have been helpful And of course, this is just my opinion:) Anna --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Apr 19 01:18:34 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:18:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <20060419005310.26972.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060419005310.26972.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10604181818j183f4caaod7a570b726bf18ef@mail.gmail.com> On 4/18/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com wrote: > >*what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to homosexuals? (If > Not that I'm an expert but my mother is a diocese Do you mean she is Catholic? Otherwise, it appears that she must be very large. > and I have read the > Bible numerous of times. Their is no clear message from "God" per say > that says that homosexuality is wrong, it was man that decided that it > was "BAD". Of course, many of us would point out that the Bible was written by men. > In cegep, the best explanation I ever received from one of my teachers; > "Homosexuality is just as important as heterosexuality as is regulates > the amount of people reproducing on the planet. If too many women > and men copulate too quickly it may endanger society, therefore, humans > are born differently to unsure the safety of our survival." > I'm not sure of the statistics behind it but it made a huge amount of sense > to > me. What a nice lovely thing to say! I'm sure it must feel good and right to many people, but it makes no sense in terms of evolutionary or ecological theory. When you say it is the "best explanation you ever received", do you mean it gave you the best nice feeling, or do you mean that it seemed to fit all your observations better than any other explanation? > I believe many smart and educated men that wrote the Bible as much > as I believe that there where a bunch of idiots that wanted to deny > scientific data:) Some people feel that is good and wise to accept that a person can never know something for sure, so we should not try to judge other people or their beliefs. Other people think that that some ideas work better than other ideas, and that there are all kinds of good and bad ideas in the world, and that we should always try to judge the value of our beliefs and other people's beliefs. What do you think? > > > I hope I have been helpful > And of course, this is just my opinion:) > Anna Thanks Anna. Many of us appreciate your unique presence on the ExI list. - Jef From hal at finney.org Wed Apr 19 01:28:43 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change Message-ID: <20060419012843.3B8D957FD1@finney.org> I ran into an amazing blog entry from last month which sheds new light on global warming from an unusual perspective: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html The blog entry is by James Annan and describes a paper he coauthored with J.C. Hargreaves that is being published in Geophysical Research Letters: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf It looks at the question of how sensitive the climate is to changes in CO2 level. Specifically, how much of a temperature increase, in degrees C, would we expect if CO2 levels doubled from their pre-industrial baseline? This is a major question in climatology and has been analyzed from a number of different directions, with reasonably consistent results: generally 1.5-4.5 degrees C, with possibly as much as 6C or even higher seen in some studies, and 3C generally the most likely level. To put this into perspective, doubling CO2 is about what we expect to do. An increase of 1.5C would be challenging; 3C very difficult; and 6C a catastrophic, mass-extinction, end of the world situation. Hence knowing the likelihood of the more extreme possibilities is very important. I'll mention BTW that James Annan got a bit of fame last year when he offered to bet global warming skeptics that warming would occur. For a while he got no takers, and it was a good story: skeptics are afraid to bet! Then some guy took him up on it, and it wasn't such a good story any more, just two people who disagreed. James also plays the FX idea futures game where, ironically, the predictions err if anything in the opposite direction, predicting generally more dire and extreme outcomes than mainstream science. So he is what I would consider a clueful guy (where I define "clueful" as "familiar with Robin Hanson's work"!). But back to his paper. Given all these results, Annan and Hargreaves did a simple, obvious but astonishing thing. I'll quote from his blog entry: > So all these diverse methods generate pdfs [probability distribution > functions] for climate sensitivity that peak at about 3C, but which > have a long tail reaching to values as high as 6C or beyond at the 95% > confidence level (and some are even worse). As a result, it's been widely > asserted that we cannot reasonably rule out such a high value. > > So, what did we do that was new? People who have read this post will > already have worked out the answer. We made the rather elementary > observation that these above estimates are based on essentially > independent observational evidence, and therefore can (indeed must) be > combined by Bayes' Theorem to generate an overall estimate of climate > sensitivity. Just like the engineer and physicist in my little story, > an analysis based on a subset of the available data does not actually > provide a valid estimate of climate sensitivity. The question that these > previous studies are addressing is not > > "What do we estimate climate sensitivity to be" > > but is instead > > "What would we estimate climate sensitivity to be, if we had no > information other than that considered by this study." > > The answers to these two questions are simply not equivalent > at all. In their defence - and I don't want people to think I'm > slamming the important early work in this area - at the time of > the first estimates, the various distinct strands of evidence had > not been examined in anything like so much detail, so arguably > the first few results could be considered valid at the time > they were generated. However, with more evidence accumulating, > this is clearly no longer the case. > > When we combined some of the most credible and solidly-grounded > (in our opinion) estimates arising from different observational > evidence, we found that the resulting posterior pdf was > substantially narrower than any of the observationally-based > estimates previously presented. It's inevitable that such a > narrowing would occur, but we were surprised by how substantial > the effect was and how robust it was to uncertainties in the > individual constraints. I suppose with hindsight this is obvious > but we admit it did rather take us by surprise. As recently > as last summer, I was happily talking about values in the 5-6C > region as being plausible, even if the 10C values always seemed > pretty silly. The bottom line is that when you combine all these different papers using Bayesian analysis, you get that climate sensitivity is 3 +/- 0.5 degrees C, an astonishingly narrow estimate given the state of knowledge in the field. Annan mentions, "The paper didn't exactly sail through the refereeing process..." I can imagine that Geophysical Research Letters does not see a lot of papers about Bayes theorem! But this methodology is the foundation, at least in principle, for the kinds of rational, quantitative probability estimates that are so necessary in science. I can't help wondering whether there may be other fields which are ripe to have the same techniques applied. Any time you have a variety of results which are derived by independent means, Bayes provides the framework for combining the data and updating the probability distribution. This should be part and parcel of the toolbox of the working scientist, yet as Annan's experience shows it is actually quite foreign to journals of the hard sciences. This sounds like a great paper and a substantial step forward in our understanding of the likely situation we will face with regard to climate change if we don't undertake large scale mitigation projects. A 3C sensitivity value is not exactly good news, but at least it means that we are not looking at sterilizing the planet or some such. And by reducing uncertainty it should help policy makers to make rational choices. Hal From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 02:03:39 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:03:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Quick question In-Reply-To: <20060418234634.23096.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060418234634.23096.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/18/06, A B wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to put together a new post, but I have a basic question: What > would be a high upper bound on the firing rate of the most active of human > neurons (from anywhere in the human brain)? < 2000 Hertz ? I tried to find > this info by Googling but I wasn't succcessful. Upper bound would be ~1000 Hz. Typical refractory period is 5 ms, rending the global average around 200 Hz. Plus, temporal coding necessitates slower spike trains. Martin From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Apr 19 02:19:33 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:19:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <22360fa10604181818j183f4caaod7a570b726bf18ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060419021933.30172.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jef Allbright wrote: On 4/18/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com wrote: > >*what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to homosexuals? (If > Not that I'm an expert but my mother is a diocese Do you mean she is Catholic? Otherwise, it appears that she must be very large. >>No, She's Prostestant and Anglican, but we still read the same Bible:) > and I have read the > Bible numerous of times. Their is no clear message from "God" per say > that says that homosexuality is wrong, it was man that decided that it > was "BAD". Of course, many of us would point out that the Bible was written by men. >>It doesn't matter, women (whether the norms where right or wrong) >>still played a role in their own way. It was very common not so long ago, >>that women used pen names when writing to hide from the norms >>problem, just because a name is written down, doesn't mean it can be >>verified. > In cegep, the best explanation I ever received from one of my teachers; > "Homosexuality is just as important as heterosexuality as is regulates > the amount of people reproducing on the planet. If too many women > and men copulate too quickly it may endanger society, therefore, humans > are born differently to unsure the safety of our survival." > I'm not sure of the statistics behind it but it made a huge amount of sense > to > me. What a nice lovely thing to say! I'm sure it must feel good and right to many people, but it makes no sense in terms of evolutionary or ecological theory. >>Like I said, statisticaly i'm not sure, it just seemed plausible to me. >>If i'm wrong then so be it, I would love to see statistics to proove >>me wrong, then at least, I could analize it and think of it differently. When you say it is the "best explanation you ever received", do you mean it gave you the best nice feeling, or do you mean that it seemed to fit all your observations better than any other explanation? >>it fit all my observations to this date., better than any other >>explanation. > I believe many smart and educated men wrote the Bible as much > as I believe that there where a bunch of idiots that wanted to deny > scientific data:) Some people feel that is good and wise to accept that a person can never know something for sure, so we should not try to judge other people or their beliefs. >>I can't comment on this. I'm not sure. People do judge and people >>have beliefs. >>My opinion (for what it is worth) I don't judge..or at least, I try my best >>never to judge until I have read enough to at least feel comfortable >>giving references. Other people think that that some ideas work better than other ideas, and that there are all kinds of good and bad ideas in the world, and that we should always try to judge the value of our beliefs and other people's beliefs. What do you think? I think any belief system is like listening to someone talk. If your open and really interested, it will be fascinating. If your not, it's because your stuck in your own bubble and aren't interested in a global environment:) I hope that's ok to answer:) > I hope I have been helpful > And of course, this is just my opinion:) > Anna Thanks Anna. Many of us appreciate your unique presence on the ExI list. - Jef >>Thank you, and in return, I thank everyone on the Extropy chat for >>giving me an advance class on technology, science and AI:) Anna _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Apr 19 03:34:15 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:34:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <20060419021933.30172.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <22360fa10604181818j183f4caaod7a570b726bf18ef@mail.gmail.com> <20060419021933.30172.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10604182034o7a1b24c2x8beb155e81e94b9d@mail.gmail.com> On 4/18/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > > ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com wrote: > > >*what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to homosexuals? > > > Not that I'm an expert but my mother is a diocese > I think any belief system is like listening to someone talk. If your open > and > really interested, it will be fascinating. > If your not, it's because your stuck in your own bubble and aren't > interested > in a global environment:) > I hope that's ok to answer:) > > > Thanks Anna. Many of us appreciate your unique presence on the ExI list. > > - Jef > > >>Thank you, and in return, I thank everyone on the Extropy chat for > >>giving me an advance class on technology, science and AI:) Anna, your posts continue to surprise me. I'd like to try to explore this (different worldviews) further but will need to find some time. I expect someone else may beat me to it. - Jef From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Apr 19 04:08:53 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:08:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <20060419005310.26972.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060419005310.26972.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060419040853.GA20908@ofb.net> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:53:10PM -0400, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Bible numerous of times. Their is no clear message from "God" per say > > that says that homosexuality is wrong, it was man that decided that it > > was "BAD". Leviticus 18:22 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. This is allegedly God speaking directly to Moses, laying out the laws of the covenant. Seems pretty clear. Some people take it as evidence that woman lying with woman is alright. :) > "Homosexuality is just as important as heterosexuality as is regulates > the amount of people reproducing on the planet. If too many women > and men copulate too quickly it may endanger society, therefore, > humans > are born differently to unsure the safety of our survival." Doesn't work. In my sillier moods I think homosexuals are the best evidence for the existence of a Designer, since they defy easy evolutionary explanation. Not that there aren't possibilities, but nothing clear, as yet. -xx- Damien X-) From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Apr 19 04:23:03 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <20060419040853.GA20908@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060419042303.19945.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Damien Sullivan wrote: Leviticus 18:22 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. This is allegedly God speaking directly to Moses, laying out the laws of the covenant. Seems pretty clear. >>Is Moses a God? Can you confirm that God said this to Moses? >>Laws are laws the last I heard, laws where writen by men (and/or women)? Damien Sullivan wrote: Some people take it as evidence that woman lying with woman is alright. :) Leviticus 18:22 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. This is allegedly God speaking directly to Moses, laying out the laws of the covenant. Seems pretty clear. Again I repeat unless you can contradict properly: > "Homosexuality is just as important as heterosexuality as is regulates > the amount of people reproducing on the planet. If too many women > and men copulate too quickly it may endanger society, therefore, > humans > are born differently to unsure the safety of our survival." Doesn't work. >>why? In my sillier moods I think homosexuals are the best evidence for the existence of a Designer, since they defy easy evolutionary explanation. Not that there aren't possibilities, but nothing clear, as yet. -xx- Damien X-) >>Well then, I guess you can clarify for me? Anna _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 06:31:00 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:31:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <22360fa10604182034o7a1b24c2x8beb155e81e94b9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <22360fa10604181818j183f4caaod7a570b726bf18ef@mail.gmail.com> <20060419021933.30172.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10604182034o7a1b24c2x8beb155e81e94b9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80604182331w401ce7d0i557164cc5878b12f@mail.gmail.com> this is great! now we are tackling not only humans acceptable ways of pleasure but the question "is moses god"! wowser!!! how can god be anthropomorphosized? {spelling?} i thought 'god' was the farthest a human mind could stretch toward the immaterial. all the rest is painting upon by lesser minds. am i being too bland? ilsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Apr 19 06:44:00 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:44:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change Message-ID: Hal Finney hal at finney.org : >This should be part and parcel of the toolbox of the working >scientist, yet as Annan's experience shows it is actually quite >foreign to journals of the hard sciences. I see Bayes Theorem used a nontrivial number of times in the astrophysics journals. The cosmology WMAP people are well-versed in Bayes Theorem, (their frequency analysis code is based on it) for example: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=WMAP+frequency+Bayesian Amara From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Apr 19 07:08:10 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:08:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <20060419021933.30172.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <22360fa10604181818j183f4caaod7a570b726bf18ef@mail.gmail.com> <20060419021933.30172.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10604190008q1169225fqb6fbef592538bfed@mail.gmail.com> Anna: In cegep, the best explanation I ever received from one of my teachers; "Homosexuality is just as important as heterosexuality as is regulates the amount of people reproducing on the planet. If too many women and men copulate too quickly it may endanger society, therefore, humans are born differently to unsure the safety of our survival." I'm not sure of the statistics behind it but it made a huge amount of sense to me. Like I said, statisticaly i'm not sure, it just seemed plausible to me. If i'm wrong then so be it, I would love to see statistics to proove me wrong, then at least, I could analize it and think of it differently. Jef: There are many ways to approach this question. It seems to me that a very thorough way would be first to learn basic evolutionary theory and understand how (at the level of the organism) it is blind to such ideals as "the right number of people on the planet." You could then think about how some adaptations, such as sexual behavior, may have "side-effect" behaviors that may or may not play an evolutionary role. You could then learn about so-called "group selection" that accounts for altruism, but always tending to increase the fitness and survival of certain traits, rather than to regulate them down to some level. You could move on to ecological scenarios and find some examples of symbiosis and local equilibrium, but again due to constraints on growth rather eliminating the drive or capability to grow. As we proceed next to the level of conscious choice and culture then a case might be made for using homosexuality in such a way to regulate population, but we have many other methods available as well, so still no essential role for a behavior that can be seen as a side-effect of an essential process of sexual reproduction. You might also consider that famine, disease, and war have played a much more "important" role in constraining population growth than homosexuality ever has. You might also consider the possible motivations within a given social context, for someone to want to try to justify homosexual behavior on evolutionary grounds. Note that none of this says anything about how we should value homosexual behavior, and rather than try to justify its value on evolutionary grounds, quite strong arguments can be made in terms of our shared appreciation of values of liberty, diversity, freedom of expresson, and so on. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 09:56:40 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:56:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/19/06, Darin Sunley wrote: > Christians will frequently disagree on how much emphasis to place on > varoius verses. While there is a tendency in certain denominations to > torture certain verses into meaning the opposite of what they actually > say, this is the same kind of postmodern sillyness that we see in > secular society, e.g. the Supreme Court deciding that "right to > private property" is consistent with "we can get more property taxes > from another owner, so we can seize anything we want with emminent > domain." Postmodern sentence-torturing is ridiculous no matter what > the context is, and the Bible actually speaks out against it > specifically. "Woe to them who call good evil and evil good." > It is not just a difference in emphasis between denominations. You trivialize the actual positions. Different denominations believe that the same verses have completely different meanings. Quoting from How religious conservatives and liberals interpret the Bible: Conservative and liberal Christians interpret the Bible in very different ways. This leads to two distinct and contradictory sets of beliefs within Christianity on just about every conceivable topic. Homosexuality is no exception. Conservative Christian theologians generally: Believe that the Bible was written by authors who were directly inspired by God. Thus their writings are seen as inerrant -- completely free of error as originally written. The Bible is regarded as the actual Word of God. Thus whenever the Bible and science disagree, the former must be right. Most interpret the Garden of Eden story in the book of Genesis as indicating the fall of humanity into sin. They view homosexual behavior as one evidence of that sin. When they study the Bible for guidance on homosexuality, they generally look for proof texts -- passages that clearly and directly deal with the topic. Liberal Christian theologians tend to: Interpret the Bible as having been written by authors who were intent on promoting their own religious and spiritual beliefs. The writers lived in a pre-scientific age, which treated slavery, genocide, mass murder, and the oppression of women as acceptable. Since meaningful scientific study of sexual orientation did not begin until circa 1950 CE, biblical authors had no awareness of the topic. When the Bible and science disagree, we have to give greater weight to the recent findings of human sexuality researchers. Most interpret the creation story in Genesis as composed of myths derived from Middle Eastern pagan religions. Many do not accept the reality of the fall of humanity. When liberal theologians study the Bible for guidance on homosexuality, they generally look for applicable biblical themes, like those advocating justice, love, monogamy, caring, commitment, etc. Since the two groups approach the Bible with different assumptions, and look for different content, one can expect that their conclusions will be very different. They are. Rigidity of beliefs: We have exchanged Emails with hundreds of visitors to this web site about the Bible and homosexuality. Most fall into one of two groups: Religious liberals promote homosexual ordinations, same-sex marriage, civil union ceremonies in the church, equal protection under hate-crime legislation, protection against discrimination in employment, etc. as fundamental human rights issues. Religious conservatives feel that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is always a serious sin. Allowing sexually active gays and lesbians to be ordained, or to have their committed relationships recognized by the church would involve a drastic and unacceptable lowering of church standards. The church would be condoning sin. They also oppose including sexual orientation in hate-crime and anti-discrimination legislation. End Quote ----------------------- Re your other comments: The book of James is a hangover from the Jewish sect that were followers of Jesus, based in Jerusalem, exterminated around 70 CE. It was written for Jewish followers of Jesus. James was the leader of this sect and believed that only Jews could be followers of Jesus and his teaching was to Jewish communities spread around the Mediterranean. Paul strongly opposed this original Jerusalem sect as the whole point of his preaching was to get *everyone* to join his new religion. That's why he added all the Greek philosophy and bits from the 'mystery' religions to get his Greco-Roman audience to move over to his new 'improved' religion. > The Old Testament lays out God's laws, and shows us how terribly short > of moral perfection we all are. If the Old Testament lays out God's laws, then we are dealing with an insane God. Better call in the God strait-jacket quick. BillK From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 13:30:16 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:30:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/19/06, Amara Graps wrote: > > Hal Finney hal at finney.org : > >This should be part and parcel of the toolbox of the working > >scientist, yet as Annan's experience shows it is actually quite > >foreign to journals of the hard sciences. > > I see Bayes Theorem used a nontrivial number of times in the astrophysics > journals. The cosmology WMAP people are well-versed in Bayes Theorem, > (their frequency analysis code is based on it) for example: Ditto for the few biological subdisciplines that are heavy on math. Bayes is one of the likelihood estimators in phylogenetics. Martin From sentience at pobox.com Wed Apr 19 15:55:54 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:55:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change In-Reply-To: <20060419012843.3B8D957FD1@finney.org> References: <20060419012843.3B8D957FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <44465D8A.5010204@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > I ran into an amazing blog entry from last month which sheds new light > on global warming from an unusual perspective: > http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html > The blog entry is by James Annan and describes a paper he coauthored with > J.C. Hargreaves that is being published in Geophysical Research Letters: > http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf > > The bottom line is that when you combine all these different papers > using Bayesian analysis, you get that climate sensitivity is 3 +/- 0.5 > degrees C, an astonishingly narrow estimate given the state of knowledge > in the field. This sounds highly suspicious to me. What if there are correlated errors in the studies? No one in China has ever seen the Emperor of China, but everyone can guess his height to within plus or minus one meter. Therefore, by polling a million Chinese and averaging their estimates, the law of large numbers says we can get an estimate of the Emperor's height that is accurate to within one millimeter. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Apr 19 17:57:04 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:57:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060419135315.02776400@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> I finally got tired of submitting this article a number of you have seen to places that promptly went out of business. So I posted it to the well known http://www.kuro5hin.org/ site. Folks there found (I hope) all the typos and made editing suggestions, a number of which I incorporated. It caused a bit of a stir, most mentioned objection being that it is too long. If you want to see it, you have to make a new account and click on "moderate submissions." It will be in voting till about 7 am EST April 19. If it doesn't make the cut, I will hang the cleaned up version somewhere else and let you know. Keith Henson From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Apr 19 20:10:30 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:10:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Atomic Force Microscopy and Futurist/Transhumanist interests Message-ID: <22360fa10604191310t1af74238kabade5e37c50127b@mail.gmail.com> As many of you know, I work for a certain maker of Atomic Force Microscopes. I'm pursuing the objective of having one of our senior scientists give a presentation on this technology for an upcoming Los Angeles Future Salon. While I know our scientists are abreast of developments and interests in AFM/SPM related to industry and academia, I'm not so sure they are familiar with some of the more radical questions that may be be raised by individuals in these forums. I'd like very much to collect questions from list members on a wide range of interests related to AFM, and in return I'll summarize the Q&A from the Salon. Some examples to get us started: Questions about scanning of cryogenically preserved brains... Possibilities of haptics interface to be able to "touch" and manipulate nanoscale objects... Possibilities for personal AFMs... AFMs for fast environmental sensing of toxins... Other topics or questions: technical, biological, social, economic, artistic... - Jef From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 19 20:27:13 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:27:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: <9b9887c80604172326m33b120a4q12a199785df2fd7d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Darin Sunley wrote: >> *what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to >> homosexuals? (If it >> isn't too much trouble.) > > As one of the very very few people in North America familiar with both > transhumanism, extropianism, and Christian Evangelicalism, I may be > able to help with this question. :) > > There are three main areas in the Bible that build a case against > homosexuality. The first and arguably most important area is the > specific commands in the Old Testament, which are, per hypothesis, the > direct commands of an SI, which say that there is something seriously > wrong with homosexuality. It doesn't say exactly what, but it makes it > very clear that there is a problem with this sort of behavior. [As a > side note, other seemingly arbitrary command of God from this portion > of Scripture, like the Jewish dietary laws, have been found by modern > science to be, by and large, really good advice. So they might be > worth looking into.] > Hmm. So what do you think of those laws commanding killing adulterers, witches, and even children who are too sassy to their parents, to name only a few of the horrors that Sharia cannot outdo? > The second is, of course, the Apostle Paul. Now it's important to > remember that the homosexuals Paul was writing about are very > different from modern homosexuality. The homosexuals Paul was > referring to were, by and large, male temple prostitutes in the local > non-Christian religions. Temple prostitution: the use of sex > [homosexual and hetero] as an element of the actual act of worship was > very VERY common in the ancient world, and was diametrically opposed > from the Jewish and early-Christian understanding of the role of sex > in the universe. The Old Testament speaks extensively on the bad > consequences that can come from worshipping in this manner. Hell, Christianity took all the fun out of religion. :-) > > The best argument against homosexuality in it's modern form is no more > and no less than the same argument that exists against any kind of sex > occurring outside of marriage. Even secular sociologists will tell you > that when casual sex exists as a social institution, the stability of > families goes way down, and you get a whole host of social ills > accompanying that [STDs, victimization of prostitutes, associated > crime and narcotic use thereof, etc]. > Huh? Homosexuals form long term relationships just like straight people do although there is a lot more societal pressure against them doing that. Casual sex happens just as much in heterosexual world if not more. If this is the "best argument" then there is no case. A best argument that is not even specific to homosexuality is about as weak as it gets. > Many religions believe that something cosmically significant occurs > between people's [souls / consciousnesses / qualia] when they have > sex. A link is formed between those two people. When people have a > large number of sexual [hetero or homo] partners serially [or > simultaneously, it doesn't matter] , what they are doing is repeatedly > forming and dissolving this link. This invariably damages the ability > of the person to form intimate relationships down the road. > Whatever. About every person who has had more than one partner knows this is a pile of hooey. This notion is not even Christian so I don't see how it explains some (not all in the least) Christian's problem with homosexuality. > Now Christians take this one step further and argue that there is a > genuine qualitative difference between the way this link occurs in a > heterosexual coupling or a homosexual coupling. Christians would argue > that, because the souls in a homosexual relationship are of the same > gender, the link does not form properly, if it can form at all, and > that this will also cause damage to the person's ability to form and > maintain intimate relationships down the road. Christians argue no such thing as Christians. There is no biblical or canonical basis for such. if you are going to make stuff up I wonder why you bother. > > At this point it's important to make two things clear. > > First: Fred Phelps is a whackjob of the highest order. He operates his > "church" as a tightly bound, highly authoritarian cult consisting > mostly of his extended family. His views have been disowned by even > the most conservative Christian denominations in North America. The > man protested the funeral of those miners who died in the mine > explosion in West Virginia for no other apparent reason then that they > were West Virginians [there may be some kind of unspoken steroetype > regarding West Virginians and homosexuality, but this was not made > clear in any of his materials]. I honestly wish I was making this up! > He brings shame and disgrace to the name of the God he claims to > worship. By his behavior he turns countless people away from the > Gospel message that might otherwise be at least willing to listen, and > he will have to give an account of his behavior on Judgement Day. > He will be brought to account now, not on some mythological "Judgement Day". > Second: As regards the eternal destinty of homosexuals, their > homosexuality is literally the least of their sins. All of us, > including Christians, every day, break all ten of the Ten > Commandments. We fail to put the God who made us first in our lives > [breaking the First Commandment] , we tell white lies [breaking the > Ninth Commandment], we look with lust at others [committing adultery > in our hearts according to Jesus, therefore breaking the seventh > Commandment.] Christians believe that God's standard, when He judges > us on Judgement Day is not going to be "Were you an OK person?" or > "Were you better then most people?". It's going to be "Were you > morally perfect." None of us can say that, so we're all in deep > trouble. OK. I have had enough of your psychotic religion. I outgrew these beliefs about how God, which I very much believed in, might be and act toward us by the time I was 10. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 19 20:34:03 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:34:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Darin Sunley wrote: > Exactly which part are you objecting to? Most of what I'm giving you > is a qualitative description of the beliefs of a group of people. The > question was "What is the Biblical basis for X"? I'm explaining, > without going into an excessive amount of pendantic detail, how most > Christians would answer that question. As I spent considerable time as a Christian earlier in my life and have read a lot of religious material I know for a fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. What the "average Christian" believes contains things that are problematic enough without making stuff up. Most of what you claimed is not remotely Biblical or even particularly Christian as you yourself stated. - samantha From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 19 20:36:14 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:36:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> <001b01c6630d$1108c570$140a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: "Heartland" > A revived person would obviously *feel* similar > to what people feel after waking up John K Clark wrote: And that's all I'm interested in, I want to *feel* alive. You can tell me tell you're blue in the face that objectively I'm dead but if subjectively I feel alive then I am. That's the other way around. Subjectively you wouldn't feel alive, while objectively others would have to agree that you are alive. > It's the other created instance that will but you > will "feel" eternal nothingness instead. John K Clark: Even at a cutting edge place like the Extropian List your conventional ideas that you are an object and atoms give you individuality are agreed with by the majority of list members, and in the general population a similar na?ve world view is shared by 99% of the people in our culture. And 99% are wrong. That's not my view at all. Atoms certainly don't give you individuality and neither does memory. It's the trajectory of your mind hardware in time and space that actually gives you individuality. That view is actually too "cutting edge" even for most transhumanists. > What you feel is a copy's illusion. John K Clark: But you said it yourself, "you feel". And there is nothing wrong with illusions, they are a perfectly reputable subjective experience. And there is nothing wrong with copies either. But the problem is that only some other person of your *type*, not your original *instance*, would feel that illusion. It's perfectly alright for you to think that subjective experience of your original instance will magically reappear once you get revived but it's simply not true. > Anytime mind process stops running a person dies. So I guess if you ever need major surgery you would refuse a general anesthetic. What would you do, tell the surgeons to cut quickly and just bight down on a stick? After all, under a general anesthetic there is no mind, your brain is no more conscious than your liver. John K Clark It's going to be very hard for people to accept the fact that anytime their mind stops they die. It's counterintuitive and that's why people reject this view automatically. For years it was that same inability to overcome that instinct that prevented me from extrapolating the theory to its logical conclusion. But once you accept that a person dies when his mind process stops I guarantee you that you can find not a single paradox that could make this logic break down. S. From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 19 20:37:46 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:37:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Market forces, state ownership (Re: Even M**x showed signs of authoritarianism?) In-Reply-To: <44457522.1050208@mindspring.com> References: <44457522.1050208@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <9F18AFA7-2C66-4A25-BE0B-D01E7C3B56DF@mac.com> On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Terry W. Colvin wrote: > At 11:19 AM 4/18/2006, Beth Wolszon wrote: > >>>> You seem to have the mentality of Fred: - I managed to make it, >>>> so the system works and all the losers who cannot make it >>>> are just lousy lazy thickos who deserve to suffer. >>> >>> An attitude so common among US "libertarians" that it could be >>> promulgated as The Libertarian Creed. >> >> I've always taken their motto to be: "I got mine, Jack - the hell >> with you." > > Pretty much the same thing. The Libertarians I know (and I use the > upper case "L" for a reason) cast it in terms of superior knowledge > and ability. They were "smart" enough to plan for the future, and > "smart" enough to invest wisely, work hard, etc., and anyone who, > say, had a child develop a catastrophic disease resulting in medical > bills which bankrupt them obviously weren't "smart" enough, and those > losers should be allowed to eat cat food if they don't have enough > money to both eat and meet their other bills. > No Libertarians or libertarians say any such thing as Libertarians. What is the point of such a blatantly false claim as yours and the ones you are responding to? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 19 20:50:03 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:50:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <08C7732B-B5E6-46BA-B3E2-2302F1EB11D8@mac.com> On Apr 19, 2006, at 2:56 AM, BillK wrote: > > >> The Old Testament lays out God's laws, and shows us how terribly >> short >> of moral perfection we all are. > > > If the Old Testament lays out God's laws, then we are dealing with an > insane God. Better call in the God strait-jacket quick. Yeah. About the closest I ever came to believing that God could be as portrayed there and other places in the Old Testament is to believe that Jehovah was not "God" bu actually a dangerously psychotic posthuman or SI. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 20:55:19 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:55:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change In-Reply-To: <44465D8A.5010204@pobox.com> References: <20060419012843.3B8D957FD1@finney.org> <44465D8A.5010204@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 4/19/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Hal Finney wrote: > > I ran into an amazing blog entry from last month which sheds new light > > on global warming from an unusual perspective: > > http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html > > The blog entry is by James Annan and describes a paper he coauthored with > > J.C. Hargreaves that is being published in Geophysical Research Letters: > > http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf > > > > The bottom line is that when you combine all these different papers > > using Bayesian analysis, you get that climate sensitivity is 3 +/- 0.5 > > degrees C, an astonishingly narrow estimate given the state of knowledge > > in the field. > > This sounds highly suspicious to me. What if there are correlated > errors in the studies? > > No one in China has ever seen the Emperor of China, but everyone can > guess his height to within plus or minus one meter. Therefore, by > polling a million Chinese and averaging their estimates, the law of > large numbers says we can get an estimate of the Emperor's height that > is accurate to within one millimeter. But I think that's the point. You sampled a billion people in exactly the same way. If you start with a number of studies, each with different methodologies, then you hope to minimize the bias in each one. Martin From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Apr 19 21:45:49 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060419214549.88925.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I think you present a very good and intuitive argument. However, I think John K Clark may have been on to something when he said that subjectively *he* would still feel alive. I can show this by using some math. First, here are some basic parameters of a typical human brain: Total Number of Neurons: ~100 Billion Upper Limit on Firing Rate: ~1000 Hz (Thanks Martin and Stirling) Planck Time Interval: ~ 10^ -43 Seconds What a human would call the "present moment" in which they live represents a span of Time. Time itself can be divided down to a very small interval, at least as small as a single Planck Interval. Therefore, even if the firing of all the neurons occurred at different, uniformly staggered times, there is a period between the firings of any two (arbitrarily chosen) neurons which represents the passage of a substantial number of Planck Intervals. In essence, what this means is that a normal, functioning brain is actually continually alternating between a functional and a completely non-functional state (like "on" and "off"). Here is the calculation: 1 Second / 1000 Firings / 100 Billion Neurons = ... = ~ 10 ^ -14 Second = span in which not a single neuron anywhere in the brain is firing. 10 ^ -14 Second / 10 ^ -43 Second (one Planck Interval) =... = *At Least* ~ 10 ^ 29 Planck Intervals between the firings of any two (random) neurons. This 10 ^ 29 Planck Intervals represents the "off" condition or "Dead Time" and is unavoidable. Yet, I do retain the sense of living even despite this. This seems consistent with what we can observe. I do not experience the me who lived 5 minutes ago. Is he dead? ... Maybe, but *I* am still alive. If I go for a run down the street and look back, is there an infinite string of "old" Jeffrey's behind me? I should hope not. They are probably "dead", but *I* haven't died. You might be able to show that an interval of time in great excess of 10 ^ 29 Planck Intervals *would* constitute the permanent death of the original person (all else being equal). I myself don't have the requisite knowledge to address that formally, but my early guess is that the span of "Dead Time" may be irrelevant to the survival of the original person, provided that the pattern of atoms is preserved with sufficient fidelity. Also keep in mind that even in a vitrified brain, the atoms themselves are still jumping around and performing calculations (arguably useless ones but calculations nonetheless). And one can only guess what kind of 24/7 party the electrons are still throwing :-) I would be extremely dissatisfied though if my Cryonics provider decided to upload my mind and destroy the original vitrified brain. In that case, I would definitely be suspicious that the original *me* had died permanently (if I was capable of suspicion that is). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich ps: Sorry if I've just restated what someone else has already presented in the archives. I have only so many Planck Intervals to work with. Sorry Spike, couldn't wait any longer - too excited I guess. Heartland wrote: "Heartland" > A revived person would obviously *feel* similar > to what people feel after waking up John K Clark wrote: And that's all I'm interested in, I want to *feel* alive. You can tell me tell you're blue in the face that objectively I'm dead but if subjectively I feel alive then I am. That's the other way around. Subjectively you wouldn't feel alive, while objectively others would have to agree that you are alive. > It's the other created instance that will but you > will "feel" eternal nothingness instead. John K Clark: Even at a cutting edge place like the Extropian List your conventional ideas that you are an object and atoms give you individuality are agreed with by the majority of list members, and in the general population a similar na?ve world view is shared by 99% of the people in our culture. And 99% are wrong. That's not my view at all. Atoms certainly don't give you individuality and neither does memory. It's the trajectory of your mind hardware in time and space that actually gives you individuality. That view is actually too "cutting edge" even for most transhumanists. > What you feel is a copy's illusion. John K Clark: But you said it yourself, "you feel". And there is nothing wrong with illusions, they are a perfectly reputable subjective experience. And there is nothing wrong with copies either. But the problem is that only some other person of your *type*, not your original *instance*, would feel that illusion. It's perfectly alright for you to think that subjective experience of your original instance will magically reappear once you get revived but it's simply not true. > Anytime mind process stops running a person dies. So I guess if you ever need major surgery you would refuse a general anesthetic. What would you do, tell the surgeons to cut quickly and just bight down on a stick? After all, under a general anesthetic there is no mind, your brain is no more conscious than your liver. John K Clark It's going to be very hard for people to accept the fact that anytime their mind stops they die. It's counterintuitive and that's why people reject this view automatically. For years it was that same inability to overcome that instinct that prevented me from extrapolating the theory to its logical conclusion. But once you accept that a person dies when his mind process stops I guarantee you that you can find not a single paradox that could make this logic break down. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dmasten at piratelabs.org Wed Apr 19 22:12:45 2006 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:12:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <20060419214549.88925.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060419214549.88925.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1145484765.2937.29.camel@dmlap> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 14:45 -0700, A B wrote: > 1 Second / 1000 Firings / 100 Billion Neurons = ... > = ~ 10 ^ -14 Second = span in which not a single neuron anywhere in > the brain is > firing. > > 10 ^ -14 Second / 10 ^ -43 Second (one Planck Interval) =... > = *At Least* ~ 10 ^ 29 Planck Intervals between the firings of any two > (random) > neurons. Questions: What is the duration of a firing? Shouldn't the processes leading up to and away from a firing count as part of the "on" time? Thanks, Dave From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Apr 19 22:28:12 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <1145484765.2937.29.camel@dmlap> Message-ID: <20060419222812.40866.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi David, I'm no biologist, so this answer may turn out worthless. But, I assume that the transmission of signals is the major constituent of human cognition. That transmission cannot occur without the neuron "firing" electrically. During the periods when a neuron is not firing (not transmitting signals) I doubt that it contributes to cognition any more so than a liver cell (to use John's example) would. So the firing rate seems to be the critical and limiting factor. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich David Masten wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 14:45 -0700, A B wrote: > 1 Second / 1000 Firings / 100 Billion Neurons = ... > = ~ 10 ^ -14 Second = span in which not a single neuron anywhere in > the brain is > firing. > > 10 ^ -14 Second / 10 ^ -43 Second (one Planck Interval) =... > = *At Least* ~ 10 ^ 29 Planck Intervals between the firings of any two > (random) > neurons. Questions: What is the duration of a firing? Shouldn't the processes leading up to and away from a firing count as part of the "on" time? Thanks, Dave _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dmasten at piratelabs.org Thu Apr 20 00:09:46 2006 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:09:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <20060419222812.40866.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060419222812.40866.