From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon May 1 00:33:34 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:33:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Ned Late wrote: > 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 vast majority of activism is exactly this. Why? Because it is cheap. It is a way to reap most of the social benefits of being an activist without the expense and discipline required to actually solve social problems. 80% of the personal benefit, 20% of the cost, and negligible impact on the underlying problem. Unfortunately, this type of behavior has a history of encouraging the perpetuation of the problem, as "solving the problem" becomes a cottage industry with a number of perks (c.f. Jesse Jackson). > Americans have so little savoir faire, no one ever went broke > underestimating the taste of Americans. Isn't taste to be > considered extropian? The problem with savoir-faire is that everyone thinks they have it, but I have yet to find a corner of the globe where most people can agree that it is a predominant feature of the local culture. Taste follows the same pattern; everyone thinks they have far more than they actually do. Nothing is more pointless than two groups of provincials each trying to disparage the other by labeling them "provincial". Genuinely superior cultures of any size will not have to tell me about their superiority as it will usually be self-evident from the global influence they wield. Relatively superior cultures tend to dominate their ecology, ultimately supplanted as even better cultures evolve. One of the classic blunders of history (beside never getting involved in a land war in Asia) is taking relative cultural superiority at some point in history to mean that the culture is superior in some absolute sense to which little improvement can be made. Cultures that do not encourage evolution invite decline. J. Andrew Rogers From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 02:09:53 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 22:09:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> How many *instances* (not types) of "1" are there in "1+1"? >> Just give me a number. John K Clark: > It is difficult to answer because your question is not entirely clear. If you know anything about Computer Science this question couldn't be more clear. John K Clark: > That said the number you asked for is 1. So you see a single instance of "1" in "1+1"? Wow! And that was just basic math. I'm sorry but I refuse to be exposed to any more of this kind of silliness. The answer is 2. Always. S. P.S. I suggest googling for difference between an "instance" and "type" in the context of OOP. From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 1 01:54:54 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:54:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060430204833.051a6ae0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:50 PM 4/30/2006, Spike wrote: > >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. I think whoever must do whatever to stop genocide whenever. This is beyond partisan beliefs which tend to obfuscate issues rather than solve problems. This is not a matter of political parties, but of social responsibility. Remember Rwanda? Terrible, terrible. 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 sentience at pobox.com Mon May 1 02:34:18 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:34:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Apr 30, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Ned Late wrote: > >>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 vast majority of activism is exactly this. Why? Because it is > cheap. It is a way to reap most of the social benefits of being an > activist without the expense and discipline required to actually > solve social problems. 80% of the personal benefit, 20% of the cost, > and negligible impact on the underlying problem. Unfortunately, this > type of behavior has a history of encouraging the perpetuation of the > problem, as "solving the problem" becomes a cottage industry with a > number of perks (c.f. Jesse Jackson). I agree. If you haven't signed up for your country's military or directly lobbied political decisionmakers to send forces to Darfur, and instead you're posting to the Extropian mailing list, you've already declared that your priority is transhumanism. That's a defensible decision. I doubt that Darfur will cause so much as two whole weeks worth of planetary casualties before playing itself out. So I concentrate on defeating death, the death of individuals and the death of worlds. I think that maximizes my leverage. If I'm wrong about that, I guess I've damned myself. And if you choose to concentrate on Darfur and choose wrongly, sacrifice planet-hours and tens of thousands of lives for the sake of a warm fuzzy feeling, that damns you even more thoroughly. So live up to the choice you've already made. Focus hard on what you believe is more important than an ongoing genocide. If it's more important than an ongoing genocide, it surely deserves your full attention. If other people look at you funny, all the more reason to keep up your focus. Because those other people won't do your work, and it's all up to you. But don't pretend that yelling about Darfur accomplishes spit. That disrespects the dead. Find some other way to get your warm fuzzies than showing off how hard you can cry. If you care more about Darfur than anything else, then get off this mailing list and into uniform. If you don't care enough to do that, then shut up so you can concentrate on whatever it is you think is more important. Try not to damn yourself and good luck with that. Sincerely, Eliezer. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 03:22:53 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:22:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060430214927.38082.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > 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 people bring to this kind of debate, namely, that people are > types." Jeffrey Herrlich: "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." The mistake in your reasoning is that you equated mind object with the brain object and mind trajectory with brain trajectory. These objects and their trajectories would be completely different even though similar by virtue of the same volume of time and space they would occupy (but different locations within that volume). When mind process stops, a trajectory of that mind stops while trajectory of the brain might still be continuous for some time while trajectories of individual atoms might be continuous forever. A total of 3 different trajectories parallel to time axis. The end of trajectory of original instance of mind process would not be the start of a trajectory of future instance of mind process. The line would be not be continuous along time axis. (Brain trajectory doesn't "connect" two mind trajectories since the brain trajectory is altogether different one). There would be 2 unconnected trajectories representing 2 different instances of a mind-type object. These 4-D trajectories would be sufficient in making all objects, including multiple instances of the same type of object, verifiably distinguishable. S. From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon May 1 03:16:15 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:16:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44557D7F.2010407@goldenfuture.net> Ned Late wrote: > Americans have so little savoir faire, no one ever went broke > underestimating the taste of Americans. And no American ever went broke selling American culture to anyone else. They watch our movies, they eat our Big Macs and make reruns of "Dallas" the #1 rated TV show in some countries. Who's the bigger bumpkin? The bumpkin? Or the bumpkin who pays to have him on TV all the time? Joseph From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 1 03:13:23 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 22:13:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060430220648.0519a998@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:34 PM 4/30/2006, Eli wrote >So I concentrate on defeating death, the death of individuals and the >death of worlds. Death, be it physical or mental, performs the biggest genocide against the tribe of humanity. It does not matter what pants it wears or name it uses. It is still death. 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 transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon May 1 03:10:11 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:10:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44557C13.5080305@goldenfuture.net> Hughes, James J. wrote >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. > Yeah! Because they're doing so well with Iran... Joseph From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 1 03:13:29 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:13:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:50 PM 4/30/2006 -0700, spike wrote: >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. Unfortunately . . . these events have been happening perhaps back to before the split between our line and the chimpanzees since chimps carry out wars of extermination against neighboring groups. The reason we have not seen more of it in the last two generations than we have is that technology has caused the economy to run ahead of the population increases in a lot of places. That keeps war mode or "wipe out the neighbors" mode switched off. You can blame the Pope or the memes for human reproduction to be jammed full on. The long version is here: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 The short version is that population builds up till people see a bleak future, that causes xenophobic memes to build up, and there is a massive population reduction from tribes fighting it out. The traits evolved in the stone age. It is easier for xenophobic memes to build up against a different group of people, Jews, Tutsi, etc, but a homogenous group can fracture like happened on Easter Island or Cambodia if the conditions are right. I have been thinking about these problems in detail because I am writing a singularity novel that stretches over the next 100 years. You don't need to be a high powered AI or uploaded human to see the problem, but fixing it in low tech societies opposed to birth control is probably beyond our current ability. If anyone wants to comment on a 7200 word chapter where the AIs completely depopulation Africa (without killing anyone) let me know. But at the current level of technology, I can only suggest you don't watch. :-( Keith Henson From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 1 04:36:25 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 00:36:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 4/30/06, Keith Henson wrote: > You can blame the Pope or the memes for human reproduction to be jammed > full on. > > The long version is here: > > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 > > The short version is that population builds up till people see a bleak > future, that causes xenophobic memes to build up, and there is a massive > population reduction from tribes fighting it out. The traits evolved in > the stone age. It's an interesting essay. While your model can account for some wars, it certainly doesn't account for all of them. Power grabs and religious/cultural differences account for a lot of violence as well. Moreover, it seems to account for tribal warfare much more than the wars have occurred in the last century. You also write: "Empowering women and other factors such as reliable birth control methods that go with the globalized high-tech life style has the effect of lowering the birth rate to near or even below replacement. Why isn't entirely obvious. The usual response of a species finding itself in a rich, well-fed environment is to have lots of offspring. Sarah Hrdy (Hrdy 1999) has given this topic a lot of thought without reaching a firm conclusion." The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization per se. Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost. Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear. In short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive. Martin From fortean1 at mindspring.com Mon May 1 04:47:50 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:47:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Crows Invent Machine Message-ID: <445592F6.1070300@mindspring.com> On Apr 30, 2006, at 2:36 AM, Terry W. Colvin fnarded: > Regarding this most amazing report: > 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. It seems to me like most instances of associative learning and/or operant conditioning would satisfy the same criteria. Pigeon inputs a peck to the correctly-colored key, output is a food reward. That sort of thing. The crow example is more impressive by virtue of its conceptual complexity, of course, but they all require the functional equivalent of abstracting the system somehow. > The proposition of invention may seem a stretch given > that the crows did not manufacture any cogs in their > nut-cracking machine. If you'd like instances of that, there are plenty of examples. I posted this a while ago: http://www.orenhasson.com/EN/bait-fishing.htm Crows fishing with bait (bread). They modify the bait, tearing off small chunks at a time and dropping them in the water, rather than just tossing the whole slice in. New Caledonian crows seem to be the reigning kings of corvid tool use & manufacture, mostly focused on extracting food from holes and tubes. They use sticks to push food out, choosing length and diameter to match the dimensions of the hole and distance of the food; they agitate beetle larvae and get them to bite down on the stick, then pull them out; they tear strips off pandanus leaves and pull out food with the barbed edge. Social learning seems to be involved; the juveniles closely watch adults using the tools, and local populations make pandanus-leaf tools of characteristic shapes. Moreover, at least one crow, when given straight pieces of wire, innovated the technique of bending the end into a hook (which is impossible with any of the natural materials they're familiar with) and using it to retrieve food. There's a research group website with lots of info at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.shtml --Anton Mates -- "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 jonkc at att.net Mon May 1 06:24:46 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 02:24:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > If you know anything about Computer Science this question > couldn't be more clear. Couldn't be more clear? I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. Mr. Heartland sir you have so far not demonstrated the slightest hint of knowledge of Computer Science or philosophy or even logic, perhaps you are really a master of these subjects but if so you have kept it very well disguised. > So you see a single instance of "1" in "1+1"? Wow! Wow indeed. I must add reading comprehension to your list of disabilities because that is not what I said. I understand there are some very good adult education classes that might help you out in that regard. And speaking of wow, nothing could equal your astonishing jaw dropping views on anesthesia. But let me propose another thought experiment, I make an exact copy of you as before but after that atom by atom I start moving one of the original high holy atoms over to the comparable spot on the lowly copy and moving one of the evil sleazy atoms of the copy over to the glorious original. After an hour or two all the atoms have swapped places, but neither knows it was happening and in fact during the entire transfer both brains were synchronized with each other. Which one is the original and which one is the copy? Which one is you? If some huge sea change has occurred which atom did it? When did replacing one atom with another one that was absolutely positively 100% identical make a huge difference? I don't believe in souls but it's clear that you do, although you'd never use the word, so which one has your soul? These are not rhetorical questions, I can answer every one of them with my theory. Can you? John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Mon May 1 07:06:13 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 03:06:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060430214927.38082.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007f01c66ced$cd70ab80$af084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > The mistake in your reasoning is that you equated mind object with the > brain object What the hell is a mind object? Apparently you don't believe mind is what a brain does, you think mind is an object like a billiard ball is an object. So how big is mind, is it bigger than a breadbox, could I put it in my pocked? What shape is mind? What color is mind? If mind is an object it must weigh something, so does a man weigh less when he is under anesthesia? Smart people must have a bigger mind than dumb people, so do they weigh more? > These objects and their trajectories... [blah blah balh] For the ninetieth time, you can ERASE THE HISTORY OF AN ATOM, erase it from the entire universe, just cool the atom down. If ALL information about "the trajectory through space time" is gone how can it effect subjectivity, or anything else for that matter? John K Clark From pgptag at gmail.com Mon May 1 09:54:33 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:54:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Island open in Second Life Message-ID: <470a3c520605010254q151d31edt40353f14978cf0cb@mail.gmail.com> The name of the uvvy island is taken from Rudy Rucker's science fiction work and used with permission. Second Life users, to get there search region uvvy on the map and teleport. I will be spending time on the island today and tomorrow and will be happy to meet all SL users on this list to discuss things to do here. I am Giulio Perhaps in SL. G. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 11:36:37 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 07:36:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer> <006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > "Heartland" >> So you see a single instance of "1" in "1+1"? Wow! > > Wow indeed. I must add reading comprehension to your list of disabilities > because that is not what I said. I understand there are some very good adult > education classes that might help you out in that regard. And speaking of > wow, nothing could equal your astonishing jaw dropping views on anesthesia. Excuse me. You've just tried to convince me that there is a single instance of "1" in "1+1". Now *that* is jaw dropping. If that's not what you said then please retract it and come up with a different number. If it's not 1, then what is it? (Last time I checked it was 2, but maybe it's really time to rewrite those obsolete math books). > But let me propose another thought experiment, I make an exact copy of you > as before but after that atom by atom I start moving one of the original > high holy atoms over to the comparable spot on the lowly copy and moving one > of the evil sleazy atoms of the copy over to the glorious original. After an > hour or two all the atoms have swapped places, but neither knows it was > happening and in fact during the entire transfer both brains were > synchronized with each other. Which one is the original and which one is the > copy? And you still go on about these atoms. Let these poor atoms go. :) You're fighting some ghost argument from the past, not my argument. Aren't you tired of setting up the same straw man over and over again? I know that I'm tired of just looking at it. I'll just indulge you one last time. After your experiment nothing changes. (Now, that I've burned that straw man down I wonder what you will think of now, Mr. Clark.) S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 11:55:44 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 07:55:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060430214927.38082.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <007f01c66ced$cd70ab80$af084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > "Heartland" > >> The mistake in your reasoning is that you equated mind object with the >> brain object > > What the hell is a mind object? Before you ponder these advanced questions, please try to figure out the number of instances of number type "1" in "1+1". Small steps. >> These objects and their trajectories... [blah blah balh] > > For the ninetieth time, you can ERASE THE HISTORY OF AN ATOM, erase it from > the entire universe, just cool the atom down. You amaze me, John. Now you claim that cooling down the atom erases all the records tracking past locations of that atom? I think this discovery should make front page news at PhysOrg.com, don't you think? S. From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Mon May 1 12:19:56 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:19:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Crows Invent Machine In-Reply-To: <20060430035158.85632.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060430035158.85632.qmail@web52615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990605010519ne9d231cl25eee98145d5acd1@mail.gmail.com> On 4/30/06, Ian Goddard wrote: > Regarding this most amazing report: > > http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/ Amazing indeed, but rather than a machine, I see it as crows learning to use some feature of their "natural" environment - the cities. Kinda like I could cook hamburgers on heated stones if I happened to live on top of Hawaii's volcanoes. Alfio From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon May 1 13:48:50 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 09:48:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060501092713.07949ab0@unreasonable.com> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >Ned Late wrote: > > 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 vast majority of activism is exactly this. Why? Because it is >cheap. It is a way to reap most of the social benefits of being an >activist without the expense and discipline required to actually >solve social problems. 80% of the personal benefit, 20% of the cost, >and negligible impact on the underlying problem. When I started work at Livermore, the lab was besieged by a three-day protest. There were periodic morning drive recurrences. Activists would come over from Berkeley, hoist signs that declared that anyone who worked at Livermore in any capacity -- from cancer research to janitor -- was a baby-killer, then go off to the Concannon or Wente vineyards down the road for a picnic lunch with friends and a bottle of Petite Sirah. It occurred to me then that if their primary motive was political impact, staying home at the typewriter would have been more productive. But the social benefits are immediate and tangible. I still smile at the frank honesty of the male college student who, asked before the 2004 election why he supported Kerry over Bush, answered, "Because I want to get laid." -- David. From jonkc at att.net Mon May 1 15:58:01 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:58:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" >Now you claim that cooling down the atom erases all the >records tracking past locations of that atom? Yes, that is exactly precisely what I am claiming. > I think this discovery should make front page news at > PhysOrg.com, don't you think? It most certainly did make front page news back in 1995 when it was confirmed experimentally, it was even discussed extensively on this very list at the time. In fact it did more than make the front page, the 3 scientists who discovered it won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2001 for it. As spectacular as their results were it didn't come as a huge surprise; Bose and Einstein predicted the effect theoretically in 1924. You seem to be a bit behind the times. For God's sake I've used the term several times before, take a little time off from pontificating about trajectories through space time and do some research on Bose Einstein Condensations. > Excuse me. You've just tried to convince me that there is a single > instance of "1" in "1+1". What I said in very clear language is that when two identical brains are thinking about 1+1 there is only one thought. Clearly in your sentence above there were two ASCII symbols of the number one but I don't give a hoot in hell about ASCII symbols, I'm only interest in subjectivity. And no, I don't believe I can excuse you. Me: >> But let me propose another thought experiment, I make an exact copy of >> you as before but after that atom by atom I start moving one of the >> original high holy atoms over to the comparable spot on the lowly copy >> and moving one of the evil sleazy atoms of the copy over to the glorious >> original. After an hour or two all the atoms have swapped places, but >> neither knows it was happening and in fact during the entire transfer >> both brains were synchronized with each other. Which one is the original >> and which one is the copy? You: > And you still go on about these atoms. You've made this exact same complaint about me before, but then immediately after you start droning on and on again about space time trajectories. And I've asked this exact same question before but like many many others that you have no answer for you just ignore them, but I'll try one last time, try reading my lips, IF YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SPACE TIME TRAJECTORY OF ATOMS WHAT THE HELL ARE THE TRAJECTORIES OF! > I'll just indulge you one last time. After your experiment nothing > changes. What the hell does that mean? Of course SOMETHING changed, there are now two bodies, two lumps of protoplasm and both claim to be you. So for once don't weasel out, don't just ignore difficult questions, which one is you, don't tell me nothing changed just tell me which one is you. After that tell me which one is the original and most importantly WHY, just what is original about it and why should anyone care? I look forward to your answers but I am not hopeful, you'll probably just ignore them again or dismiss them with an idiotic two word answer like "nothing changes". Me: >> What the hell is a mind object? > Before you ponder these advanced questions [....] Look buddy you're the one who introduced the Looney Tunes term "mind object" not me; so it is entirely appropriate to ask you what you meant. It is now clear you didn't mean anything by it, you were just punching keys on a keyboard. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 1 16:43:58 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 12:43:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:36 AM 5/1/2006 -0400, Martin Striz wrote: >On 4/30/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > You can blame the Pope or the memes for human reproduction to be jammed > > full on. > > > > The long version is here: > > > > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 > > > > The short version is that population builds up till people see a bleak > > future, that causes xenophobic memes to build up, and there is a massive > > population reduction from tribes fighting it out. The traits evolved in > > the stone age. > >It's an interesting essay. While your model can account for some >wars, it certainly doesn't account for all of them. Power grabs and >religious/cultural differences account for a lot of violence as well. In the negative sense, it might. I can't think of a population that was happy about the future that supported starting a war. I am not entirely sure what you mean by a power grab, but religious and cultural differences would not be a problem if population growth had not pushed groups into contact/competition over limited resources. The Nazi movement was up front about it, "Lebensraum." >Moreover, it seems to account for tribal warfare much more than the >wars have occurred in the last century. > >You also write: > >"Empowering women and other factors such as reliable birth control >methods that go with the globalized high-tech life style has the >effect of lowering the birth rate to near or even below replacement. >Why isn't entirely obvious. The usual response of a species finding >itself in a rich, well-fed environment is to have lots of offspring. >Sarah Hrdy (Hrdy 1999) has given this topic a lot of thought without >reaching a firm conclusion." > >The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization >per se. Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they >provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost. >Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they >produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear. In >short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their >children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive. I am well aware of the standard explanation and there may be something to it, but the very rich in western culture (plus Japan and China now) who could certainly afford lots of kids rarely have them. Also, children as young as 5 were extensively used as workers in early factories. It does not seem to apply to all peoples (cultures?). Look at the number of Saudi "princes." That's support for industrialization being a factor. The underlying EP theory is that *all* psychological traits including behavioral switches are the direct effect of selection or they are a side effect of something that was selected. Capture-bonding would be an example of direct selection, drug addiction a side effect. I can't make a case for either for low birth rates. Really good birth control wasn't part of the EEA, but infanticide (particularly female infants or ones too close in age) was. I admit to being baffled. Long term it is incredibly important to understand if population growth in excess of economic growth underlies the conditions leading to wars. Keith Henson From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon May 1 16:48:25 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 09:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Crows Invent Machine In-Reply-To: <445592F6.1070300@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20060501164825.66595.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Anton Mates (forwarded by Terry) wrote: > > Regarding this most amazing report: > > http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/ > > 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. > > It seems to me like most instances of associative > learning and/or operant conditioning would satisfy > the same criteria. Pigeon inputs a peck to the > correctly-colored key, output is a food reward. But clearly, Skinner's pigeons did not have the "original conception and comprehension" of the food-peck machine. It was invented by humans who specified its input, processing, and output parameters. I can't see how one could argue that the responses of the pigeons constituted their invention of the machine. On the other hand, no human conceived of a roadway and traffic as a nut-cracking machine. The "original conception and comprehension" of this machine appears to have arisen the corvid mind. > There's a research group website with lots of info > at: > http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.shtml A few days ago I posted that same link here. Thanks for the other examples of corvid intelligence. There are so many! I find this video most impressive: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/av/crow_080802.ram It's hard to see on the first run, but at first the crow tries to fish out a bottle of food down in a narrow tube with a straight wire. Quickly she realizes the problem: the straight wire can't get under the handle atop the food bottle. So she quits trying; takes out the wire (if you freeze frame at that point you'll see that the wire is straight); jams its end into some crevice, then walks around with the other end of the wire held in her beak so that the wire gets bent into a hook as she walks. Then she rapidly surmises that the necessary tool has been manufactured and that it should accomplish the task she must have already envisioned. Reinserting her self-made tool into the tube, she swiftly hooks it around the food bottle's handle and pulls it out. Both problems ((1) can't reach food, (2) have the wrong tool) solved! Now, a tool is considered to be a machine, [1] so that hook example also constitutes machine use and invention. By using a hammer one creates a machine where the input is calories, the work is hammering, and the output is driven nails. However, the nut-cracking machine seems more advanced in that it externalizes the mechanical work to the actions of the cars, which looks higher-order than self-powered processing. [2] If you can get a machine to do all the work for you, that's a big advantage! ~Ian _____________________________________________________ [1] "A tool is a machine which transforms energy from the muscles, bones, or teeth directly into useful work." http://www.see.org/e-ct-2.htm [2] "A tool is a machine. The distinction between a machine tool and a hand tool is that the hand tool is powered by your hand such as is the case with a manual screwdriver, whereas a machine tool does pretty much everything you can do by hand but is also power driven by some outside force other than human energy." http://www.stanford.edu/~jchong/articles/quals/Econ%20Soc%20-%20Empirical.doc __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 1 17:13:17 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060501171317.35040.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I agree that the evidence suggests that a human mind is an active process. I also acknowledge, that the atoms/ions/molecules which perpetuate the mind-process will each trace out a different trajectory in space/time, under typical circumstances. However, the fact that a moving atom "possesses" a space/time trajectory, does not mean that the atom is *defined* by a space/time trajectory. The space/time trajectory is a single component of an *extremely* large definition of any given atom. The space/time trajectory is an *effect* not a cause, of an atom that happens to be in motion. In other words, there is no space/time trajectory, without an atom to trace it in the first place (except for something like a photon, perhaps, but the brain isn't made of photons). The mind-process (or the mind-activity) cannot exist without atoms to do the dirty work. The activity that perpetuates a human mind is the activity (motion) of atoms (molecules, etc). So how can a "mind object" be any different than a physical brain, made of atoms? And how can a "mind trajectory" be any different than a trajectory of a physical brain (the trajectory can refer only to atoms/molecules/ions)? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > 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 people bring to this kind of debate, namely, that people are > types." Jeffrey Herrlich: "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." The mistake in your reasoning is that you equated mind object with the brain object and mind trajectory with brain trajectory. These objects and their trajectories would be completely different even though similar by virtue of the same volume of time and space they would occupy (but different locations within that volume). When mind process stops, a trajectory of that mind stops while trajectory of the brain might still be continuous for some time while trajectories of individual atoms might be continuous forever. A total of 3 different trajectories parallel to time axis. The end of trajectory of original instance of mind process would not be the start of a trajectory of future instance of mind process. The line would be not be continuous along time axis. (Brain trajectory doesn't "connect" two mind trajectories since the brain trajectory is altogether different one). There would be 2 unconnected trajectories representing 2 different instances of a mind-type object. These 4-D trajectories would be sufficient in making all objects, including multiple instances of the same type of object, verifiably distinguishable. S. _______________________________________________ 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 sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:15:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:15:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> On Apr 29, 2006, at 5:26 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > 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] > Ah. Does Firefox have its on memory management internally or does it just depend on raw request to the platform alloc routines that it then chains together. From the description i would guess the latter. Is anyone working on it getting larger contiguous chunks and sub-allocating and managing those internally? This sort of thing used to be standard practice back in the days of much more limited memory. It isn't that difficult to do. If I had some free time I would be tempted to volunteer to do it myself is no one else is. Firefox has some other nasty little quirks on OS X. If you hold down the left mouse button instead of just clicking the CPU goes up to over 90%! I get a fair number of crashers with the latest release. Often other windows/tabs are frozen while one slow loading page is being loaded. Sometimes what should be a text select ends up acting like a right click using my track pad substitute mouse. This never happens in Safari or Opera so it isn't apparently an OS/device interaction. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:15:44 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:15:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <20060426221239.69802.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060426221239.69802.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <80C00D83-AE11-4CD3-BB9E-646BFE472B5D@mac.com> On Apr 26, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Natasha Vita-More natasha at natasha.cc wrote: > > 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. > Well if you really don't need anything from the internet for that work that might be doable. But I think you will find plenty of things relevant to video and music on the internet that you would like to have. If you are going to move stuff between the machines then you would also be open to anything that may have infiltrated the old computer. I tend to keep my riskier OS machines (windows boxes generally) on a separate subnet physically and logically from main machines in my house. An attack on the former cannot get to the latter in any privileged way. The main machines are running less vulnerable OS and configuration and are truly internet facing. -s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:26:05 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:26:05 -0700 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: <4D548E91-17D4-4E33-8D24-1889D550AD1A@mac.com> On Apr 29, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 4/29/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > "Memory is cheap, don't worry about it." Bad, bad, bad! > > Good, good, good! No matter how much memory there is it still takes system resources to manage it and access it. Doing so inefficiently is a waste and in some cases can drag even a very powerful system to its needs. Plenty is not an excuse to be grossly sloppy. > > 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 > On the contrary, it was those limits that taught us efficiency and the pain of those limits that caused many of us to work diligently to overcome them. We computer oldsters dreamed a deep dream of power to the people through technology. And lo, it came to pass. More or less. Now there is truth in what you say in that premature optimization and languages designed to be easy on von Neumann architecture predominate in and limit software progress to this day. > 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. What is broken in even praiseworthy efforts MUST be criticized and fixed if we are to progress. It is the hacker way from which many of these efforts were born and brought to fruition in the first place. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Mon May 1 18:49:39 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 20:49:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> On 5/1/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Ah. Does Firefox have its on memory management internally or does it > just depend on raw request to the platform alloc routines that it > then chains together. From the description i would guess the > latter. The latter, and AFAIK it doesn't free the memory used by the images in a tab when you close it, so the memory usage grows and grows. It's also single-threaded, and a processor-intensive tab can effectively hang the others for quite a while. Alfio From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:50:41 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:50:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0604291537o3d5df2a1v635d7c71e3fc5449@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > 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.) > The second oldest general computer language, Lisp, is more advanced in capabilities than any of the so-called "modern" languages. Decades ago all the capabilities of the newer languages were hashed out and explored in Lisp. The best technically loses in the marketplace again and again. This is what you learn if you around the software industry very long. > 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). A friend of mine proposed the [mostly] joking theory that hardware progress is being driven by programmers needing more and more powerful machines to get much done with seriously retarded languages and tools. It took more and more power and memory to debug and profile the resulting mess. Given better hardware larger and less efficient systems were designed that then needed ever more powerful hardware to debug and maintain them. :-) - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 18:53:15 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:53:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: <4454F29B.9040604@betterhumans.com> References: <4454F29B.9040604@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <1FE90703-6270-4C3E-B23E-5B83084476A1@mac.com> The notion that apes are equivalent to human children is the spurious analogy. - s On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:23 AM, George Dvorsky wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 1 19:21:10 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 15:21:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > >The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization > >per se. Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they > >provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost. > >Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they > >produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear. In > >short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their > >children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive. > > I am well aware of the standard explanation and there may be something to > it, Ah, well, you only cited one person, who didn't have an answer, so you made it appear in your essay as though nobody has proposed an explanation. > but the very rich in western culture (plus Japan and China now) who > could certainly afford lots of kids rarely have them. Also, children as > young as 5 were extensively used as workers in early factories. Most people can't afford to have lots of kids. How much does a child cost to raise per year? Perhaps $10,000? That's not an unreasonable estimate. The median income in the US is $40,000, so that gives a single wage earner enough for two kids (plus spouse). People who earn less can't even afford even that, but they get away with it by not spending as much on each child. Peope who earn more, particularly more intelligent people, make a conscious decision not to have many children. > It does not seem to apply to all peoples (cultures?). Look at the number > of Saudi "princes." That's support for industrialization being a factor. Oil princes are absurdly rich, so of course they can have many children, but I would hardly make the claim that the Middle East is industrialized. Industrialized in a single industry, maybe. > The underlying EP theory is that *all* psychological traits including > behavioral switches are the direct effect of selection or they are a side > effect of something that was selected. Capture-bonding would be an example > of direct selection, drug addiction a side effect. > I can't make a case for either for low birth rates. You don't have to. Not all human behavior is the product of evolutionary hardwiring. Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. > I admit to being baffled. It's not that complicated. :) Martin From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 1 18:21:11 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:21:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060501182111.18961.qmail@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, Historically, the most common impetus for political or social change has been the personal discomfort of those people who felt "wronged" by the condition of the time. Unfortunately, people tend to only truly care about a given problem when they believe it has a high probability of negatively effecting them personally. (Or, it has already negatively impacted them.) It's sad but true. Here is another potential reason, why IMHO, it would be in *everyone's* best interest to safely and carefully "uplift" conscious animals to human levels of intelligence, at which time, their wishes can be determined. All of this after the Singularity. I haven't seen any solid evidence or argument that it is *impossible* for a human who has died, to later "occupy" the consciousness of a lower animal. I'm not talking about reincarnation or any other dubious claim, the animal would be an animal not a human, but the subjective experience of the animal may be "occupied" by a "being" that was previously a human. Here's another way that I look at it : The fact that I exist right now is an existence proof that I can "occupy" the mind of an animal (a human animal) *at least once* in the history of the universe. What is to stop this from happening multiple times? If I happen to die, perhaps next time I will "occupy" the mind of a gorilla. In which case, I would definitely prefer to be uplifted and given equal rights, than say living out my entire relatively pointless life in the wild or in a zoo. I know that this post sounds *awfully* mystical, superstitious, and/or religious. But I don't intend it that way. If anyone knows of any evidence that such a thing is impossible, *please* direct me to it. An "uplifted" gorilla would have the ability to decide its own future. If for some reason it made the decision that it would prefer to return to gorilla intelligence and live in the wild, it would be done. But, I find it hard to believe this would ever be its choice. The technical aspects of the transition should be trivially easy post-Singularity. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon May 1 19:05:45 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 15:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Crows Invent Machine In-Reply-To: <20060501164825.66595.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <445592F6.1070300@mindspring.com> <20060501164825.66595.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <36572.72.236.102.103.1146510345.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > On the other hand, no human conceived of a roadway > and traffic as a nut-cracking machine. The "original > conception and comprehension" of this machine appears > to have arisen the corvid mind. Parallel... I've known people in the past to use their pickup trucks to run over walnuts to break them.... But that is in the country, not the city - no traffic lights, no traffic other than the pickup truck in question. Regards, MB From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 20:36:45 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:36:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > 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. > For once I pretty much agree with you. However, I would send any troops or volunteers from any country or organization willing to stop the genocide now. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 1 20:39:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:39:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55805941-2032-4290-BDEB-51BCD05B6629@mac.com> On Apr 30, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Hughes, James J. wrote: >> 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. > My comments are not about denying "moral status" to non-humans but the anthropomorphism of treating quite different species more or less as if they are the same when start considering and attempting to respect non-human species moral status. - samantha From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 1 20:05:46 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Spanish Socialists considergivingapeshuman-level rights In-Reply-To: <20060501182111.18961.qmail@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060501200546.28281.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just wanted to add a post-script to my last message. "Returning" as a gorilla would, by comparison, be a pleasant experience. It would be far worse to "return" as a calf, chicken, pig, or other animal whose miserable life was extended solely for the comfort and convenience of humans (assuming that some humans will opt to remain unenhanced after the singularity). Alright, I'm done with drama for now. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich A B wrote: Hello, Historically, the most common impetus for political or social change has been the personal discomfort of those people who felt "wronged" by the condition of the time. Unfortunately, people tend to only truly care about a given problem when they believe it has a high probability of negatively effecting them personally. (Or, it has already negatively impacted them.) It's sad but true. Here is another potential reason, why IMHO, it would be in *everyone's* best interest to safely and carefully "uplift" conscious animals to human levels of intelligence, at which time, their wishes can be determined. All of this after the Singularity. I haven't seen any solid evidence or argument that it is *impossible* for a human who has died, to later "occupy" the consciousness of a lower animal. I'm not talking about reincarnation or any other dubious claim, the animal would be an animal not a human, but the subjective experience of the animal may be "occupied" by a "being" that was previously a human. Here's another way that I look at it : The fact that I exist right now is an existence proof that I can "occupy" the mind of an animal (a human animal) *at least once* in the history of the universe. What is to stop this from happening multiple times? If I happen to die, perhaps next time I will "occupy" the mind of a gorilla. In which case, I would definitely prefer to be uplifted and given equal rights, than say living out my entire relatively pointless life in the wild or in a zoo. I know that this post sounds *awfully* mystical, superstitious, and/or religious. But I don't intend it that way. If anyone knows of any evidence that such a thing is impossible, *please* direct me to it. An "uplifted" gorilla would have the ability to decide its own future. If for some reason it made the decision that it would prefer to return to gorilla intelligence and live in the wild, it would be done. But, I find it hard to believe this would ever be its choice. The technical aspects of the transition should be trivially easy post-Singularity. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase _______________________________________________ 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 ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Mon May 1 21:27:00 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:27:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9b9887c80605011427l3b1327e8u795acf044fff6837@mail.gmail.com> did anyone notice that Darfur is a conflict over water between the farmers and the ranchers? isn't this a micro of the coming water wars? i wrote my first article about the privatization of water in 1971. right now my main issue is....... if i told you on this list you would laugh and call me names filled with mirth. long live the balt o' more sun! i will never move back east as the berkeley sun never snows. the united nations started here. grin, ilsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Mon May 1 21:43:16 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060501214316.71786.qmail@web37502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You're right. And it's not fair to single out Americans for bad taste, as Mencken himself did. I don't mind protesters that much, but when you take a good look at them you see they are too nostalgic for the '60s. Some of the younger ones wearing tie-dyed shirts and other hippie garb when they were born twenty years after the style was widely in vogue-- they heard about the '60s and are romanticizing the era. >Not fair. You used Mencken's quote without attribution. Did you >really think it would slip by this literate crowd? >Martin __________________________________________________ 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 nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Mon May 1 21:16:28 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <44557D7F.2010407@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20060501211628.61531.qmail@web37502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> More is the pity, Joe. But it is understandable; after all, those who do manual labor can't be expected to read Shakespeare and listen to Beethoven while they are having pate de fois gras. >And no American ever went broke selling American culture to anyone else. >They watch our movies, they eat our Big Macs and make reruns of "Dallas" >the #1 rated TV show in some countries. >Who's the bigger bumpkin? The bumpkin? Or the bumpkin who pays to have >him on TV all the time? >Joe Bloch --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Mon May 1 22:29:37 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 15:29:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605011529y53b8f78k3201182c64fed65f@mail.gmail.com> ten thousand per year per child is very low. good nursery schools cost more than that every year and more though the grades and more than three times that for high school. then there are activities and cloths. . guess you have not been a parent in this generation! light laughter, ilsa > > > Most people can't afford to have lots of kids. How much does a child > cost to raise per year? Perhaps $10,000? That's not an unreasonable > estimate. The median income in the US is $40,000, so that gives a > single wage earner enough for two kids (plus spouse). People who earn > less can't even afford even that, but they get away with it by not > spending as much on each child. Peope who earn more, particularly > more intelligent people, make a conscious decision not to have many > children. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon May 1 23:02:55 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:02:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Firefox from my brief research simply seems to be doing C/C++ allocs & frees of the memory meaning that it is relying on glibc to handle the heap. I think the problem is that they just seem to be grabbing more over time without paying attention to how they manage it (so you've got history table entries, bookmarks, stored scripts, gmail records (or any other "dynamic" web information) all interleaved in the heap. So even if you free up all of the big image allocations in the heap the glibc routines still aren't going to give that space back to the O.S. (in Unix/Linux you have to issue a brk() call to decrease the last physical data address of the process). The library has code in it to do that (I checked) but I doubt it is ever called because you never completely "free" the space at the high end of the heap. So the heap gets paged which means over time performance goes through the floor as more paging has to be done to scan the heap every time you allocate or deallocate from the heap or run a garbage collection on it. One time after I'd run Firefox up to about 250-300MB of resident working set (probably 150+ tabs) I told it to simply "Quit" -- it did exit cleanly after *25* minutes on a machine that was doing nothing else of significance. I watched the performance on vmstat over that period and it was almost all swap-ins of unchanged heap pages during that time as it attempted to merge all of the pieces of heap memory being freed into one large chunk before exiting. It used virtually no CPU during this period -- it was all page faults and waiting for the pages to be swapped in. Its a combination of poor memory management in Firefox with poor VM management in Linux. (One needs a VM system which is intelligent enough to recognize heap thrashing and try to manage it reasonably -- which isn't trivial.) I could be wrong but I think Firefox is only single threaded in the communications area, not in the page format & display area. You shouldn't *have* "processor-intensive tabs" -- thats an indication of "foreign" code being run on your machine and I would suggest people are taking very large risks if they allow sites to do that on a general basis (which is why I generally block Javascript). Robert On 5/1/06, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > On 5/1/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > Ah. Does Firefox have its on memory management internally or does it > > just depend on raw request to the platform alloc routines that it > > then chains together. From the description i would guess the > > latter. > > The latter, and AFAIK it doesn't free the memory used by the images in > a tab when you close it, so the memory usage grows and grows. It's > also single-threaded, and a processor-intensive tab can effectively > hang the others for quite a while. > > Alfio > > _______________________________________________ > 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 velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 23:45:11 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:45:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060501171317.35040.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey Herrlich: > I agree that the evidence suggests that a human mind is an active process. I > also acknowledge, that the atoms/ions/molecules which perpetuate the mind-process > will each trace out a different trajectory in space/time, under typical > circumstances. "However, the fact that a moving atom "possesses" a space/time trajectory, does not mean that the atom is *defined* by a space/time trajectory. The space/time trajectory is a single component of an *extremely* large definition of any given atom. The space/time trajectory is an *effect* not a cause, of an atom that happens to be in motion. In other words, there is no space/time trajectory, without an atom to trace it in the first place (except for something like a photon, perhaps, but the brain isn't made of photons). The mind-process (or the mind-activity) cannot exist without atoms to do the dirty work." Yes, I agree with that. I never said that trajectories define anything other then the identities of objects. > The activity that perpetuates a human mind is the activity (motion) of atoms > (molecules, etc). Yes. > So how can a "mind object" be any different than a physical brain, made of > atoms? I should have explained this earlier. Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" that energy exchange process (e.g. atoms of brain tissue). In light of this, an alternative definition for uploading could be, "a process by which matter that contains mind object is being replaced." Jeffrey Herrlich: > And how can a "mind trajectory" be any different than a trajectory of a physical > brain (the trajectory can refer only to atoms/molecules/ions)? Assuming my last paragraph, different matter translates into separate trajectories. Good questions. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 1 23:47:23 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:47:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer> <001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >>Now you claim that cooling down the atom erases all the >>records tracking past locations of that atom? John K Clark: > Yes, that is exactly precisely what I am claiming. Apparently, you don't even have an awareness of what you are in fact claiming (which adds to no comprehension of what I'm saying). And no, it has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensation. Heartland: >> Excuse me. You've just tried to convince me that there is a single >> instance of "1" in "1+1". John K Clark: > What I said in very clear language is that when two identical brains are > thinking about 1+1 there is only one thought. Clearly in your sentence above > there were two ASCII symbols of the number one but I don't give a hoot in > hell about ASCII symbols, I'm only interest in subjectivity. Ah, so there are two separate instances of "1" in "1+1" after all. That's progress. Now, with that established, creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type. Yes? No? John K Clark: > IF YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SPACE TIME > TRAJECTORY OF ATOMS WHAT THE HELL ARE THE TRAJECTORIES OF! They are records of the activity of matter in time and space. It makes absolutely no difference which instances of that matter implement that activity. If I throw an object along a unique trajectory it makes absolutely no difference to that trajectory if I do this with a baseball or tennis ball. Does this finally destroy your zombie straw man? I hope so. Heartland: >> I'll just indulge you one last time. After your experiment nothing >> changes. John K Clark: > What the hell does that mean? Of course SOMETHING changed, there are now two > bodies, two lumps of protoplasm and both claim to be you. So for once don't > weasel out, don't just ignore difficult questions, which one is you, don't > tell me nothing changed just tell me which one is you. > After that tell me > which one is the original and most importantly WHY, just what is original > about it and why should anyone care? "Nothing changed" means "original remains original, copy is still a copy". Why? Because the original *activity* (not atoms) of mind process continues at the same space location. In other words, the trajectory of the original mind object remains continuous and parallel (therefore distinguishable) to the trajectory of copied mind object. I don't expect you to follow any of that but that's the technical answer. John K Clark: > I look forward to your answers but I am not hopeful, you'll probably just > ignore them again or dismiss them with an idiotic two word answer like > "nothing changes". Looks like you've been proven wrong again. I answered your questions, as always. Please don't blame me for ignoring your questions when you don't understand the answers. S. From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 2 00:08:31 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 20:08:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:21 PM 5/1/2006 -0400, you wrote: >On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > >The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization > > >per se. Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they > > >provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost. > > >Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they > > >produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear. In > > >short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their > > >children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive. > > > > I am well aware of the standard explanation and there may be something to > > it, > >Ah, well, you only cited one person, who didn't have an answer, so you >made it appear in your essay as though nobody has proposed an >explanation. Hrdy is perhaps the leading expert in this area. > > but the very rich in western culture (plus Japan and China now) who > > could certainly afford lots of kids rarely have them. Also, children as > > young as 5 were extensively used as workers in early factories. > >Most people can't afford to have lots of kids. How much does a child >cost to raise per year? Perhaps $10,000? That's not an unreasonable >estimate. The median income in the US is $40,000, so that gives a >single wage earner enough for two kids (plus spouse). People who earn >less can't even afford even that, but they get away with it by not >spending as much on each child. Peope who earn more, particularly >more intelligent people, make a conscious decision not to have many >children. The strong negative association between IQ and number of offspring is well known. And given the high degree that intelligence is the result of genes--disturbing. It would bother me a lot more if we were not at the very end of human intelligence being a factor. > > It does not seem to apply to all peoples (cultures?). Look at the number > > of Saudi "princes." That's support for industrialization being a factor. > >Oil princes are absurdly rich, so of course they can have many >children, but I would hardly make the claim that the Middle East is >industrialized. Industrialized in a single industry, maybe. It isn't at all as far as the population is concerned. Desert nomads to welfare state in one jump. > > The underlying EP theory is that *all* psychological traits including > > behavioral switches are the direct effect of selection or they are a side > > effect of something that was selected. Capture-bonding would be an example > > of direct selection, drug addiction a side effect. > > > I can't make a case for either for low birth rates. > >You don't have to. Not all human behavior is the product of >evolutionary hardwiring. Oh, I agree with you on this point. Have you ever read _Will_ ? G. Gordon Liddy overrode the reflex to draw back from being burned and kept his arm in a candle flame long enough he nearly burned through a tendon. But the broad brush of human behavior is the result of evolved psychological traits--even down to such trivia as why people post on the net. >Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not >recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people >simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing more than another? > > I admit to being baffled. > >It's not that complicated. :) Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or 40 years plus or minus? I appreciate the discussion and any insight anyone can bring to this subject. Keith Henson From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 2 01:23:04 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:23:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> On Apr 30, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Ned Late wrote: > 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'. That I feel better at least speaking getting out and speaking up rather than say, sitting at home watching the tube, is surely not such a bad thing relatively speaking. Maybe we should count that one to the good. I don't think it is about hoping to get in the paper though and I don't see where that, well, cynical a view is justified. Also, regardless of motive, the number of people who publicly speak up is important. > 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? > Are you part of the solution or another part of the problem? Slams of Americans per se are surely not helpful. Or do you believe you are too hip to be bothered with more than cynicism and an opportunity to trot out your favored evaluations and poke some folks in the eye? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 2 01:31:21 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:31:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <445573AA.10006@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Apr 30, 2006, at 7:34 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >> The vast majority of activism is exactly this. Why? Because it is >> cheap. It is a way to reap most of the social benefits of being an >> activist without the expense and discipline required to actually >> solve social problems. 