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1145491786.2937.72.camel@dmlap> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 15:28 -0700, A B wrote: > But, I assume that the transmission of signals is the major > constituent of human cognition. That transmission cannot occur without > the neuron "firing" electrically. During the periods when a neuron is > not firing (not transmitting signals) I doubt that it contributes to > cognition any more so than a liver cell (to use John's example) would. > So the firing rate seems to be the critical and limiting factor. I'm not a biologist or neuroscientist myself, so that is why I'm wondering. The analogy that popped into my head was that of a signal pin on a clocked digital processor. In terms of working with the processor we only see the signal at our clock rate. So if we have a 1 MHz clock, we get an 'off' time of (10^-6/10^-43)-1 or (10^38)-1 Planck intervals. But if we attach an oscilloscope to the pin we see not a bunch of discrete events but rather a continuous wave. We don't see a series of discrete events until we get down to a time frame where we see individual electrons jumping from atom to atom. Even worse, the brain doesn't have a clock source. So I'm seeing the signal flow/processing not as discrete events but rather as a continuous process of nearby neuron fires triggering some biochemical process that then triggers another neuron and so on. At any rate, I'm skeptical of calling the brain "dead" between firings. Just as I remain skeptical that "I" will "wake up" in a new body after my death. Not that anyone else, even the new "me", will know the difference! In fact the new "me" will argue it the other way - "I went into the download, went to sleep, and woke up in this new body. Just as continuous as going to sleep and waking up. I don't recall dreaming though. You say the old me died from falling off a rock face?" Dave From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Apr 20 00:19:12 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:19:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: Digital / Multlimedia Events Message-ID: <380-22006442001912953@M2W004.mail2web.com> Digital in the Heart of Houston "If you're a fan of video art, live music, or new media performance, Texas is the place to be this week. From April 19-23, The Aurora Picture Show will present their annual Software Cinema festival at venues throughout Houston. The theme of this year's fest is 'Media Archeology,' and it offers a treasure trove of artists, including (in order of appearance) the a/v-jam collective Share, Tommy Becker, Rick Silva, Golan Levin, Sue Costabile, Scott Arford, Tree Wave, Lovid, Yacht, Nate Boyce, My Robot Friend, and Madeline Minx. Billed as a program of 'improvised, interactive, and multimedia performances,' the events will provide introductions to some of the most engaging new media artists practicing in the US. Whether through employment of the super high tech, nostalgically low-tech, or simply everyday materials, each performance will trace the ubiquity of software in our daily lives and in our modes of making and accessing contemporary art. Rhizome's Lauren Cornell and Marisa Olson join artist/producer Nick Hallett as the guest-curators of this year's festival. We look forward to heading south for this lively convergence of innovative and entertaining artists, and to the possibility of meeting a few Rhizome News readers!" - Rhizome.org http://www.aurorapictureshow.org/ Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 20 00:59:46 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:59:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060419214549.88925.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Hi Heartland, > > I think you present a very good and intuitive argument. However, I think John K > Clark may have been on to something when he said that subjectively *he* would > still feel alive. I can show this by using some math. > > First, here are some basic parameters of a typical human brain: > > Total Number of Neurons: ~100 Billion > Upper Limit on Firing Rate: ~1000 Hz (Thanks Martin and Stirling) > Planck Time Interval: ~ 10^ -43 Seconds > > What a human would call the "present moment" in which they live represents a > span of Time. Time itself can be divided down to a very small interval, at least > as small as a single Planck Interval. Therefore, even if the firing of all the > neurons occurred at different, uniformly staggered times, there is a period > between the firings of any two (arbitrarily chosen) neurons which represents the > passage of a substantial number of Planck Intervals. In essence, what this means > is that a normal, functioning brain is actually continually alternating between a > functional and a completely non-functional state (like "on" and "off"). That's actually a very interesting perspective. However, what David Masten has already pointed out is true which is that you can't conclude that mind process *stops* simply because you choose to view it inside Planck Intervals. If we were to choose to view reality just inside Planck Intervals then we would also be forced to conclude that no process can ever exist. Mind process is an *activity* of matter in space and time which is measured in longer time frames than Planck Intervals. But the main point is that at no time during execution of the process the activity of the process stops. Even during Planck Intervals matter that implements mind carries potential energy that will power a transition from one mind state to the next. In other words, mind process exists even during Planck Intervals. On the other hand, when mind stops, there exists a point in time when there is no force that can transfer one mind state to the next, meaning that the previous instance of that process has run its course. That point in time is the time of death. S. From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Apr 20 06:52:31 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:52:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Market forces, state ownership (Re: Even M**x showed signs of authoritarianism?) Message-ID: <44472FAF.4020200@mindspring.com> On 19/04/2006, at 11:15 PM, Beth Wolszon wrote: > You could be describing Perot and Ventura with that sentence, too, > which is a big reason why the Independence Party of Minnesota returned > to its roots after its brief affiliation with Perot's national party. > >> THAT will make us look like a coherent and organized party and >> attract supporters in droves! > > > And that, of course, could also describe the Democratic Party, or, as > it's legally called here in Minnesota, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor > (DFL) Party. The relationships of political movements to the names they choose is full of curiosities. Some years ago (1989) the Australian Capital Territory (similar to the District of Columbia in the US) was given self government and set out to elect an Assembly. For reasons that could only have made sense in a city of around 300,000 where the main industry is government, it was decided to adopt a "Modified D'Hondt" electoral model. Apparently the unmodified D'Hondt system was a Belgian invention and, as befits a country whose national symbol is the Brussels Sprout, it was totally incomprehensible. How it was modified to adapt to the Australian polity is another of those mysteries that are destined to remain unsolved. However, it did encourage a vast range of groups to chance their arm in a bid to become part of the nascent government. Apart from those parties that infest the rest of the nation (Labor, Liberal, National, Democrat) and a slew of independents, among the candidates on offer were those who represented such bodies as the Party! Party! Party!, the Disabled & Redeployed Workers Party, Abolish Self-Government Coalition, Fair Elections Coalition, Home Rule OK, Residents Rally, A Better Idea, Socialist Workers Party, Family Team, Christian Alternative Party, Sleepers Wake, No Self Government Party, The A.C.T. Community Party, Canberra First Party, Surprise Party, and the one that would certainly have attracted my vote, had I been eligible, the Sun-Ripened Warm Tomato party. Around 150,000 people voted (88% of the enrolment) and, as far as I can recall the electorate was treated as a whole and 17 members were elected based on a preferential and proportional system (if such it can be called). Of the major parties Labor had 5, Liberal had 4 while a local residents group, Residents Rally also had 4 - so no majority for any group. The remaining 4 seats went 3 to No Self Government Party and 1 to Abolish Self-Government Coalition. Thus almost a quarter of the seats were held by members who opposed the whole idea of self government. From memory, the Labor party came to an accommodation with the Residents rally and governed for a while. But the really interesting fact was , with only 150,000 votes to count, it took from March 4 (polling day) to May 8 for the final election results to be announced. However, to prove that even bureaucrats are not as silly as they seem, before the next election the Modified D'Hondt system was abandoned as a method of determining the wishes of the electorate and taken out to sea and sunk as a hazard to shipping. My only regret is that the Sun-Ripened Warm Tomato party was not involved in government, even though they outpolled most of the other also-rans and independents. More details from www.elections.act.gov.au/result89.html Barry Williams the Skeptic of Oz -- "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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 08:37:16 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:37:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: <9b9887c80604172326m33b120a4q12a199785df2fd7d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80604200137v1f6168aeve0ada81977d8e240@mail.gmail.com> i had my 'religious' epiphany at age 8! the Easter bunny is not real, what a hoot. what else about this is not real? i am about to return to grad school for a divinity degree. giggle.... Samantha, you are Dope! very excellent. i am new to this list and am really enjoying reading all your long paragraphs. especially about the consensual habit of time and space. sorry to say i do not have the time right now to do deep thinking on other than my projects. but i LOVE reading all your comments before turning in between the sheets. smile, ilsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 08:40:38 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:40:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Market forces, state ownership (Re: Even M**x showed signs of authoritarianism?) In-Reply-To: <9F18AFA7-2C66-4A25-BE0B-D01E7C3B56DF@mac.com> References: <44457522.1050208@mindspring.com> <9F18AFA7-2C66-4A25-BE0B-D01E7C3B56DF@mac.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80604200140i7cd45e7fh8a95fe7ac4a6c24f@mail.gmail.com> i thought that libertarians did not believe in a middle-man. > >> > >> I've always taken their motto to be: "I got mine, Jack - the hell > >> with you." > > No Libertarians or libertarians say any such thing as Libertarians. > What is the point of such a blatantly false claim as yours and the > ones you are responding to? > > - samantha > > don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to > every other person. john coletrane > www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Apr 20 15:44:54 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:44:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: "Descoberta - Discovery" Transcoso, Portugal Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420104029.02f86ea8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> "Discovery" (Art, Science & Technology) Conference in Portugal May 18 - 20, 2006 >All moments, everywhere in the planet, new scientific discoveries and new >art projects happen, in a fabulous rhythm. > >But, the spirit of discovery - both in the field of art and in science - >it is not something new, neither something placed in a specific region of >the planet. > >The spirit of discovery is a state directly related to diversity, to >knowledge and interaction between different people, different societies, >different cultures, different disciplines. > >The Spirit of Discovery - as the first event in the ambit of the Arts, >Sciences and Technology Foundation - Observatory, aims the promotion of a >moment for information and debate, giving a ampler, diversified and >profound approach to some of the most fascinating science discoveries and >art projects - questioning their nature and the human universe implicated. > >The Spirit of Discovery Meeting, in Trancoso, between May 18 and 20, and >it is divided in four sectors: > >SECTOR 1. Conferences >SECTOR 2. Installations >SECTOR 3. Exhibitions >SECTOR 4. Observatory > > >The opening of the Meeting will have the virtual presence of Ren? Berger - >one of the most fascinating philosophers of art all over the world. > > SECTOR 1. Conferences > >Joseph Brenner - United >States and Switzerland >Roy Ascott - England >Alex Adriaansens - the Netherlands >Gyorgy Darvas - Hungary >Marcos >Novak - United States >Emanuel Pimenta - Portugal and Brazil >Gon?alo >Furtado - Portugal > >SECTOR 2. Installations >Francesco >Mariotti, Switzerland >Monika Weiss, Poland, United States > >SECTOR 3. Exhibitions > >Dove Bradshaw, United States > >SECTOR 4. Observatory > >Giorgio Alberti, Switzerland >Ant?nio Cerveira Pinto, Portugal > > > >Program > >1st day >Thursday, May 18. 2006 >9:00 Ren? Berger from Lausanne, Switzerland (opening) >10 :00 Joseph Brenner > >12:30 lunch > >15:00 Gon?alo Furtado >15:45 coffee break >16:00 Alex Adriaasens > >20:00 dinner >21:30 vernissage exhibition: >Dove Bradshaw > >2nd day >Friday - May 19. 2006 >10:00 Roy Ascott >10:45 coffee break >11:00 Marcos Novak > >12:30 lunch > >15:00 Emanuel Pimenta >15:45 coffee break >16:00 Gyorgy Darvas > >18:00 Giorgio Alberti >Ant?nio Cerveira Pinto >Observatory and debate > >20:00 dinner > >3rd day >Saturday - May 20. 2006 > >15:00 Monika Weiss instala??o > >19:00 Francesco Mariotti instala??o > >20:30 jantar e despedida > >C?mara Municipal de Trancoso >apoio / support: Hotel Turismo de Trancoso >contact > > >this page was created and it is >maintained by ASA Art and Technology, London > >A ASA Art and Technology, com sede em Londres, uma entidade voltada para >arte, ciencia e tecnologia. Se preferir nao mais receber as nossas >mensagens queira, por favor, enviar uma mensagem de email para >central at asa-art.com tendo como subject a palavra "remover". > >ASA Art and Technology, with offices in London, is an entity oriented to >art, science and technology projects. If you wish to be removed from our >email list, please send a message to central at asa-art.com with the word >"remove" as subject. Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu Apr 20 15:59:54 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:59:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net><001b01c6630d$1108c570$140a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002601c66493$870bdeb0$9e0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > That's the other way around. Subjectively you wouldn't feel alive, while > objectively others would have to agree that you are alive. How do you know? Who did you ask? The copy of you is convinced you're the same person you always were, you remembers being you yesterday and you didn't even know you were a copy until I told you 30 seconds ago; all your friends say you're the same old you, and the you of yesterday is of course unavailable to answer questions. Subjectively the man who claims to be you thinks and feels he is you, objectively your friends think it is you, so how do you know it is not you? Did you see it in a dream? > It's the trajectory of your mind hardware in time and space that actually > gives you individuality. The individual space time trajectories of every atom in your body? The individual space time trajectories of atoms that get completely recycled ever few weeks? Millions of atoms in your body right now were once part of Julius Caesar's body, does that make you Caesar? There is nothing unique about that mind hardware, so how can it give individuality to you? > It's perfectly alright for you to think that subjective experience of your > original instance will magically reappear once you get revived but it's > simply not true. Don't talk to me about magic, there is only one way you could be right, if we have a soul. I don't believe in souls. > It's going to be very hard for people to accept the fact that anytime > their mind stops they die. Tell me, do you think in general whenever anything stops it is imposable to start it up again, of is it something about minds that makes it true? If so then just what is that "something"? And I asked this question before but you ignored it, if you ever need major surgery you would refuse a general anesthetic? Would you tell the surgeons to cut quickly and just bight down on a stick? After all, under a general anesthetic there is no mind, your brain is no more conscious than your liver. > I guarantee you that you can find not a single paradox that could make > this logic break down. I'm pleased I have a guarantee, please direct me to your claims department. John K Clark From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Apr 20 16:12:39 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060420161239.40892.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland (S.), Heartland (S.) wrote: "However, what David Masten has already pointed out is true which is that you can't conclude that mind process *stops* simply because you choose to view it inside Planck Intervals. If we were to choose to view reality just inside Planck Intervals then we would also be forced to conclude that no process can ever exist." Let me just say, that because my mail provider is convenience-challenged, I'm unable to view David Masten's last post, but I'll do my best with this anyway. As far as any consistent theories of physics go, the Planck Interval is the smallest use-able unit of Time. So any mind-process that exists must be executed *after* a span of time that constitutes *at least* a single Planck interval (and probably very many intervals). I agree *within* a single Planck interval, no process of any kind can occur. I could have been more clear when I wrote that. "Mind process is an *activity* of matter in space and time which is measured in longer time frames than Planck Intervals." I totally agree, but, those longer time frames consist of a large multiplier of individual Planck intervals. "But the main point is that at no time during execution of the process the activity of the process stops. Even during Planck Intervals matter that implements mind carries potential energy that will power a transition from one mind state to the next. In other words, mind process exists even during Planck Intervals." I think this is where things are going to get blurry. I agree, that even while a neuron is not firing, biological activity is still occurring. The dendrites are collecting neurotransmitters, the cell is conducting basic life support metabolism, etc. But a neuron is unique among any other cell in the body - and that lies in its role to conduct transmissions. As I understand it, it utilizes two different forms of transmission: a chemical one based on diffusion, and an electrical one. But the electrical discharge (the firing) is the limiting step in this transmission process. Without these widespread electrical transmissions throughout the brain, cognition of any kind would be impossible - the brain would be effectively dead; unable to process information. It would be just a lump of tissue that was exchanging chemicals, like a liver housed in a skull. So, during those spans where no neuron is firing (~10 ^ 29 PI) no relevant process is occurring; any relevant processing (eg. chemical processing) at all would be limited to the individual neurons themselves, and I think we would both agree that a single cultured human neuron is not "alive" in any meaningful way - it's just executing biochemical processes demanded by the laws of physics. Neurotransmitters (and their processing) alone do not account for existence. "On the other hand, when mind stops, there exists a point in time when there is no force that can transfer one mind state to the next, meaning that the previous instance of that process has run its course. That point in time is the time of death." Yes, but the atoms and chemicals still exist, they still carry their potential energy, and if the vitrification is sufficiently fine, the structure of the neuron is still in place. If a patient were revived, the neurons would have no "choice" but to continue firing and processing. Here's how I would sum up my view. I agree, that when a mind-process stops, that individual has died. But a person isn't a constant, by definition after every moment of life, you are a different person - a copy, an imperfect one (for biological/physical reasons). I am constantly dieing and "re-living", the old versions of me are all dead. But you retain the *sense* of being alive because the structure of your brain retains a very close pattern (but not identical) to the person who has just died a moment before. But whether that death was simply due to the passage of Time (in Planck Intervals) or because your brain stopped transmitting signals should make no difference. In the end, our life is just an elaboration of basic physics (which has no goals), as you suggested. And a vitrified brain also retains a trajectory in space and time (and the atoms are still in motion). A vitrified brain would follow roughly the same trajectory as a living person who decided to lay down in a bed and never get up... I know that feeling some morinings ;-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > Hi Heartland, > > I think you present a very good and intuitive argument. However, I think John K > Clark may have been on to something when he said that subjectively *he* would > still feel alive. I can show this by using some math. > > First, here are some basic parameters of a typical human brain: > > Total Number of Neurons: ~100 Billion > Upper Limit on Firing Rate: ~1000 Hz (Thanks Martin and Stirling) > Planck Time Interval: ~ 10^ -43 Seconds > > What a human would call the "present moment" in which they live represents a > span of Time. Time itself can be divided down to a very small interval, at least > as small as a single Planck Interval. Therefore, even if the firing of all the > neurons occurred at different, uniformly staggered times, there is a period > between the firings of any two (arbitrarily chosen) neurons which represents the > passage of a substantial number of Planck Intervals. In essence, what this means > is that a normal, functioning brain is actually continually alternating between a > functional and a completely non-functional state (like "on" and "off"). That's actually a very interesting perspective. However, what David Masten has already pointed out is true which is that you can't conclude that mind process *stops* simply because you choose to view it inside Planck Intervals. If we were to choose to view reality just inside Planck Intervals then we would also be forced to conclude that no process can ever exist. Mind process is an *activity* of matter in space and time which is measured in longer time frames than Planck Intervals. But the main point is that at no time during execution of the process the activity of the process stops. Even during Planck Intervals matter that implements mind carries potential energy that will power a transition from one mind state to the next. In other words, mind process exists even during Planck Intervals. On the other hand, when mind stops, there exists a point in time when there is no force that can transfer one mind state to the next, meaning that the previous instance of that process has run its course. That point in time is the time of death. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Apr 20 16:16:00 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:16:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion really matter? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420111220.02c43cf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> What do you think abaouat Schroeder? http://www.kschroeder.com/blog/1145366098 "There's an excellent article entitled The Rhetoric of Extinction by Charles T. Rubin in The New Atlantis. He cheerfully shreds the transhumanist movement for its mendacity and preposterous pollyana optimism." [Please note that the article by Rubin is historically inaccurate. He must have gotten his references from a website or someone who never took the time to check references or perform reliable research.] Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 16:58:50 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:58:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion really matter? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420111220.02c43cf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420111220.02c43cf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604200958u64fa0c60ve08c856b388027bf@mail.gmail.com> On 4/20/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > What do you think abaouat Schroeder? > > http://www.kschroeder.com/blog/1145366098 > Schroeder, now I remember that name! For a review of 'Permanence' (both the review and the novel are recommended), see http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0408/0408521.pdf I tried posting the following reply on the blog site, but it hasn't showed up - is there a delay for manual review on the site?: Karl Schroeder, author of 'Permanence'? Excellent book, one of the most thought-provoking I've read in a long time. So I am surprised to see you of all people advocate suppressing progress, because it seems to me that having written such a book, you must know - understand at a gut level, not just as an abstract concept - that evolution doesn't magically stop, that the current state of affairs isn't especially favored as an evolutionary optimum, that stopping progress will not result in stasis, but in decline and ultimately extinction. Now, there is a small lunatic fringe among transhumanists who want to convert themselves into entities with the power of gods and morals and aesthetics somewhere between those of a bacterium and a theorem prover, and to the extent you are criticizing that philosophy I agree with you. But "Who should decide? The joyous. --Those few among us who live in a state of grace" is equally alarming. As I think you are aware, handing total power to a ruling elite for the sake of an ideology is a proven recipe for disaster at best and hell at worst. Which group should decide what the future will be? None! No group, no government, no "few... who live in a state of grace" are good or wise enough to be trusted with that sort of power. It's a decision for all of humanity - not by the "pick which untrustworthy political party gets the power" method, but by the emergent method of the market of ideas. As it happens this meshes with reality, because if you ask people who actually work in the relevant fields, the current batch of predictions about imminent flying cars, moon bases, total cancer cures, electricity too cheap to meter etc are no more realistic than the last batch; it's going to be the work of generations - of the world, not just one corporation or nation - to bring any of this about. So no, let's not help _them_ build our future. Let's help _us_ build our future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Thu Apr 20 17:02:51 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:02:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion really matter? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420111220.02c43cf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420111220.02c43cf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <4447BEBB.9080508@posthuman.com> I've interacted with him a little bit, and find him to be worth chatting with. He may be slightly uninformed in some transhumanist culture areas, but in other areas he knows quite a lot, and can provide some insights. He's heavily into philosophy, which alas I am not well equipped to delve into. He's got a chapter in the upcoming Global Catastrophic Risks book that Bostrom and others are working on. Send him a message, perhaps you can also engage him. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Apr 20 17:25:54 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:25:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion really matter? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604200958u64fa0c60ve08c856b388027bf@mail.gmail.co m> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420111220.02c43cf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <8d71341e0604200958u64fa0c60ve08c856b388027bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420122459.04a06598@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:58 AM 4/20/2006, Russell wrote: >Schroeder, now I remember that name! For a review of 'Permanence' (both >the review and the novel are recommended), see >http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0408/0408521.pdf > >I tried posting the following reply on the blog site, but it hasn't showed >up - is there a delay for manual review on the site?: > >Karl Schroeder, author of 'Permanence'? Excellent book, one of the most >thought-provoking I've read in a long time. > >So I am surprised to see you of all people advocate suppressing progress, ? I have no idea what you are talking about. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 17:31:30 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:31:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion really matter? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420122459.04a06598@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420111220.02c43cf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <8d71341e0604200958u64fa0c60ve08c856b388027bf@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060420122459.04a06598@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604201031w25d4bdf1k939bbd0ec09d3e73@mail.gmail.com> On 4/20/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > ? I have no idea what you are talking about. > That part was a copy of the reply I wrote on the blog site (which didn't show up there at the time, though it seems to be up now), i.e. addressed to Schroeder, not you! :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Apr 20 17:54:55 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:54:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [Bulk] Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060419135315.02776400@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060420135033.027ab718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:57 PM 4/19/2006 -0400, you wrote: It made the cut. Now at http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 The terms are only that it went up there first. If others want to put it up elsewhere, ask me. Could even paste all or parts of it here if you want to discuss it. Keith >I finally got tired of submitting this article a number of you have seen to >places that promptly went out of business. So I posted it to the well >known http://www.kuro5hin.org/ site. Folks there found (I hope) all the >typos and made editing suggestions, a number of which I incorporated. It >caused a bit of a stir, most mentioned objection being that it is too long. > >If you want to see it, you have to make a new account and click on >"moderate submissions." > >It will be in voting till about 7 am EST April 19. If it doesn't make the >cut, I will hang the cleaned up version somewhere else and let you know. > >Keith Henson > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 20 19:14:53 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:14:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net><001b01c6630d$1108c570$140a4e0c@MyComputer> <002601c66493$870bdeb0$9e0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > "Heartland" > >> That's the other way around. Subjectively you wouldn't feel alive, while >> objectively others would have to agree that you are alive. > > How do you know? Who did you ask? The copy of you is convinced you're the > same person you always were, you remembers being you yesterday and you > didn't even know you were a copy until I told you 30 seconds ago; all > your friends say you're the same old you, and the you of yesterday is of > course unavailable to answer questions. Subjectively the man who claims > to be you thinks and feels he is you, objectively your friends think it is > you, so how do you know it is not you? Did you see it in a dream? Let me ask you this. How many threads of subjective experience are you running now? I would expect you say "one," because otherwise I would see no reason to continue this exchange. So if there can be only one *instance* of subjective experience then what if future doctors create not one but two copies of "you" from your vitrified brain. Now, assuming a belief that only a single thread of original subjective experience continues after revival, which copy that thread jumps to? > >> It's the trajectory of your mind hardware in time and space that actually >> gives you individuality. > > The individual space time trajectories of every atom in your body? The > individual space time trajectories of atoms that get completely recycled > ever few weeks? Millions of atoms in your body right now were once part of > Julius Caesar's body, does that make you Caesar? There is nothing unique > about that mind hardware, so how can it give individuality to you? As I said before, it's the *trajectory* that gives you individuality, not mind hardware. >> It's going to be very hard for people to accept the fact that anytime >> their mind stops they die. > > Tell me, do you think in general whenever anything stops it is imposable to > start it up again, of is it something about minds that makes it true? If so > then just what is that "something"? Of course it's possible to restart a process. But the whole point is that it would then be a different *instance* of that *type* of process. My argument is that the only requirement necessary to continue living is preservation of the instance of mind process while a conventional belief is that it's enough to just preserve the type of mind process to keep living. > And I asked this question before but you ignored it, if you ever need major > surgery you would refuse a general anesthetic? Would you tell the surgeons > to cut quickly and just bight down on a stick? After all, under a general > anesthetic there is no mind, your brain is no more conscious than your > liver. That question is irrelevant to this discussion. You're asking me a personal question. But if you are curious I'll just say that if I were you I would cut down on frivolous surgery. In the event that you require a procedure, which is absolutely necessary to keep your "type" of mind process alive that might involve mind stopping, there is no way out. Your instance of mind process would die either from mind stopping caused by anesthetic or mind stopping caused by natural death. What can I say, we live in barbaric times. >> I guarantee you that you can find not a single paradox that could make >> this logic break down. > > I'm pleased I have a guarantee, please direct me to your claims department. > > John K Clark If you want to show I'm wrong then the burden of proof is on you. S. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Apr 20 19:27:09 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:27:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter? Message-ID: <380-22006442019279578@M2W008.mail2web.com> Oh! Now that makes adequate sense! :-) You really had me mind-boggled. N Original Message: ----------------- From: Russell Wallace russell.wallace at gmail.com Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:31:30 +0100 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter? On 4/20/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > ? I have no idea what you are talking about. > That part was a copy of the reply I wrote on the blog site (which didn't show up there at the time, though it seems to be up now), i.e. addressed to Schroeder, not you! :) -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From edmund.schaefer at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 19:31:37 2006 From: edmund.schaefer at gmail.com (Edmund Schaefer) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:31:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change In-Reply-To: References: <20060419012843.3B8D957FD1@finney.org> <44465D8A.5010204@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 4/19/06, Martin Striz wrote: > On 4/19/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > No one in China has ever seen the Emperor of China, but everyone can > > guess his height to within plus or minus one meter. Therefore, by > > polling a million Chinese and averaging their estimates, the law of > > large numbers says we can get an estimate of the Emperor's height that > > is accurate to within one millimeter. > > But I think that's the point. You sampled a billion people in exactly > the same way. If you start with a number of studies, each with > different methodologies, then you hope to minimize the bias in each > one. By taking lots of studies and averaging the findings together, you're polling studies. In the Emperor of China analogy, each citizen's estimate is a (highly inaccurate) study trying to answer the question "How tall is the Emperor?" This is not to say that studies of global warming are as methodologically flawed as the average Chinese person's guess as to the height of the emperor, but that averaging bad studies together, which may have correlated biases (say, hypothetically, the Emperor is depicted as being very tall and muscular in propaganda, and thus people tend to overestimate his height), does not give you a more accurate answer to your question. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Apr 20 19:40:08 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:40:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter? Message-ID: <380-22006442019408753@M2W074.mail2web.com> From: Brian Atkins >I've interacted with him a little bit, and find him to be worth chatting with. >He may be slightly uninformed in some transhumanist culture areas, but in other >areas he knows quite a lot, ... >Send him a message, perhaps you can also engage him. Thanks for the info. I will. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From benboc at lineone.net Thu Apr 20 21:12:59 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:12:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4447F95B.1060005@lineone.net> Darin Sunley wrote: >Many religions believe that something cosmically significant occurs >between people's [souls / consciousnesses / qualia] when they have >sex. A link is formed between those two people. When people have a >large number of sexual [hetero or homo] partners serially [or >simultaneously, it doesn't matter] , what they are doing is repeatedly >forming and dissolving this link. This invariably damages the ability >of the person to form intimate relationships down the road. How strange. In my experience, practising something usually makes you better at it, not worse. Especially with something like sex, where the more different people you practice with, the more likely you are to become skilled and gain confidence. This makes for much better relationships, whether you believe in souls or not. (Surely having sex repeatedly with the same person would also keep forming and dissolving this mystic link, too, thus mysteriously weakening it? Sounds like a no-win situation to me) ben From dsunley at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 21:37:22 2006 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <4447F95B.1060005@lineone.net> References: <4447F95B.1060005@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 4/20/06, ben wrote: > How strange. > In my experience, practising something usually makes you better at it, > not worse. Put a band-aid on your arm. Now rip it off. Now put the same band-aid on again. Now rip it off again. Is it getting stickier and stickier? Not so much :) > > Especially with something like sex, where the more different people you > practice with, the more likely you are to become skilled and gain > confidence. This makes for much better relationships, whether you > believe in souls or not. > > (Surely having sex repeatedly with the same person would also keep > forming and dissolving this mystic link, too, thus mysteriously > weakening it? Sounds like a no-win situation to me) No, that's called staying married to a person. The longer you stay married to a person, the stronger and deeper the relatioship becomes. > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Darin Sunley dsunley at gmail.com From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 20 21:39:51 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:39:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060420161239.40892.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jeffrey, > "But the main point is that at no time > during execution of the process the activity of the process stops. Even during > Planck Intervals matter that implements mind carries potential energy that will > power a transition from one mind state to the next. In other words, mind process > exists even during Planck Intervals." Jeffrey wrote: "I think this is where things are going to get blurry. I agree, that even while a neuron is not firing, biological activity is still occurring. The dendrites are collecting neurotransmitters, the cell is conducting basic life support metabolism, etc. But a neuron is unique among any other cell in the body - and that lies in its role to conduct transmissions. As I understand it, it utilizes two different forms of transmission: a chemical one based on diffusion, and an electrical one. But the electrical discharge (the firing) is the limiting step in this transmission process. Without these widespread electrical transmissions throughout the brain, cognition of any kind would be impossible - the brain would be effectively dead; unable to process information. It would be just a lump of tissue that was exchanging chemicals, like a liver housed in a skull. So, during those spans where no neuron is firing (~10 ^ 29 PI) no relevant process is occurring;" I view mind as analogous to movement. If I throw a baseball and choose to view its flight inside a Planck Interval then I might have to conclude that ball's movement ceases to exist during that interval. But this would not be true. Movement exists as long as potential and kinetic energies don't dissipate. > "On the other hand, when mind stops, there > exists a point in time when there is no force that can transfer one mind state to > the next, meaning that the previous instance of that process has run its course. > That point in time is the time of death." > > Yes, but the atoms and chemicals still exist, they still carry their potential > energy, and if the vitrification is sufficiently fine, the structure of the > neuron is still in place. If a patient were revived, the neurons would have no > "choice" but to continue firing and processing. But once mind process stops, all that matter and energy no longer contribute to implementation of mind process. All the chaotic exchanges of energy no longer power transitions from one mind state to the next. In other words, mind no longer "moves," to use my earlier analogy. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Apr 20 21:40:33 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <1145491786.2937.72.camel@dmlap> Message-ID: <20060420214033.75277.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi David, I was finally able to open your post. I hope my last post to Heartland (S.) at least cautiously crawled up to your objection here. This thread is already pushing up against the processing limits of my brain. I would like to request that anyone else on this list who has been following this debate, would provide their own arguments either in favor or disfavor of my position / other position(s). This thread is something that I am extremely interested in/concerned about, because a Cryopreservation (neuro-option) is something that I expect I will personally need and want. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich David Masten wrote: On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 15:28 -0700, A B wrote: > But, I assume that the transmission of signals is the major > constituent of human cognition. That transmission cannot occur without > the neuron "firing" electrically. During the periods when a neuron is > not firing (not transmitting signals) I doubt that it contributes to > cognition any more so than a liver cell (to use John's example) would. > So the firing rate seems to be the critical and limiting factor. I'm not a biologist or neuroscientist myself, so that is why I'm wondering. The analogy that popped into my head was that of a signal pin on a clocked digital processor. In terms of working with the processor we only see the signal at our clock rate. So if we have a 1 MHz clock, we get an 'off' time of (10^-6/10^-43)-1 or (10^38)-1 Planck intervals. But if we attach an oscilloscope to the pin we see not a bunch of discrete events but rather a continuous wave. We don't see a series of discrete events until we get down to a time frame where we see individual electrons jumping from atom to atom. Even worse, the brain doesn't have a clock source. So I'm seeing the signal flow/processing not as discrete events but rather as a continuous process of nearby neuron fires triggering some biochemical process that then triggers another neuron and so on. At any rate, I'm skeptical of calling the brain "dead" between firings. Just as I remain skeptical that "I" will "wake up" in a new body after my death. Not that anyone else, even the new "me", will know the difference! In fact the new "me" will argue it the other way - "I went into the download, went to sleep, and woke up in this new body. Just as continuous as going to sleep and waking up. I don't recall dreaming though. You say the old me died from falling off a rock face?" Dave _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 22:00:04 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:00:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: <4447F95B.1060005@lineone.net> References: <4447F95B.1060005@lineone.net> Message-ID: <9b9887c80604201500j2156c0ek111f0735ecb6f13d@mail.gmail.com> practice is good. building up the touch sense. experience tenderness and be able to share it opendly in return. any one on this list living in the bay area of california? i moved to berkeley just over 2 years ago. smile, ilsa > How strange. > In my experience, practising something usually makes you better at it, > not worse. > > Especially with something like sex, where the more different people you > practice with, the more likely you are to become skilled and gain > confidence. This makes for much better relationships, whether you > believe in souls or not. > > (Surely having sex repeatedly with the same person would also keep > forming and dissolving this mystic link, too, thus mysteriously > weakening it? Sounds like a no-win situation to me) > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coletrane www.mikyo.com/ilsa http://rewiring.blogspot.com www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Apr 20 22:11:11 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060420221111.97183.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland (S.), Heartland wrote: "I view mind as analogous to movement. If I throw a baseball and choose to view its flight inside a Planck Interval then I might have to conclude that ball's movement ceases to exist during that interval. But this would not be true. Movement exists as long as potential and kinetic energies don't dissipate." But, I think that is the true nature of motion. When you break down motion into very small units of space and time, it has a non - continuous nature. It has a discrete nature, kind of like a single quantum (but only as an analogy). If the object in motion consists of matter then by definition at least 2 Planck Intervals must elapse before that particle can traverse even a single unit of Planck Space (Light (EM radiation) requires 1 Planck Interval in order to traverse 1 Planck Space). But even without regard to this, I wasn't before referring to what happens *inside* a *single* Planck Interval, I was referring to what may happen within a span of many Planck Intervals. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Hi Jeffrey, > "But the main point is that at no time > during execution of the process the activity of the process stops. Even during > Planck Intervals matter that implements mind carries potential energy that will > power a transition from one mind state to the next. In other words, mind process > exists even during Planck Intervals." Jeffrey wrote: "I think this is where things are going to get blurry. I agree, that even while a neuron is not firing, biological activity is still occurring. The dendrites are collecting neurotransmitters, the cell is conducting basic life support metabolism, etc. But a neuron is unique among any other cell in the body - and that lies in its role to conduct transmissions. As I understand it, it utilizes two different forms of transmission: a chemical one based on diffusion, and an electrical one. But the electrical discharge (the firing) is the limiting step in this transmission process. Without these widespread electrical transmissions throughout the brain, cognition of any kind would be impossible - the brain would be effectively dead; unable to process information. It would be just a lump of tissue that was exchanging chemicals, like a liver housed in a skull. So, during those spans where no neuron is firing (~10 ^ 29 PI) no relevant process is occurring;" I view mind as analogous to movement. If I throw a baseball and choose to view its flight inside a Planck Interval then I might have to conclude that ball's movement ceases to exist during that interval. But this would not be true. Movement exists as long as potential and kinetic energies don't dissipate. > "On the other hand, when mind stops, there > exists a point in time when there is no force that can transfer one mind state to > the next, meaning that the previous instance of that process has run its course. > That point in time is the time of death." > > Yes, but the atoms and chemicals still exist, they still carry their potential > energy, and if the vitrification is sufficiently fine, the structure of the > neuron is still in place. If a patient were revived, the neurons would have no > "choice" but to continue firing and processing. But once mind process stops, all that matter and energy no longer contribute to implementation of mind process. All the chaotic exchanges of energy no longer power transitions from one mind state to the next. In other words, mind no longer "moves," to use my earlier analogy. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 20 22:43:45 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:43:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060420221111.97183.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Heartland wrote: > > "I view mind as analogous to movement. If I throw a baseball and choose to view > its > flight inside a Planck Interval then I might have to conclude that ball's > movement > ceases to exist during that interval. But this would not be true. Movement exists > as long as potential and kinetic energies don't dissipate." > > But, I think that is the true nature of motion. When you break down motion into > very small units of space and time, it has a non - continuous nature. It has a > discrete nature, kind of like a single quantum (but only as an analogy). Yes, Jeffrey, I get what you are saying, but consider that "small units" is just our human, artificial way of describing our reality. Map (measurement) is not territory. In this case the actual "territory" is a mind process that is "perfectly" continuous at all smallest imaginable units bigger than 0. The measurement doesn't define reality. It's the reality that influences measurement. S. From pharos at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 23:19:18 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:19:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... In-Reply-To: References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net> <001b01c6630d$1108c570$140a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 4/19/06, Heartland wrote: > It's going to be very hard for people to accept the fact that anytime their mind > stops they die. It's counterintuitive and that's why people reject this view > automatically. For years it was that same inability to overcome that instinct that > prevented me from extrapolating the theory to its logical conclusion. But once > you accept that a person dies when his mind process stops I guarantee you that > you can find not a single paradox that could make this logic break down. > There is a new study just published: Watching the brain 'switch off' self-awareness 19 April 2006 Self-awareness, regarded as a key element of being human, is switched off when the brain needs to concentrate hard on a tricky task, found the neurobiologists from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel. The team conducted a series of experiments to pinpoint the brain activity associated with introspection and that linked to sensory function. They found that the brain assumes a robotic functionality when it has to concentrate all its efforts on a difficult, timed task ? only becoming "human" again when it has the luxury of time. ------------------------- So your 'self' gets switched off while your brain is working hard on a problem, then gets switched back on again when your brain has enough spare processing cycles. Looks to me as though if you copy the 'self' program, then you could run many copies of your 'self' program. And each one would be 'you'. BillK From hal at finney.org Thu Apr 20 23:53:35 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change Message-ID: <20060420235335.4930457FD1@finney.org> As Eliezer points out, it is only correct to combine estimates as independent if they really are independent. The blog entry http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html and paper http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf describe the following methods for estimating climate sensitivity: 1. Attempting to model and reproduce 20th century temperature records using climate models. This requires modelers to fit numerous parameters including solar and environmental effects, but sensitivity to changes in energy inputs is one of the most important. This produces a certain value and range for climate sensitivity. 