80% of the personal benefit, 20% of the cost, >> and negligible impact on the underlying problem. Unfortunately, this >> type of behavior has a history of encouraging the perpetuation of the >> problem, as "solving the problem" becomes a cottage industry with a >> number of perks (c.f. Jesse Jackson). > > I agree. > > If you haven't signed up for your country's military or directly > lobbied > political decisionmakers to send forces to Darfur, and instead you're > posting to the Extropian mailing list, you've already declared that > your > priority is transhumanism. That's a defensible decision. I doubt > that > Darfur will cause so much as two whole weeks worth of planetary > casualties before playing itself out. So I concentrate on defeating > death, the death of individuals and the death of worlds. I think that > maximizes my leverage. If I'm wrong about that, I guess I've damned > myself. And if you choose to concentrate on Darfur and choose > wrongly, > sacrifice planet-hours and tens of thousands of lives for the sake > of a > warm fuzzy feeling, that damns you even more thoroughly. Damn. You are really into damnation today, aren't you? :-) Caring for humanity as a whole but not for any particular humans in great danger right now can be a bit troubling a creed. So can caring for various groups right now but missing doing that which is effective over the long haul of course. I think those predominantly in either position have things to learn from the other. Generally I don't believe this is an either-or. If we can stop the continuing genocide in Darfur then that is hundreds of thousands and possibly millions more human beings that just might make it relative immortality. I think that is a might more than "a warm fuzzy feeling". Don't you? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 2 01:36:18 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:36:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Business of Protecting Your Own Finances In-Reply-To: <80C00D83-AE11-4CD3-BB9E-646BFE472B5D@mac.com> References: <20060426221239.69802.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <80C00D83-AE11-4CD3-BB9E-646BFE472B5D@mac.com> Message-ID: <51AA7CC0-B1FC-4C5C-9A79-93CBD69A3A64@mac.com> Huh? I sent this message days ago. Why is it just now showing up? On May 1, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > >> Natasha Vita-More natasha at natasha.cc wrote: > >> >> 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. >> > > Well if you really don't need anything from the internet for that > work that might be doable. But I think you will find plenty of > things relevant to video and music on the internet that you would > like to have. If you are going to move stuff between the machines > then you would also be open to anything that may have infiltrated > the old computer. > > I tend to keep my riskier OS machines (windows boxes generally) on > a separate subnet physically and logically from main machines in my > house. An attack on the former cannot get to the latter in any > privileged way. The main machines are running less vulnerable OS > and configuration and are truly internet facing. > > -s > > _______________________________________________ > 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 May 2 01:40:34 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:40:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 1, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > On 5/1/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> Ah. Does Firefox have its on memory management internally or does it >> just depend on raw request to the platform alloc routines that it >> then chains together. From the description i would guess the >> latter. > > The latter, and AFAIK it doesn't free the memory used by the images in > a tab when you close it, so the memory usage grows and grows. It's > also single-threaded, and a processor-intensive tab can effectively > hang the others for quite a while. Gross! Is there a move afoot to add multi-threading and efficient related object/memory management? Or would this be too much a re- write? The latter seems like it should be reasonably isolated. Adding threading when it is missing is usually a more global task. - samantha From mstriz at gmail.com Tue May 2 01:47:23 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 21:47:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > >Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not > >recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people > >simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. > > That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question > down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing > more than another? Obviously all psychological capacities have evolved in response to selection pressures, and reproductive fitness is the ultimate goal. However, explaining behavior at the level of proximate goals is typicall sufficient in order to have a useful understanding of human behavior. Reasoning skills that occasionally override innate desires are adaptive. That explains why people consciously choose to limit their brood size when presented with information suggesting that the cost-benefit ratio of having children is low. > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > 40 years plus or minus? The fact that there are a variety of anecdotes should be further evidence that a simple cookie-cutter answer doesn't exist. Human psychology and decision making are complex. Martin From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue May 2 02:27:44 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:27:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> Message-ID: <9A588C96-1E57-43C8-9B83-28E8BC5ADB94@ceruleansystems.com> On May 1, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Are you part of the solution or another part of the problem? Slams > of Americans per se are surely not helpful. This is particularly ironic with respect to the topic at hand: http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=15321 I resisted pointing this out at originally, but what the hell. The UN has been pleading with countries to provide funding for basic supplies (e.g. food) in Darfur, which are running dangerously low and are already forcing severe rationing. The US has stepped up to the plate and provided over 3/4 of the total funding to date. Libya, (yes, LIBYA) is the second largest contributor, with only token contributions from a few other countries despite many pleas for donations. The rest of the industrialized world is essentially ignoring Darfur, with the US once again picking up most of the tab. In short, anything that *is* being done for the people of Darfur is being done primarily through the generosity of the Americans, with the major economies of Europe nowhere in sight. Again. The US is frequently accused of not doing enough to help, but if that is true what does it say about so many other large economies that do far less? What would the consequences be if the US emulated the reluctant and tepid generosity of much of the rest of the industrialized world? J. Andrew Rogers From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Tue May 2 02:11:58 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Bird Brian" - Not! In-Reply-To: <200604271509.k3RF9FfG004494@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060502021158.45416.qmail@web52606.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > 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. Cool observations Spike! [1] That one would have been nice to have captured on video. I just had a "D'oh, if only I had a video" moment a few hours ago. I stepped in the backyard to turn off a water hose when a Pileated Woodpecker [2] swooped in low overhead and landed on a tree about twenty feet away. A perfect unobstructed view, perhaps the best I've had. They're as big or bigger than crows and have an impressive wingspan color pattern. [3] It bounded around the tree for a while then took off again. They're very similar in appearance to the recently rediscovered Ivory Billed Woodpecker. [4] In my teens I used to do a lot of bird watching with local groups like the Audubon Society and other birding enthusiasts. I kept a bird list and did the annual Christmas count and such. Somehow I left it behind as a formal practice, but I still love to watch birds when I'm out. I'd love to get a pair of video binoculars. If those were around back then I'd have an extensive ornithological database. I'd love to try to get some corroborating video of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker... now there's a plan! ;) ~Ian _____________________________________________________ [1] http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-April/026477.html [2] Pileated Woodpecker http://www.birderblog.com/bird/Graphics/Screensaver/Birds/Pileated-Woodpecker-01.jpg [3] Pileated Woodpecker with wings spread http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/041303e.jpg [4] Ivory Billed Woodpecker http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 2 04:02:33 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 21:02:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Crows Invent Machine In-Reply-To: <20060501164825.66595.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200605020402.k4242jad008137@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard ... > A few days ago I posted that same link here. Thanks > for the other examples of corvid intelligence. There > are so many! I find this video most impressive: > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/av/crow_080802.ram Thanks Ian! I know crows are smart, as are seagulls. If you saw Jurassic Park you will surely agree that it was a silly movie. Even the scientist babe Laura Dern couldn't save that script, however it did have an interesting take on the velociraptor. Their notion was that this particular dinosaur had a large cranial volume to body ratio, so its ecological niche might have been one that would favor relatively high intelligence. Why did one species of dinosaur end up with the brains? The other species seemed to do fine without much in the old cranium. My notion is that ecosystems should produce remarkably smart species, such as gulls and crows. Consider lions: they do some behaviors that one would think would require some form of communication and organization, such as lining up spaced at appropriate intervals, singling out some hapless beast from the herd, then tag team chasing it until it drops. Yet no one has ever seen any cat roaring instructions. That's a trick! HOw do they know to do that? I find this interesting because it demonstrates the group survival value of intelligence. The crows and lions might help explain why humans evolved these wildly oversized heads, which is something I have pondered for years. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 2 04:38:36 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 21:38:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Bird Brian" - Not! In-Reply-To: <20060502021158.45416.qmail@web52606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200605020517.k425HGbQ025157@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ian Goddard ... > > In my teens I used to do a lot of bird watching with > local groups like the Audubon Society and other > birding enthusiasts. I kept a bird list and did the > annual Christmas count and such... ~Ian Ian I have become a bird fan in recent years, not from learning species but just from noticing the amazing things they do. The classic birdwatching never has appealed to me much because it seems too preoccupied with identification of species and especially uncommon species. Crows and gulls are perhaps the very most common birds around here, so they don't get a lot of attention. They should. To me, the point of watching wildlife isn't to find the most exotic, but rather to really watch, really pay attention to see what the beasts are doing. Common beasts are the most easily observed regardless of where you are. So I am a big fan of gulls, crows and ants. spike From jonkc at att.net Tue May 2 06:13:14 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 02:13:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > And no, it has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensation. Science have proven that you can erase the history of an atom, or to put it in the pompous language you love so much, you can erase from the universe all information about the space time trajectory of an atom. And yet you say this rather interesting fact has nothing to do with your theory that space time trajectories determine everything. As usual you don't even hint at why it has nothing to do with it when it certainly seems it should, you just say it doesn't and then say you have responded to my objection brilliantly and have triumphed over me yet again. Mr. Heartland that of course is bullshit, and it is crystal clear to me that until I mentioned it you'd never even heard of a Bose Einstein Condensation, and even now you haven't even bothered to make a simple Google search on the subject because that would take away precious time babbling about trajectories in space time being all important. > creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" > twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type. Yes? > No? Yes that would produce 2 separate instances of brain type, obviously, but there would be only one instance of mind type. > They are records of the activity of matter in time and space. Those records that have not been erased that is, see Bose Einstein effect. > It makes absolutely no difference which instances of that matter implement > that activity. Because all matter is made of atoms. > If I throw an object along a unique trajectory it makes absolutely no > difference to that trajectory if I do this with a baseball or tennis ball. Because baseballs and tennis balls are both made of atoms. At lest the atoms in those objects remain the same, unlike the atoms in brains that only stay for a few weeks; the atoms come into your brain do a little dance for a week or two and then leave. > Nothing changed" means "original remains original, copy is still a copy" Saying the original is the original may be true but it's not very helpful, I want you to point him out. Person A walks into a duplicating chamber and produces person B, a nanosecond later all the atoms in person B transfer over to person A and all the atoms in person A transfer over to person B. Don't tell me the original is the original tell me is the original A or B and tell me why. > the trajectory of the original mind object [..] Gibberish. It's gibberish because even you don't have a clue what it means even though you wrote it, I know this because if you did understand it you would have answered my question the last time I asked, WHAT THE HELL IS A MIND OBJECT?! > the original *activity* (not atoms) of mind process continues at the same > space location. No it is not the same space location, it is moving about the center of the Earth at a thousand miles per hour and moving around the sun even faster and rotating around the center of the Galaxy even faster and moving away from the Comma Cluster even faster yet. And anyway it's ridicules to say the key to mind is it's position because without senses a mind would have no way of knowing where it was, in fact it would mean little to say it had a position at all. If mind does have a position it is where its senses are, and that may or may not be where its brain is. > Looks like you've been proven wrong again. Right, you've convinced me, so next time I need surgery I'll just ignore anesthesia and bite on a stick. By the way is it OK if the surgeon at least washes his hands before he saws my leg off, or is the germ theory of disease all nonsense too. > I answered your questions, as always. Yep you have answered my questions as you have always done so, as always those few questions you answered you did so in 10 words or less, like "it has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensation" with no explanation as to why and no indication that you even know what a Bose Einstein Condensation is. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 2 07:56:57 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 03:56:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer> <003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Clark: > Science have proven that you can erase the history of an atom, or to put it > in the pompous language you love so much, you can erase from the universe > all information about the space time trajectory of an atom. BEC is when atoms become undistinguishable. So what. That only means that their trajectories merge. Big deal. BEC doesn't "erase the history". Just because you cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as in paper/electronic records) tracking past locations of those atoms are being magically erased too. You propose and even defend this mindless rubbish and still have the audacity to criticize my ideas? Unbelievable. Heartland: >Ah, so there are two separate instances of "1" in "1+1" after all. That's >progress. Now, with that established, creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type. Yes? No? Clark: > Yes that would produce 2 separate instances of brain type, obviously, but > there would be only one instance of mind type. Okay. Now this is perfect. Read your sentence again and think about it. If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one instance of mind type, then why do you write that "there would be only one instance of mind type?" There is one mind type, of course, but "only one *instance* of mind type?" Are you sure this is your final answer? Heartland: >> If I throw an object along a unique trajectory it makes absolutely no >> difference to that trajectory if I do this with a baseball or tennis ball. Clark: > Because baseballs and tennis balls are both made of atoms. At lest the atoms > in those objects remain the same, unlike the atoms in brains that only stay > for a few weeks; the atoms come into your brain do a little dance for a week > or two and then leave. Yes, that's the idea. Heartland: >> Nothing changed" means "original remains original, copy is still a copy" Clark: > Saying the original is the original may be true but it's not very helpful, I > want you to point him out. Person A walks into a duplicating chamber and > produces person B, a nanosecond later all the atoms in person B transfer > over to person A and all the atoms in person A transfer over to person B. > Don't tell me the original is the original tell me is the original A or B > and tell me why. Assuming transfers were equally gradual, A is A and B is B. Same as the last time. To know why, read my last 2 responses to Jeffrey where I define mind object and talk about trajectories of objects. S. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 2 07:24:41 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 00:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Evolution of the Head (was Re: Crows Invent Machine) In-Reply-To: <200605020402.k4242jad008137@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060502072441.31527.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Why did one species of dinosaur end > up with the brains? The > other species seemed to do fine without much in the > old cranium. Actually the raptors were not a single species but many different ones. The ones in Jurassic Park were actually Deinonychus a related but separate genus. The ones in JP were actually small compared to Utahraptors which were 14 feet long and stood 8 ft high. All these dinosaurs were characterized by being fleet hollow boned predators. They also hunted in packs which was unusual for dinosaurs. > My notion is that ecosystems should produce > remarkably smart species, such > as gulls and crows. Consider lions: they do some > behaviors that one would > think would require some form of communication and > organization, such as > lining up spaced at appropriate intervals, singling > out some hapless beast > from the herd, then tag team chasing it until it > drops. Yet no one has ever > seen any cat roaring instructions. That's a trick! > HOw do they know to do > that? Interesting question. I am willing to bet it is thru eye contact as roaring instructions would give away the ambush. I think that eye contact is one of the ways that prey animals are selected as well. If you watch National Geographic it seems that every wildebeest in the herd rolls its eyes when there is a lion looking at it, kind of like when a human boss is looking for a volunteer for an unpleasant task. > I find this interesting because it demonstrates the > group survival value of > intelligence. The crows and lions might help > explain why humans evolved > these wildly oversized heads, which is something I > have pondered for years. Well it has much to do with the evolution of the head in the first place. This process is called encephalization and it has been studied. Heads do not appear in the fossil record or in existing genera until the creature starts to become motile. Motility introduces assymterical body development. Since there is a survival advantage to having sensory organs in the direction one is moving as opposed to other directions, one finds that sensory organs and the nervous systems needed to process those senses tend to cluster at the front of a critter. Intelligence is a just a further layer of complication to this. In general predators are smarter than herbovores. This is because in addition to teh simple problem of looking where they are going, they have to be able to plot intercept courses to their prey. Thus predators have evolved to unconsciously solve analog calculus problems in their head. Thus by the time you get to sprinting pouncing ambush predators like the cats, you have quite a bit of intelligence. Birds, because of the very fast speeds and fully 3 dimensional nature of flight HAVE to be intelligent because they not only have to watch for obstacles and prey but other birds as well. They also have to have a greater appreciation for gravity, wind, and other things that most terrestrial animals can take for granted. Primates take it to the next level. The most primitive primates are arboreal. They have to be able to leap from branch to branch and if they miss that branch they are in a world of hurt. So they have to have many of the same processing power as birds. Apes take it even farther. They can throw things like rocks and feces at targets like an irksome predator that comes too close. To do this requires an additional layer of abstraction of time and space. Not just for themselves and their target but for the thing that they are throwing. There was an article in Scientific American a few years back where somebody had a theory that the development of symbolic language in people was derived from the ability to abstract the trajectories of thrown missiles. I think (s)he was pretty close to the truth with that one. In a way, the need to see into the future in more and more complex detail starting with simple movement around obstacles. Then to catching prey while running or hurtling thru the air. Then catching prey, finding mates, and avoiding obstacles and predators while flying. And finally being able to abstract oneself into an inanimate object and unconsciously calculate the ballistic trajectory necessary to nail Professor Frink with a turd or the antelope with a spear all contributed to big headedness. :) 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 pharos at gmail.com Tue May 2 11:36:18 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:36:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/2/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > 40 years plus or minus? > > I appreciate the discussion and any insight anyone can bring to this subject. > Where did you get that figure from? The Ireland CSO stats from 1950 onwards disagree. They show a drop of 25% in 1990 and roughly level from then on. Ireland used to be in the grip of the Roman Catholic Church which banned birth control and encouraged large families. The weakening of this control plus more availability of birth control methods plus modern education and Irish economic growth would easily explain these figures. BillK From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue May 2 13:36:21 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 09:36:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: > The US is frequently accused of not doing > enough to help, but if that is true what does it > say about so many other large economies that do far less? Bulldada. The US ranks well below most European countries in the generosity of its aid measured as a percent of GDP or government expenditures, and also scores poorly when all measures are accounted for including trade, migration and security assistance: http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_components/aid http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_chapter_3.pdf Overseas Development Aid and Military Expenditures as a Share of government spending, 2003 (%) Country ODA Military expenditures Norway 4.1 8.9 Luxembourg 3.9 4.8 Switzerland 3.5 8.5 Netherlands 3.2 6.5 Denmark 3.1 5.7 Sweden 2.8 6.4 Belgium 2.7 5.7 Ireland 2.1 4.6 France 1.7 10.7 UK 1.6 13.3 Finland 1.6 5.4 Greece 1.4 26.5 Australia 1.4 10.7 Germany 1.4 7.3 Spain 1.3 6.7 Canada 1.2 6.3 New Zealand 1.2 6.3 Japan 1.2 5.7 Austria 1.1 4.3 USA 1.0 25.0 Portugal 1.0 10.0 Italy 0.9 9.8 ------------------------ 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 hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 2 12:57:21 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 08:57:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501234426.06d34e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:47 PM 5/1/2006 -0400, you wrote: >On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > >Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not > > >recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people > > >simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. > > > > That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question > > down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing > > more than another? > >Obviously all psychological capacities have evolved in response to >selection pressures, and reproductive fitness is the ultimate goal. >However, explaining behavior at the level of proximate goals is >typicall sufficient in order to have a useful understanding of human >behavior. I am curious how you explain prisoner abuse, hazing, battered wife syndrome and sexual practices such as BDSM without an underlying understanding of the evolutionary origin. >Reasoning skills that occasionally override innate desires are >adaptive. That explains why people consciously choose to limit their >brood size when presented with information suggesting that the >cost-benefit ratio of having children is low. A lot of people think that in a socialized society the cost-benefit of children is below zero. I.e., let others raise kids to provide your food and shelter when you are old and have a ripping good time without the expense of raising any kids. Of course if *everybody* did it . . . . > > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > > 40 years plus or minus? > >The fact that there are a variety of anecdotes should be further >evidence that a simple cookie-cutter answer doesn't exist. Human >psychology and decision making are complex. I don't know the answer either, but don't you think that's a bit of a cop out? It's a matter of life and death for billions of people. Even if you are into Randian "me first and the hell with everyone else" it isn't going to keep you from being caught in the gears when the situation "turns pear shaped." Best wishes. Keith Henson From mstriz at gmail.com Tue May 2 14:49:54 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 10:49:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <9A588C96-1E57-43C8-9B83-28E8BC5ADB94@ceruleansystems.com> References: <20060430215914.31574.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> <9A588C96-1E57-43C8-9B83-28E8BC5ADB94@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On 5/1/06, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > The rest of the industrialized world is essentially ignoring Darfur, > with the US once again picking up most of the tab. In short, > anything that *is* being done for the people of Darfur is being done > primarily through the generosity of the Americans, with the major > economies of Europe nowhere in sight. Again. The US is frequently > accused of not doing enough to help, but if that is true what does it > say about so many other large economies that do far less? What > would the consequences be if the US emulated the reluctant and tepid > generosity of much of the rest of the industrialized world? Yep. I've vocally criticized other industrialized nations for exactly that reason. http://striz.org/blog/?p=223 Martin From zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com Tue May 2 14:21:25 2006 From: zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com (Keith M. Elis) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 07:21:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060502142125.31601.qmail@web82201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- "Hughes, James J." wrote: > > The US is frequently accused of not doing > > enough to help, but if that is true what does it > > say about so many other large economies that do far less? > > Bulldada. The US ranks well below most European countries in the > generosity of its aid measured as a percent of GDP or government > expenditures, and also scores poorly when all measures are accounted > for > including trade, migration and security assistance: Would you rather have 117 billion dollars or 4.1% of the GDP of Norway? Why don't you ask the heads of state of the thirty poorest nations in the world and see what they say? Keith From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Tue May 2 14:37:05 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 07:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <6FFFE903-54F0-46D5-B72E-0AFA8E3A68AE@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060502143705.93801.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Okay, it was wrong to single out America. What is discouraging is observing countless protesters up close to see so many of them are sentimental for the distant past, they remember or have heard of the protests of decades ago but don't remember or ignore the negative, the heads that were broken & the boredom. Countless hippies who don't remember or were born later don't realize that for every person who danced in the sunshine at Woodstock there was another who was shivering in the mud; they tend to remember the good times and forget the negative. Point is, the counterculture in general-- many of whom participate at protests-- are backward looking. Far too many of the protesters are participating out of nostalgia for a mythologized past, and this is the very thing I've spent decades trying to get away from. >Are you part of the solution or another part of the problem? Slams of Americans per >se are surely not helpful. Or do you believe you are too hip to be bothered with more >than cynicism and an opportunity to trot out your favored evaluations and poke some >folks in the eye? >samantha --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue May 2 15:40:19 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:40:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: > Would you rather have 117 billion dollars or 4.1% of the GDP > of Norway? If I was trying to feed people I'd rather have Norwegian aid. If I was trying to arm my military and stash cash in Swiss banks, probably US aid and especially US investment. > Why don't you ask the heads of state of the thirty poorest > nations in the world and see what they say? Already did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterrey_Consensus Bush made noise about increasing US aid after Monterrey, but hasn't. The Bush administration believes in a different model of "development assistance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus J. From mstriz at gmail.com Tue May 2 15:38:24 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:38:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501234426.06d34e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501234426.06d34e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/2/06, Keith Henson wrote: > At 09:47 PM 5/1/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >On 5/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > >Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not > > > >recurrent features of the EEA. Most wealthy, intelligent people > > > >simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size. > > > > > > That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question > > > down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing > > > more than another? > > > >Obviously all psychological capacities have evolved in response to > >selection pressures, and reproductive fitness is the ultimate goal. > >However, explaining behavior at the level of proximate goals is > >typicall sufficient in order to have a useful understanding of human > >behavior. > > I am curious how you explain prisoner abuse, hazing, battered wife syndrome > and sexual practices such as BDSM without an underlying understanding of > the evolutionary origin. I thought I just acknowledged the evolutionary origin. I didn't mean to imply that proximate and ultimate goals are causally disconnected. It's just that the ultimate goal accounts for a smaller fraction of the variance the more complex the goal system becomes. Human psychology is pretty complex. > >Reasoning skills that occasionally override innate desires are > >adaptive. That explains why people consciously choose to limit their > >brood size when presented with information suggesting that the > >cost-benefit ratio of having children is low. > > A lot of people think that in a socialized society the cost-benefit of > children is below zero. I.e., let others raise kids to provide your food > and shelter when you are old and have a ripping good time without the > expense of raising any kids. Of course if *everybody* did it . . . . But then you don't spread your genes, which has a really high benefit value. > > > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > > > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > > > 40 years plus or minus? > > > >The fact that there are a variety of anecdotes should be further > >evidence that a simple cookie-cutter answer doesn't exist. Human > >psychology and decision making are complex. > > I don't know the answer either, but don't you think that's a bit of a cop > out? It's a matter of life and death for billions of people. Even if you > are into Randian "me first and the hell with everyone else" it isn't going > to keep you from being caught in the gears when the situation "turns pear > shaped." Don't you think it's a bit hystrionic to claim that we need to understand every nuance of human behavior? Yes, it's interesting from a purely academic perspective, but neither will that knowledge do you any good, should you find yourself in some untoward situation, unless you you can remodel all of human psychology. We currently don't have the means to do that. Martin