2. Looking at actual cooling from volcanic eruptions. If sensitivity is high we would see more temperature changes than if sensitivity is low. The authors note, "Although it might appear that this information is already implicit in the 20th century reconstructions, those papers generally did not consider the short-term temperature changes in detail, instead relying largely on a long-term energy balance. Therefore we consider it reasonable to treat this constraint as a physically and observationally independent one." 3. Looking at temperatures during the last ice age. The temperature changes were in the opposite direction but the concept of climate sensitivity still applies, and this leads to an independent estimate. They also considered some other methods, such as looking at temperature changes during the "Maunder Minimum" in the late 17th century, when solar output was thought to be decreased, but they decided that these were not completely independent of the ones above. Their main result came from combining the three methods listed above. In addition, they did some robustness tests which reinforce the result. The bottom line is that the conventionally quoted uncertainty range can only be seen as an exaggeration. The fact that multiple independent lines of analysis produce similar uncertainties should not be taken to reinforce the validity of that uncertainty range! But that seems to be what has generally been the view in climatology. Hopefully this new (for this field anyway) way of looking at things will have a larger influence. Scientists may be uncomfortable with a narrow range because it makes their predictions much more falsifiable, but it is what logically follows from this work. BTW James Annan has a blog entry out today discussing a report in Nature that produces a new and somewhat narrower estimate of sensitivity: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/04/hegerl-et-al-on-climate-sensitivity.html However the new range is not nearly as narrow as what James came up with so he is a little miffed that Nature rejected his paper. He suggests that Nature has been excessively alarmist on some of its global warming positions and was perhaps not too happy with his result throwing cold water on the catastrophist position. The paper they published instead lets them begin to back off more gracefully from the extremes. Hal From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 20 23:59:38 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:59:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net><001b01c6630d$1108c570$140a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: BillK wrote: There is a new study just published: Watching the brain 'switch off' self-awareness 19 April 2006 So your 'self' gets switched off while your brain is working hard on a problem, then gets switched back on again when your brain has enough spare processing cycles. Looks to me as though if you copy the 'self' program, then you could run many copies of your 'self' program. And each one would be 'you'. BillK Yes, I saw that study earlier today. It doesn't really affect what I'm saying which is that death occurs whenever mind process stops. Mind obviously still operates during the time when self-awareness is switched off. IMO, a sense of self, like a sense of sound, is a luxury, not a requirement for living. S. From mstriz at gmail.com Fri Apr 21 00:45:43 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:45:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change In-Reply-To: <20060420235335.4930457FD1@finney.org> References: <20060420235335.4930457FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: On 4/20/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > BTW James Annan has a blog entry out today discussing a report in Nature > that produces a new and somewhat narrower estimate of sensitivity: > http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/04/hegerl-et-al-on-climate-sensitivity.html > However the new range is not nearly as narrow as what James came up with > so he is a little miffed that Nature rejected his paper. It's funny that he wrote this: "As we've discussed, there are numerous other data sets that all provide additional information (and what's more, which all point towards a sensitivity of close to 3C as having the highest likelihood)..." We all know that a confidence interval is not a probability distribution. The middle number is not the most likely. Although, I guess he's right that if you take a large number of studies into account, their combined data seem to be pointing to 3. Martin From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Apr 21 01:04:28 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] NANO Design Showing Online Message-ID: <7133141.1145581468451.JavaMail.root@sendomatic.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Apr 21 01:44:06 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:44:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change In-Reply-To: References: <20060419012843.3B8D957FD1@finney.org> <44465D8A.5010204@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 4/20/06, Edmund Schaefer wrote: > > On 4/19/06, Martin Striz wrote: > > > > On 4/19/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > No one in China has ever seen the Emperor of China, but everyone can > > guess his height to within plus or minus one meter. Therefore, by > > polling a million Chinese and averaging their estimates, the law of > > large numbers says we can get an estimate of the Emperor's height that > > is accurate to within one millimeter. > > But I think that's the point. You sampled a billion people in exactly > the same way. If you start with a number of studies, each with > different methodologies, then you hope to minimize the bias in each > one. > > > By taking lots of studies and averaging the findings together, you're > polling studies. In the Emperor of China analogy, each citizen's estimate is > a (highly inaccurate) study trying to answer the question "How tall is the > Emperor?" This is not to say that studies of global warming are as > methodologically flawed as the average Chinese person's guess as to the > height of the emperor, but that averaging bad studies together, which may > have correlated biases (say, hypothetically, the Emperor is depicted as > being very tall and muscular in propaganda, and thus people tend to > overestimate his height), does not give you a more accurate answer to your > question. > I also recall another example, where there was a famous physics or chemistry experiment which measured some sort of experimental value. For several years after the experiment, experiments by other labs could be roughly modeled as a (moving?) Gaussian with a mean around the original measurement. This continued for some time, until someone with more confidence in their apparatus finally published a new figure, and the cycle repeated, with following experiments gravitating around the new figure. I think the idea was that if scientists got a value which was too different from what had been previously reported, and they weren't confident in their experiment, the values tended to get discarded and the experiment retried. Does anyone else recall hearing about this? I've tried some googling for it, to on avail. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Fri Apr 21 01:57:46 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:57:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Bayesian Looks at Climate Change In-Reply-To: References: <20060419012843.3B8D957FD1@finney.org> <44465D8A.5010204@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 4/20/06, Neil H. wrote: > I also recall another example, where there was a famous physics or chemistry > experiment which measured some sort of experimental value. For several years > after the experiment, experiments by other labs could be roughly modeled as > a (moving?) Gaussian with a mean around the original measurement. This > continued for some time, until someone with more confidence in their > apparatus finally published a new figure, and the cycle repeated, with > following experiments gravitating around the new figure. > > I think the idea was that if scientists got a value which was too different > from what had been previously reported, and they weren't confident in their > experiment, the values tended to get discarded and the experiment retried. > > Does anyone else recall hearing about this? I've tried some googling for it, > to on avail. Never heard of it, however the scientific community is rife with exactly the opposite much of the time. Scientists are in competition over funding with others in their field, so they love nothing better than to disprove their colleagues, rather than agree with them. I know anecdotally that scientists are much more critical of studies published by their colleagues than of studies more generally. There's obviously room for subjectivity, but despite that, science has done a good job of more closely approximating the truth. Martin From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Apr 21 02:02:43 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 03:02:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion really matter? In-Reply-To: <4447BEBB.9080508@posthuman.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060420111220.02c43cf0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <4447BEBB.9080508@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604201902s7775f711u2dcd509cf7074cd1@mail.gmail.com> On 4/20/06, Brian Atkins wrote: > > I've interacted with him a little bit, and find him to be worth chatting > with. > He may be slightly uninformed in some transhumanist culture areas, but in > other > areas he knows quite a lot, and can provide some insights. He's heavily > into > philosophy, which alas I am not well equipped to delve into. > After a round of conversation after my reply to the original, I'll second that; he doesn't seem to be advocating suppressing progress per se, while I don't agree with everything he says, I think his view is more complex and more worth engaging in detail than that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Fri Apr 21 04:00:13 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:00:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] I keep asking myself... References: <4443DD2B.6010604@lineone.net><001b01c6630d$1108c570$140a4e0c@MyComputer><002601c66493$870bdeb0$9e0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001e01c664f8$1da3f830$01094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > Let me ask you this. How many threads of subjective experience are you > running now? I would expect you say "one," Then you would be wrong. I am not running any thread of subjective experience, my brain is running the John Clark program and that is producing me. I have no way of knowing if the John Clark program is running in parallel on any other hardware. My hunch is that it is not, not yet anyway, but I can't be certain. > It's the trajectory of your mind hardware in time and space that actually > gives you individuality. [...] it's the *trajectory* that gives you > individuality, not mind hardware. That's about as clear as mud but I assume you mean the trajectory in space time of every atom that ever has or ever will made up your body, your hardware. Even if your absurd idea is correct how does an atom join this exclusive club? Well...., if you grasp some food with your hand and stick it into a hole in your face that should do it. And if a copying machine looks at your brain and uses that information to place an atom at a specific location that should do it too. Even playing with your own silly rules my copy has as much right to call himself me as I do. > Of course it's possible to restart a process. But the whole point is that > it would then be a different *instance* of that *type* of process. My red car is going fast, I slow down then speed up again. Is this a different "fast" a different "red" or a different "car"? And exactly what is different about the difference? Or is you entire idea just nonsense. ME: > > if you ever need major surgery you would refuse a general anesthetic? You: > That question is irrelevant to this discussion. Like hell it is! > Your instance of mind process would die either from mind stopping caused > by anesthetic or mind stopping caused by natural death. Yes yes, your logic is impeccable, if we follow your idea the ultimate conclusion is that anesthesia is equivalent to death. It was very common for educated men to also oppose anesthesia, but that was in the 18'th century. Reductio ad Absurdum: If valid logic leads to an absurdity the premise must be wrong. John K Clark From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Apr 21 14:37:09 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060421143709.15791.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland (S.), Heartland (S.) wrote: "Yes, Jeffrey, I get what you are saying, but consider that "small units" is just our human, artificial way of describing our reality. Map (measurement) is not territory. In this case the actual "territory" is a mind process that is "perfectly" continuous at all smallest imaginable units bigger than 0. The measurement doesn't define reality. It's the reality that influences measurement." Unless I have grossly misunderstood what I have read, I think the current consensus among physicists is that space and time (insofar as these entities actually exist) are *in actuality* discrete and non-continuous. This is not just a semantic distinction. I realize that physics is not complete, but we should try to build these arguments on the evidence that's available. So, according to the recent theories, the "smallest imaginable units bigger than 0" (we should replace "imaginable" with "use-able" - I can imagine all sorts of things :-) are the Planck Interval and the Planck Space/Length. So this means that any motions of matter (eg. including any atoms or chemicals which are encoding the mind-process) will require *at least* 2 Planck Intervals to Arrive (this is a better description than travel) at a distance of 1 Planck Length - and that is only the case if the chemical or atom is traveling at 50% the speed of light. I strongly doubt that any chemicals or atoms within the brain are traveling at that speed; probably much, much slower (although I can't say I know that for certain). With any atom or chemical in the brain, my guess would be more in the area of at least 30 Planck Intervals to arrive at the next Planck Length. So the mind-process is non-continuous and interrupted, which is equivalent to the definition you yourself provided for the death of the original person. Which I would argue is occurring anyway with every passing moment of life, but the sense of living is retained. I'm not saying that this is a knock-down to your argument, but you shouldn't choose to side-step it. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > Heartland wrote: > > "I view mind as analogous to movement. If I throw a baseball and choose to view > its > flight inside a Planck Interval then I might have to conclude that ball's > movement > ceases to exist during that interval. But this would not be true. Movement exists > as long as potential and kinetic energies don't dissipate." > > But, I think that is the true nature of motion. When you break down motion into > very small units of space and time, it has a non - continuous nature. It has a > discrete nature, kind of like a single quantum (but only as an analogy). Yes, Jeffrey, I get what you are saying, but consider that "small units" is just our human, artificial way of describing our reality. Map (measurement) is not territory. In this case the actual "territory" is a mind process that is "perfectly" continuous at all smallest imaginable units bigger than 0. The measurement doesn't define reality. It's the reality that influences measurement. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Celebrate Earth Day everyday! Discover 10 things you can do to help slow climate change. Yahoo! Earth Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Apr 21 15:00:19 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:00:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Croquet 1.0 SDK Beta is live In-Reply-To: <4448A94B.5050608@foresight.org> References: <4448A94B.5050608@foresight.org> Message-ID: <22360fa10604210800t1b82dd07r96dba1432eae8892@mail.gmail.com> Forwarding to the ExI list. This may develop into a very significant virtual environment. - Jef ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Philippe Van Nedervelde Date: Apr 21, 2006 2:43 AM Subject: [futuretag] Croquet 1.0 SDK Beta is live To: futuretag at yahoogroups.com Croquet SDK 1.0 Beta is available now for Mac, Linux, and Windows Platforms. Go to http://www.opencroquet.org/ and lap up that goodness! This may prove a landmark event... -- ~ Philippe ~ From benboc at lineone.net Fri Apr 21 18:27:18 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:27:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44492406.9050802@lineone.net> Damien Sullivan quoth: > Leviticus 18:22 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with > womankind: it is abomination. > > This is allegedly God speaking directly to Moses, laying out the laws > of the covenant. Seems pretty clear. > > Some people take it as evidence that woman lying with woman is > alright. :) Well, it could mean that lying with both men and women is an abomination. That quote is a translation of a translation, isn't it? How likely is it that it remains true to the original meaning of whoever first wrote it? Just slight grammatical changes can make big differences in meaning, not to mention spelling mistakes. This is true of the whole bible, and lots of other ancient writings. I don't remember where i read it, but i'm reminded of a joke involving someone who went to heaven and he sees a dead pope banging his head against a desk and crying his eyes out: He just read the original of the bible, and he's saying over and over "it says /CELEBRATE/!" ben From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 21 19:13:22 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:13:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Transhumanism debated in the House of Lords Message-ID: <380-220064521191322250@M2W006.mail2web.com> James wrote: "House of Lords debates Thursday, 20 April 2006 3:18 pm Baroness Greenfield: ...The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to any and every event: we cannot complacently take it as an article of faith that it will remain inviolate, and that consequently human nature and ways of learning and thinking will remain constant...." On the brain: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0662.html? Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 21 23:20:38 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:20:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Congratulations Max More! 10th Annual Webby Awards Official Honoree Selections Message-ID: <380-220064521232038375@M2W003.mail2web.com> 10th Annual Webby Awards Official Honoree Selections "As a result of the superior quantity and quality of sites entered, the 10th Annual Webby Awards recognized sites and teams that demonstrated a standard of excellence." The team (which includes Max) at ManyWorlds Inc - The Knowledge Network for Business Thought Leadership is recognized! http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current_honorees.php?letter=M&season=10 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From mrinesi at fibertel.com.ar Fri Apr 21 23:33:48 2006 From: mrinesi at fibertel.com.ar (Marcelo Rinesi) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:33:48 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Congratulations Max More! 10th Annual Webby Awards Official Honoree Selections In-Reply-To: <380-220064521232038375@M2W003.mail2web.com> References: <380-220064521232038375@M2W003.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <44496BDC.6010003@fibertel.com.ar> Indeed, congratulations! The Webby Awards are among the most notorious web awards in the Internet. nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > 10th Annual Webby Awards Official Honoree Selections > > "As a result of the superior quantity and quality of sites entered, the > 10th Annual Webby Awards recognized sites and teams that demonstrated a > standard of excellence." > > The team (which includes Max) at ManyWorlds Inc - The Knowledge Network for > Business Thought Leadership is recognized! > > http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current_honorees.php?letter=M&season=10 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.cgi/extropy-chat > From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun Apr 23 22:54:53 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <20060421143709.15791.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060423225453.14811.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, Can someone here explain what seems to me to be almost inexplicable? That conscious experience exists even in light of the fact that at least 10^29 Planck Intervals will elapse between any two neural firings? (And in practice, probably a good deal more). It seems almost as if cognition "reaches back into time" in order to trace the whole pathway of activation - which constitutes what we call the "present moment". I know this post may sound religious or mystical but that is not my intent. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon Apr 24 12:33:01 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:33:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain Message-ID: Jeffrey wrote: Can someone here explain what seems to me to be almost inexplicable? That conscious experience exists even in light of the fact that at least 10^29 Planck Intervals will elapse between any two neural firings? It seems almost as if cognition "reaches back into time" in order to trace the whole pathway of activation. The thing that exists during that multiple of Planck Interval is the collective and directed "momentum" of matter that implements mind. That "momentum" is what makes one brain state switch to the next which causes mind to arise. HTH. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon Apr 24 16:27:19 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <20060421143709.15791.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Thanks for your response. I think I may have stated my question poorly. Instead of suggesting that cognition "reaches back into time", I should have expressed it as a delay or lag period, between what the brain is processing/representing and the reality outside. Kind of similar to the time delay of light from a distant star, and the true state of the star locally. But even when taking into account this brain lag period , the outside stimulus (eg. a red light bulb) must be initiated by a single or a few neurons, which then later propagate the signal to the next set of neurons and so on. I would restate my question this way: How can a single, or a few activated neurons encode the entire signal (eg. a red light bulb) before it can be propagated throughout the brain for more thorough processing? IOW, how can a red light bulb (or the "present moment") be fully encoded in the mind by only one or a few activated neurons instead of first needing to activate an immense number of neurons (ie. an entire pathway of activation)? And after it has done so, how does the mind "recall" the activation pathway that has led to its current state? Your answer certainly seems reasonable, Heartland. The only answer I had come up with seems a little more far-fetched: some kind of simultaneous quantum computing. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich "Jeffrey wrote: Can someone here explain what seems to me to be almost inexplicable? That conscious experience exists even in light of the fact that at least 10^29 Planck Intervals will elapse between any two neural firings? It seems almost as if cognition "reaches back into time" in order to trace the whole pathway of activation. The thing that exists during that multiple of Planck Interval is the collective and directed "momentum" of matter that implements mind. That "momentum" is what makes one brain state switch to the next which causes mind to arise. HTH." "S." --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Apr 24 19:16:09 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:16:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Forbes Magazine "Blank Slate" on Human Attributes Message-ID: <380-22006412419169203@M2W130.mail2web.com> Forbes Magazine Online has an interesting issue this week. It's a special series of articles called "Blank Slate" and it asks experts in a variety of fields what they would do if they could remake or rethink things from the ground up, including human evolution. Forbes should be free with a registration, so I've included the links. There are too many articles to copy. However, I did include the survey, "What attribute do you most wish humans possessed?" My favorite answer is the last one, "I don't want to be human at all..." http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/15/reinvention-blank-slate_cx_mn_de_06slatelan d.html?boxes=custom http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/15/deepak-chopra-reality_cx_dc_06slate_0418cho pra.html http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/15/synthetic-biology-evolution_cx_mh_06blank_0 418life.html http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/15/derek-bok-university_cx_db_06slate_0418bok. html http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/15/cx_06slate_0418lifepoll.html?boxes=custom Blank Slate What attribute do you most wish humans possessed? 04.18.06, 6:00 PM ET .lithium-poll {width: 246px; } .lithium-pollQuestion {display:none;font-size: 1px;line-height:1px;text-align: color:#fff;} .lithium-pollInfobox {padding-bottom: 5px;} .lithium-pollOptions {width: 235px;} .lithium-pollOption {fpadding-bottom: 5px;} .lithium-pollResults {padding-bottom: 5px;} .lithium-pollGraph {background-color:#8C6BB0;padding-bottom:5px;} .lithium-pollSubmit {padding-top: 5px;} document.domain ="forbes.com"; What attribute do you most wish humans possessed? [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] Acute hearing [input] Better balance [input] Better-protected genitals [input] Breathe underwater [input] Camouflage skin [input] Chitinous armor [input] Eagle-eye vision [input] Eyes on stalks [input] Extra arms [input] Extreme height [input] Fangs [input] Fur [input] Great speed [input] Horns [input] More physical strength [input] Night vision [input] Pouch [input] Smarter brain [input] Stronger sense of smell [input] Stronger sense of taste [input] Stronger sense of touch [input] Stylish, furry tail [input] Wings [input] We're perfect as is. [input] I don't want to be human at all. View Results -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Apr 24 19:15:20 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:15:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Forbes Magazine "Blank Slate" for Human Attributes Message-ID: <380-22006412419152029@M2W028.mail2web.com> Special Report Blank Slate Edited By David M. Ewalt and Michael Noer 04.18.06, 6:00 PM ET "What if you could pick one thing and start over from scratch? What would you change? Would you choose another career, a different home, a new spouse? Or would you choose to remake the world around you? Why not fix America's prison system, make schools more efficient, or make your political leaders more intelligent? "That's the question we posed to the contributors to our Blank Slate special report. We asked experts in a wide variety of fields to step back and imagine what it would be like if we didn't have to accept the status quo, if we could reinvent things without regard for cost, politics or practicality. ..." http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/15/reinvention-blank-slate_cx_mn_de_06slatelan d.html?boxes=custom Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Apr 25 01:46:53 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:46:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <20060423225453.14811.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060421143709.15791.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060423225453.14811.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10604241846t660716b1se50a3d42e7043540@mail.gmail.com> On 4/23/06, A B wrote: > > Hello, > > Can someone here explain what seems to me to be almost inexplicable? That > conscious experience exists even in light of the fact that at least 10^29 > Planck Intervals will elapse between any two neural firings? (And in > practice, probably a good deal more). It seems almost as if cognition > "reaches back into time" in order to trace the whole pathway of activation - > which constitutes what we call the "present moment". I know this post may > sound religious or mystical but that is not my intent. > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich Jeffrey - It seems obvious to me that conscious experience could exist at any practical processing speed. Greg Egan's _Permutation City_ may provide you an enjoyable path to a more encompassing view of such topics. - Jef From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue Apr 25 05:14:27 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- A B wrote: > But even when taking into > account this brain lag period > , the outside stimulus (eg. a red light bulb) must be initiated by a > single or a few neurons, "A few" may be the root of your misunderstanding. There are many many many neurons in each eye alone. It is the combination of them, firing in close proximity, that is the initial signal. Think of it like a computer screen - say, 800*600 pixels. (Which is probably coarser resolution than the eye can get - 1000*1000 might be more like it - but just for visualization's sake.) One red pixel, or a few, would not by themselves suggest a red light source. But place those pixels in context of a larger picture (taking up at least 10*10 if not 100*100 pixels), and all of the picture's pixels can conspire to suggest a red light source (even if only a few of them are actually red; maybe others nearby are reddish, or black to suggest there's no other light in the picture). But that's 100 or 10,000 - hardly just a few. > IOW, how can a red light bulb (or the "present moment") ...actually, that gets even more complex. Most human beings' present moments are inherently colored by their extremely recent memory. E.g., what was there a second ago? If a second ago there was red light to my front left and now it is to my front right, my present moment might include the observation that said light is moving. (Granted, there is almost certainly a "first moment" where there is no previous memory. But getting thoughts, memories, et al together into the level of consciousness that anyone reading this has, is a process that takes years; the first conscious moment thus has previous moments of sensory data to draw upon.) > And after it has done so, how > does > the mind "recall" the activation pathway that has led to its current > state? There have been many studies on the biomechanics of memory, but - the brain's current state is its current state. Which includes any inertia, buildup of charges, et cetera. > The only answer I > had come up with seems a little more far-fetched: > > some kind of simultaneous quantum computing. There's possibly some of that too. Certainly, the various neurons of the brain do their computations simultaneously. Whether or not the neurons count as "quantum" computers (given their sensitivity to chemical and electrical levels, arguably at levels that can be practically effected by natural quantum phenomena) is another story. (It may play in that any given neuron - or more precisely, any given ion gate or other component that makes up a neuron - doesn't necessarily alter its state each Planck interval. Instead, it has a probability of altering its state, depending on relevant factors like the proximity of certain neurotransmitters and the surrounding electric charge. Extensive redundancy helps prevent extremely unusual events, like the simultaneous firing of all neurons at once, from happening even once during the lifespan of any given brain, and in minimizing the damage to the system when such things do happen. Even so, some people do go crazy or catatonic for no adequately explained reason; this could be a factor in some of those cases.) From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Apr 25 14:05:49 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:05:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: "New Math" Recent Algorithmic Art Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060425090250.04b43e28@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Los Angeles Center for Digital Art announces: "New Math" Recent Algorithmic Art May 11-June 3, 2006 Opening Reception May 11, 7-9pm Los Angeles Center for Digital Art presents an international group exhibit of artists using computer algorithms, math based image generators and custom software for the production of abstract works. The show includes videos of animated algorithmic renderings, architecturally based works, internet generated images, 3D stereoscopes, art based on organic growth, as well as interactive pieces where visitors can create their own images. Andy Lomas is a mathematician, digital artist and Emmy award winning digital effects supervisor. His Aggregation series explores the complexity of organic form with intricate sculptural shapes generated by computer simulated growth systems. Using his own software to create the forms, biases and changes to environmental rules are used to create an incredible variety of structural shape. Nathan Selikoff has abandoned the predefined processes of production to more fully explore the computational landscape of mathematics and beauty. He uses custom software to investigate strange attractors - visual representations of chaotic dynamical systems. Fascinated by the diversity and complexity of the raw images that come from simple sets of iterated functions, he enjoys the interplay of technical problem solving and artistic spontaneous interactivity. Charles Fairbanks calls upon friends for an introduction: their laconic descriptions of the artist-ranging from "meaty" to "abstract dynamo"-lend linguistic thrust to his Googled Self-Portraits. The descriptions become keywords for a program to average the RGB data of the top fifty Google-Images. Determined by linguistic, personal, and virtual connections, the appropriated pictures become glowing color-fields of information while details linger at the threshold of perception. Hollis Cooper believes virtual environments have opened a new era in the experience of architectural space. Digital representation has produced perspectives that are no longer based on physical space but instead on multiple-user organization and efficiency - a limitless number of vanishing points. She regards these developments optimistically, as a means of expanding our ability to suspend disbelief and project ourselves into the world around us, interacting more actively with and within it. Tim Quinn is a nationally known Los Angeles sculptor and algorist. He has a long-standing love of recursion, which over the years he has applied to various visual material to produce a visually and conceptually stunning effect. His recent work explores a randomized kaleidoscope effect that defies easy understanding. Applying his own AppleScript Photoshop code to scanned images of his "Sculpey" objects, he achieves a global flattening of 3D space that doesn't flatten locally. Thomas Briggs is a veteran of the art world with a 20 year history in computer animation production and teaching. As an animator/programmer he was often concerned with the mathematical representation of fluid, lifelike gesture. He realized that this notion could be inverted, that the gesture could be realized from mathematics directly, and used to create drawings which retain some connection to the scratch of pen on paper. He eschews algorithmic, or procedural processes, instead using simple periodic functions evolving over time. Milos Rankovic received an AHRB Award for Doctoral Study in the Creative and Performing Arts to pursue his study of drawing: Theory and Practice of Handmade Distributed Representation. He offers "Volatile Public Static" a series of automated composites created from images culled from the web through his specialized software. In his doctoral winning words: "a networked component of a computationally collaborative working space. As such, it (metonymically) relates to an ongoing study concerned with the notion of commitment - chronically taken to be incompatible with deferral - and so, a study of the phantoms that still lurk within difference. In fact, as it applies to difference (rather than analysis), deferral is always already resolved in the nervous commitment, as stoppage, as presence, as difference. The computational investment in the art object is, therefore, found to be the most primitive and least oppressive form of investment, for commitment (in this sense, as selectivity, as semipermeability, or semiconductivity; i.e., as nonlinearity) is the essence of computation. While, locally, commitment is indeed resistance to flow?, globally, it facilitates the play?." Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts, Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Apr 25 14:07:06 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:07:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: "New Math" Recent Algorithmic Art (link) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060425090250.04b43e28@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060425090250.04b43e28@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060425090608.04b96df8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Link: http://www.lacda.com/exhibits/newmath.html >Los Angeles Center for Digital Art announces: > >"New Math" >Recent Algorithmic Art > >May 11-June 3, 2006 >Opening Reception May 11, 7-9pm > >Los Angeles Center for Digital Art presents an international group exhibit >of artists using computer algorithms, math based image generators and >custom software for the production of abstract works. The show includes >videos of animated algorithmic renderings, architecturally based works, >internet generated images, 3D stereoscopes, art based on organic growth, >as well as interactive pieces where visitors can create their own images. > >Andy Lomas is a mathematician, digital artist and Emmy award winning >digital effects supervisor. His Aggregation series explores the complexity >of organic form with intricate sculptural shapes generated by computer >simulated growth systems. Using his own software to create the forms, >biases and changes to environmental rules are used to create an incredible >variety of structural shape. > >Nathan Selikoff has abandoned the predefined processes of production to >more fully explore the computational landscape of mathematics and beauty. >He uses custom software to investigate strange attractors - visual >representations of chaotic dynamical systems. Fascinated by the diversity >and complexity of the raw images that come from simple sets of iterated >functions, he enjoys the interplay of technical problem solving and >artistic spontaneous interactivity. > >Charles Fairbanks calls upon friends for an introduction: their laconic >descriptions of the artist-ranging from "meaty" to "abstract dynamo"-lend >linguistic thrust to his Googled Self-Portraits. The descriptions become >keywords for a program to average the RGB data of the top fifty >Google-Images. Determined by linguistic, personal, and virtual >connections, the appropriated pictures become glowing color-fields of >information while details linger at the threshold of perception. > >Hollis Cooper believes virtual environments have opened a new era in the >experience of architectural space. Digital representation has produced >perspectives that are no longer based on physical space but instead on >multiple-user organization and efficiency - a limitless number of >vanishing points. She regards these developments optimistically, as a >means of expanding our ability to suspend disbelief and project ourselves >into the world around us, interacting more actively with and within it. > >Tim Quinn is a nationally known Los Angeles sculptor and algorist. He has >a long-standing love of recursion, which over the years he has applied to >various visual material to produce a visually and conceptually stunning >effect. His recent work explores a randomized kaleidoscope effect that >defies easy understanding. Applying his own AppleScript Photoshop code to >scanned images of his "Sculpey" objects, he achieves a global flattening >of 3D space that doesn't flatten locally. > >Thomas Briggs is a veteran of the art world with a 20 year history in >computer animation production and teaching. As an animator/programmer he >was often concerned with the mathematical representation of fluid, >lifelike gesture. He realized that this notion could be inverted, that the >gesture could be realized from mathematics directly, and used to create >drawings which retain some connection to the scratch of pen on paper. He >eschews algorithmic, or procedural processes, instead using simple >periodic functions evolving over time. > >Milos Rankovic received an AHRB Award for Doctoral Study in the Creative >and Performing Arts to pursue his study of drawing: Theory and Practice of >Handmade Distributed Representation. He offers "Volatile Public Static" a >series of automated composites created from images culled from the web >through his specialized software. In his doctoral winning words: "a >networked component of a computationally collaborative working space. As >such, it (metonymically) relates to an ongoing study concerned with the >notion of commitment - chronically taken to be incompatible with deferral >- and so, a study of the phantoms that still lurk within difference. In >fact, as it applies to difference (rather than analysis), deferral is >always already resolved in the nervous commitment, as stoppage, as >presence, as difference. The computational investment in the art object >is, therefore, found to be the most primitive and least oppressive form of >investment, for commitment (in this sense, as selectivity, as >semipermeability, or semiconductivity; i.e., as nonlinearity) is the >essence of computation. While, locally, commitment is indeed resistance to >flow?, globally, it facilitates the play?." > >Natasha Vita-More >Cultural Strategist - Designer >PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the >Interactive Arts, Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, >Communications and Electronics >President, Extropy Institute >Member, Association of Professional Futurists >Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > >If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, >then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the >circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system >perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Apr 25 17:00:16 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:00:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'd suggest that the people reading this thread go do some googling or some wiki-ing on precisely how neurons function. In particular you have several possibilities for time slicing. Slices during which no atom in the brain effectively moves (neurons electrical transmission depends on the flow of sodium and potassium ions into and out of neurons -- no ion flow = no electrical transmission). Then there is the synapse transmission process which involves (a) the movement of neurotransmitter vesicles from within an axon terminal to fuse with the cell membrane and release the neurotransmitter, (b) the diffusion time of the neurotransmitters across the synapse and (c) the accumulation of neurotransmitters in sufficient quantity to trigger the electrical transmission process in the receiving neuron. You can calculate the time it takes ions to diffuse across a cell membrane or the neurontransmitters to diffuse across the synaptic gap based on the mass of the ions or molecules and the temperature [1]. See Nanomedicine Vol. I Section 3.2 (it should be online). But a better way of dealing with this discussion is to simply agree with Heartland. Yes, OK, so when I'm frozen or vitrified my synapses don't release and take up molecules and my axons don't transmit electrical signals. I'm DEAD! So *what*? If a majority of what remains of my functioning brain is restored to a functional condition (or if the information it contains is supplied to a brain simulator) I have "risen" from the dead. Since I'm I a reasonable person I can be perfectly happy acknowledging that I was dead and have subsequently been resurrected. Since my resurrected self presumably will be happy to acknowledge, just as my pre-death self is now, that -- Yes indeed, I was really and truly 'dead' -- I challenge Heartland to propose an argument, other than a semantic one of the form "once all your brain activity stops you are dead", that would convince me that I should really *care* about this. Hell, I don't care that much if the solar system gets particularly crowded and I have to be suspended 9 out of every 10 years or 99 out of 100 years to allow for a couple of orders of magnitude more "minds" to have their share of the resources available (I presume that there may be groups or generations of "friends" who may choose to be suspended on synchronized schedules). Robert 1. Don't hold me to any of this -- its been 15+ years since I took physiology. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Apr 25 18:07:45 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:07:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] HUMOR: Check out Toren van beren Message-ID: <380-22006422518745272@M2W083.mail2web.com> Nadia Reed just sent me this and I wanted to share it with you all: http://www.nobodyhere.com/toren.hier AND if you go to http://www.nobodyhere.com/toren.hier) by accident, it's kind of fun too. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc http://www.transhumanist.biz - NANO showing -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Apr 25 18:37:12 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:37:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Forbes Magazine Polls re "Blank Slate" for Human Attributes Message-ID: <380-220064225183712328@M2W005.mail2web.com> Okay, here are the polls: What attribute do you most wish humans possessed? Acute hearing(0 %) Better balance(1 %) Better-protected genitals(2 %) Breathe underwater(11 %) Camouflage skin(1 %) Chitinous armor(1 %) Eagle-eye vision(3 %) Eyes on stalks(0 %) Extra arms(4 %) Extreme height(0 %) Fangs(0 %) Fur(3 %) Great speed(2 %) Horns(0 %) More physical strength(1 %) Night vision(5 %) Pouch(0 %) Smarter brain(29 %) Stronger sense of smell(1 %) Stronger sense of taste(0 %) Stronger sense of touch(0 %) Stylish, furry tail(9 %) Wings(17 %) We're perfect as is.(2 %) I don't want to be human at all.(7 %) Total Votes: 1309 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Apr 25 19:51:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060425195137.95370.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Robert, Yes, I also agree with this. Consciousness (existence if you want) is without a doubt a process as Heartland says, enabled by the presence of matter arranged into a useful and changing pattern. If a brain is vitrified, the mind is obviously gone. That particular individual has died. I would personally take it a step further and suggest that because we can "time-slice" a living, functioning mind into small but meaningful time frames (such as 10^29 Planck Intervals), where not even a single neuron is discharging, that each of us is in fact dieing with every passing moment. You and I are just (imperfect) copies of the person (we can call him the "original" if we want, but this really has no meaning) who has just died a moment before. Our entire life is a "copy's illusion". And if this (the type of existence I am experiencing right now) is my fate after being vitrified for 15 years and then revived, well, so be it... I'm fully satisfied. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Robert Bradbury wrote: I'd suggest that the people reading this thread go do some googling or some wiki-ing on precisely how neurons function. In particular you have several possibilities for time slicing. Slices during which no atom in the brain effectively moves (neurons electrical transmission depends on the flow of sodium and potassium ions into and out of neurons -- no ion flow = no electrical transmission). Then there is the synapse transmission process which involves (a) the movement of neurotransmitter vesicles from within an axon terminal to fuse with the cell membrane and release the neurotransmitter, (b) the diffusion time of the neurotransmitters across the synapse and (c) the accumulation of neurotransmitters in sufficient quantity to trigger the electrical transmission process in the receiving neuron. You can calculate the time it takes ions to diffuse across a cell membrane or the neurontransmitters to diffuse across the synaptic gap based on the mass of the ions or molecules and the temperature [1]. See Nanomedicine Vol. I Section 3.2 (it should be online). But a better way of dealing with this discussion is to simply agree with Heartland. Yes, OK, so when I'm frozen or vitrified my synapses don't release and take up molecules and my axons don't transmit electrical signals. I'm DEAD! So *what*? If a majority of what remains of my functioning brain is restored to a functional condition (or if the information it contains is supplied to a brain simulator) I have "risen" from the dead. Since I'm I a reasonable person I can be perfectly happy acknowledging that I was dead and have subsequently been resurrected. Since my resurrected self presumably will be happy to acknowledge, just as my pre-death self is now, that -- Yes indeed, I was really and truly 'dead' -- I challenge Heartland to propose an argument, other than a semantic one of the form "once all your brain activity stops you are dead", that would convince me that I should really *care* about this. Hell, I don't care that much if the solar system gets particularly crowded and I have to be suspended 9 out of every 10 years or 99 out of 100 years to allow for a couple of orders of magnitude more "minds" to have their share of the resources available (I presume that there may be groups or generations of "friends" who may choose to be suspended on synchronized schedules). Robert 1. Don't hold me to any of this -- its been 15+ years since I took physiology. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Celebrate Earth Day everyday! Discover 10 things you can do to help slow climate change. Yahoo! Earth Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue Apr 25 21:27:30 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:27:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Robert wrote: Since my resurrected self presumably will be happy to acknowledge, just as my pre-death self is now, that -- Yes indeed, I was really and truly 'dead' -- I challenge Heartland to propose an argument, other than a semantic one of the form "once all your brain activity stops you are dead", that would convince me that I should really *care* about this. I'm not sure how "once all your brain activity stops you are dead" is a semantic argument. Isn't this what really happens? Wouldn't this event be equivalent to a situation where a person dies and doesn't get frozen? I mean you can't just use the word "sleep" instead of death "because you are suspended." A person's death is functionally the same whether or not that person signed up for suspension or not so I caution against manipulating the objective meaning of the word. So death is death regardless of anything else. The reason why people should care *deeply* about reaching the point of no activity of their brain is because this is the point of no return and no amount of restoration of brain structure can ever bring a person back to life. And here's why: 1. Minds are not information aka. pattern of brain structure, but a 4-dimensional object (space + time). That's why "mind stops during a multiple of Planck Interval" argument is false because it simply reduces to a "mind stops if we inspect a single snapshot of brain state" argument which works exclusively within 3 dimensional space. Minds can only exist in time (enough time for minds to arise), not just space. 2. Preservation of subjective experience is more important than preservation of personal memory that includes memory of "self" which is a luxury not a requirement for experiencing life. Superiority of SE over PM can be illustrated by two cases. First, person's SE exists, but no PM. Second, PM exists, no SE (cryonics). In the first case person lives, in the second he doesn't. This might be personal preference but I can't imagine people choosing preservation of PM over SE where they would be forced to choose only one. This is part of the reason why we should care. 3. A person can run only one instance of SE. 3. Let's assume 2 hardware copies created based on a structure of suspended brain. Minds activated on that brain structure would both include a separate instance of SE. Total of 2 SEs. Now, that violates point 3). It would be impossible for a person to run 2 SEs at the same time so we must conclude that each instance of SE belongs to a different person. Conclusion: If each SE belongs to a different person then an original instance of SE must also belong to a different person as well. Since SE depends on an active mind process, SE ceases to exist forever at the point when brain activity stops. Death is irreversible. I hope this is sufficient. I don't expect anyone to fully imagine and internalize all this in a week (I certainly didn't) so please don't rush to judgment before you understand what it truly means. Thank you. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Apr 25 22:33:02 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <20060425195137.95370.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060425223302.78805.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, Before I continue with the technical aspects of this debate, I would like to make a proposal. I think it would be ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING AND REWARDING to attempt a formal philosophical thesis paper, based on the premise that I just suggested: That "we" are constantly dieing, and our entire subjective life is only a "copy's illusion" (to use Heartland's perfect phrase). Perhaps with the intent to submit it to a philosophy journal. I am only presently at the amateur armchair level, but I am currently trying to get more deeply into philosophy. If we accept the premise above, it would have devastating implications for other entire fields of philosophy. Off the top of my head, here are some old and big questions it could answer: Does God exist?: Nope. Apparently Not. Is there an Afterlife of any kind?: Nope. Apparently Not. Is our universe just a simulation?: ...Well, at least some more evidence that it is not. Is my mind/brain really 'real'? Is the universe really 'real'?: Yes. They are both 'real'. I am not, nor would I ever, claim full credit for this idea. I would not even have begun thinking about "time-slices" of the mind/brain it if I hadn't started reading the debate here. But, I would like a small piece of the cake, if no one is objecting. ;-) So if anyone on this list would like to join me in attempting a formal analysis and write-up of this idea, with the intent to submit to a journal, please contact me on or off list : austriaaugust at yahoo.com Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 26 00:07:45 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:07:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060425223302.78805.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Before I continue with the technical aspects of this debate, I would like to > make a proposal. I think it would be ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING AND REWARDING to > attempt a formal philosophical thesis paper, based on the premise that I just > suggested: That "we" are constantly dieing, and our entire subjective life is > only a "copy's illusion" (to use Heartland's perfect phrase). Thanks Jeffrey, but we are not constantly dying. Any process, including life, needs time to exist so it would be wrong to view the whole argument from t=0 perspective. If t=0, then what you are saying would definitely be true, but t>0. Life is not 3-dimensional. Life, a process, is made up of processes that exist not only in 3D but also in time. Just because I'm not able to say, "I think, therefore I am" during 10^29 Planck Intervals doesn't mean my mind process stopped execution at that moment so that I am unable to say the same sentence in the next 3s. S. From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Apr 25 22:55:54 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:55:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <07708EBA-D2A5-44B7-9607-CC2D82FD6039@ceruleansystems.com> On Apr 25, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Heartland wrote: > 1. Minds are not information aka. pattern of brain structure, but a > 4-dimensional > object (space + time). That's why "mind stops during a multiple of > Planck Interval" > argument is false because it simply reduces to a "mind stops if we > inspect a single > snapshot of brain state" argument which works exclusively within 3 > dimensional > space. Minds can only exist in time (enough time for minds to > arise), not just > space. Your argument is premised on an invalid assumption, or at minimum a misunderstanding of the concepts you are trying to use. Every aspect of a dynamic process can be trivially represented in a static snapshot. If that instantaneous (and therefore static) information is preserved, the very next state will be exactly what it was if it had never stopped, even if time-shifted. When you suspend your computer operating system to disk, how do you think all the running software manages to be re-awakened in the exact state you left it in? > 2. Preservation of subjective experience is more important than > preservation of > personal memory that includes memory of "self" which is a luxury > not a requirement for experiencing life. Superiority of SE over PM > can be illustrated by two cases. First, person's SE exists, but no > PM. Second, PM exists, no SE (cryonics). In the first case person > lives, in the second he doesn't. I cannot figure out a way to read this that does not reduce to "non sequitur". Perhaps a more careful argument is in order? > 3. A person can run only one instance of SE. True enough for unaugmented meat people, though even then you can stretch it. > Conclusion: If each SE belongs to a different person then an > original instance of > SE must also belong to a different person as well. Since SE depends > on an active > mind process, SE ceases to exist forever at the point when brain > activity stops. > Death is irreversible. > > I hope this is sufficient. It is not sufficient. The assumptions and reasoning appear to be invalid on many points, or at least suspect (some of it did not parse clearly enough to make a determination of validity). Even if death is irreversible, I do not see how that assertion is remotely justified by the arguments provided. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 26 01:18:37 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:18:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <07708EBA-D2A5-44B7-9607-CC2D82FD6039@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: > On Apr 25, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Heartland wrote: >> 1. Minds are not information aka. pattern of brain structure, but a >> 4-dimensional >> object (space + time). That's why "mind stops during a multiple of >> Planck Interval" >> argument is false because it simply reduces to a "mind stops if we >> inspect a single >> snapshot of brain state" argument which works exclusively within 3 >> dimensional >> space. Minds can only exist in time (enough time for minds to >> arise), not just >> space. > > > Your argument is premised on an invalid assumption, or at minimum a > misunderstanding of the concepts you are trying to use. Every aspect > of a dynamic process can be trivially represented in a static > snapshot. If that instantaneous (and therefore static) information > is preserved, the very next state will be exactly what it was if it > had never stopped, even if time-shifted. As I said before, I don't expect anyone to understand what I wrote just by thinking about it for few minutes. What you are saying is obviously true, but you are talking about representation of a process and I'm talking about what a process actually is. Even though I agree with what you said, I don't think this has much of an impact on the validity of my argument. >> 3. A person can run only one instance of SE. > > True enough for unaugmented meat people, though even then you can > stretch it. People who will undergo suspension will probably be unaugmented. >> I hope this is sufficient. > > It is not sufficient. The assumptions and reasoning appear to be > invalid on many points, or at least suspect (some of it did not parse > clearly enough to make a determination of validity). Even if death > is irreversible, I do not see how that assertion is remotely > justified by the arguments provided. > > Cheers, > > J. Andrew Rogers It should be sufficient, but that is only my opinion. True disagreement is based on understanding, not misinterpretation. I don't really think that anyone disagrees with me, yet. S. From RelocatableFem at aol.com Wed Apr 26 01:18:26 2006 From: RelocatableFem at aol.com (RelocatableFem at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:18:26 EDT Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian therapists???? Message-ID: <227.a0c0543.31802462@aol.com> Looking for an extropian therapist in my area of Buxmont in the Phila. suburbs. Any help appreciated. Sherry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 26 01:40:00 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:40:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian therapists???? In-Reply-To: <227.a0c0543.31802462@aol.com> References: <227.a0c0543.31802462@aol.com> Message-ID: <4340CA68-9A89-41D1-ACAC-4956517233D5@mac.com> Dunno if there are any "extropian therapists" but I would look for a cognitive therapist if you are after a psychologist type rather than some other form of the much overloaded word "therapy". - s On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:18 PM, RelocatableFem at aol.com wrote: > Looking for an extropian therapist in my area of Buxmont in the > Phila. suburbs. Any help appreciated. Sherry > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 00:54:03 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs Message-ID: <20060426005403.66776.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> I was pleased and surprised at the NSA's openness on the subject. The contents of the link are the NSA's public archive on UFOs including declassified documents regarding U.S. radar contacts and military fighter jet intercepts of UFOs. Lots of stuff is blacked out which makes sense since they don't want to release anything vital to national security but the stuff that they do show is interesting although they are not very current (1981 is as recent as they get). There do seem to be a lot of reliable military UFO reports as well as intercepted communications from foreign military pilots regarding UFO encounters. It is nice to see that the U.S. Intelligence agencies DO take UFOs seriously although their official stance is that UFOs do not SEEM to pose a threat to national security. That many reliable military personnel have had encounters with UFOs, with collaborating radar evidence seems to raise the Bayesian posterior probability of their existense quite high in my estimation. One of the more interesting tidbits of information I found was the Gersten piece that states that "during October, November, and December of 1975, reliable military personnel repeatedly sighted unconventional aerial objects in the vicinity of nuclear-weapons storage areas, aircraft alert areas, and nuclear-missile control facilities at [lists several Air Force bases...] Many of the sightings were confirmed by radar." There is also what I surmise to be a bit of humor on the part of the NSA as they include a clipping from the national enquirer (NSA spooks ARE geeks too after all). The one thing I did notice however was that my desk top flickered a litle and I found a strange process that was actively using my CPU in my task manager. After I ended the strange process from task manager, the flickering stopped so be prepared to be "snooped" if you go to the site. But hey, if you got nothing to hide, check out the site. It was eye opening. http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/index.cfm Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 02:21:06 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:21:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <20060426005403.66776.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060426005403.66776.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/25/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > That many reliable military personnel have had > encounters with UFOs, with collaborating radar > evidence seems to raise the Bayesian posterior > probability of their existense quite high in my > estimation. Really? Higher than all the other possible earthbound explanations, especially in light of what we know about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony? When the Titanic went down, half of the survivors claimed it went down in one piece while the other half claimed it broke in half, yet they were all there, in the middle of the ocean, a few hundred yards away, with only the Titanic to look at, and she was a big boat. How much can you infer about some blinkety lights a few miles away? The posterior probability that we are being visited by aliens is still low if the prior probability (estimated by the Drake Equation) is low. And it is. > One of the more interesting tidbits of information I > found was the Gersten piece that states that "during > October, November, and December of 1975, reliable > military personnel repeatedly sighted unconventional > aerial objects in the vicinity of nuclear-weapons > storage areas, aircraft alert areas, and > nuclear-missile control facilities at [lists several > Air Force bases...] Many of the sightings were > confirmed by radar." Do you think it is merely coincidence that so many UFOs occur near military bases? Do you think this is because aliens happen to have a peculiar interest in ancient (from their perspective) weapons systems, or is a more parimonious explanation in order? Martin From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Apr 26 02:45:01 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:45:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: 1940s UFO [and class warfare in the U.S.] Mindset Message-ID: <444EDEAD.2050707@mindspring.com> Well, I was alive in the 1940s and what I remember well into the 1950s was the mindset of the Great Depression. My clan suffered greatly, as did everyone else's clan. However, I remember the time of oldster's not trusting their leaders or business specifically because of the class system. I literally cry that such a system is reemerging today. It wasn't until the mid-1950s that older people began to loosen up and begin to believe that maybe life was actually going to get better. It was no secret that trust in business and government tanked then as it has now. There are many similarities today... class systems re-emerging for the worst, while the majority can't make ends meet, etc. I remember living in government housing because we were very poor. My father worked the CCC in order to eat. One day the government was converting the housing units from coal to oil. During that time my father took me aside and told me that a person "of color" was going to be doing the work on our unit. He told me that I was to accept this gentleman (and he certainly was just that, even though he was covered in the dust of concrete) and be friendly. My father also told me that when he was in WWII that he was ashamed of the prejudice he observed and that come "hell or high water, if I ever catch you being disrespectful to a minority, you wouldn't eat for a month." He meant it too! Yes, it was a very different mindset, but people back then helped each other far more than they do today. We children were given excellent educations and a turncoat member of the elites, known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, brought the rest of the U.S. citizens out of a very restrictive class system. As a matter of fact, I still remember when it came time to eat, grandparents and parents ate first. We children got the leftovers. True!!! I also remember my father reading the flying saucer reports from the newspapers and how he did so to boost the imagination he had taken out of him in his youth. You youngsters are very close to losing your country. Wendy Connors -- "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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] From sentience at pobox.com Wed Apr 26 02:56:05 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:56:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: References: <20060426005403.66776.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <444EE145.4070802@pobox.com> Considering how easy it would be, for any aliens capable of traveling here in the first place, to snoop around with UFOs the size of a bacterium, the prior probability for flying saucers is so low... well, Pete Bertine put it better than I did: "If a ship landed in my yard and LGMs stepped out, I?d push past their literature and try to find the cable that dropped the saucer on my roses. Lack of a cable or any significant burning to the flowers, I?d then grab a hammer and start knocking about in the ship till I was convinced that nothing said ?Intel Inside.? Then when I discovered a ?Flux Capacitor? type thing I would finally stop and say, ?Hey, cool gadget!? Assuming the universal benevolence of the LGMs, I?d yank it out and demand from the nearest "Grey? (they are the tall nice ones), ?where the hell did this come from?? Greys don?t talk, they communicate via telepathy, so I?d ignore the voice inside my head. Then stepping outside the saucer and sitting in a lawn chair, I?d throw pebbles at the aliens till I was sure they were solid. Then I?d look down at the ?Flux Capacitor? and make sure it hadn?t morphed into my bird feeder. Finally, with proof in my hand and aliens sitting on my deck (they?d be offered beers, though I?ve heard that they absorb energy like a plant) I?d grab my cell phone and tell my doctor that I?m having a serious manic episode with full-blown visual hallucinations." -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 03:41:34 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:41:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <444EE145.4070802@pobox.com> References: <20060426005403.66776.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <444EE145.4070802@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 4/25/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Considering how easy it would be, for any aliens capable of traveling > here in the first place, to snoop around with UFOs the size of a > bacterium, the prior probability for flying saucers is so low. I always liked this quip: "If the aliens want us to know about them: land! If they don't want us to know about them: turn off the lights! You'd think spacefaring intelligences could figure that out." From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 26 03:58:14 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:58:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <20060426005403.66776.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060426005403.66776.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9E498D16-32AC-4533-9456-3EE985708EFF@mac.com> On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:54 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > There do seem to be a lot of reliable military UFO > reports as well as intercepted communications from > foreign military pilots regarding UFO encounters. > It is nice to see that the U.S. Intelligence agencies > DO take UFOs seriously although their official stance > is that UFOs do not SEEM to pose a threat to national > security. > Since military pilots are "up there" more often and around more exotic conditions and spend more time scanning the skies, I would suspect that a disproportionate number of such reports would come from military pilots. > That many reliable military personnel have had > encounters with UFOs, with collaborating radar > evidence seems to raise the Bayesian posterior > probability of their existense quite high in my > estimation. > The only added datum in this paragraph is possible collaborating radar evidence. Since I presume military pilots aren't given to hallucination this says at best that at least some portion of things they saw were real physical objects not transparent to radar. It doesn't suggest these somethings where extra-terrestrial though. > One of the more interesting tidbits of information I > found was the Gersten piece that states that "during > October, November, and December of 1975, reliable > military personnel repeatedly sighted unconventional > aerial objects in the vicinity of nuclear-weapons > storage areas, aircraft alert areas, and > nuclear-missile control facilities at [lists several > Air Force bases...] Many of the sightings were > confirmed by radar." I don't see anything of terrible significance about 1975. Do you? Since military pilots spend a lot of time around military installation where these nuclear weapons, air systems and so on are it is not at all surprising that many of the sightings are around such locations. As many types of experimental aircraft also fly around such locations we may have a partial explanation of at least some sightings. Also such sites are targets for surveillance by other terrestrial parties using whatever perhaps exotic systems can be fielded. > > There is also what I surmise to be a bit of humor > on the part of the NSA as they include a clipping from > the national enquirer (NSA spooks ARE geeks too after > all). The one thing I did notice however was that my > desk top flickered a litle and I found a strange > process that was actively using my CPU in my task > manager. After I ended the strange process from task > manager, the flickering stopped so be prepared to be > "snooped" if you go to the site. But hey, if you got > nothing to hide, check out the site. It was eye > opening. As you are using Windows strange behavior and lack of security is something I am surprised you saw as an anomaly. :-) From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Apr 26 03:29:54 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:29:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] increasing life expectancy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604260402.k3Q42xsr015755@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Here's an interesting article in of all oddball places, chess news. The author is a British statistician as well as a chess grandmaster. He has some interesting insights regarding the increase in life expectancy. That map is interesting too: life expectancy is longest in Sweden, Canada, Japan, Iceland and Australia. Check it out: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3064 But look at what has happened in recent decades: in 1981, the life expectancy (at birth) was 70.8 years for men and 76.8 years for women. In 2001, it was 75.7 years for men and 80.5 years for women; an increase of 2.45 years per decade for men and 1.85 years per decade for women. The average for the whole population was more than two years per decade - higher than it was 50 years ago. Thus, far from the rise in life expectancy tailing off, it has actually accelerated. Why is this? There is of course much discussion on this point, but in my view it can be summarised by saying that life has got much better in the past 50 years. Just to take one example, consider air pollution. When I was young, coal was the main fuel used for heating, and this caused a great deal of indoor air pollution. Smoking was far more common than today (chess clubs, I recall, being particularly bad). Outdoor air pollution was also much worse. I missed the 1952 London smog which killed 4,000 people, but I remember vividly the last serious London smog in December 1962. The sun appeared only as a pale heatless disc during the day; going outdoors would make you cough and choke and it wasn't much better inside the house. The weather was freezing cold and supplies of fuel ran out. My whole family huddled in the kitchen with the cooker turned full on, as this was the only available source of heat. I played chess listlessly. The improvement since then has been remarkable; measured by the concentration of many of the most important pollutants, London air is now cleaner than it has ever been since the 16th century. There are of course many other factors involved than air pollution, but in almost all areas the story is the same; things have got much better. We should of course not be complacent and it will doubtless require continuing efforts to maintain this progress. But in general it is hard to complain about the improvements of the last 50 years. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 04:32:05 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:32:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian therapists???? In-Reply-To: <4340CA68-9A89-41D1-ACAC-4956517233D5@mac.com> References: <227.a0c0543.31802462@aol.com> <4340CA68-9A89-41D1-ACAC-4956517233D5@mac.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80604252132q6488aa31y9326f040e912a390@mail.gmail.com> contact Columbia med school they have people who teach there who are very good and might have a small practice. when i live in phila i traveled to NYC for that reason. smile, ilsa On 4/25/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Dunno if there are any "extropian therapists" but I would look for a > cognitive therapist if you are after a psychologist type rather than some > other form of the much overloaded word "therapy". > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 05:34:38 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060426053438.35848.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Martin Striz wrote: > On 4/25/06, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > That many reliable military personnel have had > > encounters with UFOs, with collaborating radar > > evidence seems to raise the Bayesian posterior > > probability of their existense quite high in my > > estimation. > > Really? Higher than all the other possible > earthbound explanations, > especially in light of what we know about the > accuracy of eyewitness > testimony? Well that depends. Assume that I am highly trained USAF fighter pilot that the government has spent LOTS of money to train to recognize friendly aircraft from foe. Furthermore assume that and I am scrambled under orders to investigate some anomolous radar signatures and when I close with anomalous radar signatures I see a something that my training did not prepare me for that does not match any known earthbound flying machine. Now the government would not trust me with a such a dangerous expensive machine if I was a moron. Now further assume that as I approached the flying device on an intercept course and as I did, my instrumentation started to go haywire and I lost contact with my superiors. Yet when I turned away my instrumentation (you know that unreliable crap called radio and radar) returned to normal. Well it must have been the sun in my eyes. Or maybe I was on drugs at the time with a full load out of missiles and bombs. Or maybe, just maybe, the Iranians are so technologically superior to the US that they fooled me into believing that the bogey I was pursuing was not of this world such that I would report such an encounter with my comanding officer at quite some risk to my reputation. Just because you are smart does not mean that the average air force pilot is an idiot. > When the Titanic went down, half of the > survivors claimed > it went down in one piece while the other half > claimed it broke in > half, yet they were all there, in the middle of the > ocean, a few > hundred yards away, with only the Titanic to look > at, and she was a > big boat. Yes. But the Titanic passengers did not log hundreds of hours training on simulators of sinking ships before they were allowed to go down with the Titanic. > How much can you infer about some > blinkety lights a few > miles away? Ummm... did you actually read the stuff on the site? > The posterior probability that we are being visited > by aliens is still > low if the prior probability (estimated by the Drake > Equation) is low. The Drake Equation is irrelevant in this instance because it assumes we know what to listen for. First off why assume that a civilization that had superluminal travel would rely on communication technology that was limited by c? Are we listening to right channels? Secondly, what wild life photographer or reconaissance operative approaches his subjects stamping his feet, announcing his motives, and playing his favorite CDs? > Do you think it is merely coincidence that so many > UFOs occur near > military bases? Do you think this is because aliens > happen to have a > peculiar interest in ancient (from their > perspective) weapons systems, > or is a more parimonious explanation in order? Well the most parsimonious explanation is that any beings capable of coming to this planet from elsewhere are not stupid. If you were approaching a lion would you be more cognizant of its claws and teeth or of its swishing tail? Ridicule nuclear fusion if you will, the phenomenon that powers the stars is no trivial thing even to technologically superior aliens. The magical forcefield that can withstand a nuke I think is a hollywood invention. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Apr 26 06:53:58 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:53:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian therapists???? In-Reply-To: <4340CA68-9A89-41D1-ACAC-4956517233D5@mac.com> References: <227.a0c0543.31802462@aol.com> <4340CA68-9A89-41D1-ACAC-4956517233D5@mac.com> Message-ID: <444F1906.6080707@mindspring.com> I agree with Samantha here. There exist enough branching therapies to actually compete with Protestant church splitting. I made this comment more than once in my behavioral science classes. One teacher/therapist took it hard and personal. Terry ***** Samantha Atkins wrote: > Dunno if there are any "extropian therapists" but I would look for a > cognitive therapist if you are after a psychologist type rather than > some other form of the much overloaded word "therapy". > > - s > On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:18 PM, RelocatableFem at aol.com > wrote: > >> Looking for an extropian therapist in my area of Buxmont in the >> Phila. suburbs. Any help appreciated. Sherry >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- "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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 05:56:35 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <444EE145.4070802@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060426055635.82144.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Considering how easy it would be, for any aliens > capable of traveling > here in the first place, to snoop around with UFOs > the size of a > bacterium, the prior probability for flying saucers > is so low... well, Huh? How would they fit in bacterium sized craft? If they just wanted to send an "unmanned" probe then maybe. But if they are out there it's not like they are just now figuring ot we are here. How would bacterium sized probes generate enough wattage to contact "Houston control" from many LY? How would it generate enough thrust to swim upsteram of the solar wind? > Pete Bertine put it better than I did: > > "If a ship landed in my yard and LGMs stepped out, > I?d push past their > literature and try to find the cable that dropped > the saucer on my > roses. Lack of a cable or any significant burning > to the flowers, I?d > then grab a hammer and start knocking about in the > ship till I was > convinced that nothing said ?Intel Inside.? Then > when I discovered a > ?Flux Capacitor? type thing I would finally stop and > say, ?Hey, cool > gadget!? Assuming the universal benevolence of the > LGMs, I?d yank it > out and demand from the nearest "Grey? (they are the > tall nice ones), > ?where the hell did this come from?? Greys don?t > talk, they communicate > via telepathy, so I?d ignore the voice inside my > head. Then stepping > outside the saucer and sitting in a lawn chair, I?d > throw pebbles at the > aliens till I was sure they were solid. Then I?d > look down at the ?Flux > Capacitor? and make sure it hadn?t morphed into my > bird feeder. > Finally, with proof in my hand and aliens sitting on > my deck (they?d be > offered beers, though I?ve heard that they absorb > energy like a plant) > I?d grab my cell phone and tell my doctor that I?m > having a serious > manic episode with full-blown visual > hallucinations." Well I don't know who this Pete Bertine is but his thought processes sound kind of convoluted. I would just knock the LGM over the head and steal their ship. It might not work but it sounds more expedient than trying to dismantle it under their noses. He sounds like one of those guys that would have been weeded out in an earlier era for thinking rather than acting during a crisis. Did you actually check out the website? I promise I did not put the NSA up to this. :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 06:09:08 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060426060908.77863.qmail@web60525.mail.yahoo.com> --- Martin Striz wrote: > I always liked this quip: "If the aliens want us to > know about them: > land! If they don't want us to know about them: > turn off the lights! > You'd think spacefaring intelligences could figure > that out." Yes, but what if they wanted to confuse us? Or what if they they were not a hive-mind or even a single species with a single agenda? Or what if they just plain didn't care? Did you check out the site yet? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 06:32:32 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <9E498D16-32AC-4533-9456-3EE985708EFF@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060426063232.71956.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > Since military pilots are "up there" more often and > around more > exotic conditions and spend more time scanning the > skies, I would > suspect that a disproportionate number of such > reports would come > from military pilots. Very true but I would hazard to guess that they would also be less likely to try to intercept weather balloons, swamp gas, or the planet Venus in their fancy flying death machines than "civillian" witnesses. > The only added datum in this paragraph is possible > collaborating > radar evidence. Since I presume military pilots > aren't given to > hallucination this says at best that at least some > portion of things > they saw were real physical objects not transparent > to radar. It > doesn't suggest these somethings where > extra-terrestrial though. No but given the current state of world affairs, I think it actually more likely that Extra Terrestrials would have this kind of technology rather than the Russians, the Iranians, or the Cubans. > I don't see anything of terrible significance about > 1975. Do you? No, other than the information is old enough that the government feels it safe to disclose it to the public. As opposed to the stuff that happened yesterday. > > Since military pilots spend a lot of time around > military > installation where these nuclear weapons, air > systems and so on are > it is not at all surprising that many of the > sightings are around > such locations. As many types of experimental > aircraft also fly > around such locations we may have a partial > explanation of at least > some sightings. I considered that possibility but the guys that work at nuclear missile bases tend to already have really high security clearances to begin with. Why would the government go to such lengths to conceal scuh experimental craft from employees that were so thoughroughly screened to be entrusted with so many secrets already? If it were just the test flight, don't you think that at the very least the brass in the radar towers would be warned about such a test before hand? I mean it would make for fewer witnesses if they stood down the fighters before they made contact and why would they risk a panicking fighter pilot actually "going hot" and trying to shoot one of their fancy new prototypes down? . > Also such sites are targets for > surveillance by > other terrestrial parties using whatever perhaps > exotic systems can > be fielded. Well obviously that's why they scrambled the jets in the first place to make sure it wasn't the Russians or some other terrestrial country flying into the restricted airspace of the holiest of holies. > As you are using Windows strange behavior and lack > of security is > something I am surprised you saw as an anomaly. :-) Hehe. Unfortunately I don't get to decide what OS the hospital uses. But unless the reputation of the NSA is undeservedly high, I think they would have a hack for Unix as well. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 07:41:36 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:41:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <20060426063232.71956.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <9E498D16-32AC-4533-9456-3EE985708EFF@mac.com> <20060426063232.71956.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604260041t4687e42fv1676604ac5c96426@mail.gmail.com> On 4/26/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Hehe. Unfortunately I don't get to decide what OS the > hospital uses. But unless the reputation of the NSA is > undeservedly high, I think they would have a hack for > Unix as well. ;) I didn't see anything untoward on Task Manager when I visited the site; and I'd imagine if the NSA want to spy on our machines, they'll have more subtle ways to do it. I'm guessing the anomaly you noticed was spyware or whatever from some other source. As for the little green men... they don't want us to know about them, so they refrain from making contact... then they do silly aerobatics displays within radar range of military bases... with their exterior lights on... if that's extraterrestrial intelligence, I'm not sure I want to know what extraterrestrial stupidity looks like :P -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Apr 26 08:13:34 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:13:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <9E498D16-32AC-4533-9456-3EE985708EFF@mac.com> References: <20060426005403.66776.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <9E498D16-32AC-4533-9456-3EE985708EFF@mac.com> Message-ID: <444F2BAE.2040003@mindspring.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: >On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:54 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > >>There do seem to be a lot of reliable military UFO >>reports as well as intercepted communications from >>foreign military pilots regarding UFO encounters. >>It is nice to see that the U.S. Intelligence agencies >>DO take UFOs seriously although their official stance >>is that UFOs do not SEEM to pose a threat to national >>security. >> >> >Since military pilots are "up there" more often and around more >exotic conditions and spend more time scanning the skies, I would >suspect that a disproportionate number of such reports would come >from military pilots. > > Also, an unknown number of sightings never make it to public disclosure through the NSA. I'm surprised that any reports are made by pilots, military or civilian, as these may end their careers. >>That many reliable military personnel have had >>encounters with UFOs, with collaborating radar >>evidence seems to raise the Bayesian posterior >>probability of their existense quite high in my >>estimation. >> >> >The only added datum in this paragraph is possible collaborating >radar evidence. Since I presume military pilots aren't given to >hallucination this says at best that at least some portion of things >they saw were real physical objects not transparent to radar. It >doesn't suggest these somethings where extra-terrestrial though. > > Yes, radar-visual sightings are rare. The Lakenheath, UK report from 1956, I think, is the most well-known. It includes visual sightings by the pilot and observers on the ground as well as radar. A good source of scientific information is the Condon Report, flawed as it is. The New York Times published this as a paperback, "The Scientific Study of UFOs." It includes extensive review of weather phenomena such as ball lightning and mirages. >>One of the more interesting tidbits of information I >>found was the Gersten piece that states that "during >>October, November, and December of 1975, reliable >>military personnel repeatedly sighted unconventional >>aerial objects in the vicinity of nuclear-weapons >>storage areas, aircraft alert areas, and >>nuclear-missile control facilities at [lists several >>Air Force bases...] Many of the sightings were >>confirmed by radar." >> >> > <> > I don't see anything of terrible significance about 1975. Do you? > > Since military pilots spend a lot of time around military > installation where these nuclear weapons, air systems and so on are > it is not at all surprising that many of the sightings are around > such locations. As many types of experimental aircraft also fly > around such locations we may have a partial explanation of at least > some sightings. Also such sites are targets for surveillance by > other terrestrial parties using whatever perhaps exotic systems can > be fielded. The year 1975 isn't significant unless you want to speculate about Cold War tension. These UFO sightings occurred along the northern tier of ICBM sites from the Dakotas through to Montana. These are isolated missile silos well away from major airfields and cities. Most experimental aircraft are tested in desert areas such as Nellis AFB north of Las Vegas. IMO, the UFO phenomenon is worthy of more study. It is my conjecture that the U.S. government continues to investigate UFO reports. I did see infrequent UFO reports in intelligence messages over the years 1970-85. Since I am one of those who held a clearance and access above Top Secret I can't divulge any details. For that matter I can't remember much anyway. My non-disclosure agreement expires in 2053. I do know that the message routing guide used by the Dept. of State includes a TAG for UFO reports. One intelligence item I remember from either 1980 or 1981, cited a radio intercept from a Soviet ELINT (electronic intelligence) trawler in the Straight of Gibraltar. The message stated an object approached at 2,000 MPH, stopped instantaneously, and a few seconds elapsed before taking off at 2,000 MPH. Peculiar if true. Maybe the Soviets were spoofing our intelligence collection effort. I have only two personal sightings of a UFO. One as a teenager could have been anything. The second was a daylight sighting on 20 July 1991, from my backyard in Sierra Vista. Our town is located next to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Some testing of RPVs/UAVs occurs here so "we" are familiar with what these aircraft look like in flight. I am still puzzled by what I saw. Here is my sighting: "On July 20[1991] I had my second UFO sighting. The object was visible for two to three minutes around 1630 MST (2330 GMT) moving north to south over Sierra Vista (Cochise County). It was an inky black, flattened egg-shape with no surface detail, no sound, and height and size unknown. The weather was overcast with scudding clouds and mist over the nearby Huachuca Mountains (maximum elevation is at Miller's Peak, 9,465 feet); latitude 31.33N, longitude 110.18W; wind aloft WNW. While looking at dark clouds and lightning to the north, I at first mistook the object for a large crow flying towards me head-on, and then for a balloon. The object disappeared into the mist before Miller's Peak as I observed from a lower elevation, approximately 4,700 feet." Terry -- "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/Secret War in Laos veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Apr 26 11:26:44 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:26:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003c01c66924$4f7fc2f0$74550318@ZANDRA2> >> I always liked this quip: "If the aliens want us to know about them: >> land! If they don't want us to know about them: turn off the lights! >> You'd think space faring intelligences could figure that out." If Aliens visitors are out there they are certainly smart enough to know that if they revealed themselves all at once the ensuing panic and cultural shock could do a great deal of damage to a civilization. The fear and panic could for the most part be prevented by a gradual insertion of the "We are not alone" idea by way of intermittent sightings. The aliens can then monitor our level of acceptance of the idea by monitoring our movies and literature. Since our media tends to split on friendly/unfriendly aliens in it's presentation it is probable that we will not be invited to join the Galactic Federation until such time as we are able to curb our distrust stemming from our primitive fight/flight response. I'm not saying they're there. I'm just saying that if they are, they're behaving in a perfectly logical manner from my way of thinking. From pharos at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 13:49:48 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:49:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604260041t4687e42fv1676604ac5c96426@mail.gmail.com> References: <9E498D16-32AC-4533-9456-3EE985708EFF@mac.com> <20060426063232.71956.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604260041t4687e42fv1676604ac5c96426@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/26/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > I didn't see anything untoward on Task Manager when I visited the site; and > I'd imagine if the NSA want to spy on our machines, they'll have more subtle > ways to do it. I'm guessing the anomaly you noticed was spyware or whatever > from some other source. > Agreed. Looks like a very clean webpage to my software. I looked at it first in Linux, just in case. No problems. Then I went to Windows and looked at the page source and a debug report. All very passive. It is an NSA site after all. :) They only gave me one cookie, no problem with that. They don't have any adverts, tracking webbugs or tracking ad links like most commercial sites have nowadays. No possibly dodgy javascripts or ActiveX either. Seems whiter than white to me. BillK From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed Apr 26 14:11:31 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:11:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <07708EBA-D2A5-44B7-9607-CC2D82FD6039@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <8ADDBB16-CECC-4F4E-A67F-F4E781417A07@ceruleansystems.com> On Apr 25, 2006, at 6:18 PM, Heartland wrote: > As I said before, I don't expect anyone to understand what I wrote > just by thinking > about it for few minutes. Though disagreement should not be construed as misunderstanding either. > What you are saying is obviously true, but you are > talking about representation of a process and I'm talking about > what a process > actually is. It is information. All of it. Whether or not it is dynamic or static, whether it is a "representation" or an "is", the information/ algorithm is the same. Assuming otherwise is a common failure of intuition. Only an external observer sees a difference, and then only because the external observer is adding information to the system. Do you think the specialness of your "being a process" (as opposed to all other expressions of the same information) is dependent on the existence and nature of an external observer? > It should be sufficient, but that is only my opinion. True > disagreement is based on > understanding, not misinterpretation. I don't really think that > anyone disagrees > with me, yet. You do not grok information. My disagreement follows from that. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Apr 26 14:23:05 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:23:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <444E846C.5050605@foresight.org> References: <444E846C.5050605@foresight.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060426085836.04c1fee8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Good morning - I have been travelling recently and just returned to Austin and I found out that a someone had gotten into my online banking account and had written and authorized a payment check to be sent to an address in New Jersey. The amount was not trifling. Online banking is insured at my bank so after the last few days of stress, things have resumed to normal. We still do not know what happened, but it was probably a keystroke watch that got onto my computer and followed my moves. I am sharing this information with you because online banking fraud is getting to be one degree of separation and I want you to please be careful and protect yourselves. Best wishes, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer PhD Candidate, University of Plymouth - Planetary Collegium, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 15:37:33 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:37:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060426085836.04c1fee8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <444E846C.5050605@foresight.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20060426085836.04c1fee8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 4/26/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > I have been travelling recently and just returned to Austin and I found out > that a someone had gotten into my online banking account and had written > and authorized a payment check to be sent to an address in New Jersey. The > amount was not trifling. Online banking is insured at my bank so after the > last few days of stress, things have resumed to normal. We still do not > know what happened, but it was probably a keystroke watch that got onto my > computer and followed my moves. > Yes it could have been keylogger software that got into your computer. It can be downloaded just by browsing a website (driveby downloads). Or by downloading something else which had the keylogger attached. Or by clicking on a file that was sent as an email attachment. Or if you logged on via an internet cafe or a public network, the system there might have been compromised (with or without the knowledge of the operator) and have software logging all accounts and passwords. If your pc is ever left unsupervised then it only takes minutes for someone to install keylogger software. And sometimes people have their pc setup to remember account numbers and passwords (to save them the hassle of keying them in every time), so a stranger just needs a few minutes unsupervised access to get the necessary data or action the bank transfer. Or it could even be a bank staff member who came across your data and was tempted. But overall, it is becoming more and more difficult to defend Windows computers against attack. The latest keyloggers use rootkit technology that make them almost undetectable by normal scanning software. Installing and maintaining all the necessary security stuff in today's world is a really significant overhead. BillK From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Apr 26 15:52:47 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060426085836.04c1fee8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <444E846C.5050605@foresight.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20060426085836.04c1fee8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <34620.72.236.103.149.1146066767.squirrel@main.nc.us> Natasha, this is disgusting news. I hope they nail the b*stard who did this. Regards, MB From sentience at pobox.com Wed Apr 26 16:35:38 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:35:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604260041t4687e42fv1676604ac5c96426@mail.gmail.com> References: <9E498D16-32AC-4533-9456-3EE985708EFF@mac.com> <20060426063232.71956.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604260041t4687e42fv1676604ac5c96426@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <444FA15A.1080908@pobox.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > > As for the little green men... they don't want us to know about them, so > they refrain from making contact... then they do silly aerobatics > displays within radar range of military bases... with their exterior > lights on... if that's extraterrestrial intelligence, I'm not sure I > want to know what extraterrestrial stupidity looks like :P This is excellently put and went straight into my quotes file. I do have one comment, which is a general writing tip: It is a famous rule of writing that the strongest word, phrase, or thought comes at the *end* of the sentence, paragraph, or essay. Here, the punchline is "extraterrestrial stupidity" so it should go at the end. I would like to be able to put into my quotes file: "As for the little green men... they don't want us to know about them, so they refrain from making contact... then they do silly aerobatics displays within radar range of military bases... with their exterior lights on. If that's extraterrestrial intelligence, I'm not sure I want to see extraterrestrial stupidity." It seems like a minor quibble, but this is a powerful argument powerfully put, and it may be useful to quote someday. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Wed Apr 26 16:38:47 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:38:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: 1940s UFO [and class warfare in the U.S.] Mindset In-Reply-To: <444EDEAD.2050707@mindspring.com> References: <444EDEAD.2050707@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <444FA217.8050300@pobox.com> > You youngsters are very close to losing your country. > > Wendy Connors We know. You're very close to losing your planet. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 15:54:44 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060426155444.61138.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I think the Time disagreement between us is due to poor representation on my part. The roughly 10^29 Planck Intervals that elapse between any two neuronal discharges is *not* a "static snapshot", it *is* Time - "in motion". 10^29 Planck Intervals could be represented just as validly as a tiny fraction of 1 Second, a tiny fraction of 1 Hour, or a tiny fraction of 1 Million Years - it makes no difference, the value is the same. The only time frame that actually represents a "snapshot" is that which is shorter than a *single* Planck Interval - and this interval is not applicable in our universe. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > Before I continue with the technical aspects of this debate, I would like to > make a proposal. I think it would be ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING AND REWARDING to > attempt a formal philosophical thesis paper, based on the premise that I just > suggested: That "we" are constantly dieing, and our entire subjective life is > only a "copy's illusion" (to use Heartland's perfect phrase). Thanks Jeffrey, but we are not constantly dying. Any process, including life, needs time to exist so it would be wrong to view the whole argument from t=0 perspective. If t=0, then what you are saying would definitely be true, but t>0. Life is not 3-dimensional. Life, a process, is made up of processes that exist not only in 3D but also in time. Just because I'm not able to say, "I think, therefore I am" during 10^29 Planck Intervals doesn't mean my mind process stopped execution at that moment so that I am unable to say the same sentence in the next 3s. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Wed Apr 26 16:32:26 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:32:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter? In-Reply-To: <380-22006442019279578@M2W008.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006442019279578@M2W008.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <444FA09A.3040401@posthuman.com> Oh, one other thing - stop using Internet Explorer if you commonly browse with it, and make sure you keep up to date on your Windows patches, including Office software patches. It's hard to tell if Firefox is inherently more secure than IE, but at least there are many times fewer exploits targeting it currently. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Wed Apr 26 16:28:17 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:28:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060426085836.04c1fee8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <444E846C.5050605@foresight.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20060426085836.04c1fee8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <444F9FA1.1000400@posthuman.com> Some banks are moving to using a graphical keyboard where you can point and click your password to prevent keylogging. Actually in fact Windows XP has a graphical keyboard build in - just go to Start -> Run, and type osk.exe and it will pop up. Using that would help. Also some banks are moving to using two factor authentication where you need to have not only some knowledge but also possess a physical fob or device that will give you a constantly changing code in order to login. http://www.rsasecurity.com/node.asp?id=1157 P.S. If you do think you are a victim of keylogging, I would obviously suggest not only changing your bank password, but also every other password or other important bit of info you've typed in the last several months. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From mstriz at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 17:23:17 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:23:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <20060426053438.35848.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060426053438.35848.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/26/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > what wild life photographer > or reconaissance operative approaches his subjects > stamping his feet, announcing his motives, and playing > his favorite CDs? Or flashing blinkety lights? > > Do you think it is merely coincidence that so many > > UFOs occur near > > military bases? Do you think this is because aliens > > happen to have a > > peculiar interest in ancient (from their > > perspective) weapons systems, > > or is a more parimonious explanation in order? > > Well the most parsimonious explanation is that any > beings capable of coming to this planet from elsewhere > are not stupid. Yes. If they could find a way to get here, they could find a way not to be detected. Our knowledge of their existence is pure fantasy. For centuries people were visited by incubi and succubi, or talking animals. Since the "space age" starting in the 1920s, people have been visited by aliens. It's the same archetypical psychological phenomenon with culturally-specified manifestations. I haven't seen the data on this (perhaps you know?), but it seems that the height of UFO sightings was the period 1950 - 1980. Some psychologists have suggested that this hysteria was a result of Cold War anxiety mixed with Sci Fi culture. Or maybe the aliens just lost interest? Martin From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 16:29:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <20060425223302.78805.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060426162937.29605.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, Can anyone on this list provide any scientific evidence (not an argument) that the following premise: "We" as individuals are constantly dieing, and our subjective life is only a series of "copies illusions" : is impossible? Or even evidence that it is not likely the truth? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Wed Apr 26 16:58:55 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:58:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > The reason why people should care *deeply* about > reaching the point of no > activity of their brain is > because this is the point of no return and no amount > of restoration of brain structure can ever bring a > person back to life. So you say, but then you also say anesthesia is equivalent to death, so it's a little hard to see why anyone should take what you have to say on this subject seriously. > Minds are not information aka. pattern of brain structure, but a > 4-dimensional object These 4 dimensions must describe the location of something, it can only be atoms, atoms that get completely recycled in my body every few weeks, atoms that have no individuality but somehow magically manage to give this remarkable quality to me. The only reason this atom rather than that atom is part of my brain right now is because last week I got this Snickers candy bar out of a vending machine rather than that Snickers bar, but you think this mundane fact is the secret of life. I don't. And you say mind is an object, well the brain is an object, but mind? Happiness is not an object nor is sadness, rage is nor an object, nor is fear or jealousy or love. Logic is not an object nor is memory or intuition, but you insist mind is an object and that makes no sense, no sense at all. Mind is what a brain does and what something does is not an object. > Preservation of subjective experience is more important than preservation > of personal memory that includes memory of "self" So you think remembering being you yesterday is not a subjective experience and that also makes not one particle of sense. > Preservation of subjective experience is more important than preservation > of personal memory that includes memory of "self" Something in the future that remembers being you is the very definition of survival; at least I'll be dammed if I can think of a better one. > I don't expect anyone to fully imagine and internalize all this in a week What are you talking about, it's not like it's very deep. Yours is the conventional interpretation believed by every Tom Dick and Harry, but the conventional interpretation is wrong. For example... > A person can run only one instance of SE. Why not? This matter has come up before, about 5 years ago I proposed these thought experiments to the list. ==== An exact duplicate of the earth, and its entire ecosystem, is created a billion light years away. The duplicate world would need some sort of feedback mechanism to keep the worlds in synchronization, non linear effects would amplify tiny variations, even quantum fluctuations, into big differences, but this is a thought experiment so who cares. In the first two cases below the results would vary according to personalities, remember there's a lot of illogic even in the best of us. 1) I know all about the duplicate world and you put a 44 magnum to my head and tell me in ten seconds you will blow my brains out. Am I concerned? You bet I am because I know that your double is holding an identical gun to the head of my double and making an identical threat. 2) I find out that for the first time since the Big Bang the worlds will diverge, in 10 seconds you will put a bullet in my head but my double will be spared, am I concerned? Yes, and angry as well, in times of intense stress nobody is very logical. My double is no longer exact because I am going through a traumatic experience and my double is not. I'd be looking at that huge gun and wondering what it will be like when it goes off and if death will really be instantaneous. I'd be wondering if my philosophy was really as sound as I thought it was and I'd also be wondering why I get the bullet and not my double and cursing the unfairness of it all. My (semi) double would be thinking "it's a shame about that other fellow but I'm glad it's not me". 3) I know nothing about the duplicate world, a gun is at both our heads and we both are convinced we're going to die. One gun goes off, making a hell of a mess, but the other gun, for inexplicable reasons misfires. In this case NOBODY died and except for undergoing a terrifying experience I am completely unharmed. The real beauty part is that I don't even have to clean up the mess. The bottom line is we don't have thoughts and emotions, we are thoughts and emotions, and the idea that the particular hardware that is rendering them changes their meaning is as crazy as my computer making the meaning of your post different from what it was on yours. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From jonkc at att.net Wed Apr 26 17:50:22 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:50:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060426162937.29605.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01e101c66959$e928aa40$870a4e0c@MyComputer> A B Wrote: > Can anyone on this list provide any scientific evidence >(not an argument) > that the following premise: "We" >as individuals are constantly dieing, and our subjective > life is only a series of "copies illusions" : is > impossible? Your use of the word "only" puzzles me. I don't know if the above is true or not, but I do know it's utterly unimportant. I don't care if I'm "really" (whatever that means) dead or not, if I think I'm alive then that's good enough for me. I mean, what more could you want? John K Clark From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 17:51:54 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:51:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <444FA15A.1080908@pobox.com> References: <9E498D16-32AC-4533-9456-3EE985708EFF@mac.com> <20060426063232.71956.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604260041t4687e42fv1676604ac5c96426@mail.gmail.com> <444FA15A.1080908@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604261051l6f126c6cte7e4afaee23152a5@mail.gmail.com> On 4/26/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > This is excellently put and went straight into my quotes file. > > I do have one comment, which is a general writing tip: > > It is a famous rule of writing that the strongest word, phrase, or > thought comes at the *end* of the sentence, paragraph, or essay. > > Here, the punchline is "extraterrestrial stupidity" so it should go at > the end. Thanks! Yes, good point. I would like to be able to put into my quotes file: > > "As for the little green men... they don't want us to know about them, > so they refrain from making contact... then they do silly aerobatics > displays within radar range of military bases... with their exterior > lights on. If that's extraterrestrial intelligence, I'm not sure I want > to see extraterrestrial stupidity." > > It seems like a minor quibble, but this is a powerful argument > powerfully put, and it may be useful to quote someday. > You're right, consider it amended accordingly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 26 19:15:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:15:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <20060426055635.82144.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060426055635.82144.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 25, 2006, at 10:56 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > wrote: > >> Considering how easy it would be, for any aliens >> capable of traveling >> here in the first place, to snoop around with UFOs >> the size of a >> bacterium, the prior probability for flying saucers >> is so low... well, > > Huh? How would they fit in bacterium sized craft? If > they just wanted to send an "unmanned" probe then > maybe. But if they are out there it's not like they > are just now figuring ot we are here. How would > bacterium sized probes generate enough wattage to > contact "Houston control" from many LY? How would it > generate enough thrust to swim upsteram of the solar > wind? Such a probe would not need to send a signal many LY itself. Such a device would likely be using MNT and capable of reconfiguring itself or growing other devices if needed. The communication power need depends on the means of communication. If some type of entangled particle means turn out to be possible then there is no power requirement proportional to distance. The point is of course that clunky biological creature carrying craft are very unlikely to be sent from very far "out there". Our assumptions based on what we can currently build are very unlikely to apply to any real ET checkout of our little planet. If we are being visited by such craft then they either did not come from very far and aren't that much more advanced than we are or they went to considerable trouble to show up in a form we were likely to notice and more easily deal with. Of course an advanced alien species could simply have its probes interject whatever sightings and UFO experiences it wanted us to have and then observe the effects. This would be economical with reasonably advanced technology. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Apr 26 19:31:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:31:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <444F9FA1.1000400@posthuman.com> References: <444E846C.5050605@foresight.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20060426085836.04c1fee8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <444F9FA1.1000400@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <5FCCA87C-7F32-4601-A768-33BA80103882@mac.com> For human interaction with computer systems it would be more secure to use biometrics combined with some guarantee I don't know how to do that the biometric sample was acquired "fresh" from a live subject. All this password stuff is obsolete insecure garbage. On Apr 26, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Brian Atkins wrote: > P.S. If you do think you are a victim of keylogging, I would > obviously suggest > not only changing your bank password, but also every other password > or other > important bit of info you've typed in the last several months. With an active keylogger that is being monitored or reporting externally this will do no good. - samantha From estropico at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 20:34:52 2006 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:34:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExtroBritannia's May event Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90604261334n1db93f3fne41ba9a64e6562e8@mail.gmail.com> Our next event is scheduled for Saturday the 13th of May 2006 at 2,00pm at the Tate Modern, in London. The event is free and everyone's welcome. Transhumanism, existential art and Russian diamonds Can early 20th century existentialist artists inform 21st century transhumanist thinking and the accelerating H+ movement? The talk and following discussion will seamlessly enhance through quantum soup, existential ground and shock levels to the post transhuman future where you'll be choosing your favourite art work from the Tates' walls. Will the mystique of the authentic original decrease or increase in value or importance in a world of atom scale nano assemblers? Artist and illustrator Russell Rukin will explore these issues and explain the relevance of Russian Diamonds at the Tate Modern from 2pm. We'll meet at 12.30pm, at The Founders Arms pub (2 mins from the Tate) for lunch, before we move to the Tate. If it is your first ExtroBritannia, please look for Ray Kurzweils' "The Singularity is Near" on the table. Otherwise we'll see you on the mezzanine bridge overlooking the turbine room, through the entrance facing the millennium bridge. The venues: Tate Modern Bankside London SE1 9TG Tel: 020 78 87 80 00 www.tate.org.uk/modern MAP: http://tinyurl.com/obp7f The Founders Arms 52 Hopton Street London SE1 9JH Tel: 020 7928 1899 MAP: http://tinyurl.com/mnyr9 Please visit the H+art website for further information: http://www.hplusart.org/ --- ExtroBritannia is the monthly public event of the UK Transhumanist Association: http://www.transhumanist.org.uk The ExtroBritannia mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia The ExtroBritannia Blog: http://www.extrobritannia.blogspot.com From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 26 20:40:35 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:40:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > "Heartland" >> Minds are not information aka. pattern of brain structure, but a >> 4-dimensional object > And you say mind is an object, well the brain is an object, but mind? Mind is > what a brain does and what something does is not an object. And there you have illustrated a common frustration that people experience when reacting to these ideas. My whole argument is based on 4-D perspective, while people tend to apply it to 3-D, which is understandable. Obviously, a 3-D perspective produces nonsense. We all live in 3-D so it's hard to imagine reality at 4-D level. That's what I mean when I say it takes weeks or more to internalize this argument, not because one needs IQ pills, but because one needs to learn unnatural skill of looking at things from the added time dimension perspective. At least that's my suspicion. Otherwise, I don't think it should be very hard to follow the argument. So, a brain is a 3-D object. Mind is a 4-D object. >> Preservation of subjective experience is more important than preservation >> of personal memory that includes memory of "self" > > So you think remembering being you yesterday is not a subjective experience > and that also makes not one particle of sense. It could be part of SE, sure. The point is, though, that you would still live and have SE if you didn't remember. >> Preservation of subjective experience is more important than preservation >> of personal memory that includes memory of "self" > > Something in the future that remembers being you is the very definition of > survival; at least I'll be dammed if I can think of a better one. I disagree. The essence of survival is preservation of subjective experience, a sensation of presence in the moment, continued perception of reality. Whatever you choose to preserve, of course, is your choice. >> I don't expect anyone to fully imagine and internalize all this in a week > > What are you talking about, it's not like it's very deep. Yours is the > conventional interpretation believed by every Tom Dick and Harry, but the > conventional interpretation is wrong. It's funny because I perceive "brain pattern is you" theory as conventional, inadequate, illogical and obsolete. I believed that stuff a long time ago. >> A person can run only one instance of SE. > > Why not? Because any additional thread of processing reality would be subsumed by the original process. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 19:41:04 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <01e101c66959$e928aa40$870a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060426194104.90288.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi John, I agree. Even if the premise is true, it is not going to change the way I conduct my life. I am still going to sign up for cryonics, all the same. But, I think it would be extremely interesting if this premise could be shown to be true or at least probable, only because it would carry profound philosophical implications. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich John K Clark wrote: A B Wrote: > Can anyone on this list provide any scientific evidence >(not an argument) > that the following premise: "We" >as individuals are constantly dieing, and our subjective > life is only a series of "copies illusions" : is > impossible? Your use of the word "only" puzzles me. I don't know if the above is true or not, but I do know it's utterly unimportant. I don't care if I'm "really" (whatever that means) dead or not, if I think I'm alive then that's good enough for me. I mean, what more could you want? John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 26 20:53:06 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:53:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060426162937.29605.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Hello, > > Can anyone on this list provide any scientific evidence (not an argument) that > the following premise: "We" as individuals are constantly dieing, and our > subjective life is only a series of "copies illusions" : is impossible? Or even > evidence that it is not likely the truth? > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich A logical argument that proves this assertion wrong would be a type of scientific evidence. S. From paul_illich at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 20:14:35 2006 From: paul_illich at yahoo.com (paul illich) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060426201436.43037.qmail@web52711.mail.yahoo.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: >On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:54 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > >>There do seem to be a lot of reliable military UFO >>reports as well as intercepted communications from >>foreign military pilots regarding UFO encounters. >>It is nice to see that the U.S. Intelligence agencies >>DO take UFOs seriously although their official stance >>is that UFOs do not SEEM to pose a threat to national >>security. >> >> >Since military pilots are "up there" more often and around more >exotic conditions and spend more time scanning the skies, I would >suspect that a disproportionate number of such reports would come >from military pilots. So much more than the rest of us that they suffer more retinal damage from radiation and 'see' all sort's of shit? Paul London "One fundamental goal of any well-crafted indoctrination program is to direct attention elsewhere, away from effective power, its roots, and the disguises it assumes." Chomsky, 'Deterring Democracy', 1992 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 21:21:25 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060426212125.95352.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, That would be true if both the premises and the logic were perfectly sound. I mean no offense, but I am not yet convinced by your argument: that we cannot be continually dieing. Of course, I also invite any logical arguments that contradict my idea, but I would not consider my idea refuted unless I was convinced the argument was sound. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > Hello, > > Can anyone on this list provide any scientific evidence (not an argument) that > the following premise: "We" as individuals are constantly dieing, and our > subjective life is only a series of "copies illusions" : is impossible? Or even > evidence that it is not likely the truth? > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich A logical argument that proves this assertion wrong would be a type of scientific evidence. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Celebrate Earth Day everyday! Discover 10 things you can do to help slow climate change. Yahoo! Earth Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Apr 26 21:30:11 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060426213011.56311.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Heartland Wrote: "So, a brain is a 3-D object. Mind is a 4-D object." I think you are mistaken here. A brain is definitely a 4-D object. It does objectively survive the passage of time, does it not? Matter of any type is 4-D, otherwise it is inaccessable from within this universe, IOW it would not be matter if it was 3-D. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > "Heartland" >> Minds are not information aka. pattern of brain structure, but a >> 4-dimensional object > And you say mind is an object, well the brain is an object, but mind? Mind is > what a brain does and what something does is not an object. And there you have illustrated a common frustration that people experience when reacting to these ideas. My whole argument is based on 4-D perspective, while people tend to apply it to 3-D, which is understandable. Obviously, a 3-D perspective produces nonsense. We all live in 3-D so it's hard to imagine reality at 4-D level. That's what I mean when I say it takes weeks or more to internalize this argument, not because one needs IQ pills, but because one needs to learn unnatural skill of looking at things from the added time dimension perspective. At least that's my suspicion. Otherwise, I don't think it should be very hard to follow the argument. So, a brain is a 3-D object. Mind is a 4-D object. >> Preservation of subjective experience is more important than preservation >> of personal memory that includes memory of "self" > > So you think remembering being you yesterday is not a subjective experience > and that also makes not one particle of sense. It could be part of SE, sure. The point is, though, that you would still live and have SE if you didn't remember. >> Preservation of subjective experience is more important than preservation >> of personal memory that includes memory of "self" > > Something in the future that remembers being you is the very definition of > survival; at least I'll be dammed if I can think of a better one. I disagree. The essence of survival is preservation of subjective experience, a sensation of presence in the moment, continued perception of reality. Whatever you choose to preserve, of course, is your choice. >> I don't expect anyone to fully imagine and internalize all this in a week > > What are you talking about, it's not like it's very deep. Yours is the > conventional interpretation believed by every Tom Dick and Harry, but the > conventional interpretation is wrong. It's funny because I perceive "brain pattern is you" theory as conventional, inadequate, illogical and obsolete. I believed that stuff a long time ago. >> A person can run only one instance of SE. > > Why not? Because any additional thread of processing reality would be subsumed by the original process. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Apr 26 22:12:39 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:12:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances Message-ID: <20060426221239.69802.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Natasha Vita-More natasha at natasha.cc wrote: I have been travelling recently and just returned to Austin and I found out that a someone had gotten into my online banking account and had written and authorized a payment check to be sent to an address in New Jersey. The amount was not trifling. Online banking is insured at my bank so after the last few days of stress, things have resumed to normal. We still do not know what happened, but it was probably a keystroke watch that got onto my computer and followed my moves. I'm really sorry to hear that Natasha. I hope they catch the person that did it. That's just wrong. I still can't understand what makes people malicious. I was actually wondering recently what I should do regarding my computer. I'm buying a new one and can't decide if I should put it on the internet. I want to work on video and music programs and I'm thinking it's saffer to just keep my old computer for the net. I was wondering what everybody else thought. Thanks Anna --------------------------------- 7 bucks a month. This is Huge Yahoo! Music Unlimited -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 01:34:01 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:34:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060426213011.56311.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Hi Heartland, > > Heartland Wrote: > > "So, a brain is a 3-D object. Mind is a 4-D object." > > I think you are mistaken here. A brain is definitely a 4-D object. It does > objectively survive the passage of time, does it not? Matter of any type is 4-D, > otherwise it is inaccessable from within this universe, IOW it would not be > matter if it was 3-D. Anything from 1-D to 3-D also exists/survives in 4-D. My point is that the fundamental nature of brain structure is 3-D while mind nature is 4-D. What I mean is that a projection of the brain from 4-D to 3-D retains the same functionality of the brain but it isn't possible to go lower than 3-D and still end up with a functional brain. Mind's true nature gets lost if projected down from 4-D. S. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Apr 27 00:48:54 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:48:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances Message-ID: <380-22006442704854500@M2W002.mail2web.com> You are a dear Anne-Marie. I'm fine now :-) > I was actually wondering recently what I should do regarding my > computer. I'm buying a new one and can't decide if I should put it on > the internet. I want to work on video and music programs and I'm > thinking it's saffer to just keep my old computer for the net. I was > wondering what everybody else thought. If I did not have to use my notebook for travelling, I might conceivably keep it real-time and loaded with multi-media software for design work only. But I cannot exist without access to the net. I'd probably put access on my shoelaces if I could. Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 01:56:48 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:56:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060426212125.95352.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey wrote: > That would be true if both the premises and the logic were perfectly sound. I > mean no offense, but I am not yet convinced by your argument: that we cannot be > continually dieing. None taken. I've never faced that type of counter argument before so my ability to clearly explain that a process exists during a multiple of Planck Interval, when, seemingly, "nothing happens," is still quite poor. I've already tried in one of these posts to form an explanation in terms of energy but apparently that wasn't very convincing. I'll try again when I get better at explaining this. Thanks for offering constructive criticism. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 02:17:23 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:17:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><07708EBA-D2A5-44B7-9607-CC2D82FD6039@ceruleansystems.com> <8ADDBB16-CECC-4F4E-A67F-F4E781417A07@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > It is information. All of it. Whether or not it is dynamic or > static, whether it is a "representation" or an "is", the information/ > algorithm is the same. > > You do not grok information. My disagreement follows from that. Please explain how any activity *itself* (not representation of it) is information. Isn't information merely a part of a system that organizes that activity? S. From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 03:29:35 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060427032937.7868.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> --- Heartland wrote: > > Heartland Wrote: > > > > "So, a brain is a 3-D object. Mind is a 4-D > > object." > > > > I think you are mistaken here. A brain is > > definitely a 4-D object. It does objectively > > survive the passage of time, does it not? > Anything from 1-D to 3-D also exists/survives in > 4-D. My point is that the fundamental nature of > brain structure is 3-D while mind nature is 4-D. > What I mean is that a projection of the brain from > 4-D to 3-D retains the same functionality of the > brain but it isn't possible to go lower than 3-D > and still end up with a functional brain. But "a functional brain" occurs in time, and a static brain frozen in time performs no functions. Virtually everything a brain does happens in time. And a lot of those things would NOT be defined as 'mind,' such as thermal regulation, growth-hormone secretion, etc. So we have non-mind brain functions that necessarily happen in time, that seems to be a counter example to the proposition above. ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jonkc at att.net Thu Apr 27 04:36:00 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:36:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain References: <20060426194104.90288.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002d01c669b4$191eda80$df084e0c@MyComputer> Jeffrey Herrlich Wrote: > I think it would be extremely interesting if this premise could be shown > to be true or at least probable, only because it would carry profound > philosophical implications. I don't think it would carry profound implications at all, all it would mean is the word "death" had been watered down so much as to be mean precisely nothing. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Thu Apr 27 04:30:07 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:30:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001901c669b3$58302310$df084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > My whole argument is based on 4-D perspective, >while people tend to apply > it to 3-D What magic does the number 4 have that the number 3 lacks? I don't give a hoot in hell how many dimensions there are, it's just the number of instructions needed to specify an object and has nothing to do with consciousness as consciousness is not an object. > 3-D perspective produces nonsense. But change the 3 into a 4 and it all makes perfect sense, not a 5 or a 10 or a 27, it can only be a 4. Baloney. >We all live in 3-D so it's hard to imagine at 4-D level We do not live in a 3d world as any high school physics student could tell you, and imagining 4d is very easy, 5d is another mater. As a matter of fact I find it difficult to imagine things except at a 4-D level. > I say it takes weeks or more to internalize this argument So if I work very very hard at it then in a few weeks I too could learn to be fearful of anesthesia just like you and the common folk of the 18'th century. No thank you, if I develop a gangrene infection in my leg and it needs to be sawed off I'm going to ask my doctor if it's not too much trouble to knock we out first. If it happened to you things would be different, you don't get the benefit of 200 years of medical advance and all you can do is bite on a stick like the poor bastards during the Civil War. >I don't think it should be very hard to follow the argument. It is very easy to follow your argument as there is almost nothing to follow. >The essence of survival is preservation of subjective experience And how does your future self know if his subjective experience has continued? If he remembers being you in the past; if you have found some other way please let me know. And how did you past self know his subjective experience would continue into the future? He didn't, he could only hope. > a sensation of presence in the moment My copy would have that. > continued perception of reality. My copy would have that too and it would all seem continuous to him, even if his mind slowed down, sped up, stopped for a billion years or even went backward. It would all seem the same to him as long as the environment did the same as in a virtual world. > I perceive "brain pattern is you" theory as conventional Joe Sixpack and 99.94% of the people on the street would agree with your theory, even most people on this apparently cutting edge list would agree with you. But they are wrong. > inadequate What observation is not explained? > illogical Explain what is contradictory. And strange is not the same as contradictory; if there were an exact duplicate of me you could find many strange situations, but no contradictions. >and obsolete. And what took its place, your childish ideas? You can have 4 dimensions or 44 and it won't help your "mind is an object and generic atoms that have absolutely no individuality can nevertheless somehow (in a way not explained) give individuality to us" theory. > any additional thread of processing reality would be subsumed by the > original process. But how could that duplicate thread know it was time to get subsumed, how does it even know about the original thread? There must be a communication channel, explain how that works. Is it effected by distance? Is it instantaneous? Could this new method of communication you have discovered be commercialized? How can I get the cell phone companies interested? John K Clark From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 04:32:08 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Bird Brian" - Not! Message-ID: <20060427043208.26747.qmail@web52605.mail.yahoo.com> Anyone whose had a pet bird knows the stupidity of the derogatory phase "bird brain." To the contrary, birds can be smart! Some of the best examples of animal intelligence come from birds. [1] Crows, for example, make tools to perform desired tasks. [2] And note that tool making involves deductive reasoning as opposed to inductive reasoning, which was formally assumed to account for all nonhuman thought. Now the University of California, San Diego reports what may be a new and important example of animal intelligence coming once again from our feathered friends. These findings may not only expand our understanding of nonhuman minds, but may also challenge prevailing theories of language: "The European starling [...] can learn syntactic patterns formerly thought to be the exclusive province of humans. Led by Timothy Q. Gentner, assistant professor of psychology at the University of California, San Diego, a study published in the April 27 issue of Nature demonstrates that starlings have the capacity to classify acoustic sequences defined by recursive, center-embedded grammars." Full Report: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/soc/gentner_starling06.asp ______________________________________________________ [1] African grey parrots have remarkable skills: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3430481.stm http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.htm [2] Crows make and use tools: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.shtml http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/media.shtml http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050115/fob7.asp http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1209_041209_crows_apes_2.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/av/crow_080802.ram http://IanGoddard.net __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 04:47:59 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060427044759.24615.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Martin Striz wrote: > Yes. If they could find a way to get here, they > could find a way not > to be detected. Our knowledge of their existence is > pure fantasy. Well the evidence in support of these "fantasies" is staggering: 1. There are 375 photographs of UFOs quite a few dating from BEFORE the invention of technology to alter photographs. There are also a handful of videos of UFOs. http://www.ufoevidence.org/ 2. There are newspaper articles about them. 3. There are 4000 eyewitness accounts of people both reputable and not including two US presidents who claim to have seen them as well as people who claim "abduction". 4. There are government reports on them and sworn affidavits attesting to them. 5. There are alleged landing sites that are radioactive according to geiger-counter wielding "experts". 6. There are numerous non-profit organizations devoted to their study. 7. There was a historic military confrontation with one or more UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS during World War II: http://www.militarymuseum.org/BattleofLA.html 8. At least 2 extropes on this list have personally seen a UFO. If even 99% of these are hoaxes, this still amounts to on the order of 100 solid data points in FAVOR of the existense of UFOs. On the other hand there is one piece of evidence that seems to indicate that extra-terrestrial intelligence doesn't exist: Fermi's Paradox. There has been no radio communications of extra terrestrial intelligence detected. Of course if this is sufficient NEGATIVE EVIDENCE to rule out the existense of extra-terrestrial intelligence then I suppose every girl that I have left messages for that did not call me back ought to be construed to be either non-existent or non-intelligent. In the world of scientific inquiry (and legal proceedings for that matter) hear-say does not cut the mustard. So with all due respect to Eliezer and the other fanatically skeptical people on this list, your OPINION and clever quotes are irrelevant when weighed against mountains of EVIDENCE. > For centuries people were visited by incubi and > succubi, or talking > animals. Since the "space age" starting in the > 1920s, people have > been visited by aliens. It's the same archetypical > psychological > phenomenon with culturally-specified manifestations. The ancient Greeks believed the sun to to be a chariot driven across the sky by Apollo. The ancient Egyptians believed the sun was rolled across the sky by a giant dung beetle. Just because these people believed in culturally specific manifestations of the sun does not mean that the sun is merely a psychological phenomenon. > I haven't seen the data on this (perhaps you know?), > but it seems that > the height of UFO sightings was the period 1950 - > 1980. Some > psychologists have suggested that this hysteria was > a result of Cold > War anxiety mixed with Sci Fi culture. Here are websites that shows the frequency of sightings by year. http://www.larryhatch.net/50YEARS.html http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/amazur/hatchufodata.html But the earliest known photo dates back to the 1890s and strange flying objects have been reported since ancient times. For example Elijah being carried away to heaven in a "chariot of fire" according to Judeo-Christian myth. > > Or maybe the aliens just lost interest? I am not going to speculate on the motives of beings I do not understand. But if the frequency distribution of sightings is accurate it seems that their interest in us seems to wax and wane in cycles. This may be indicative of travel times or study cycles (maybe they have to apply for grants to study us like Earth scientists.) Sightings do seem to peak during war time for whatever reason. Maybe the increased radio chatter or all the explosions are to blame. Who knows. In any case my gut tells me this. Things that happen only once are anomalies. The skeptics would have one believe that intelligent life only happened ONCE in a universe of literally BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of opportunities. Thus according to the Drake Equation, the reason the Great Silence is a paradox is not because it is unlikely that extra-terrestrial intelligence exists but that it is almost certain to. So why haven't they contacted us? Is it because we are the only intelligent beings in the vast universe? Or is it because they have chosen to snub us? Do the babes I have left messages for exist? Or have they chosen to snub me? These are difficult mysteries to solve. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -St. Einstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 06:15:40 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:15:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427032937.7868.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >> > Heartland Wrote: >> > >> > "So, a brain is a 3-D object. Mind is a 4-D >> > object." >> > >> > I think you are mistaken here. A brain is >> > definitely a 4-D object. It does objectively >> > survive the passage of time, does it not? > >> Anything from 1-D to 3-D also exists/survives in >> 4-D. My point is that the fundamental nature of >> brain structure is 3-D while mind nature is 4-D. >> What I mean is that a projection of the brain from >> 4-D to 3-D retains the same functionality of the >> brain but it isn't possible to go lower than 3-D >> and still end up with a functional brain. > > > But "a functional brain" occurs in time, and a static > brain frozen in time performs no functions. What the brain *does* through matter in space and time is a 4-D object. There is a clear distinction between hardware, software, and an activity which both hardware and software determine. Brain is not the mind. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 07:21:08 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:21:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer> <001901c669b3$58302310$df084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: >> My whole argument is based on 4-D perspective, >>while people tend to apply > it to 3-D John K. Clark wrote: > What magic does the number 4 have that the number 3 lacks? I don't give a > hoot in hell how many dimensions there are, it's just the number of > instructions needed to specify an object and has nothing to do with > consciousness as consciousness is not an object. "The number of instructions needed to specify an object?" Do you honestly think it's that simple? I wish. >> 3-D perspective produces nonsense. > > But change the 3 into a 4 and it all makes perfect sense, not a 5 or a 10 or > a 27, it can only be a 4. Baloney. Yup, change 3 to a 4 and it makes perfect sense. :) > >We all live in 3-D so it's hard to imagine at 4-D level > > We do not live in a 3d world as any high school physics student could tell > you, and imagining 4d is very easy, 5d is another mater. As a matter of fact > I find it difficult to imagine things except at a 4-D level. If it's so easy then why is it so hard to understand? >>I don't think it should be very hard to follow the argument. > > It is very easy to follow your argument as there is almost nothing to > follow. I have seen no indication of you following any part of my argument, sorry. >>The essence of survival is preservation of subjective experience > > And how does your future self know if his subjective experience has > continued? Why does this even matter? If I'm alive what difference does it make if I remember or don't remember what happened yesterday? I'm still alive. This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or not. >> a sensation of presence in the moment > > My copy would have that. So what. Meanwhile, you would be dead (original SE ended). >> continued perception of reality. > > My copy would have that too and it would all seem continuous to him, even if > his mind slowed down, sped up, stopped for a billion years or even went > backward. It would all seem the same to him as long as the environment did > the same as in a virtual world. Again, so what. "My copy" is not me. I don't care what my copy's subjective experience is. I'm not plugged into it because I'm dead. >> I perceive "brain pattern is you" theory as conventional > > Joe Sixpack and 99.94% of the people on the street would agree with your > theory, even most people on this apparently cutting edge list would agree > with you. But they are wrong. It's not like that at all. 99% of people on the street and vast majority of transhumanists would say that preserving brain structure is enough for "resurrection." And then you have very few people who think this is an oversimplification and that preservation of "patterns" is far from enough. >> illogical > > Explain what is contradictory. And strange is not the same as contradictory; > if there were an exact duplicate of me you could find many strange > situations, but no contradictions. A person can have only one mind. Two copies produce two instances of a mind. Since a person can have only one mind it must be that two instances of a mind belong to different people. And if so, then the original instance of mind belongs to a different person as well, the one who happens to be dead. >>and obsolete. > > And what took its place, your childish ideas? Hopefully. They are not childish. That's just your tone. >> any additional thread of processing reality would be subsumed by the >> original process. > > But how could that duplicate thread know it was time to get subsumed, how > does it even know about the original thread? There must be a communication > channel, explain how that works. Is it effected by distance? Is it instantaneous? Could this new method of communication you have discovered be commercialized? How can I get the cell phone companies interested? How does a water stream know when another joins it? Is there a communication channel? Is it affected by distance? Is it instantaneous? Could this new method of combining liquids be commercialized? How can I get Coca-Cola company interested? S. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 12:17:28 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:17:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: 1940s UFO [and class warfare in the U.S.] Mindset In-Reply-To: <444FA217.8050300@pobox.com> References: <444EDEAD.2050707@mindspring.com> <444FA217.8050300@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 4/26/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > > You youngsters are very close to losing your country. > > > > Wendy Connors > > We know. > > You're very close to losing your planet. > So? *Who* wants to live at the bottom of a gravity well *anyway*? Just build a couple of million more with better designs. Think of all the energy that would be saved -- no need for a flying car if humans can fly. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Thu Apr 27 13:16:36 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:16:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider giving apes human-level rights Message-ID: I may not be as radical as George Dvorsky but I am a great supporter of Great Ape rights. I see the move to non-anthropocentric personhood rights as a central agenda item for transhumanism, one of its defining ideas along with human enhancement technologies. The debate needs to be how far beyond humans we grant rights/moral-standing, not whether we transcend human-racism or not. - J. Hughes http://www.spainherald.com/3438.html Socialists: Give apes human rights Spain Herald The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans. The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests "the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species." According to the Project, "Today only members of the species Homo sapiens are considered part of the community of equals. The chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the orangutan are our species's closest relatives. They possess sufficient mental faculties and emotional life to justify their inclusion in the community of equals." From hemm at openlink.com.br Thu Apr 27 12:30:33 2006 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:30:33 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs References: <20060427044759.24615.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00cc01c669f6$61d5ca30$1ee4aac8@cpd01> ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Avantguardian" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:47 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs > 1. There are 375 photographs of UFOs quite a few > dating from BEFORE the invention of technology to > alter photographs. There are also a handful of videos AFAIK, the technology to alter photos is as old as photography itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 13:45:34 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain In-Reply-To: <002d01c669b4$191eda80$df084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060427134534.2850.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi John, John wrote: "I don't think it would carry profound implications at all, all it would mean is the word "death" had been watered down so much as to be mean precisely nothing." I have to disagree with you here. I would consider your statement above as a profound implication, all its own. If the premise were shown to be correct, consider the implications for religion [which I don't follow anyway]. God and Heaven/Hell have been *proven* not to exist. The "Afterlife" has been *proven* not to exist. The physical substance of my brain has been *proven* to exist. And it would lend evidence to the conclusion that this universe is not a simulation, and the universe we live in is basically as it appears - no tricks, just complexities. (I need some more time to think about this last one). I would guess that the majority of list members here have already concluded that the above statements are correct... but, we would finally have proof. But, I still need to show somehow that the premise is correct. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich John K Clark wrote: Jeffrey Herrlich Wrote: > I think it would be extremely interesting if this premise could be shown > to be true or at least probable, only because it would carry profound > philosophical implications. I don't think it would carry profound implications at all, all it would mean is the word "death" had been watered down so much as to be mean precisely nothing. John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Apr 27 14:15:05 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:15:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider giving apes human-level rights Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060427090630.02f5f6b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:16 AM 4/27/2006, James Hughes wrote: Instead of wearing my own picture (or of my children) on one of my office passes, I wear a picture of an orangutan because he/she is my family. I'm glad George is taking a stand. Thanks for posting this message. >According to the Project, "Today only members of the species Homo >sapiens are considered part of the community of equals. The chimpanzee, >the gorilla, and the orangutan are our species's closest relatives. They >possess sufficient mental faculties and emotional life to justify their >inclusion in the community of equals." Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Apr 27 14:18:51 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:18:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <20060427044759.24615.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604271421.k3REL3GS015625@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > ... I suppose every > girl that I have left messages for that did not call > me back ought to be construed to be either > non-existent or non-intelligent...Avantguardian Avant, I always went with the non-intelligent explanation. I had overwhelming evidence that they existed. Either that or they just thought I was the geekiest dweeb they ever saw. {8^D spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 14:34:21 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:34:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter? In-Reply-To: <444FA09A.3040401@posthuman.com> References: <380-22006442019279578@M2W008.mail2web.com> <444FA09A.3040401@posthuman.com> Message-ID: On 4/26/06, Brian Atkins wrote: > > Oh, one other thing - stop using Internet Explorer if you commonly browse > with it, and make sure you keep up to date on your Windows patches, > including Office software patches. "Like, Oh My Gawd!" you are still using Windows?!? (said in my best val-girl voice). As noted on several discussions on /. -- given the current frequency of attacks on the web it is difficult to do a new install and download the patches and do the upgrades *before* your machine becomes infected. This is not simply a Windows problem -- I had an open sshd server for a few days and there were at least 2 attempts of "general" login cracking (throwing a variety of "common" user names at the machine) during that period (one from Russia and one from China). The machine is also port scanned (looking for communication ports which have possibly unpatched security holes) every couple of days. These attempts come from all around the world. Security counts! (You think we have problems now... just think of what happens when the "F"AI cracks the security protocols for your body emplaced nanorobots.) I've been using Linux 2.6.12+ and Firefox almost exclusively for 5+ months now [1] and it works fine. I've even got Windows 2K running under "Parallels" [2] in a virtual machine (VM) under Linux though I'm working on moving to Xen which is open source. The Parallels solution is good in many situations because though you can connect it to the network and anything that you "pick up" by accident can only cause a problem with the virtual machine. If you've got large hard drives you just make a copy of the entire VM disk (takes minutes to copay a 1-1.5GB fully installed C: partition). If Windows picks up a bad bug you just copy the "pure" post-install C: partition back onto the corrupted one. You have to be a little clever about this as you don't want to store any work files, etc. on the C: partition since you may need to overwrite it. In this case you simply do something like email your data to your gmail account (offsite backup) or store it on a USB Flash Drive (got a great deal on a 2 GB flash drive which can store anything but large #'s of music/video files which can be mounted under both Linux & Parallels). [3] Alternatively, you *can* use Wine under Linux instead of Parallels or Xen. This provides Windows emulation which will work fine for most Windows programs. You can run them directly off of an installed C: partition on your disk (something you can't do currently with Parallels). There are a few programs where the Windows emulation is still lacking but Wine development is moving very quickly. Obviously Linux, Firefox & Wine/Xen are open source, are "*free*! as in beer, and from the "security bug" perspective are likely to have fewer bugs or have them fixed more quickly -- at least if you believe Eric Raymond's "With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow" argument. For people who have never "dabbled" in Linux before, I started with Gentoo which has a good package managment system and extensive documentation -- but Ubuntu seems to have a much easier installation process for the novices (its being engineered for non-technical people so it really has to be). Also for those who don't want to "switch" over right away, you can now run Linux from a variety of "LiveCD"s meaning you don't have to deal with changes to your drive configuration until you decide you like it. [4] Robert 1. I'm not a UNIX "newbie" as I first started using the *real* UNIX in 1974. I used Unix and/or Linux for server applications since the mid-'90s but this is my first long-term use of Linux as a desktop machine on relatively robust hardware. 2. Parallels costs ~$50 which is tolerable vs. VMWare which costs ~$200. 3. While Linux 2.6 will run on *old* machines (I've got it on a 75MHz Pentium with 96MB of memory), if you want to run X-windows, Firefox or virtual machines you need at least mid-range Pentium 3 or 4 and a minimum of 512MB of memory (1GB *much* better). Firefox, if you leave it running for a couple of days and visit a lot of pages *will* eat memory and eventually drive the machine into the ground (Windows or Linux). But if you regularly restart it there will not be any problems. (This is a fundamental architectural problem that they are aware of, and fingers-crossed, will hopefully be fixed sometime this year.) [Also as a personal plug -- if you are thinking about new machines -- seriously look at something with AMD processor(s) -- AMD is very much ahead of the curve compared with Intel IMO. AMD's open hypertransport protocol is allowing DRC in the UK to design FPGA processors which can do lots of things [5,6,7] in muti-socket AMD motherboards better than the general purpose processors can.) 4. I'm happy to answer questions on this via email since its rather a technical discussion for the ExI list (Subject change presumably required at least). 5. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/21/drc_fpga_module/print.html 6. http://www.drccomputer.com/pages/company.html 7. Of course various people may ask why do I want a FPGA coprocessor in my multi-socket AMD motherboard? Obviously to run molecular modeling simulations for nanorobot parts that you have designed (a much more useful activity timewise than say rebuilding motorcycles, hanging out in virtual worlds, etc.). Now of course if you've hacked the processors on your PS3 to run the simulations as well and have them cooperating with you PC ((Cell+GPU) <--> (AMD+DRC)) you have a *real* kick-ass setup at home. Gives one real justification for going out and getting a very large HDTV to have running the nanopart simulations on when family or friends come over for Thanksgiving or Christmas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Thu Apr 27 14:46:29 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:46:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: 1940s UFO [and class warfare in the U.S.] Mindset In-Reply-To: References: <444EDEAD.2050707@mindspring.com> <444FA217.8050300@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4450D945.2060304@pobox.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 4/26/06, *Eliezer S. Yudkowsky* wrote: > > > You youngsters are very close to losing your country. > > > > Wendy Connors > > We know. > > You're very close to losing your planet. > > So? *Who* wants to live at the bottom of a gravity well *anyway*? I wasn't talking about global warming. Or bird flu. Or an asteroid strike. Or grey goo. Or any other minor disaster limited to one planet. But this planet is presently all we have, so, for the sake of brief replies, I cut it short. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Apr 27 14:24:57 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:24:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: 1940s UFO [and classwarfare in the U.S.] Mindset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604271509.k3RF94nS003529@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 5:17 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FWD (UFO UpDate) Re: 1940s UFO [and classwarfare in the U.S.] Mindset On 4/26/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > You youngsters are very close to losing your country. > > Wendy Connors We know. You're very close to losing your planet... Oh yea? Well YOU are close to losing your solar system! Oh yea? Well YOU are close to losing your galaxy! Oh yea? Well YOU are close to losing the entire Virgo supercluster! {8^D spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Apr 27 14:34:07 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:34:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Bird Brian" - Not! In-Reply-To: <20060427043208.26747.qmail@web52605.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604271509.k3RF9FfG004494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard > Subject: [extropy-chat] "Bird Brian" - Not! > > Anyone whose had a pet bird knows the stupidity of the > derogatory phase "bird brain." To the contrary, birds > can be smart! ... http://IanGoddard.net Anyone who thinks birds are stupid should spend some time watching seagulls. At the McDonalds near here, the seagulls have learned that if they do flybys just right, the diners will toss them french fries. They can catch them in the air! Now that is a trick, if you think about it. They catch them more than half the time, and the misses can be attributed often to bad throws. I have seen seagulls lie: the male pretends he has an injured leg in order to encourage the big ugly thing (me) to come after him instead of his flock of chicks and their mamas. Last week I was out walking and saw a seagull with something in his mouth. I assumed it was a shellfish of some sort. He dropped it, then swooped down and caught it in the air, after it had fallen about a couple meters. Then he dropped it again, swooped down, missed it this time. It fell, I went over, saw that it was a pebble, not any food of any kind. That bird was just playing. Play is a sign of intelligence in otters and chimps, so now we see it in birds too. spike From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 14:19:24 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider giving apes human-level rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060427141924.41911.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi James, I strongly agree. Reducing or eliminating animal suffering should be a high priority post-Singularity. My view on this might seem extreme, but I would recommend safely enhancing animals to be roughly on par with human intelligence (I suppose some instincts will need to be tweeked), and beyond if that is their choice. In my opinion, after million(s) of years of supporting (proto)humans in various painful ways, we owe them a favor. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich "Hughes, James J." wrote: I may not be as radical as George Dvorsky but I am a great supporter of Great Ape rights. I see the move to non-anthropocentric personhood rights as a central agenda item for transhumanism, one of its defining ideas along with human enhancement technologies. The debate needs to be how far beyond humans we grant rights/moral-standing, not whether we transcend human-racism or not. - J. Hughes http://www.spainherald.com/3438.html Socialists: Give apes human rights Spain Herald The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans. The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests "the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species." According to the Project, "Today only members of the species Homo sapiens are considered part of the community of equals. The chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the orangutan are our species's closest relatives. They possess sufficient mental faculties and emotional life to justify their inclusion in the community of equals." _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Thu Apr 27 15:35:38 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:35:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider giving apeshuman-level rights Message-ID: > I would recommend > safely enhancing animals to be roughly on par with human intelligence In Citizen Cyborg I argue that great ape "uplift" is a moral obligation, on the same grounds that if we had the ability to prevent or cure retardation in a child we would be obliged to do so. How we go about it is complicated, since I wouldn't want to see all great apes in the wild rounded up and subjected to medical experimentation to achieve it. But rescuing apes from poachers and habitat destruction is already on the table, and experiments with cogniive enhancement drugs, gene tweaks and brain machines are one of the few ethical ways that apes could be subjected to research without consent since they would benefit from it as much as we would. See this interesting report for more conservative ruminations on the prospect: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5733/385 Science, Vol 309, Issue 5733, 385-386 , 15 July 2005 Moral Issues of Human-Non-Human Primate Neural Grafting "...it might even be argued that such changes constitute a potential benefit to the engrafted animal, insofar as the changes are viewed as enhancements of the sort we value for ourselves..." ------------------------ James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 (office) 860-297-2376 director at ieet.org From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 16:36:22 2006 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:36:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider givingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Isn't this a bit fascist to force a species to upgrade and achieve a higher intelligence. I don't think you need to "uplift" any species until they are capable of asking for it. You wouldn't support the idea of rounding up all the 85-IQers and forceably making them geniuses, why apes? This strikes me of the hubris of the 19th (and earlier) century Europeans who thought they were doing the world such a favor by "civilizing" more primitive cultures. How did that work out? BAL >From: "Hughes, James J." >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: "ExI chat list" >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider >givingapeshuman-level rights > > > I would recommend > > safely enhancing animals to be roughly on par with human intelligence > >In Citizen Cyborg I argue that great ape "uplift" is a moral obligation, >on the same grounds that if we had the ability to prevent or cure >retardation in a child we would be obliged to do so. How we go about it >is complicated, since I wouldn't want to see all great apes in the wild >rounded up and subjected to medical experimentation to achieve it. But >rescuing apes from poachers and habitat destruction is already on the >table, and experiments with cogniive enhancement drugs, gene tweaks and >brain machines are one of the few ethical ways that apes could be >subjected to research without consent since they would benefit from it >as much as we would. > >See this interesting report for more conservative ruminations on the >prospect: > >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5733/385 > >Science, Vol 309, Issue 5733, 385-386 , 15 July 2005 > >Moral Issues of Human-Non-Human Primate Neural Grafting > >"...it might even be argued that such changes constitute a potential >benefit to the engrafted animal, insofar as the changes are viewed as >enhancements of the sort we value for ourselves..." > >------------------------ >James Hughes Ph.D. >Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies >http://ieet.org >Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology >http://jetpress.org >Williams 229B, Trinity College >300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 >(office) 860-297-2376 >director at ieet.org > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 16:39:36 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:39:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter? In-Reply-To: References: <380-22006442019279578@M2W008.mail2web.com> <444FA09A.3040401@posthuman.com> Message-ID: On 4/27/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > 3. While Linux 2.6 will run on *old* machines (I've got it on a 75MHz > Pentium with 96MB of memory), if you want to run X-windows, Firefox or > virtual machines you need at least mid-range Pentium 3 or 4 and a minimum of > 512MB of memory (1GB *much* better). The small Linux versions like Puppy or DSL run quite adequately on old pcs. I have an old Compaq 90MHz Pentium 1 laptop, 72MB of memory, with Puppy, DSL and Win98 multibooting. You can use the old pc for all your email and browsing while the main pc runs molecular modelling and heats the room. :) BillK From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 15:55:32 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060427155532.73286.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Heartland wrote: > >> > "So, a brain is a 3-D object. Mind is a 4-D > >> > object." > >> Anything from 1-D to 3-D also exists/survives in > >> 4-D. My point is that the fundamental nature of > >> brain structure is 3-D while mind nature is 4-D. > >> What I mean is that a projection of the brain > >> from 4-D to 3-D retains the same functionality > >> of the brain but it isn't possible to go lower > >> than 3-D and still end up with a functional > >> brain. > > > > > > But "a functional brain" occurs in time, and a > > static brain frozen in time performs no functions. > > What the brain *does* through matter in space and > time is a 4-D object. There is a clear distinction > between hardware, software, and an activity which > both hardware and software determine. Brain is not > the mind. I presented an ostensible counter example to your claim [*] yet your response ignores it and instead addresses a claim I never made. I never said there was no distinction between hardware (brain) software (mind). I said there's no such thing as a brain that has any "functionality" minus time and that brain functions not associated with 'mind' exist as discernable functions in time, ie, the 4th D. Your claim seems to point in the right direction in that mind involves what a brain does. 'Mind' is like a verb whereas 'brain' is more like a noun. But my point is that the actual phenomena do not allow such a perfect distinction. Brain functions that are not involved in producing what we call 'mind' but that are features that define 'brain' are also properly verb like, or temporally embedded. So the claim atop this post appears to be soundly falsified. ~Ian [*] http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-April/026461.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Thu Apr 27 17:27:34 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:27:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights Message-ID: > Isn't this a bit fascist to force a species to upgrade and > achieve a higher intelligence. I'm not talking about obligations to species, but to individual beings. Is it fascist to make your kid eat spinach or go to school, even though they don't want to? No, in fact it is immoral not to make them do these things. Because they do not yet have the capacity to decide for themselves whether they would benefit. One of the reasons we have a moral obligation to make kids go to school is so they will eventually become self-governing adults who can make decisions for themselves. The same logic applies to apes. In fact, although it has to be done so cautiously and with full awareness of its previous imperialist abuses, it also applies to the relations between advanced societies and simpler societies (see debate over the benefits of colonialism and the Prime Directive etc.) One example - the British outlawed the practice of widow-burning in India and left them with a liberal democratic government, whereas before they had widow-burning monarchies. > I don't think you need to "uplift" any species until they are > capable of asking for it. If a person is mentally retarded, and you have a cure, but they are incapable of understanding or requesting the cure, what is your obligation? > You wouldn't support the idea of rounding up all the 85-IQers > and forceably making them geniuses, why apes? People with IQs of 85 aren't considered retarded and can give meaningful consent. Retardation is generally below 70, and many retarded adults should still be treated as at least co-consenters with their caregivers. But yes under a certain level of function I think it is will be our obligation to provide cognitive therapy to a retarded person even if the parent/guardian objects. Refusing to provide a cure for retardation to a person in your care is morally the same as putting them that condition to begin with, and society has an obligation to intervene. ------------------------ James Hughes Ph.D. Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies http://ieet.org Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology http://jetpress.org Williams 229B, Trinity College 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 (office) 860-297-2376 director at ieet.org From sentience at pobox.com Thu Apr 27 17:34:38 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:34:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider givingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445100AE.6030904@pobox.com> Brian Lee wrote: > Isn't this a bit fascist to force a species to upgrade and achieve a higher > intelligence. > > I don't think you need to "uplift" any species until they are capable of > asking for it. If they're not capable of objecting, why not? > You wouldn't support the idea of rounding up all the 85-IQers and forceably > making them geniuses, why apes? I'm not sure I'd support the idea of humans doing this. But if a (CEV-based) FAI did so, I wouldn't suspect it of malfunctioning on that account. I doubt that an IQ of 160 is anywhere near high enough to really grok the consequences of having an IQ of 200. At best, someone with an IQ of 160 might be able to comprehend their own incompetence. What use is it to make a decision you can't understand? > This strikes me of the hubris of the 19th (and earlier) century Europeans > who thought they were doing the world such a favor by "civilizing" more > primitive cultures. How did that work out? Not well. Humans aren't very good at predicting the consequences of their actions, knowing when they're genuinely acting on someone else's behalf as opposed to indulging the temptation to meddle, or figuring out what makes people happy. I will say that human beings messing with apes via gene grafts strikes me as a horror-show. The people who suggest this have no concept whatsoever of the brain's complexity, they think in terms of magical essences of intelligence. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From brian_a_lee at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 17:41:23 2006 From: brian_a_lee at hotmail.com (Brian Lee) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:41:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-levelrights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The difference between your own child and apes is quite extreme. It's fascist to walk into someone else's house and force all the children there to each spinach because it is good for them. Again, there's a difference from withholding a cure and forcing a cure. There's a whole line of concerned mothers who refuse to vaccinate their children, should you (or the state) force vaccinations because you think it is best for them? A similar line of reasoning goes for Apes. Imagine being an ape, roaming around in the woods or grassland or whatever. Suddenly somebody plugs something into your brain and you become a modern man. You think this is a moral obligation? Ever read "Brave New World"? Remember what happened to John Spartan when a "morally advanced" culture tried to uplift him? Even if we were absolutely certain that uplift is positive, the "moral obligation"/"white man's burden" is still extremely hazy. Given our limited understanding of what is best, I think all haze disappears. BAL >From: "Hughes, James J." >To: "ExI chat list" >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists >considergivingapeshuman-levelrights >Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:27:34 -0400 > > > > Isn't this a bit fascist to force a species to upgrade and > > achieve a higher intelligence. > >I'm not talking about obligations to species, but to individual beings. > >Is it fascist to make your kid eat spinach or go to school, even though >they don't want to? > >No, in fact it is immoral not to make them do these things. Because they >do not yet have the capacity to decide for themselves whether they would >benefit. One of the reasons we have a moral obligation to make kids go >to school is so they will eventually become self-governing adults who >can make decisions for themselves. > >The same logic applies to apes. > >In fact, although it has to be done so cautiously and with full >awareness of its previous imperialist abuses, it also applies to the >relations between advanced societies and simpler societies (see debate >over the benefits of colonialism and the Prime Directive etc.) One >example - the British outlawed the practice of widow-burning in India >and left them with a liberal democratic government, whereas before they >had widow-burning monarchies. > > > I don't think you need to "uplift" any species until they are > > capable of asking for it. > >If a person is mentally retarded, and you have a cure, but they are >incapable of understanding or requesting the cure, what is your >obligation? > > > You wouldn't support the idea of rounding up all the 85-IQers > > and forceably making them geniuses, why apes? > >People with IQs of 85 aren't considered retarded and can give meaningful >consent. Retardation is generally below 70, and many retarded adults >should still be treated as at least co-consenters with their caregivers. >But yes under a certain level of function I think it is will be our >obligation to provide cognitive therapy to a retarded person even if the >parent/guardian objects. Refusing to provide a cure for retardation to a >person in your care is morally the same as putting them that condition >to begin with, and society has an obligation to intervene. > >------------------------ >James Hughes Ph.D. >Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies >http://ieet.org >Editor, Journal of Evolution and Technology >http://jetpress.org >Williams 229B, Trinity College >300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 >(office) 860-297-2376 >director at ieet.org > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 17:45:15 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:45:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] Message-ID: On 4/27/06, BillK wrote: > > The small Linux versions like Puppy or DSL run quite adequately on old > pcs. > I have an old Compaq 90MHz Pentium 1 laptop, 72MB of memory, with > Puppy, DSL and Win98 multibooting. You can use the old pc for all your > email and browsing while the main pc runs molecular modelling and > heats the room. :) Nothing wrong with that though I think DSL and perhaps Puppy are still based on Linux 2.4. 2.6 is "supposed" to better for interactive use (though Firefox's abuse of the VM system is making it difficult for me to accept that premise). Though I will admit that Linux is beginning to venture into the land of "complete" bloatware. Lord knows what it will end up like once 8-layer BluRay disks that can store 200 Gb become popular as a distribution medium... (Fedora already consumes ~3.3GB on a DVD disk). Linux *should* be able to run on small systems. A relatively robustly configured 2.6.16 kernel for the Pentium 4 still weighs in at < 4MB (program+data w/o buffers). I can still read mail using Pine which avoids the absolute requirement for "X" (using X stretches the 96MB system). And of course it is used in routers like the Linksys which only have something like 4-8MB of memory total (I think). If you revert to older browsers such as Netscape 4 and keep the desktop as "light" as possible (GNOME isn't 'lightweight' but it isn't as bad as KDE) then you could probably get by with 256MB, perhaps even 128MB. But *many* more web sites that are informative (NY Times and Kurzweil AI come to mind) almost require you to use Javascript [1] (bad, bad, web provider -- I shouldn't have to run *your* program on *my* computer to see the content). Fortunately there are enough sites such as Google, Gmail & Amazon that "get it" and don't require you to enable Javascript to browse & use their sites effectively. Robert 1. Side note: Firefox works best (for me) with some extensions, esp. NoScript (selectively disable/enable Javascript); AdBlock (selectively block various ads) & Session Manager (lets you save & restore complete sessions in case Firefox memory usage gets out of hand). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 18:06:31 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:06:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <20060427044759.24615.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060427044759.24615.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/27/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Martin Striz wrote: > > Yes. If they could find a way to get here, they > > could find a way not > > to be detected. Our knowledge of their existence is > > pure fantasy. > > Well the evidence in support of these "fantasies" is > staggering: > > 1. There are 375 photographs of UFOs quite a few > dating from BEFORE the invention of technology to > alter photographs. There are also a handful of videos > of UFOs. http://www.ufoevidence.org/ Ambiguous and inconclusive. > 2. There are newspaper articles about them. Well, I'm convinced. You win. I know that the newspapers never lie. > 3. There are 4000 eyewitness accounts of people both > reputable and not including two US presidents who > claim to have seen them as well as people who claim > "abduction". Ambiguous and inconclusive. Eyewitness accounts are particularly unreliable given the human penchant for confabulation, exaggeration, fantasizing, and poor observation. > 4. There are government reports on them and sworn > affidavits attesting to them. Ambiguous and inconclusive, especially when based on eyewitness testimony. > 5. There are alleged landing sites that are > radioactive according to geiger-counter wielding > "experts". Ambiguos and inconclusive. > 6. There are numerous non-profit organizations devoted > to their study. Meaningless. This in particular is not evidence for aliens. There are thousands of religions. I don't consider that to be evidence for God's existence. > 7. There was a historic military confrontation with > one or more UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS during World > War II: > http://www.militarymuseum.org/BattleofLA.html Ambiguous and inconclusive. > 8. At least 2 extropes on this list have personally > seen a UFO. Heh, well, no comment. > If even 99% of these are hoaxes, this still amounts to > on the order of 100 solid data points in FAVOR of the > existense of UFOs. I'm not saying they are hoaxes. I believe most people are sincere in what they believe. I'm saying they are WRONG. If human beings were neutral truth-seeking machines with accurate observational modes, I might be inclined to give this "data" some merit. But I know that human psychology is tragically flawed, which renders this data unreliable. People can see a lot of stuff -- that doesn't mean it's there. They see aliens and ghosts and swaying and crying statues of the Virgin Mary and Big Foot and even a lot of natural phenomena that aren't really there. When people are scared, their senses become hypersensitive to stimuli, calling a lot of false positives (a trade off worth making when you perceive that you are in danger). It is no coincidence that almost all of these "encounters" happen at night, when people are alone. And despite all of the data that you just cited, there is not a single piece of clear, incontrivertible, documented evidence. To me, that suggests a psychological phenomenon, not an ontological one. > In the world of scientific inquiry (and legal > proceedings for that matter) hear-say does not cut the > mustard. Halleluja. Case closed. Martin From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Apr 27 18:11:17 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:11:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider giving apes human-level rights In-Reply-To: <20060427141924.41911.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060427141924.41911.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <87E91770-770A-47DC-9976-683433BA4F94@mac.com> While the great apes are near enough genetically that I believe they should not be abused in any way it is sheer nonsense to claim they are equals or that they have the same rights as human beings. I don't see the point in strutting about regarding uplift of various animals when the very survival much less uplift of humanity is far from in the bag. - samantha On Apr 27, 2006, at 7:19 AM, A B wrote: > Hi James, > > I strongly agree. Reducing or eliminating animal suffering should > be a high > priority post-Singularity. My view on this might seem extreme, but > I would recommend > safely enhancing animals to be roughly on par with human > intelligence (I suppose some instincts will need to be tweeked), > and beyond if that is their choice. In my > opinion, after million(s) of years of supporting (proto)humans in > various painful ways, we owe them a favor. > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich > > "Hughes, James J." wrote: > > I may not be as radical as George Dvorsky but I am a great > supporter of > Great Ape rights. I see the move to non-anthropocentric personhood > rights as a central agenda item for transhumanism, one of its defining > ideas along with human enhancement technologies. The debate needs > to be > how far beyond humans we grant rights/moral-standing, not whether we > transcend human-racism or not. - J. Hughes > > http://www.spainherald.com/3438.html > > Socialists: Give apes human rights > > Spain Herald > > The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of > Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the > category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal > protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The > PSOE's > justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with > chimpanzees, > 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans. > > The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference > tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN > declaration > on simian rights which would defend ape interests "the same as > those of > minors and the mentally handicapped of our species." > > According to the Project, "Today only members of the species Homo > sapiens are considered part of the community of equals. The > chimpanzee, > the gorilla, and the orangutan are our species's closest relatives. > They > possess sufficient mental faculties and emotional life to justify > their > inclusion in the community of equals." > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu Apr 27 17:59:40 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:59:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer><001901c669b3$58302310$df084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002801c66a24$69523540$fd084e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, you wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or not" if true I can't help but wonder why you used the word "my". But no matter, when I mentioned that my copy would be able to experience the presence in the moment you responded "So what. Meanwhile, you would be dead". Do I really have to point out the profound contradiction in this? > "The number of instructions needed to specify an object?" Do you honestly > think it's that simple? That is the definition of a dimension, 3 sets of instructions is not enough for me to find an object, 4 is, that why we say there are 4 dimensions. But of course it is all irrelevant as mind is not an object. > "My copy" is not me. Ah, the constant song of the true believer, but why not, what "me" property does the copy lack, a soul? I make a copy of you as exact as Heisenberg allows and destroy the original a nanosecond later. No conscious entity can report a subjective difference; No conscious entity can report a objective difference, and yet you insist even though it is imposable to detect a difference in ANY way by ANYONE there is still a huge difference. That is not science that's not even philosophy, it's theology and that is crap. > 99% of people on the street and vast majority of > transhumanists would say that preserving brain structure is enough for > "resurrection." I could be wrong but I have a hunch I have more experience in this matter than you do. I can remember having this same argument over on Cryonet about 10 years ago, a place where you would think people would be more enlightened and know better than average. Almost daily for about a year I defended my viewpoint from many many many different people, I had no allies, not one. Poster after poster insisted I was wrong and atoms are sacred and despite all evidence to contrary screamed "But it wouldn't be ME!". And things are not radically different on this list, a few may agree with me but most don't. So don't try to pretend you're some sort of radical rebel advancing a deep theory, your theory is dull conventional superficial and foolish and believed by almost everybody. And I might add, a man that says he is on the cutting edge but who has views on anesthesia that would be in perfect harmony with an 18'th century peasant just does not compute. > Two copies produce two instances of a mind. Why? If the 2 copies are exact and running in parallel then there are 2 brains but only one mind. Mind is what a brain does so if 2 brains are doing the exact same thing then there is only one mind. > How does a water stream know when another joins it? Turbulence. >Is there a communication channel? Yes. >Is it affected by distance? Yes. >Is it instantaneous? No. >Could this new method of combining liquids be commercialized? It's not new and already has been commercialized long ago. > How can I get Coca-Cola company interested? No need to, they've been using it for years. I played fair with you, I answered all your questions so you've got no excuse not to answer the questions I put to you 2 posts ago. You said "any additional thread of processing reality would be subsumed by the original process". So if a copy of me would suddenly appear in the Hydra cluster 8 billion light years away if would act differently, it would get "subsumed" because I exist 8 billion light years away. How does it work? Does A get subsumed into B or B into A? How could the threads know it is time for one of them to get subsumed? How does one thread even know about the other thread? There must be a communication channel, explain how that works. Is it effected by distance? Is it instantaneous? Could this new method of communication you have discovered be commercialized? How can I get the cell phone companies interested? John K Clark From pharos at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 18:41:23 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:41:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/27/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Nothing wrong with that though I think DSL and perhaps Puppy are still based > on Linux 2.4. 2.6 is "supposed" to better for interactive use (though > Firefox's abuse of the VM system is making it difficult for me to accept > that premise). > Yes, they are both on versions of the 2.4 kernel. Puppy did move to the 2.6 kernel but they were flooded with complaints from the users (me included) because the 2.6 kernel wouldn't run on lots of old pcs. So they reverted to 2.4. Puppy uses Fvwm95 as the main window manager. This is a slightly modified version of Fvwm v2.0, JWM is also installed if you prefer it. And users have got Fluxbox and IceWM running also as options. DSL uses Fluxbox. So no need for X Windows here. The Dillo browser is *very* fast on old pcs, but they both have Firefox available if you need a full-featured browser. I keep reading about Firefox memory problems, but I live all day in Firefox with 7 or 8 open tabs and have never had any problems (Linux or Windows). But I avoid heavy video or multimedia web use, so that might be the clue. > > 1. Side note: Firefox works best (for me) with some extensions, esp. > NoScript (selectively disable/enable Javascript); AdBlock (selectively block > various ads) & Session Manager (lets you save & restore complete sessions in > case Firefox memory usage gets out of hand). > You probably need a separate thread for favorite Firefox extensions. :) I prefer Adblock Plus, CustomizeGoogle and Bugmenot. The PrefButtons and PrefBar extensions give a line of useful buttons (customisable) including ones to switch on/off Javascript, Java, Flash, and other functions. I have more extensions installed, but they are not of general interest. (There are hundreds available now for customisers gone mad!). BillK From mstriz at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 19:10:07 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:10:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider giving apes human-level rights In-Reply-To: <87E91770-770A-47DC-9976-683433BA4F94@mac.com> References: <20060427141924.41911.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <87E91770-770A-47DC-9976-683433BA4F94@mac.com> Message-ID: On 4/27/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > While the great apes are near enough genetically that I believe they should > not be abused in any way it is sheer nonsense to claim they are equals or > that they have the same rights as human beings. It would be a mistake to use genetic similarity as a metric of rights-bearing consciousness, since it's not what's in your toolbox so much as how you use it. Dolphins are genetically less similar to humans than, say, dogs, but they should be held in higher moral regard. You have to determine the level of consciousness, which can be difficult because right now it's done indirectly, but it's necessary. Martin From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 20:22:06 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:22:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427155532.73286.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > --- Heartland wrote: > >> >> > "So, a brain is a 3-D object. Mind is a 4-D >> >> > object." > >> >> Anything from 1-D to 3-D also exists/survives in >> >> 4-D. My point is that the fundamental nature of >> >> brain structure is 3-D while mind nature is 4-D. >> >> What I mean is that a projection of the brain >> >> from 4-D to 3-D retains the same functionality >> >> of the brain but it isn't possible to go lower >> >> than 3-D and still end up with a functional >> >> brain. >> > >> > >> > But "a functional brain" occurs in time, and a >> > static brain frozen in time performs no functions. >> >> What the brain *does* through matter in space and >> time is a 4-D object. There is a clear distinction >> between hardware, software, and an activity which >> both hardware and software determine. Brain is not >> the mind. > > > I presented an ostensible counter example to your > claim [*] yet your response ignores it and instead > addresses a claim I never made. I never said there was > no distinction between hardware (brain) software > (mind). Sorry, that's what I thought you were saying. > I said there's no such thing as a brain that > has any "functionality" minus time and that brain > functions not associated with 'mind' exist as > discernable functions in time, ie, the 4th D. "Functionality" is basically a "static" statement of potential ability of a brain to implement tasks that might result with emergence of mind. Functionality can only be expressed in time as 4-D mind while brain is technically only 3-D object. As in any process, all the non-mind brain functions that happen in time are also 4-D objects. It's just that they don't contribute directly to a mind process. > Your claim seems to point in the right direction in > that mind involves what a brain does. 'Mind' is like a > verb whereas 'brain' is more like a noun. But my point > is that the actual phenomena do not allow such a > perfect distinction. Brain functions that are not > involved in producing what we call 'mind' but that are > features that define 'brain' are also properly verb > like, or temporally embedded. So the claim atop this > post appears to be soundly falsified. ~Ian My claim is that brain is 3-D and mind is 4-D. I'm not sure how the above makes that claim false. Please clarify. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 19:43:45 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider giving apes human-level rights In-Reply-To: <87E91770-770A-47DC-9976-683433BA4F94@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060427194345.23628.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, Yes, we need to prevent the Earth from being disintegrated first, before anything like this is attempted. But I did say "post-Singularity". Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Samantha Atkins wrote: While the great apes are near enough genetically that I believe they should not be abused in any way it is sheer nonsense to claim they are equals or that they have the same rights as human beings. I don't see the point in strutting about regarding uplift of various animals when the very survival much less uplift of humanity is far from in the bag. - samantha On Apr 27, 2006, at 7:19 AM, A B wrote: Hi James, I strongly agree. Reducing or eliminating animal suffering should be a high priority post-Singularity. My view on this might seem extreme, but I would recommend safely enhancing animals to be roughly on par with human intelligence (I suppose some instincts will need to be tweeked), and beyond if that is their choice. In my opinion, after million(s) of years of supporting (proto)humans in various painful ways, we owe them a favor. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich "Hughes, James J." wrote: I may not be as radical as George Dvorsky but I am a great supporter of Great Ape rights. I see the move to non-anthropocentric personhood rights as a central agenda item for transhumanism, one of its defining ideas along with human enhancement technologies. The debate needs to be how far beyond humans we grant rights/moral-standing, not whether we transcend human-racism or not. - J. Hughes http://www.spainherald.com/3438.html Socialists: Give apes human rights Spain Herald The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans. The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests "the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species." According to the Project, "Today only members of the species Homo sapiens are considered part of the community of equals. The chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the orangutan are our species's closest relatives. They possess sufficient mental faculties and emotional life to justify their inclusion in the community of equals." _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george at betterhumans.com Thu Apr 27 17:46:07 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:46:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider givingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4451035F.2030600@betterhumans.com> > Isn't this a bit fascist to force a species to upgrade and achieve a higher > intelligence. It would be fascist not to, because fascists believe in the perpetuation and subjugation of cognitively stratified groups. > This strikes me of the hubris of the 19th (and earlier) century Europeans > who thought they were doing the world such a favor by "civilizing" more > primitive cultures. How did that work out? Integrating stone age cultures into feudal and industrial age societies was a difficult step, and one that probably wouldn't have gone well under any circumstances no matter how enlightened the 'invading' civilizations were (a big part of the problem was the clash of worldviews that had little memetic commonality). The problem, though, in criticizing this period of history is that it was developmentally inevitable. Yes, it was a tragic time, but the real tragedy was that human civilizations developed differently in different areas of the world, which set up this awkward phase in the evolution of human civilization. The same thing may be said about species. Non-human animals never gave consent to be born as non-human animals. This existential imposition has also endowed them with the inability to consent to uplifting. They are currently stuck in a state of Darwinian existence, regulated by instinct, subject to environmental pressures beyond their control, and limited by their cognitive capacities. We value such things as intelligence, expanded capabilities, freedom from the perils of the environment, and long fulfilling lives in which we are able to express ourselves and achieve a meaningful existence. I think it's a safe assumption that we would be acting in the best interests of a non-human animal by uplifting them and giving them those benefits. Finally, I'm amazed at some of the small thinking, here. When we talk about uplifting *in the long run*, we're not talking about lifting animals to Homo sapien equiv existence, nor are we even talking about high IQ gorillas. Rather, we're talking about endowing animals with all those things we ourselves are hoping for as transhumanists -- namely those interventions that will lead to postbiological existence. A postbiological existence, imo, will entail one of two major strands: uploading and cyborgization. In both these scenarios, the long-term manifestation will be something quite outside of current conceptions. I used to think that speciation was in our future, and while I think that this may still be a possibility (including the possibility that there will always be unaugmented humans and animals kicking around), I'm more inclined to think that a convergence of forms is more likely. I feel that we'll likely homogenize around an optimal mode of being -- and when I say 'we' I'm also describing uplifted animals. In our meta-mind telepathic superintelligent postbiological future, there won't be elephants, whales, and gorillas in the same way that there won't be humans. Cheers, George From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Apr 27 19:57:27 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:57:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Planck time, and why it does not matter (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain) In-Reply-To: References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><07708EBA-D2A5-44B7-9607-CC2D82FD6039@ceruleansystems.com> <8ADDBB16-CECC-4F4E-A67F-F4E781417A07@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On Apr 26, 2006, at 7:17 PM, Heartland wrote: > Please explain how any activity *itself* (not representation of it) > is information. > Isn't information merely a part of a system that organizes that > activity? If it can be specified, it is not just information but finite information. Algorithms (and their implementations) are just compact/ efficient representations of static information. How we choose to represent information does not alter the underlying information content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity Think of the brain as nothing more than a Giant Look-Up Table (GLUT) for the purposes of discussion. It is a very simple process: given a static index of all possible states, return the corresponding state the index references. The only "activity" that happens in the GLUT brain is that a list of states is searched and a corresponding state is returned. The universe as a hash table. For the GLUT brain, the algorithm for all activity (e.g. all those bits that are not the static state in the table) can be specified succinctly and finitely on a cocktail napkin. The passage of time in the GLUT brain is a function of the number of look-ups that occur and nothing more. Think of a single look-up as Planck time, the fundamental transition in state that creates "activity". If Planck time suddenly changed from 5.391^-44 seconds to 5.391^-43 seconds, would you even notice? How about to 3.154^9 seconds (a century)? Your experience of time and "activity" is not based on the latency between state transitions but is only dependent on those transitions occurring, since you define your experience of time as a function of the number of those transitions. If the GLUT brain stopped functioning for a second or a year, would the GLUT brain notice? After all, it has no sense of time outside of a sort of transition counter. The result of the next lookup is not dependent on when that lookup occurs or how long the lookup takes to happen. And just to nip the inevitable "but brains are not GLUTs" argument in the bud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness Which basically says,"yes, they are" in a lot more words. J. Andrew Rogers From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Apr 27 21:43:03 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:43:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Planck time, and why it does not matter (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain) In-Reply-To: References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <07708EBA-D2A5-44B7-9607-CC2D82FD6039@ceruleansystems.com> <8ADDBB16-CECC-4F4E-A67F-F4E781417A07@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10604271443u735348a7r4459063d320cc9de@mail.gmail.com> What an extremely refreshing post! - Jef (Who seldom posts "me-toos", but couldn't restrain himself.) --------------------------------------- On 4/27/06, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2006, at 7:17 PM, Heartland wrote: > > Please explain how any activity *itself* (not representation of it) > > is information. > > Isn't information merely a part of a system that organizes that > > activity? > > > If it can be specified, it is not just information but finite > information. Algorithms (and their implementations) are just compact/ > efficient representations of static information. How we choose to > represent information does not alter the underlying information content. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity > And just to nip the inevitable "but brains are not GLUTs" argument in > the bud: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness > > Which basically says,"yes, they are" in a lot more words. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 20:46:08 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I admit that I may be wrong about this (but I don't think I am), but it seems to me that even a single atom *must* include the time dimension. It must "have" at least 4 dimensions (and the total number of dimensions may exceed this), otherwise it is *not* an atom, it is something else if it is anything at all. I think we would agree that the hardware of the mind is made of *atoms*, so any *brain* (functional or not) must be "4-D". Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > --- Heartland wrote: > >> >> > "So, a brain is a 3-D object. Mind is a 4-D >> >> > object." > >> >> Anything from 1-D to 3-D also exists/survives in >> >> 4-D. My point is that the fundamental nature of >> >> brain structure is 3-D while mind nature is 4-D. >> >> What I mean is that a projection of the brain >> >> from 4-D to 3-D retains the same functionality >> >> of the brain but it isn't possible to go lower >> >> than 3-D and still end up with a functional >> >> brain. >> > >> > >> > But "a functional brain" occurs in time, and a >> > static brain frozen in time performs no functions. >> >> What the brain *does* through matter in space and >> time is a 4-D object. There is a clear distinction >> between hardware, software, and an activity which >> both hardware and software determine. Brain is not >> the mind. > > > I presented an ostensible counter example to your > claim [*] yet your response ignores it and instead > addresses a claim I never made. I never said there was > no distinction between hardware (brain) software > (mind). Sorry, that's what I thought you were saying. > I said there's no such thing as a brain that > has any "functionality" minus time and that brain > functions not associated with 'mind' exist as > discernable functions in time, ie, the 4th D. "Functionality" is basically a "static" statement of potential ability of a brain to implement tasks that might result with emergence of mind. Functionality can only be expressed in time as 4-D mind while brain is technically only 3-D object. As in any process, all the non-mind brain functions that happen in time are also 4-D objects. It's just that they don't contribute directly to a mind process. > Your claim seems to point in the right direction in > that mind involves what a brain does. 'Mind' is like a > verb whereas 'brain' is more like a noun. But my point > is that the actual phenomena do not allow such a > perfect distinction. Brain functions that are not > involved in producing what we call 'mind' but that are > features that define 'brain' are also properly verb > like, or temporally embedded. So the claim atop this > post appears to be soundly falsified. ~Ian My claim is that brain is 3-D and mind is 4-D. I'm not sure how the above makes that claim false. Please clarify. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 22:58:11 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:58:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer><001901c669b3$58302310$df084e0c@MyComputer> <002801c66a24$69523540$fd084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John Clark wrote: > Heartland, you wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense > that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists > or not" if true I can't help but wonder why you used the word "my". > But no matter, when I mentioned that my copy would be able to > experience the presence in the moment you responded "So what. Meanwhile, you > would be dead". Do I really have to point out the profound contradiction in > this? I see none. By "you" and "me" I try to imply a sense of two physically separate instances of SE, not a concept of "self." >> "My copy" is not me. > > Ah, the constant song of the true believer, but why not, what "me" property > does the copy lack, a soul? I make a copy of you > as exact as Heisenberg allows and destroy the original a nanosecond later. > No conscious entity can report a subjective difference; No conscious > entity can report a objective difference, and yet you insist even though it > is > imposable to detect a difference in ANY way by ANYONE there is still a huge > difference. That is not science that's not even philosophy, it's theology > and that is crap. How many times do I have to tell you that there is an objective way to tell the difference? A log of trajectories of 4-D mind object is all that's needed. >> 99% of people on the street and vast majority of >> transhumanists would say that preserving brain structure is enough for >> "resurrection." > > I could be wrong but I have a hunch I have more experience in this matter > than you do. I can remember having this same argument over on Cryonet about > 10 years ago, a place where you would think people would be more enlightened > and know better than average. Almost daily for about a year I defended my > viewpoint from many many many different people, I had no allies, not one. > Poster after poster insisted I was wrong and atoms are sacred and despite > all evidence to contrary screamed "But it wouldn't be ME!". And things are > not radically different on this list, a few may agree with me but most > don't. First of all, you are the one in this debate who believes in resurrections. How do you think that sounds to me? Yes, Jesus was dead for 3 days and then, miraculously came back to life too. No offense, but judging by what you've been saying, your thinking on this subject is so confused and based on fundamentally false assumptions that it would probably take effort to bring you back to the level of someone who has never faced this issue before. You simply do not comprehend what I'm saying. Just because my conclusion might be similar (honestly, I'm not sure how it's similar) to the one witnessed on Cryonet you apparently have convinced yourself that "atoms are sacred" is also my position. If my conclusion is anything like the one you've spent years trying to defeat then my reasons for thinking that death happens when mind process stops are completely different. Instead of fighting ghost arguments from the past focus on what is actually being said. > And I might add, a man that says he is on the cutting edge but who has > views on anesthesia that would be in perfect harmony with an 18'th century > peasant just does not compute. Strange = wrong? Isn't that exactly what you were cautioning me against in your previous post? And now you apply the same "logic" to suit your POV? How convenient. Instead of saying "yuck," endlessly, try to prove any part of my argument wrong and I might take what you're saying seriously. >> Two copies produce two instances of a mind. > > Why? If the 2 copies are exact and running in parallel then there are 2 > brains but only one mind. Mind is what a brain does so if 2 brains are doing > the exact same thing then there is only one mind. Forget about anything I said about dimensions and let's talk about the most basic assumptions here. So, according to you, two brains produce a single instance of mind? Really? So if I write 1 and then 1 (two ones are exactly the same) you're saying that I wrote 1 once? Without establishing an agreement on this very point, further discussion makes no sense. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 23:17:35 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:17:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Hi Heartland, > > I admit that I may be wrong about this (but I don't think I am), but it seems to > me that even a single atom *must* include the time dimension. It must "have" at > least 4 dimensions (and the total number of dimensions may exceed this), > otherwise it is *not* an atom, it is something else if it is anything at all. I > think we would agree that the hardware of the mind is made of *atoms*, so any > *brain* (functional or not) must be "4-D". > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich Okay, in light of this observation I concede that brain is also a 4-D object. Thanks. It's also important to note that atoms as 4-D objects are non-mind processes so my conclusion that irreversible death occurs when 4-D mind object degenerates into non-mind objects still stands. S. From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu Apr 27 23:59:58 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:59:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer><001901c669b3$58302310$df084e0c@MyComputer> <002801c66a24$69523540$fd084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8F4128B7-4796-4E46-81C7-AC0687D3D501@ceruleansystems.com> On Apr 27, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Heartland wrote: > John Clark wrote: >> Why? If the 2 copies are exact and running in parallel then there >> are 2 >> brains but only one mind. Mind is what a brain does so if 2 brains >> are doing >> the exact same thing then there is only one mind. > > Forget about anything I said about dimensions and let's talk about > the most basic > assumptions here. So, according to you, two brains produce a single > instance of > mind? Processes that are indistinguishable are equivalent, even wildly different representations of the same abstract information (see: Invariance Theorem). Therefore, one could argue that in the above example there would be two instances of a single mind. Unless, of course, a mind is defined by the substrate (e.g. brain) it is attached to rather than the information represented in the substrate. > Really? So if I write 1 and then 1 (two ones are exactly the same) > you're > saying that I wrote 1 once? No. What he is saying is that the first "1" is indistinguishable from the second "1". You wrote "1" twice, but the fact that they show up in different places does not make those two instances fundamentally different. A pattern that shows up in two places is still the same pattern it was when it showed up in one place. Two different instances in isolation do not give you two different patterns. So I guess you have to decide: is the mind defined by the brain or not? Either way, it has consequences. J. Andrew Rogers From exi at syzygy.com Fri Apr 28 00:02:08 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 28 Apr 2006 00:02:08 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060427155532.73286.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060428000208.5261.qmail@syzygy.com> Heartland wrote: >My claim is that brain is 3-D and mind is 4-D. Ok, I'll bite on this one. How is a brain a 3-D object? It exists through time, and changes over time. It moves to different spacial coordinates at different times. You must specify all 4 coordinates to find it. It is a path through 4-space. -eric From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 00:30:59 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:30:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Activity vs. Informaton (was: Planck time and why it doesn't matter) References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><07708EBA-D2A5-44B7-9607-CC2D82FD6039@ceruleansystems.com><8ADDBB16-CECC-4F4E-A67F-F4E781417A07@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: >> Please explain how any activity *itself* (not representation of it) >> is information. >> Isn't information merely a part of a system that organizes that >> activity? > J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > If it can be specified, it is not just information but finite > information. Algorithms (and their implementations) are just compact/ > efficient representations of static information. How we choose to > represent information does not alter the underlying information content. Yes. > Think of the brain as nothing more than a Giant Look-Up Table (GLUT) > for the purposes of discussion. It is a very simple process: given a > static index of all possible states, return the corresponding state > the index references. The only "activity" that happens in the GLUT > brain is that a list of states is searched and a corresponding state > is returned. The universe as a hash table. > > For the GLUT brain, the algorithm for all activity (e.g. all those > bits that are not the static state in the table) can be specified > succinctly and finitely on a cocktail napkin. The passage of time in > the GLUT brain is a function of the number of look-ups that occur and > nothing more. I don't have any problems with what you are saying but all of this refers to a concept of representation and doesn't address how activity *itself* is also information. There's a look-up table and the algorithm that searches and returns the next state. My point is that "searches" and "returns" are examples of activity that can never be encoded by information. If it were possible to encode activity into a form of information, then "activity -> information AND information -> activity" would have to be always true. This logic would suggest that it would suffice to cause an explosion by writing an appropriate chemical reaction on paper. Information and algorithms are merely *symbols* for activity, merely artificial substitutes for real things and events. In light of this, I claim that the only sufficient representation of any activity is that activity itself. S. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 28 01:01:18 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:01:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider givingapeshuman-levelrights Message-ID: <380-2200645281118420@M2W086.mail2web.com> From: George Dvorsky >> Isn't this a bit fascist to force a species to upgrade and achieve a higher >> intelligence. I don't think George had that vision in mind. Species upgrade for survival. I can see where human would intentionally upgrade a species without its consent to save the species from dying out. Taking the DNA of endangered species and reharvesting the species with genetic upgrades is a pretty smart preventative measure to keep the genetic mutations from reoccuring again. >It would be fascist not to, because fascists believe in the perpetuation >and subjugation of cognitively stratified groups. I do sympathize with your plight but there are many reasons why people anywhere might not be wholly supportive of your views. Fascism has nothing to do with not wanting or being able to upgrade animals or an animal companion. There are many factors, one of which is the financial responsibility of investing in the upgrade, another is knowing how much is enough. Taking an animal out of its evolutionary comfort zone could be damaging to the animal if done more for a human's moral cause than an animal's genetic needs. If an animal is suffering, then providing upgrades to alleviate the suffering would be humane. A less urgent trajectory is devleoping perspectives to consider the animals current cognitive abilities and if the animals are making advances to communicate with humans for help. Here is an small example: my dog Oscar sometimes comes up to me and let's me know that he wants something as he tries his best to communicate with me. As much as I try to understand what he wants, some of the time we both end up frustrated. He feels he has failed and I feel I have not provided for him. Then I wonder how much of this I am internalizing irrationally and how much of it I am anthropomorphizing. He doesn't care, he just finds a toy, continues about happily. Sometimes I wish that he had the intelligence of a seven year old rather than a four year old. But then he would lose some of his delightful characteristics. I already have a friend who is seven and I still prefer to be with Oscar. Upgrading a Gorilla or an orangutan is a different story. They are not true animal companions, but an admired species that we are fascinated by and also a bit frightened of because of the proximity in our family tree. There is a Gorilla named Koko who was the subject of a long project with Penny Patterson. Koko was the first of her species to communicate via sign language. She even eventually selected her mate through a computer which displayed profiles of available males. http://www.koko.org/ I think it would be very interesting for you to see what Penny thinks about your activism. (snip) Most of us did not ask to be born into the evolutionary state in whicih we were born. >Finally, I'm amazed at some of the small thinking, here. When we talk >about uplifting *in the long run*, we're not talking about lifting >animals to Homo sapien equiv existence, nor are we even talking about >high IQ gorillas. Rather, we're talking about endowing animals with all >those things we ourselves are hoping for as transhumanists -- namely >those interventions that will lead to postbiological existence. I think you just need to engage more. Best wishes, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From george at betterhumans.com Thu Apr 27 19:10:48 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:10:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider giving apes human-level rights In-Reply-To: <87E91770-770A-47DC-9976-683433BA4F94@mac.com> References: <20060427141924.41911.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <87E91770-770A-47DC-9976-683433BA4F94@mac.com> Message-ID: <44511738.7040902@betterhumans.com> > While the great apes are near enough genetically that I believe they > should not be abused in any way it is sheer nonsense to claim they are > equals or that they have the same rights as human beings. No one is suggesting that these animals are cognitively or physically equal to humans. The point is to grant them the same protections under the law that we ourselves current have, which can be construed as a form of equality under the law. This is an important step for a number of reasons. First, apes will actually be protected by the law rather than wishful thinking and flowery sentiments. Second, many of them need to be protected from extinction threats, cruelty, confinement, and other harms. And finally, having a body of enforceable cross-species rights is an important precursor to a communal set of rights that will be shared by humans and posthumans. Cheers, George From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 28 01:02:57 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:02:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider givingapeshuman-levelrights Message-ID: <380-2200645281257125@M2W130.mail2web.com> From: George Dvorsky >> Isn't this a bit fascist to force a species to upgrade and achieve a higher >> intelligence. I don't think George had that vision in mind. Species upgrade for survival. I can see where human would intentionally upgrade a species without its consent to save the species from dying out. Taking the DNA of endangered species and reharvesting the species with genetic upgrades is a pretty smart preventative measure to keep the genetic mutations from reoccuring again. >It would be fascist not to, because fascists believe in the perpetuation >and subjugation of cognitively stratified groups. I do sympathize with your plight but there are many reasons why people anywhere might not be wholly supportive of your views. Fascism has nothing to do with not wanting or being able to upgrade animals or an animal companion. There are many factors, one of which is the financial responsibility of investing in the upgrade, another is knowing how much is enough. Taking an animal out of its evolutionary comfort zone could be damaging to the animal if done more for a human's moral cause than an animal's genetic needs. If an animal is suffering, then providing upgrades to alleviate the suffering would be humane. A less urgent trajectory is devleoping perspectives to consider the animals current cognitive abilities and if the animals are making advances to communicate with humans for help. Here is an small example: my dog Oscar sometimes comes up to me and let's me know that he wants something as he tries his best to communicate with me. As much as I try to understand what he wants, some of the time we both end up frustrated. He feels he has failed and I feel I have not provided for him. Then I wonder how much of this I am internalizing irrationally and how much of it I am anthropomorphizing. He doesn't care, he just finds a toy, continues about happily. Sometimes I wish that he had the intelligence of a seven year old rather than a four year old. But then he would lose some of his delightful characteristics. I already have a friend who is seven and I still prefer to be with Oscar. Upgrading a Gorilla or an orangutan is a different story. They are not true animal companions, but an admired species that we are fascinated by and also a bit frightened of because of the proximity in our family tree. There is a Gorilla named Koko who was the subject of a long project with Penny Patterson. Koko was the first of her species to communicate via sign language. She even eventually selected her mate through a computer which displayed profiles of available males. http://www.koko.org/ I think it would be very interesting for you to see what Penny thinks about your activism. (snip) Most of us did not ask to be born into the evolutionary state in whicih we were born. >Finally, I'm amazed at some of the small thinking, here. When we talk >about uplifting *in the long run*, we're not talking about lifting >animals to Homo sapien equiv existence, nor are we even talking about >high IQ gorillas. Rather, we're talking about endowing animals with all >those things we ourselves are hoping for as transhumanists -- namely >those interventions that will lead to postbiological existence. I think you just need to engage more. Best wishes, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 03:04:12 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:04:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer><001901c669b3$58302310$df084e0c@MyComputer><002801c66a24$69523540$fd084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland wrote: >My claim is that brain is 3-D and mind is 4-D. Ok, I'll bite on this one. How is a brain a 3-D object? It exists through time, and changes over time. It moves to different spacial coordinates at different times. You must specify all 4 coordinates to find it. It is a path through 4-space. -eric I've addressed this in my previous post. I wrote: "Anything from 1-D to 3-D also exists/survives in 4-D. My point is that the fundamental nature of brain structure is 3-D while mind nature is 4-D. What I mean is that a projection of the brain from 4-D to 3-D retains the same functionality of the brain but it isn't possible to go lower than 3-D and still end up with a functional brain." But considering Jeffrey Herrlich's obviously correct point that atoms that make up the brain necessarily require time component, the above should be replaced by this: "Information about hardware and software of the mind (brain structure and algorithms) is a static symbol for the activity of matter in space and time that is the mind. No amount of information can ever replace the actual activity itself. The only sufficient equivalent/representation for any activity is that activity itself." Same point, better description, I hope. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 03:34:35 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:34:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer><001901c669b3$58302310$df084e0c@MyComputer> <002801c66a24$69523540$fd084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > So if I write 1 and then 1 (two ones are exactly the same) > you're > saying that I wrote 1 once? J. Andrew Rogers wrote: "No. What he is saying is that the first "1" is indistinguishable from the second "1". You wrote "1" twice, but the fact that they show up in different places does not make those two instances fundamentally different." Obviously, I know exactly what he is saying. He's talking about *type* while I'm trying to point out to him a difference between type and *instances* of the same type. J. Andrew Rogers wrote: "A pattern that shows up in two places is still the same pattern it was when it showed up in one place. Two different instances in isolation do not give you two different patterns." Yes. Two different instances in isolation do not cause an extra type of pattern to emerge. But two separate instances of the same type are objectively distinguishable by location in time and space so they are no longer equivalent *as instances*. So 1 + 1 = 2 instances of "1". S. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Apr 28 02:53:32 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:53:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider giving apes human-level rights Message-ID: <20060428025332.37531.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It amazed me to hear that The Spanish Socialist Party is introducing a bill in the Congress of Deputies to try and give apes some of the same legal protection as humans. I had no idea we have an average of 97.5% human shared genes with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. It is so nice to hear something so positive. I first learned about chimpanzees by reading and listening to the research done by Jane Goodall, it was overwhelming to see how human like they are. I really can't understand why humans would want to bring harm to an animal with such a capability of manipulating the same skills as humans. Ethically, humans have moral obligations. In the 1940's people with a development disabilty would find themselves institutionalized or scrutinized. We now have laws to defend the rights of such people. While evolving, we recognized that fair and unjust behavior towards things we don't understand is simply ignorance or maliciouness. This is unexceptable. Helen Keller once said, "There is no better way to be thankful for your sight than by giving a helping hand to someone in the dark." I think the chimpamzees, the gorilla's and the orangutans are very much in the dark. If it is against the law to harm a child or a child that is handicaped, why is it accepted to harm animals that distinguish such the same genes as humans? Anna --------------------------------- Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Fri Apr 28 04:03:50 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:03:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer><001901c669b3$58302310$df084e0c@MyComputer><002801c66a24$69523540$fd084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001501c66a78$c8609370$1c0b4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > How many times do I have to tell you that there is an objective way to > tell the difference? A log of trajectories of 4-D mind object is all > that's needed. Ok, so you think mind is a "4-D mind object", so please give me the 4-D coordinates of some of the important things the constitute mind; please give me the 4-D coordinates of fun and red and fast and logic and love and fear and the number eleven. But maybe I misunderstand you, maybe you really are talking about an object. If so it can only be a brain, and brains are made of atoms that constantly get recycled, so we're right back to the sacred atoms dogma. In addition because atoms are generic it is possible to erase information about the history of a particular atom from the universe making it imposable even in theory of making a "4-D space time trajectory (that sound so much cooler than knowing where its going and where its been) of it. If I got some of the atoms that were in your body when you were 10 and cooled them down until the formed a Bose Einstein condensate it would be imposable to include them in your wonderful trajectory through space time. Would you stop existing then? So you have 2 equally dumb ways of making your theory stupid. You decide > you are the one in this debate who believes in resurrections. I believe there is no law of physics that would make resurrection imposable; I don't know if it will ever be practical. And nobody should ever forget that you are the one who believes anesthesia is equivalent to death. Should we start arresting anesthetists for murder? > How do you think that sounds to me? That depends, if you are a muggle you probably think I'm a Jesus freak, if you have a scientific inclination and are a transhumanist to boot then you don't. > You simply do not comprehend what I'm saying. Of course I comprehend, I believed the same thing when I was about 6. I've been hearing the exact same silly arguments for well over a decade, I thought there were stupid then I think they are stupid now. > you apparently have convinced yourself that "atoms are sacred" is also my > position. You keep babbling on about space time trajectories, if it's not a trajectory of a bunch of atoms then what the hell is it a trajectory of? > Forget about anything I said about dimensions The smartest thing you said so far. >So, according to you, two brains produce a single instance of mind? It's possible under certain conditions. > Really? Yes really. >So if I write 1 and then 1 (two ones are exactly the same) you're saying >that I wrote 1 once? Your brain will not be in the same state when you write those two numbers, more important you're talking about actions, I was talking about thoughts. If you thought about the number 1 and a brain in the Hydra cluster was in the same state as your brain as he thought about the number one then there would be one thought not 2. John K Clark From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Apr 28 04:49:14 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:49:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The NSA's disclosures on UFOs References: <20060427044759.24615.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004201c66a7f$198cb340$660fa8c0@kevin> > > Well the evidence in support of these "fantasies" is > staggering: > > 1. There are 375 photographs of UFOs quite a few > dating from BEFORE the invention of technology to > alter photographs. There are also a handful of videos > of UFOs. http://www.ufoevidence.org/ I spent several years as a professional photographer and I can assure you that such a time never existed. > > 2. There are newspaper articles about them. This is your argument? Surely you can do better. > > 3. There are 4000 eyewitness accounts of people both > reputable and not including two US presidents who > claim to have seen them as well as people who claim > "abduction". And there are even more who hear voices, see ghosts, and see Jesus and Mary in the strangest of places. > > 4. There are government reports on them and sworn > affidavits attesting to them. > No doubt, the fact that someone swears that they saw something means it's true. I'll have to remember that while approaching the closet after my kid sees another monster in there. > 5. There are alleged landing sites that are > radioactive according to geiger-counter wielding > "experts". > Huh? areas of higher radioactivity are landing sites? Now why would that be? If I were traveling the universe, the last way I want to go about it is through conventional nuclear fission. There can't be any other explanation for this at all? > 6. There are numerous non-profit organizations devoted > to their study. Now that did it. I'm convinced. Since some non-profit groups study it, that means it's true. How could I have ever doubted it. I'm so blind! I should have known that flat-earth group was right! > > 7. There was a historic military confrontation with > one or more UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS during World > War II: > http://www.militarymuseum.org/BattleofLA.html > Are you listing individual incidents now? Doesn;t this belong up above? > 8. At least 2 extropes on this list have personally > seen a UFO. OK. Now you have really done it. It must be true. > > If even 99% of these are hoaxes, this still amounts to > on the order of 100 solid data points in FAVOR of the > existense of UFOs. > Come one. Can;t you do better? How about alternate explanations? Maybe a percentage of all human brains are just twisted. How many serial killers are there? > > On the other hand there is one piece of evidence that > seems to indicate that extra-terrestrial intelligence > doesn't exist: > > Fermi's Paradox. There has been no radio > communications of extra terrestrial intelligence > detected. Of course if this is sufficient NEGATIVE > EVIDENCE to rule out the existense of > extra-terrestrial intelligence then I suppose every > girl that I have left messages for that did not call > me back ought to be construed to be either > non-existent or non-intelligent. > > In the world of scientific inquiry (and legal > proceedings for that matter) hear-say does not cut the > mustard. So with all due respect to Eliezer and the > other fanatically skeptical people on this list, your > OPINION and clever quotes are irrelevant when weighed > against mountains of EVIDENCE. > > > For centuries people were visited by incubi and > > succubi, or talking > > animals. Since the "space age" starting in the > > 1920s, people have > > been visited by aliens. It's the same archetypical > > psychological > > phenomenon with culturally-specified manifestations. > > The ancient Greeks believed the sun to to be a chariot > driven across the sky by Apollo. The ancient Egyptians > believed the sun was rolled across the sky by a giant > dung beetle. Just because these people believed in > culturally specific manifestations of the sun does not > mean that the sun is merely a psychological > phenomenon. > > > I haven't seen the data on this (perhaps you know?), > > but it seems that > > the height of UFO sightings was the period 1950 - > > 1980. Some > > psychologists have suggested that this hysteria was > > a result of Cold > > War anxiety mixed with Sci Fi culture. > > Here are websites that shows the frequency of > sightings by year. > > http://www.larryhatch.net/50YEARS.html > http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/amazur/hatchufodata.html > > But the earliest known photo dates back to the 1890s > and strange flying objects have been reported since > ancient times. For example Elijah being carried away > to heaven in a "chariot of fire" according to > Judeo-Christian myth. > > > > > Or maybe the aliens just lost interest? > > I am not going to speculate on the motives of beings I > do not understand. But if the frequency distribution > of sightings is accurate it seems that their interest > in us seems to wax and wane in cycles. This may be > indicative of travel times or study cycles (maybe they > have to apply for grants to study us like Earth > scientists.) Sightings do seem to peak during war time > for whatever reason. Maybe the increased radio chatter > or all the explosions are to blame. Who knows. > > In any case my gut tells me this. Things that happen > only once are anomalies. The skeptics would have one > believe that intelligent life only happened ONCE in a > universe of literally BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of > opportunities. Thus according to the Drake Equation, > the reason the Great Silence is a paradox is not > because it is unlikely that extra-terrestrial > intelligence exists but that it is almost certain to. > So why haven't they contacted us? Is it because we are > the only intelligent beings in the vast universe? Or > is it because they have chosen to snub us? Do the > babes I have left messages for exist? Or have they > chosen to snub me? These are difficult mysteries to > solve. > > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." > > -St. Einstein > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 07:40:23 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:40:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >So, according to you, two brains produce a single instance of mind? John K Clark: It's possible under certain conditions. Such as...? (Remember that we're talking about brains without a single communication channel between them). >So if I write 1 and then 1 (two ones are exactly the same) you're saying >that I wrote 1 once? John K Clark: Your brain will not be in the same state when you write those two numbers, more important you're talking about actions, I was talking about thoughts. If you thought about the number 1 and a brain in the Hydra cluster was in the same state as your brain as he thought about the number one then there would be one thought not 2. No. We're not talking about brains now. This is no longer debate about brains and what minds really are. Please answer the question. How many *instances* (not types) of "1" are there in "1+1"? Just give me a number. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Apr 28 15:26:06 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060428152606.68843.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Heartland wrote: "It's also important to note that atoms as 4-D objects are non-mind processes so my conclusion that irreversible death occurs when 4-D mind object degenerates into non-mind objects still stands." Yes, I still fully agree with this statement. If a mind-process is stopped, as it is in vitrification, the mind is verifiably absent, the "original" person is forever dead. The revived person will be a "copy", no argument from me. But, I still believe that the "illusion" of continuity will be present. The subjective experience will not be lost. I believe that revival from suspension would "feel" no different than waking from a dreamless sleep. I say this because I think that we ourselves are continually dieing in a permanent way already. At the end of each "round" of "life" (I can't yet say how long this is) we die permanently and experience *nothingness*. It is the physical substance of our brains (the atoms in their particular arrangement) that manifests the next "copy" that "occupies" our brains and our lives, and this cycle continues on and on until the brain is physically destroyed and cannot support a conscious mind at all. I would just like to provide my speculations on the "experience" of permanent death. When the mind process stops, and the mind is absent, permanent death has occurred, the person has "entered" nothingness. But nothingness, is not anything that can be "experienced", not even in principle. Nothingness is not equivalent to a sensory deprivation tank. You do not "see" a black void when you die. You do not "hear" nothingness. You are not "frightened" by the "experience", because it is *not* an experience. Just remember, we have each, without doubt, already been dead once... the entire time before we were conceived. If the premise above is correct, and we *are* continually dieing permanently, we would never even be aware of the fact - except by our knowledge that it was true. But this doesn't have any practical consequences (only philosophical ones), and I still love this "illusion". As John Clark has suggested: Death is just a big sissy! A bully. And one who's ass I plan to kick when he comes looking for me. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 28 16:14:56 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:14:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Buying Gas - Finding high and low prices Message-ID: <380-220064528161456376@M2W065.mail2web.com> To find out gas prices in your area, just enter your zip code in the site below, and it tells you which gas stations have the cheapest prices (and the highest) on gas in your zip code area. It's updated every evening. http://autos.msn.com/everyday/gasstations.aspx?zip=&src=Netx Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jonkc at att.net Fri Apr 28 16:49:10 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:49:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060424162719.67157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060425051427.84622.qmail@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><019501c66952$bb9f4590$870a4e0c@MyComputer><001901c669b3$58302310$df084e0c@MyComputer><002801c66a24$69523540$fd084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <00a901c66ae3$b47f4d40$1a084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > How many times do I have to tell you that there is an objective way to > tell the difference? A log of trajectories of 4-D mind object is all > that's needed. Ok, so you think mind is a "4-D mind object", so please give me the 4-D coordinates of some of the important things the constitute mind; please give me the 4-D coordinates of fun and red and fast and logic and love and fear and the number eleven. But maybe I misunderstand you, maybe you really are talking about an object. If so it can only be a brain, and brains are made of atoms that constantly get recycled, so we're right back to the sacred atoms dogma. In addition because atoms are generic it is possible to erase information about the history of a particular atom from the universe making it imposable even in theory of making a "4-D space time trajectory (that sound so much cooler than knowing where its going and where its been) of it. If I got some of the atoms that were in your body when you were 10 and cooled them down until the formed a Bose Einstein condensate it would be imposable to include them in your wonderful trajectory through space time. Would you stop existing then? So you have 2 equally dumb ways of making your theory stupid. You decide > you are the one in this debate who believes in resurrections. I believe there is no law of physics that would make resurrection imposable; I don't know if it will ever be practical. And nobody should ever forget that you are the one who believes anesthesia is equivalent to death. Should we start arresting anesthetists for murder? > How do you think that sounds to me? That depends, if you are a muggle you probably think I'm a Jesus freak, if you have a scientific inclination and are a transhumanist to boot then you don't. > You simply do not comprehend what I'm saying. Of course I comprehend, I believed the same thing when I was about 6. I've been hearing the exact same silly arguments for well over a decade, I thought there were stupid then I think they are stupid now. > you apparently have convinced yourself that "atoms are sacred" is also my > position. You keep babbling on about space time trajectories, if it's not a trajectory of a bunch of atoms then what the hell is it a trajectory of? > Forget about anything I said about dimensions The smartest thing you said so far. >So, according to you, two brains produce a single instance of mind? It's possible under certain conditions. > Really? Yes really. >So if I write 1 and then 1 (two ones are exactly the same) you're saying >that I wrote 1 once? Your brain will not be in the same state when you write those two numbers, more important you're talking about actions, I was talking about thoughts. If you thought about the number 1 and a brain in the Hydra cluster was in the same state as your brain as he thought about the number one then there would be one thought not 2. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 21:59:13 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:59:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Heartland wrote: "It's also important to note that atoms as 4-D objects are non-mind processes so my conclusion that irreversible death occurs when 4-D mind object degenerates into non-mind objects still stands." Jeffrey wrote: "Yes, I still fully agree with this statement. If a mind-process is stopped, as it is in vitrification, the mind is verifiably absent, the "original" person is forever dead. The revived person will be a "copy", no argument from me. But, I still believe that the "illusion" of continuity will be present. The subjective experience will not be lost. I believe that revival from suspension would "feel" no different than waking from a dreamless sleep." That's exactly what would happen. I've never questioned that except this illusion will belong to a copy, not the original. That illusion will happen as part of a verifiably different *instance* of mind process than the original instance of that same *type* of process. As people, we are instances, not types. That's the biggest misconception that people bring to this kind of debate, namely, that people are types. Jeffrey: "I say this because I think that we ourselves are continually dieing in a permanent way already. At the end of each "round" of "life" (I can't yet say how long this is) we die permanently and experience *nothingness*. It is the physical substance of our brains (the atoms in their particular arrangement) that manifests the next "copy" that "occupies" our brains and our lives, and this cycle continues on and on until the brain is physically destroyed and cannot support a conscious mind at all." This is where we disagree. I don't think we are constantly dying and I have a good reason to think so. You wrote: "It is the physical substance of our brains (the atoms in their particular arrangement) that manifests the next "copy" that "occupies" our brains and our lives," but it is not the arrangement of atoms that produces mind, it's the *activity* of matter in space and time that directly causes mind to emerge. If there were no atoms (theoretically) and that activity would be present then we would still experience life. This *activity* (mind process) never stops during the time interval when no signals flow through neuronal network. Why? Because the substance of that activity is energy and as long as we live that energy is being more or less conserved. When we get to the bottom of it all, it's not the atoms or pattern of brain structure that is the mind. We are a system of energy flow. Jeffrey: "I would just like to provide my speculations on the "experience" of permanent death. When the mind process stops, and the mind is absent, permanent death has occurred, the person has "entered" nothingness. But nothingness, is not anything that can be "experienced", not even in principle. Nothingness is not equivalent to a sensory deprivation tank. You do not "see" a black void when you die. You do not "hear" nothingness. You are not "frightened" by the "experience", because it is *not* an experience. Just remember, we have each, without doubt, already been dead once... the entire time before we were conceived." Yes, I could have written this part myself. S. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Apr 29 12:26:44 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 07:26:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/27/06, BillK wrote: > > Yes, they are both on versions of the 2.4 kernel. Puppy did move to > the 2.6 kernel but they were flooded with complaints from the users > (me included) because the 2.6 kernel wouldn't run on lots of old pcs. > So they reverted to 2.4. I can understand 386's and 486's but what would be the problem with basic Pentiums? (The fact that I've got Unbuntu running on one would seem to suggest there isn't any real fundamental problem.) Puppy uses Fvwm95 as the main window manager. This is a slightly > modified version of Fvwm v2.0, JWM is also installed if you prefer > it. And users have got Fluxbox and IceWM running also as options. > DSL uses Fluxbox. So no need for X Windows here. I thought X was a requirement for graphics displays -- am I misinformed? Aren't Fvwm and IceWM stand-ins for GNOME or KDE (but still run on top of X)? I will admit that GNOME isn't lightweight and I'm under the impression (though I haven't tried running it yet) that KDE is even worse (based on the package install sizes from Gentoo) so Fvwm | IceWM would seem like reasonable choices for the legacy hardware. The Dillo browser is *very* fast on old pcs, but they both have > Firefox available if you need a full-featured browser. I'll check it out! There are some days I really *long* for Netscape 4.X(which can still be run if you wrestle with library compatibility issues). I keep reading about Firefox memory problems, but I live all day in > Firefox with 7 or 8 open tabs and have never had any problems (Linux > or Windows). But I avoid heavy video or multimedia web use, so that > might be the clue. How much memory is on your machine and how long do you keep FF running? You probably will not see them unless you have a machine with 512MB or less and leave the browser running for days. The problem is basically heap fragmentation interacting with Linux page management. Over time you have small memory memory allocations (history records, bookmarks, "active" aspects of extensions (RSS records), gmail pages, etc. grabbing small chunks of memory across the entire heap. The heap size grows over time until the Firefox resident page set is pushing about 70% of the memory on the machine (~350+MB out of 512MB). That would be manageable if it weren't for the fact that new memory allocations, freeing old memory and the garbage collector that runs at random intervals (I think the GC is in there to support Java & Javascript but I'm not sure) have to go through essentially all of the memory in the heap (all of the allocated chunks are in linked lists). Even though Linux will run up to 2000-3500 swap-ins per second it still takes a long time to run through all of the pages in the heap that have been paged out. Though it doesn't crash Linux it will make both FF and everything else relatively unusable. Alternatively it can cause the dreaded "oom-killer" to run which will start killing off processes (Firefox included) until it has enough memory to continue operating. [In my case it usually takes out Azureus which is a process pig because it needs one for each "peer" it is exchanging files with and a memory pig because it is written in Java and has a poor one-to-many communications design -- but thats a different discussion.] [1] You also are unlikely to notice it with "7 or 8 open tabs". "Real" men, cough, like to run it with 15-20 open windows some of which have been pushed past the 33 tab limit (at least on a 1024 pixel wide screen). This tends to be browser pattern related -- I'll open 5-10 tabs from the front page of the NY times, another 5-10 from /., 20+ from the first 5+ pages of digg, and dozens if I'm doing specific topic research in PubMed and want to page back & forth between lots of abstracts. If you are a few page at a time user you are unlikely to encounter it. You probably need a separate thread for favorite Firefox extensions. :) > I prefer Adblock Plus, CustomizeGoogle and Bugmenot. > The PrefButtons and PrefBar extensions give a line of useful buttons > (customisable) including ones to switch on/off Javascript, Java, > Flash, and other functions. Interesting set, I'll have to investigate them. I have more extensions installed, but they are not of general interest. > (There are hundreds available now for customisers gone mad!). Yes, one of the more interesting aspects of Firefox is that it has a "lightweight" extension capability without the requirement for getting into the guts of the system (I've looked at the source briefly and its sufficiently complex that I am very reluctant to wade into it). Robert 1. Firefox (and Azureus) could serve a the "poster children" for how *not* to do software development. I may be wrong but it looks like nobody sat down at the beginning and specified how resources should be managed by the various sub-systems (Java, Javascript, image display, internal databases, communications, etc.). Every subsystem seems to have made their own choices assuming "Oh, its intended for 32-bit virtual systems and the OS will handle it" or "Memory is cheap, don't worry about it." Bad, bad, bad! Back in the days when you had to time share 256MB between ~30 users (Harvard's undergraduate Science Center circa 1974-6) you had to really pay attention to such things as memory usage and paging/swapping efficiency. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Apr 29 15:11:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:11:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] opteron bug In-Reply-To: <380-220064225183712328@M2W005.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200604291517.k3TFHLfx005771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Some of the opterons may have a bug. http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/28/amd_opteron_fpu_bug/ The background processes such as GIMPS and folding at home will be able to discover stuff like this, because they run periodic checksums to see if the answers make sense. Over time, GIMPS compiles a huge database which determines how fast each processor does how much work, along with how many errors each accumulates. After a few years, this database is priceless to the computer makers. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Apr 29 17:23:30 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:23:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <5FCCA87C-7F32-4601-A768-33BA80103882@mac.com> References: <444E846C.5050605@foresight.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20060426085836.04c1fee8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <444F9FA1.1000400@posthuman.com> <5FCCA87C-7F32-4601-A768-33BA80103882@mac.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060429122308.02ff2de8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2005/032805-stop-spyware.html Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Apr 29 18:58:50 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:58:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Personal UFO experiences was NSA's disclosures on UFOs In-Reply-To: <444FA15A.1080908@pobox.com> References: <8d71341e0604260041t4687e42fv1676604ac5c96426@mail.gmail.com> <9E498D16-32AC-4533-9456-3EE985708EFF@mac.com> <20060426063232.71956.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0604260041t4687e42fv1676604ac5c96426@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060429135538.027f8ec0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> I would just stick a URL in, but you would have to wade through a lot to find it. This is from September 1987 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics ----------------------------------------------------------- Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet Vol. 6, No. 9 Editor: Kent Harker snip ANOTHER CAUSE FOR UFO SIGHTINGS by H. Keith Henson Most UFO sightings have origins in natural phenomena, or misidentification of man-made lights, such as the Woodbridge case reported in the Fall '86 "Skeptical Inquirer". But there are cases that are the result of deception. I know, because I was involved in three of them, and have personal knowledge of one more. Of the four cases, only one was ever exposed. My earliest experience was in 1959, when a group of my high-school friends and I hung a fluorescent light on thin wires over a street in Prescott, Arizona, and made it flicker with a Model T spark coil. We would turn it on at night when a car was only a hundred feet away, so the driver was hard put to see what it was before the car had passed under it. People would stop, back up, look again and again, and never figure out what they had seen, while we were up on someone's porch trying to keep from with bursting with laughter. It worked so well that we moved our activities to a highway outside of town. If our victims had their radios on, all the better, because close proximity to a spark coil makes a radio sound like crushing a mountain of cornflakes with a bulldozer. The number of locals who encountered our UFOs was at least in the dozens. Prescott's reputation as a UFO center may have some of its origins in our pranks. In 1960, I started engineering studies at the University of Arizona. A number of my friends from Prescott were also going to school there, and by next year, we had founded the Druid Student Center just north of the campus. The origin of "The Druids" and the story of the "Bandersnatch", an off-campus humor newspaper we published in the mid-to-late '60s are a story in themselves. Our UFO constructions, which peaked in 1962, were a relatively minor part of our activities, though they brought us a great deal of publicity. It took a long time to learn to build a really good UFO. We had been launching hydrogen-filled plastic dry-cleaning bags in Prescott since 1958. My old aluminum-and-lye hydrogen generator may still be in the basement of my parents' house. When we moved to Tucson, we found a place that sold us an unperforated, 2,000-foot roll of dry-cleaning plastic tubing. We discovered that while natural gas had only half the lift of helium, it had enough, and was available at the turn of a valve. We launched several long tubes in the daytime with rolls of toilet paper that made long streamers when a fuse released the paper. We lifted several radar corners with these balloons, but never got any feedback that anyone noticed them, so we quit. We also launched a number of sections of tubing with fuses and small packets of gunpowder to set them on fire. One of these (about 100 feet long) got picked up by the news media when a large number of people reported it as a crashed plane. The Air Force "explanation" of "neon lights reflecting off low clouds" certainly didn't satisfy anyone who saw huge flames leaping in the sky. We did this only a few times because we never really felt good about dropping flaming plastic over the city, though it most likely went out before hitting the ground. The first one in the UFO series (all launched at night) we sent up with a battery and bulb. Knowing what we were looking at, we were able to track it in a car far across the city. But a flashlight bulb looks like a star from any distance away, and it wasn't easy to track. Next variation was a candle. The first one went out when it was launched. We then tried putting the candle near the bottom of a six-foot-long bag of clear plastic closed on the bottom to stop the draft. It worked OK, buy we had the same problem we did with the bulb; it looked like a star. Next we made up five-to-six-foot-long bags of light-colored crepe paper to diffuse the light. That made the light much more visible. Our most common version used eight one-inch candle stubs sitting on tin-can lids that were soldered to a stiff, four-foot wire. The straight wire was centered with thread in a ring of small, stiff wire that had a crepe paper bag folded over and stapled to it. The bags were made of two sheets of paper by folding three edges over twice and stapling, then turning the bag inside-out. We used a generous 10 feet of strong thread to hang these lanterns under two 40-foot pieces of plastic tubing. (No point in getting lighted candles too near all that gas!) They worked great. Our UFOs were visible for miles. The air flow in Tucson during the summer was usually toward the mountains, and they would fade out after about 10-15 minutes. Not all of them were a success. One got rained on and came down about 15 blocks away, but we managed to recover that one without getting caught, though a small dog had hysterics when it came down in his yard. (Dr. MacDonald of UFO fame saw that one and said it had come down somewhere between where he was and some mountains 20 miles away.) We got to where we almost felt obliged to send one up at least twice a week, because so many people in the city were looking for them. We got caught trying to outdo ourselves. We built a two-lantern version and used three pieces of tubing that we tied in a triangle to lift it. This one really caused a stir, because it looked like a red UFO and a green one playing tag in the sky as it went up in a spiral. However, at the last minute, a light wind came up -- our UFO was sure to tangle in the power wires if we launched it from the back yard -- so we walked the whole works across a major street and let it go from a parking lot at the University of Arizona. Some high-school kids saw us, and couldn't resist the chance to solve the big mystery. They talked to the local reporters, and, the next day, both the local reporters and Dr. MacDonald were beating on our door. I was temporarily out of school at the time, working as an engineer for a local TV station, when the story broke. There was an excitable middle-aged woman who did an early local news program at the station, who came bursting into the control area wanting to know why I didn't tell her as soon as the story broke so she could interview me on the news (which she proceeded to do). We wondered if we would get into trouble, but no one in a legal capacity ever said a thing about it. We put up a weak story about tracking local nighttime winds. While we were causing all the stories, the Tucson papers treated it straight. They reported that moving lights in the sky had been seen by a number of witnesses, but didn't take it any further. Dr. MacDonald treated it straight, too, and was only about an hour behind the reporter. Years later, I found out that a second cousin of mine had been launching similar UFOs over Albuquerque about the same time. The significant point is that of four different incidents, we jokers were only caught once. Had we been a little more cautious or gotten tired of causing the fuss, we never would have been caught. For me, the story has always been a handy way to deal with a UFO believer. When they ask me if I believe in UFOs, I say, "Of course. I used to build them." ************** http://linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basissep.87 Ten years after this bit the TV show "Sightings" had me make and launch a UFO for them. I have a tape of that show somewhere. I wrote it up, but picking out the part that applies to my building a UFO from the adventures of that day picketing a UFO cult (scientology) is too much trouble. Here is a URL, the UFO business is mostly near the bottom. http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/henson.htm Keith Henson From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Apr 28 16:01:39 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:01:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Architectural Roofs Go Green Message-ID: <380-22006452816139531@M2W003.mail2web.com> For trend-spotting, the US is picking up on Germany's incentive to give beauty and function to their rooftops. Green roofs add square footage to property, provide garden-living for city dwellers, reduce air-condition costs by cooling down buildings, and a lot more. China is taking this concept a step into the future. Here is today's article that I enjoyed reading: 'Green roofs' growing more popular Friday, April 28, 2006; Posted: 10:43 a.m. EDT (14:43 GMT) NEW YORK (AP) -- An architectural organization has unveiled a new "green" roof for its own building to showcase a trend toward environmentally-friendly technology. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/04/27/green.roofs.ap/index.html Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Apr 29 22:37:41 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:37:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0604291537o3d5df2a1v635d7c71e3fc5449@mail.gmail.com> On 4/29/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > "Memory is cheap, don't worry about it." Bad, bad, bad! > Good, good, good! Back in the days when you had to time share 256MB between ~30 users > (Harvard's undergraduate Science Center circa 1974-6) you had to really pay > attention to such things as memory usage and paging/swapping efficiency. > Fettered limbs grow lame. As someone who learned to program on a Vic-20 with 5k including system and video memory, I sometimes wonder if progress will only really get going when those of us who were thus mentally scarred have died off :P A significant limiting factor on continued progress in computer hardware is demand going down because too much programming effort is spent wasting computer capacity (by leaving it lying idle) rather than using it to improve reliability (for a start, by switching to languages other than super macro assembler! :P), functionality and usability. Serious workloads like simulations always need more computing power, but the people running them don't have the money to pay for chip factories at several billion a pop. It all comes down to the people writing programs like Firefox and Doom 3 to put the power to mass use - let them be praised, not criticized. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 29 23:09:49 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:09:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/29/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > I can understand 386's and 486's but what would be the problem with basic > Pentiums? (The fact that I've got Unbuntu running on one would seem to > suggest there isn't any real fundamental problem.) Many Puppy and DSL Linux users are running on 486s with little memory. :) The DSL FAQ states: There are currently no plans to move to a 2.6.x kernel, for the following reasons. * The 2.6.x kernel is significantly bigger than the 2.4.x kernel, so it would cramp DSL's functionality. * The 2.6.x kernel drops a lot of support for legacy technologies, hardware, etc, and we want to keep DSL functional on as much hardware as possible * All major improvements that have occurred to the 2.6.x tree have been, and are being backported to the 2.4.x tree, by a very active backporting team. > I thought X was a requirement for graphics displays -- am I misinformed? > Aren't Fvwm and IceWM stand-ins for GNOME or KDE (but still run on top of > X)? I will admit that GNOME isn't lightweight and I'm under the impression > (though I haven't tried running it yet) that KDE is even worse (based on the > package install sizes from Gentoo) so Fvwm | IceWM would seem like > reasonable choices for the legacy hardware. Sorry, my confusion here. Fvwm, Fluxbox, etc. are small, fast windows managers only. KDE and Gnome are full (bloated) desktop environments. > How much memory is on your machine and how long do you keep FF running? You > probably will not see them unless you have a machine with 512MB or less and > leave the browser running for days. The problem is basically heap > fragmentation interacting with Linux page management. I only have 256MB memory. (Used to be 512MB, but one of the memory cards failed and I haven't bothered to replace it as I didn't notice any performance difference). There is still much ongoing discussion about Firefox memory usage. See Some extensions have been suggested as memory eaters, SessionSaver, for example. But I keep it simple. I don't have Flash or Shockwave installed, rarely use Adobe Reader, never play movies, and mostly just stick to text websites. I power off my pc overnight, so Firefox usually runs for no more than 12-15 hours. Works for me. ;) BillK From brian at posthuman.com Sat Apr 29 23:01:38 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:01:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Buying Gas - Finding high and low prices In-Reply-To: <380-220064528161456376@M2W065.mail2web.com> References: <380-220064528161456376@M2W065.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <4453F052.5050205@posthuman.com> I do find using the internet's intelligence focusing to be very helpful if you're interested in saving money... I've recently discovered you can save 20% off some gas gift cards and gift cards to many other stores, through something called Dealpass. That's around 60 cents a gallon off. You can find a huge and complicated thread about this at fatwallet.com if you search their forums for dealpass, and if you study up you can find out how to get access to this service for cheaper than free for a year. Also if you are interested in a simplified/semi-automated way of using sales and coupons to cut around 50% off your grocery bill, check out www.thegrocerygame.com, which can do it if you don't mind around an hour of work using it a week. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From alito at organicrobot.com Sun Apr 30 02:12:48 2006 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:12:48 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1146363168.13392.189.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 07:26 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > You also are unlikely to notice it with "7 or 8 open tabs". "Real" > men, cough, like to run it with 15-20 open windows some of which have > been pushed past the 33 tab limit (at least on a 1024 pixel wide > screen). This tends to be browser pattern related -- I'll open 5-10 > tabs from the front page of the NY times, another 5-10 from /., 20+ > from the first 5+ pages of digg, and dozens if I'm doing specific > topic research in PubMed and want to page back & forth between lots of > abstracts. If you are a few page at a time user you are unlikely to > encounter it. > You should maybe try TabMixPlus then. No 33 tab limit, since the tab bar scrolls, and it does the job of session saver too. (a few more recommendables: Nuke Anything kills whatever object you want on the screen and Copy Plain Text for cut and pasting text) From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Sun Apr 30 03:51:58 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 20:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Crows Invent Machine Message-ID: <20060430035158.85632.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com> Regarding this most amazing report: http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/ ***************************************************** "Carrion crows and humans line up patiently, waiting for the traffic to halt. When the lights change, the birds hop in front of the cars and place walnuts, which they picked from the adjoining trees, on the road. After the lights turn green again, the birds fly away and vehicles drive over the nuts, cracking them open. Finally, when it's time to cross again, the crows join the pedestrians and pick up their meal. If the cars miss the nuts, the birds sometimes hop back and put them somewhere else on the road. Or they sit on electricity wires and drop them in front of vehicles. [...] The crows in Japan have only been cracking nuts this way since about 1990. They have since been seen doing it in California." ***************************************************** let me propose this ARGUMENT: the example above constitutes the use and *invention* of a machine by crows. The machine is a function M that accepts the input of a properly placed nut n that is then processed by the weight of rolling automobile tires into the target output M(n) of a cracked-open nut. Crows not only use this machine but they invented it assuming that the invention of machine X need only constitute its original conception and comprehension followed by physical proof that input y does in fact yield the target output X(y). I believe the crows have satisfied those criteria of machine invention. The proposition of invention may seem a stretch given that the crows did not manufacture any cogs in their nut-cracking machine. However, the crow's intentional manipulation of physical objects (nuts) into a proper physical relationship with automobile traffic *transforms* a set of entities (road, people, and cars) into cogs in a nut-cracking machine. When a human builds a machine they do the same: by physical manipulation they *transform* one set of objects into a set of objects that produce a target output. In fact, the raw and stunning intellectual power of the action of crows reported above is that in one fell swoop, the human driver is transformed into a cog in a nut-cracking machine. So the crows have physically built a nut-cracking machine that subordinates humans to mechanical cogs. But a beautiful feature of this ingenious machine is that it does not interfere with the driver's own target output of transportation, in fact drivers can enjoy knowing that they're both getting where they want to go AND helping to feed hungry birds. As for the automobiles, the crow's manipulation transforms them from being cogs in one machine into cogs in two machines, the first of human intention that outputs transportation for humans and the second of crow intention that outputs cracked nuts for crows. ~Ian http://IanGoddard.net "No proposition can make a statement about itself, because a propositional sign cannot be contained in itself (that is the whole of the 'theory of types')." - Ludwig Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Apr 30 04:32:48 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:32:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604300513.k3U5D9rO012399@andromeda.ziaspace.com> RE: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion really matter?] Interesting transition from Karl Schroeder to computer configurations. This is so cool the way extropian subjects morph the way they do. {8-] I don't know Karl Schroeder, but I assume he is living, and possibly an internet reader. This being the case, we perhaps should refrain from putting his name in the subject line. His opinion surely matters to him. Book authors' names in the subject line are fair game, so long as the post is actually about her books. Thanks guys! {8-] spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ... Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:27 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was:Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Apr 30 15:18:17 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:18:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0604291537o3d5df2a1v635d7c71e3fc5449@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0604291537o3d5df2a1v635d7c71e3fc5449@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4/29/06, Russell Wallace wrote: (regarding pigging out on memory because it happens to be "cheap")... > Good, good, good! > Not really! Hypertransport & multi-gigabit ethernet = good good good. Cell microprocessors are kinda good good good. Highly parallel graphics cards are somewhat less good good good. Most current systems do *zippo* with respect to making nanotechnology development faster. And similarly contribute little to possible development of an AI. If you really want to do high quality atomic scale simulations you need processor and memory architectures that fit the basic requirements for molecular modeling. Those are *not* for cheap memory widely separated from the CPU(s). You want lots of processors with good F.P. capabilities with access to their own local memory pools. The Cell is the closest thing to that currently. You also need high bandwidth between as many of those processors as you can afford. That is where hypertransport & multi-gigabit ethernet come in. If you look at the AI side of the equation, you have to consider the brain is a physically concentrated of relatively limited capability processors with very high aggregate bandwidth. We are moving towards this with multi-cores but the current primary PC architecture (huge separation between CPUs & memory) doesn't even come close to what is required. A significant limiting factor on continued progress in computer hardware is > demand going down because too much programming effort is spent wasting > computer capacity (by leaving it lying idle) rather than using it to improve > reliability (for a start, by switching to languages other than super macro > assembler! :P), functionality and usability. > Reliability is improved by redundancy -- you are starting to see that with web applications (my computer can fail but I can still go to any other web connected computer and read Gmail). Usability is what is driving things like myspace & youtube -- not that they are contributing in any significant way to nanotechnology or AI. Functionality is an interesting topic. It took us ~20 years to go from C to Perl and another decade to get to Python and Java. And though I don't claim to know the last two my limited awareness doesn't point out significant differences between them and C. (Yes one doesn't have to handle memory allocation but of course that can lead to memory fragmentation which leads to the problems one can currently encounter in Firefox.) Serious workloads like simulations always need more computing power, but the > people running them don't have the money to pay for chip factories at > several billion a pop. It all comes down to the people writing programs like > Firefox and Doom 3 to put the power to mass use - let them be praised, not > criticized. > Hmmm... Go ahead and make the case that Firefox is contributing to computer architecture development will support cheap simulations... I doubt it can be done. Anything you suggest that Firefox is doing driving the limits of the hardware I would suggest may be an unconscious and unnecesary waste of resources (I haven't heard about people complaining about Opera being so problematic). You can make a better case for games driving parallelism and even cooling technologies -- but I don't believe nVideo or ATI have released the specifications for their GPUs for general purpose programming (the drivers are still proprietary AFAIK). So all you can use the cards for is displaying pretty pictures. (This stands in contrast to IBM pushing the Cell as an open platform.) I agree that there is a funding problem for what we really need -- IBM could have easily produced a chip optimal for molecular modeling 5+ years ago. They were well aware of what was required (there are papers in the IBM Journal discussing it). However it took teaming up with Sony and a potential market of 100 million chips (e.g. the PS3) to get them to produce something even halfway close to what is required. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Apr 30 15:55:11 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:55:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0604291537o3d5df2a1v635d7c71e3fc5449@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604300855n4eada801u87ab91b10a281223@mail.gmail.com> On 4/30/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Not really! Hypertransport & multi-gigabit ethernet = good good good. > Cell microprocessors are kinda good good good. > Highly parallel graphics cards are somewhat less good good good. > There are two different issues here, and you're making correct statements about one but overlooking the other. Architecture matters when you're choosing a system for your particular job, and yes, you're right about which architectures are good choices for things like molecular modeling. But in the long run architecture matters less than process technology. The Athlon-64 I'm typing this on is far from optimized for molecular modeling (which is what it's spending most of its time on right now) - but it's much more effective at it anyway than an optimal design of the past. Process technology accounts for most of the hardware R&D cost and most of the performance improvement, and process technology is driven by the aggregate demand for denser chips - and most of that's in things like PC and console CPUs and graphics chips, PDAs and cell phones, and RAM (and increasingly nowadays Flash - that market is starting to pay for top of the line fabs, not just take the leavings). So yes, people using lots of transistors in "bad" architectures are still paying their share. By all means encourage better architectures - but let's also make the scarcity to abundance transition in computing resources generally, and stop behaving like an animal that's spent its life in a ten foot cage, and on release keeps pacing in a ten foot circle. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Apr 30 16:00:47 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:00:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was:Commentary: Does ... opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604301601.k3UG0xWG024925@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Robert and others, please take Karl Schroeder out of the subject line, thanks. This thread no longer has anything to do with him. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 8:18 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was:Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] On 4/29/06, Russell Wallace wrote: (regarding pigging out on memory because it happens to be "cheap")... Good, good, good! Not really! Hypertransport & multi-gigabit ethernet = good good good. ... Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Apr 30 15:34:32 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:34:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" Me: >>It's [reincarnation] possible under certain conditions. You: > Such as...? Such as? SUCH AS! Good God man, for the last 5 posts to you and for about 500 posts to this list for the last decade I have explained, if I don't mind saying so, clearly and exactly what those conditions are. If you have found a logical error in them then do me a great great favor and point it out, but after all this time don't say "such as?". It's as if you were explaining something to someone for an hour and his only response was "what?". > How many *instances* (not types) of "1" are there in "1+1"? > Just give me a number. It is difficult to answer because your question is not entirely clear. I assume you mean how many instances of the idea or subjective experience of adding one to one are there if two identical brains do it. If you mean something else then I'm not going to waste valuable brain cells thinking about it because subjective experiences are the only thing I care about. That said the number you asked for is 1. > Remember that we're talking about brains without a single > communication channel between them If 2 brains are identical there would be no need for a communication channel between them to keep them synchronized, at least as long as you didn't wait so long that random quantum fluxations and chaos caused them to diverge. John K Clark From george at betterhumans.com Sun Apr 30 15:38:54 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:38:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists consider givingapeshuman-levelrights In-Reply-To: <380-2200645281257125@M2W130.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200645281257125@M2W130.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <4454DA0E.2010008@betterhumans.com> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > I think you just need to engage more. I plan to, and I've decided to devote my talk to this topic at the IEET's Stanford conference in May. I hope to see many of you there. Cheers, George From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Apr 30 16:33:30 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:33:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was:Commentary: Does ... opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <200604301601.k3UG0xWG024925@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200604301601.k3UG0xWG024925@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0604300933kf74ae5ar6d936a5f0a9e232c@mail.gmail.com> On 4/30/06, spike wrote: > > Robert and others, please take Karl Schroeder out of the subject line, > thanks. This thread > > no longer has anything to do with him. spike > You're right, sorry, didn't notice that was still in the subject line. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Apr 30 16:37:28 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:37:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <380-22006442704854500@M2W002.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006442704854500@M2W002.mail2web.com> Message-ID: Anna, You might wish to consider switching to Linux. Ubuntu is not particularly hard to install (very user friendly) and should help to protect you from many of the problems running around on the Net. You should try to find a computer which comes without Windows pre-installed (this should save you some money). If you like I can even send you a Ubuntu CD that you can test on your own computer. (Many Linuxes come with what is now called a "LiveCD" capability which allows you to boot the system off of the CD to test it). The nice thing about switching to Linux is that the software generally becomes "free" and you have many fewer people trying to hack into your system. Natasha, I'd suggest you may want to consider switching to a model of "take your data" and not "take your computer". Unless you absolutely need to use your computer on the plane (which isn't an ideal work environment and currently isn't net-enabled) this may be a much better model. You can get a 1-2GB USB Flash Drive and put all of you data on it and then take it whereever you need it. I can take my Flash Drive which has most of my important files, bookmarks and even a suite of programs like Firefox and OpenOffice on it and plug it in at the library and use it fine (without the hassle of lugging a laptop around). You want to keep in mind that 1-2GB is 10x the amount of storage one commonly had on a laptop less than a decade ago. (That's enough capacity to hold several hundred *really* large powerpoint applications with a lots of high resolution embedded graphics and still have lots of room to spare). I'm moderately sure I could plug such a drive into almost any modern computer and use it. It works comfortably on any modern windows (Win2K, ME, XP, etc.) as well as any relatively modern Linux systems and I presume the latest releases of the Mac. Many hotels now have business cubicles you can use or even public access computers directly connected to the net. (For example the last Holiday Inn I was at I used the computer near the front desk for a couple of hours (cost = $0) and copied the information I wanted to save directly into a post to myself using Gmail.) You may want to think about what aspects of the net you really need as I think many people are moving towards devices, e.g. Blackberry's, etc. which allow simple Email, Web browsing, etc. without having to lug around a laptop. Unless you absolutely have to sit in a room which does not normally have a computer w/ net access (perhaps in a conference for days on end???) it may not make sense. I'm beginning to see lugging around a laptop as an increasingly less attractive option vs. a small general purpose device + all my data on a high density storage device. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Apr 30 16:11:39 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:11:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004101c66c70$cffe14f0$11094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > this illusion will belong to a copy, not the original. But the "copy" will not know this, the "original" will not know this, nobody will know this except apparently Heartland. By the way, I used quotation marks because this entire distinction between an exact copy and the sacred holy all high original is just silly. And by the way, I like illusions, nothing wrong with them at all. > That illusion will happen as part of a verifiably different *instance* It is NOT verifiably different because your sacred atoms have no individuality; there are no scratches on atoms to tell one from the other. And don't give me that pompous "trajectory through space time" phrase again because that information can be erased from the universe; just cool the atoms down enough. > I don't think we are constantly dying Unless of course you've had major surgery and had anesthesia, then according to you you're toast. I had my appendix out when I was 7 but I don't feel much like a zombie; but then again maybe you're right, maybe what I think of as consciousness is but a pale reflection of the glorious thing you experience, you who has never had anesthesia. Maybe I'm a zombie but don't know it. Maybe I'm not conscious I just think and feel like I'm conscious. Maybe the John Clark before the age of 7 is dead as a door nail. Or maybe your ideas are just dumb. John K Clark From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Apr 30 16:53:00 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:53:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 27, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > >> Isn't this a bit fascist to force a species to upgrade and >> achieve a higher intelligence. > > I'm not talking about obligations to species, but to individual > beings. > > Is it fascist to make your kid eat spinach or go to school, even > though > they don't want to? > > No, in fact it is immoral not to make them do these things. Because > they > do not yet have the capacity to decide for themselves whether they > would > benefit. One of the reasons we have a moral obligation to make kids go > to school is so they will eventually become self-governing adults who > can make decisions for themselves. > > The same logic applies to apes. > No, it doesn't. The ape is not a human being or a human child. The "logic" depends on a spurious analogy being accepted. - samantha From george at betterhumans.com Sun Apr 30 17:23:39 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:23:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4454F29B.9040604@betterhumans.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > No, it doesn't. The ape is not a human being or a human child. The > "logic" depends on a spurious analogy being accepted. Please elaborate on what you feel is 'spurious' about this logic, because all I'm getting from your posts is contradiction. Cheers, George From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Apr 30 20:50:56 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:50:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> We have pretty much eschewed politics here, but if anyone has any ideas or suggestions on how an extropian-minded person should look at this human tragedy I would think it would be appropriate here. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/30/us.sudan.ap/index.html As long as we keep out of the tiring old republicans this and democrats that, keep it as a high level world-as-participants discussion, we are all ears. Counter-suggestions welcome. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sun Apr 30 22:43:53 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:43:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights Message-ID: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > No, it doesn't. The ape is not a human being or a human > child. The > > "logic" depends on a spurious analogy being accepted. Samantha, We apparently have different understandings of transhumanist ethics. For me "that's not a human being" doesn't tell me anything about its moral status. Apparently it does for you. J. From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Sun Apr 30 22:43:53 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:43:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: > if anyone has any ideas or suggestions on how an extropian-minded person should look at this human tragedy Hmm. I know its just dumb 20th century thinking, and less important ultimately than building the Singularity, but some people have this crazy idea that the world community could declare genocide a crime, appoint a body that would determine when it was occurring, and send in troops to defend people from their murderers. I know its crazy. But it might just work. I hear there might be some group in New York City working on it. Seriously, a world that can't find the political will to defend people from genocide - which will of course requires sacrifices of blood, sweat, tears and treasures, and maybe even some taxes - is not a world prepared for the existential threats we face from technologies of mass destruction, and the political conflicts that will be exacerbated by the emerging technologies we all talk about here. The answers are not mysterious. They are just political. Send in the blue helmets, and defend the people of Darfur. J. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun Apr 30 21:49:26 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060430214927.38082.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Heartland wrote: "That illusion will happen as part of a verifiably different *instance* of mind process than the original instance of that same *type* of process. As people, we are instances, not types. That's the biggest misconception that people bring to this kind of debate, namely, that people are types." I don't think that Space/Time trajectory is sufficient to distinguish any specific instance of mind-process from any other. The key to my objection here lies with the necessary mind-*process*. As I pointed out in an old post, a vitrified brain retains a Space/Time trajectory that is every bit as real and valid as a trajectory followed by a living brain (A living brain and a vitrified brain are both "4-D"). While a brain is vitrified it is *not* conducting a mind-*process* at all. So, upon very close examination, the "original" mind-process (original instance) *cannot* at all be distinguished by Space/Time trajectory, from the "copied" mind-process (copied instance) - it is the *same* brain. I realize this paragraph may be difficult to follow, but I couldn't find a way to make it more straightforward. So a different "instance" *cannot* be distinguished based on Space/Time trajectory. So *how exactly* can a "copy" be distinguished from an (recently dead) "original"?: Subjectively there is no difference. Objectively there is no difference. The copy detects no difference. The dead original detects no difference... obviously. So, where can the difference possibly lie? The answer is that we, right now, *are* copies (imperfect ones) of the person who existed a moment before. He or she, the "original", has permanently died; they "experience" nothingness. If you doubt this assertion, ask yourself this question: Where the hell is the 5 year old "version" of "me"? I know he existed once, where did I put him? The answer is that he is permanently deceased. He is not detectable either subjectively or objectively. He does not detect himself. He is dead. In my case, I am a "copy" of him (a dramatically imperfect copy - due to the large number of successive copying events that have already occurred since then). The copying event occurs once every few Planck Intervals (possibly once every single Planck Interval, but more likely at least 2). In this context a copying event is equivalent to any physical change in the brain (and remember that changes occur as time proceeds). My entire "time-slicing" argument is not even necessary in order to show that the above is correct. A person will be copied many, many times within ~10^29 Planck Intervals. But, I hope that it helps to make the point. "...but it is not the arrangement of atoms that produces mind, it's the *activity* of matter in space and time that directly causes mind to emerge." I shouldn't have put it that way. I agree that the mind is an active process. I only meant that both atoms and the special pattern of atoms that constitute a brain, are necessary but not quite sufficient to allow a human mind. Activity through time is also necessary. Sorry if this post sounds Jerkish, its been a long day. Need sleep. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Heartland wrote: "It's also important to note that atoms as 4-D objects are non-mind processes so my conclusion that irreversible death occurs when 4-D mind object degenerates into non-mind objects still stands." Jeffrey wrote: "Yes, I still fully agree with this statement. If a mind-process is stopped, as it is in vitrification, the mind is verifiably absent, the "original" person is forever dead. The revived person will be a "copy", no argument from me. But, I still believe that the "illusion" of continuity will be present. The subjective experience will not be lost. I believe that revival from suspension would "feel" no different than waking from a dreamless sleep." That's exactly what would happen. I've never questioned that except this illusion will belong to a copy, not the original. That illusion will happen as part of a verifiably different *instance* of mind process than the original instance of that same *type* of process. As people, we are instances, not types. That's the biggest misconception that people bring to this kind of debate, namely, that people are types. Jeffrey: "I say this because I think that we ourselves are continually dieing in a permanent way already. At the end of each "round" of "life" (I can't yet say how long this is) we die permanently and experience *nothingness*. It is the physical substance of our brains (the atoms in their particular arrangement) that manifests the next "copy" that "occupies" our brains and our lives, and this cycle continues on and on until the brain is physically destroyed and cannot support a conscious mind at all." This is where we disagree. I don't think we are constantly dying and I have a good reason to think so. You wrote: "It is the physical substance of our brains (the atoms in their particular arrangement) that manifests the next "copy" that "occupies" our brains and our lives," but it is not the arrangement of atoms that produces mind, it's the *activity* of matter in space and time that directly causes mind to emerge. If there were no atoms (theoretically) and that activity would be present then we would still experience life. This *activity* (mind process) never stops during the time interval when no signals flow through neuronal network. Why? Because the substance of that activity is energy and as long as we live that energy is being more or less conserved. When we get to the bottom of it all, it's not the atoms or pattern of brain structure that is the mind. We are a system of energy flow. Jeffrey: "I would just like to provide my speculations on the "experience" of permanent death. When the mind process stops, and the mind is absent, permanent death has occurred, the person has "entered" nothingness. But nothingness, is not anything that can be "experienced", not even in principle. Nothingness is not equivalent to a sensory deprivation tank. You do not "see" a black void when you die. You do not "hear" nothingness. You are not "frightened" by the "experience", because it is *not* an experience. Just remember, we have each, without doubt, already been dead once... the entire time before we were conceived." Yes, I could have written this part myself. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 30 21:59:14 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Here's another spin on this: in the sixth paragraph you'll notice a Ron Fisher wrote that participating in the darfur genocide protest is a "socially responsible, good conscience thing to do". Feel Goodism. That is to say it makes me feel better-- 'look at me, I'm so decent I'll take time out from my day to go to a protest'. The protest is worthy but the motivation is mostly 'look at me, I'm so concerned, sympathetic & decent-- I deserve recognition, hope the press photographer snaps a picture of me'. And how about those that attend anti-globalization rallies, or attend protests against oil corporations, driving to the demonstrations in their gas-guzzlers? Americans have so little savoir faire, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of Americans. Isn't taste to be considered extropian? >We have pretty much eschewed politics here, but if anyone has any ideas or >suggestions on how an extropian-minded person should look at this human tragedy I >would think it would be appropriate here. As long as we keep out of the tiring old >republicans this and democrats that, keep it as a high level world-as-participants >discussion, we are all ears. Counter-suggestions welcome. spike --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Sun Apr 30 23:41:52 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:41:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/30/06, Ned Late wrote: > Americans have so little savoir faire, no one ever went broke > underestimating the taste of Americans. Not fair. You used Mencken's quote without attribution. Did you really think it would slip by this literate crowd? Martin