From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue May 2 15:44:28 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 08:44:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On May 2, 2006, at 6:36 AM, Hughes, James J. wrote: > Bulldada. The US ranks well below most European countries in the > generosity of its aid measured as a percent of GDP or government > expenditures, and also scores poorly when all measures are > accounted for > including trade, migration and security assistance: Ahem. Before you get too far ahead of yourself, you might want to spend less time trying to get that round peg into a square hole. The CGD "statistics" are pure nonsense if you read their methodology, and strongly biased toward a world view that is particularly unfavorable to the US. Any statistic that manages to so creatively exclude large percentages of US aid using rationalizations that I could only describe as arbitrary, subjective, and suspect has no place in reasoned discussion. It is a fine example of how to twist the facts with creative statistical methods, but I guess we won't look at it too closely if it supports our biases, eh? BTW, percentage of government spending does not mean much to most people, since the size of government relative to GDP and in absolute terms varies widely. Per capita figures would have been a lot more useful and would have obscured a lot less. As a more general comment, you are repeating the oft-noted mistake of assuming that all aid comes from governments. While true in many countries, US private aid *dwarfs* US government aid, by a factor of 3-4x depending on the source. Hell, private US donations to the UN exceed the contributions of many countries to that organization. There are some other notably generous countries in the industrialized world, such as Switzerland, Ireland, and Canada (all of whom give generous private aid in addition to government aid), but their size limits their impact. I personally have a strong preference for private aid anyway, as it has a history of being far more constructive and having far fewer strings attached. It would be a real stretch to argue that the world would be better off if private aid was all converted into government aid. Worth noting: I would point out that the more general statistics show a pretty strong correlation between economic growth and charitable giving; I am sure some would argue that there is a causal relationship between the two. Reversing the economic stagnation that afflicts so many industrialized countries (a self-inflicted wound for sure) might be one of the best ways to meaningfully increase aid. J. Andrew Rogers From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Tue May 2 16:52:38 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:52:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: > US private aid *dwarfs* US government aid, by a factor of > 3-4x depending on the source.... > I personally have a strong preference for private aid anyway, as it > has a history of being far more constructive and having far fewer > strings attached. I like private development aid also. But it is limited in its capacity to support long-term sustainable development programs, and does best with short-term disaster, famine and refugee relief. And not all privates are "string-less." World Vision and CARE are the largest, and CARE works closely with USAID and is rarely critical of the US (as compared to Oxfam for instance), while World Vision is a Christian charity (better than the right-wing US Christian charities, but Christian nonetheless). J. From jonkc at att.net Tue May 2 17:51:34 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 13:51:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > BEC is when atoms become undistinguishable. Yes. That only means that their trajectories merge. Only? > Big deal. It was a big enough deal to receive a Nobel Prize. > BEC doesn't "erase the history". It most certainly does, it means it's imposable to distinguish the history of one atom from the history of another. > Just because you cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as in > paper/electronic records) tracking past locations of those atoms are > being magically erased too. Those paper records are useless because after atoms formed a BEC it will never be possible to know which atom your paper records refer to. Your paper records may say that one particular hydrogen atom, let's call him Bob, did this that and the other thing, but after Bob became part of a BEC it is imposable to say which of the billions or trillions of atoms is Bob the atom. When you warm up the BEC the atoms come back but they have lost their individuality, there is no way to know which atom is which because as I've said before atoms have no scratches on them to tell them apart. > If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one > instance of mind type, then why do you write that "there would be > only one instance of mind type?" If two phonographs are in perfect synchronization and both are playing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony then only one symphony is playing; and if you destroy one phonograph the music does not stop. This sort of thing is not possible with objects, if I have two bricks and destroy one brick then something has chanced, I only have half the number of objects I had before. One noun plus another noun always gives you 2 nouns, but one adjective plus another adjective may or may not give you 2 adjectives. So there is one question you must ask yourself, is the mind more like a symphony or more like a brick? > Assuming transfers were equally gradual It doesn't make the slightest difference if the transfers were fast or slow. > A is A and B is B. Same as the last time. No last time you told me the original is the original, this time you tell me A is A; both responses were quite true and both were quite useless. For the last 3 posts I've been trying to get a straight answer out of you, I specifically asked is A the original or is B the original and all I get from you is A is A. Oh well, I also predicted you would evade that question as you have evaded so many others, and indeed you have. > Brain object consists of all nonessential matter If it doesn't do anything then why even talk about it, and why even use the word "brain" to refer to it? John K Clark From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 2 18:42:02 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <004201c66a7f$198cb340$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20060502184202.34043.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- "kevinfreels.com" wrote: > > 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? Fission is not the only process that would cause radioactivity. The gamma rays of matter/anti-matter reactors could do so as well. Nuclear energy seems a far more feasable power-source for interstellar travel than conventional chemical engines, so I would not rule out some sort of nuclear drive. > > > 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! I am not trying to convince you. I am trying to address the question in an objective a manner as possible. There is a distinct difference. You are right, however, in that the existence of such organizations is poor evidence. > > > > 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? I consider this a special case because of the numerous independent witnesses, the scope of the reaction by the military, the sheer amount of mass confusion generated, and the bizarre disparity between the "official stories" given by the various branches of the military/ government involved. Essentially a battle occured wherein tens of thousands of artillery shells were shot at nothing at all. Although if you look at the photograph, the searchlights are converging on SOMETHING that has a vaguely saucer shape. > > 8. At least 2 extropes on this list have > personally > > seen a UFO. > > OK. Now you have really done it. It must be true. Kevin, if you are not able to grant your intellectual peers a modicum of credibility who do you trust at all? > > > > 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? Yes a certain percentage of human brains ARE twisted. If certain sources can be trusted 4%(1 in 25) people are born without a conscience. That is not my point. Alternate explanations are not the point either. My original question was whether UFO phenomena are evidence of technologically superior extra-terrestrial intelligence in a Bayesian sense. I am trying to estimate a probability as to the existence of technologically advanced space-faring civilizations. Any phenomenon can have any number of explanations. Like the planets are orbiting the earth doing back flips regularly. These epicycles certainly explain the phenomena we OBSERVE but that doesn't make it correct. We have to use Occam's razor to find the SIMPLEST explanation that explains the phenomena and even then, that is no guarantee it is correct. But it is more likely to be. Thus I can bend over backwards to concoct a huge number of possible scenarios that explain the UFO evidence, but that is not what I am trying to do. I am testing a specific hypothesis: Are UFOs evidence that there are space- faring extra-terrestrials out there. Far from being trivial, the existence of proof of principle that interstellar travel is indeed POSSIBLE is a question of singular importance for the long term survival of the human (or even posthuman) species. If ET can do it than so can we. I asked for negative evidence and instead got a whole bunch of reactionary "ambiguous and inconclusive" from people. The only person that has given me a shred of negative evidence is Keith and that was by admission of some truly devious UFO hoaxes he pulled off. The fact that somebody as smart of Keith would go to so much effort to for people for the simple motivation of "anonymous publicity" somewhat disturbs me but also adjusts my posterior probability down quite a bit. Something that all the skeptical hand-waving by the other responses did not. So I guess my question now is whether enough hoaxsters of Keith's caliber could have fooled the U.S. Airforce to render the posterior probability of the existence of UFOs negligible. It would be nice if I could find a way to quantify this analysis. I will start with a modified Drake Equation as a prior probability and adjust using the positive and negative evidence accordingly. Interesting photos by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather sattelites: http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/space/Photo166.htm http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/space/photo31.htm http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/space/photo162.htm Riddle me this Batman: What is disk-shaped, 400 km wide, intermittently shows up in geostationary orbit around the earth, and emits water vapor and infrared? Of course these could be modified/hoaxed so I am looking thru the archives on the NOAA's websites. Although if they are carefully censored, it may prove useless. Also as far as allegations that UFOs are products of "pop sci-fi culture" explain their consistent appearence in art work from around the world as far back as 5000 BC? Look for yourself: http://www.ufoartwork.com/ Particularly striking is the resemblance of many of the depicted floating "saucers" to those in alleged photographs from the modern era. Some look almost identical to modern photographs. Also look at the depictions of the so-called skygods. Why do they have such prominent eyes and such subdued facial features similar to accounts told by modern day ufo abductees? What is this connection between mideval and rennaisance depictions of the crucifixion of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and strange floating disks in the sky? Is Christianity just another UFO cult? Why would hallucinations and other "mental disturbances" manifest themselves in such a consistent manner over thousands of years and across numerous disparate cultures? Is there some biological reason why the "flying saucer" shape is a preferred confabulation? What is the SIMPLEST explanation? Remember there were no weather balloons in the stone ages. 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 alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Tue May 2 20:22:54 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 22:22:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990605021322k2484ab12vc9a484a34e35792f@mail.gmail.com> On 5/2/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > I could be wrong but I think Firefox is only single threaded in the > communications area, not in the page format & display area. You shouldn't > *have* "processor-intensive tabs" -- thats an indication of "foreign" code > being run on your machine and I would suggest people are taking very large > risks if they allow sites to do that on a general basis (which is why I > generally block Javascript). With processor-intensive tabs I referred to huge pages with complex layouts that can take several seconds to render on a slower machine (actually, I don't think any 1ghz+ processor can be qualified as "slow" :-) In those case, firefox hangs for the entire rendering task, whether you are looking at that tab or at another. This behaviour smells of single-threading in some critical area. Alfio From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Tue May 2 20:25:00 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 22:25:00 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> On 5/2/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > Gross! Is there a move afoot to add multi-threading and efficient > related object/memory management? Not that I know, but I'm not partecipating in the firefox developing community. Someone more knowledgeable is required for the correct answers :-) Alfio From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 2 20:56:21 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:56:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer> <002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> BEC doesn't "erase the history". Clark: > It most certainly does, it means it's imposable to distinguish the history > of one atom from the history of another. But by then mind is gone forever anyway according to my argument so BEC is meaningless in the context of this discussion. I've said so at the beginning. Heartland: >> Just because you cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as in >> paper/electronic records) tracking past locations of those atoms are >> being magically erased too. Clark: > Those paper records are useless because after atoms formed a BEC it will > never be possible to know which atom your paper records refer to. Your paper > records may say that one particular hydrogen atom, let's call him Bob, did > this that and the other thing, but after Bob became part of a BEC it is > imposable to say which of the billions or trillions of atoms is Bob the > atom. Same as above. BEC is when mind process definitely stops which results in death. Paper records are only needed when minds are alive. Heartland: >> If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >> instance of mind type, then why do you write that "there would be >> only one instance of mind type?" Clark: > If two phonographs are in perfect synchronization and both are playing > Beethoven's Ninth Symphony then only one symphony is playing; 9th Symphony is a *type* of music. If you play 9th Symphony it becomes instantiated. If you use 2 CD players, each pumping out the 9th, then you have two instances of the type "9th Symphony". It doesn't really matter if you synchronize the players or not. You need to count each instance. If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. Yes or no? Clark: > and if you > destroy one phonograph the music does not stop. But you deleted one instance. Type remains, not the instance. People are instances, not types. The concept of type is meaningless in the context of our survival. I suggest you think about this for a while before you start questioning these ideas. Clark: > So there is one question you must ask yourself, is the mind more like a > symphony or more like a brick? In a pure physics sense it is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object, an instance of activity. Heartland: >> A is A and B is B. Same as the last time. Clark: > No last time you told me the original is the original, this time you tell me > A is A; both responses were quite true and both were quite useless. Don't blame me for not specifying in your question what answers would be useful to you. I don't read minds. I just analyze what they are. Actually, the way you specified the question, no possible answer could be useful unless we use my terminology. So if by "A" I designate a volume of matter on the original trajectory "F" and "B" as the volume of matter along parallel trajectory "G" then if I gradually shift the atoms from volume B to A and B to A then F=F and G=G. Heartlalnd: >> Brain object consists of all nonessential matter Clark: > If it doesn't do anything then why even talk about it, and why even use the > word "brain" to refer to it? Because if I didn't, then nobody would know what I'm talking about. My argument is structured. There are distinctions between concepts (e.g. brain vs. mind, instance vs. type) with precise definitions for each of them. This brings order to a debate where everyone usually brings their unique and often bizarre interpretation of what "brain" is. What happens then is that you get bunch of people screaming at each other because the referents for the terms they use are different. With clear definitions of concepts everyone is on the same page so that debate we can move on to debating the actual argument. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 2 22:08:09 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060502220809.14980.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I don't mean to put you on the spot (well, okay, maybe just a little bit ;-} ) but I wrote something in an old post that you never specifically addressed. Here is an extract of the post: Me: "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." How do you refute this? It seems impossible to refute from my perspective, but perhaps that is to be expected. ;-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Heartland: >> BEC doesn't "erase the history". Clark: > It most certainly does, it means it's imposable to distinguish the history > of one atom from the history of another. But by then mind is gone forever anyway according to my argument so BEC is meaningless in the context of this discussion. I've said so at the beginning. Heartland: >> Just because you cool down the atoms doesn't mean that records (as in >> paper/electronic records) tracking past locations of those atoms are >> being magically erased too. Clark: > Those paper records are useless because after atoms formed a BEC it will > never be possible to know which atom your paper records refer to. Your paper > records may say that one particular hydrogen atom, let's call him Bob, did > this that and the other thing, but after Bob became part of a BEC it is > imposable to say which of the billions or trillions of atoms is Bob the > atom. Same as above. BEC is when mind process definitely stops which results in death. Paper records are only needed when minds are alive. Heartland: >> If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >> instance of mind type, then why do you write that "there would be >> only one instance of mind type?" Clark: > If two phonographs are in perfect synchronization and both are playing > Beethoven's Ninth Symphony then only one symphony is playing; 9th Symphony is a *type* of music. If you play 9th Symphony it becomes instantiated. If you use 2 CD players, each pumping out the 9th, then you have two instances of the type "9th Symphony". It doesn't really matter if you synchronize the players or not. You need to count each instance. If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. Yes or no? Clark: > and if you > destroy one phonograph the music does not stop. But you deleted one instance. Type remains, not the instance. People are instances, not types. The concept of type is meaningless in the context of our survival. I suggest you think about this for a while before you start questioning these ideas. Clark: > So there is one question you must ask yourself, is the mind more like a > symphony or more like a brick? In a pure physics sense it is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object, an instance of activity. Heartland: >> A is A and B is B. Same as the last time. Clark: > No last time you told me the original is the original, this time you tell me > A is A; both responses were quite true and both were quite useless. Don't blame me for not specifying in your question what answers would be useful to you. I don't read minds. I just analyze what they are. Actually, the way you specified the question, no possible answer could be useful unless we use my terminology. So if by "A" I designate a volume of matter on the original trajectory "F" and "B" as the volume of matter along parallel trajectory "G" then if I gradually shift the atoms from volume B to A and B to A then F=F and G=G. Heartlalnd: >> Brain object consists of all nonessential matter Clark: > If it doesn't do anything then why even talk about it, and why even use the > word "brain" to refer to it? Because if I didn't, then nobody would know what I'm talking about. My argument is structured. There are distinctions between concepts (e.g. brain vs. mind, instance vs. type) with precise definitions for each of them. This brings order to a debate where everyone usually brings their unique and often bizarre interpretation of what "brain" is. What happens then is that you get bunch of people screaming at each other because the referents for the terms they use are different. With clear definitions of concepts everyone is on the same page so that debate we can move on to debating the actual argument. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 3 03:10:03 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:10:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060502220809.14980.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jeffrey, Jeffrey: > "So *how exactly* can a "copy" be distinguished from an (recently dead) > "original"? By tracking trajectories of separate instances of mind object, of course. Jeffrey: > 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? Wait. The whole purpose of trajectories is that they *do* give an objective observer reliable means of distinguishing copy from the original. Let me give you a simple example which you could then extrapolate to a mind object. Assume arbitrary 4D point x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0. There is a helium atom at point x1,y1,z1,t1. There is also another helium atom at point x2,y2,z2,t2. Assuming these atoms are not next to each other and cooled down to 0K, all the x,y,z,t coordinates for both atoms can never be equal. And since they will never be equal then this is how an objective observer could theoretically distinguish one atom from the other, one instance of an object from the other. S. P.S. Did you get my last response to you where I explain what I mean by mind object and brain object? If not, it's probably in the archives. From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 04:27:14 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 21:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060503042714.68235.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It's not that the cause of those victimized in darfur is unworthy, it is my five years experience with the sorts of protesters who attend demonstrations shows beyond doubt most of the darfur demonstrators care more about their hairstyles than they do about the persecuted, unless they happen to have family or friends in the Sudan. If it's a pro-marijuana protest you can be sure the protesters care deeply about the issue or they wouldn't be there, and though the darfur protest is a good cause, I want nothing to do with it. We don't have to feel guilty regarding everything going on; everytime a sparrow falls from a tree we don't have to send flowers to its funeral. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 3 07:10:20 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 00:10:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060502143705.93801.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060502143705.93801.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <070BBDED-11C4-4255-9A16-A92F232028C0@mac.com> On May 2, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Ned Late wrote: > Okay, it was wrong to single out America. > What is discouraging is observing countless protesters up close to > see so many of them are sentimental for the distant past, they > remember or have heard of the protests of decades ago but don't > remember or ignore the negative, the heads that were broken & the > boredom. I am old enough (barely) to have attended a few Vietnam era marches. I wasn't bored and there weren't that many heads broken. It is not about being "sentimental". It is often about wanting to take more of a stand than sending letters to unresponsive Congress critters, sending money to this or that cause, writing letters to the editor and voting when there really isn't a fit choice. Getting on your feet and into the street doesn't get you a lot more but it is a bit more active and beats sitting at home griping. > Countless hippies who don't remember or were born later don't > realize that for every person who danced in the sunshine at > Woodstock there was another who was shivering in the mud; they tend > to remember the good times and forget the negative. Point is, the > counterculture in general-- many of whom participate at protests-- > are backward looking. Far too many of the protesters are > participating out of nostalgia for a mythologized past, and this is > the very thing I've spent decades trying to get away from. Baloney. There was nothing backwards looking about hippies and I the current generation isn't all that impressed by hippies, some of whom are their parents or grandparents. Where do you get this stuff? Nor are older people there out of nostalgia. They are generally there because they are fed up. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 3 07:14:00 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 00:14:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <20060503042714.68235.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060503042714.68235.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 2, 2006, at 9:27 PM, Ned Late wrote: > If it's a pro-marijuana protest you can be sure the > protesters care deeply about the issue or they > wouldn't be there, and though the darfur protest is a > good cause, I want nothing to do with it. We don't > have to feel guilty regarding everything going on; > everytime a sparrow falls from a tree we don't have to > send flowers to its funeral. > Naw. You can stay home and post cynical claims about the people who do show up instead. Every so much more enlightened, genteel and compassionate. - samantha From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 14:03:21 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:03:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <20060502184202.34043.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <004201c66a7f$198cb340$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:42 AM 5/2/2006 -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: >My >original question was whether UFO phenomena are >evidence of technologically superior extra-terrestrial >intelligence in a Bayesian sense. I am trying to >estimate a probability as to the existence of >technologically advanced space-faring civilizations. > >Any phenomenon can have any number of explanations. >Like the planets are orbiting the earth doing back >flips regularly. These epicycles certainly explain the >phenomena we OBSERVE but that doesn't make it correct. >We have to use Occam's razor to find the SIMPLEST >explanation that explains the phenomena and even then, >that is no guarantee it is correct. But it is more >likely to be. Thus I can bend over backwards to >concoct a huge number of possible scenarios that >explain the UFO evidence, but that is not what I am >trying to do. I am testing a specific hypothesis: Are >UFOs evidence that there are space- faring >extra-terrestrials out there. They certainly could be, but I really doubt it. The first thing Eric Drexler did when he understood the implications of nanotechnology was to go looking for evidence in photos of unusual galaxies. He was looking for ones with an expanding wave front that was dimming the stars behind the leading edge into IR by Dyson spheres or something similar. To be particular, he was looking for galaxies that looked like Cookie Monster had taken a bite out of them. He didn't find any. >Far from being trivial, the existence of proof of >principle that interstellar travel is indeed POSSIBLE >is a question of singular importance for the long term >survival of the human (or even posthuman) species. >If ET can do it than so can we. It isn't so much a question of long term survival as *short term.* Reasoning runs this way. If technologically capable races are common, something eats every one of them, because every direction we look we see wilderness, vast wastage of matter and energy. We cap blown out oil wells for darn good reasons. A civilization with the power to do would plug the black holes. They certainly would be trapping the light output from stars. Since we don't see such, or the occasional interstellar drive that happens to be pointed our way, the conclusion is that there are no technophiles inside our light cone. Either they are so rare that we are the only example, or they commonly arise but something removes them from the observable universe. If they are common, we face a bleak future, probably to be eaten by the local singularity. If we are alone in our light cone, then our future may be a disaster, but it is not fore doomed. >I asked for negative evidence and instead got a whole >bunch of reactionary "ambiguous and inconclusive" from >people. The only person that has given me a shred of >negative evidence is Keith and that was by admission >of some truly devious UFO hoaxes he pulled off. Oh man, what we did was not particularly devious. I should write up the smoking pavement stunt my friend Mike pulled on a night watchman, that was devious, but it's K5 fodder. >The fact that somebody as smart of Keith would go to >so much effort to for people for the simple motivation >of "anonymous publicity" somewhat disturbs me but also >adjusts my posterior probability down quite a bit. >Something that all the skeptical hand-waving by the >other responses did not. > >So I guess my question now is whether enough hoaxsters >of Keith's caliber could have fooled the U.S. Airforce >to render the posterior probability of the existence >of UFOs negligible. It would be nice if I could find a >way to quantify this analysis. There were 6 of us in Arizona and 4 in New Mexico that I knew about. Nation wide that would give you roughly 3600. snip >Of course these could be modified/hoaxed so I am >looking thru the archives on the NOAA's websites. >Although if they are carefully censored, it may prove >useless. True. But worse, I would suspect inserted fake data, the modern day version of our lights in the sky. snip >Why would hallucinations and other "mental >disturbances" manifest themselves in such a consistent >manner over thousands of years and across numerous >disparate cultures? Not always. Ezekiel described a B36 (four burning and six turning). I never checked to see of one fell through a time warp, but I know how the army had an M60 tank vanish. Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 14:13:24 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:36 PM 5/2/2006 +0100, you wrote: >On 5/2/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of > > kids they had about in half? Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or > > 40 years plus or minus? > > > > I appreciate the discussion and any insight anyone can bring to this > subject. > > > >Where did you get that figure from? >The Ireland CSO stats from 1950 onwards disagree. > > >They show a drop of 25% in 1990 and roughly level from then on. > >Ireland used to be in the grip of the Roman Catholic Church which >banned birth control and encouraged large families. The weakening of >this control plus more availability of birth control methods plus >modern education and Irish economic growth would easily explain these >figures. Sorry, I was looking at the Northern Ireland figures and don't have the link handy. They were not broken out to religions IIRC. Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 3 14:38:43 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:38:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200605031439.k43Ed3Mk004271@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > > Oh man, what we did was not particularly devious. I should write up the > smoking pavement stunt my friend Mike pulled on a night watchman, that was > devious, but it's K5 fodder. ... > Keith Henson Smoking pavement? That sounds like a hoot. {8^D What is K5? spike From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 3 15:17:40 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 08:17:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <004201c66a7f$198cb340$660fa8c0@kevin> <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <4458C994.7080108@pobox.com> FYI: My father pulled off at least two minor UFO hoaxes, though nothing on the scale of Henson's group. Also, long before the days of laser pointers, when a laser meant at least a medium-sized box, Mom and Dad used to put a mysterious glowing red dot on the pavement that would follow people around. (Mom and Dad being several blocks away, aiming and watching using binoculars.) -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 3 14:22:35 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, But as I said before, trajectory does not effect the functionality of any atom. Lets say I'm doing an open-skull surgery on a living, conscious human brain. I decide to remove a Carbon atom from a neuronal membrane. I can then insert *any* Carbon atom from my handy supply of Carbon atoms. It won't effect the functionality of that membrane in the slightest bit. The trajectory of an atom is a *byproduct* of the atoms existence and function; it doesn't give that atom any special properties, none. Trajectory from the past doesn't "run" a mind, real-time atoms do. Consider this, Heartland. During ~10^29 Planck Intervals when no neurons are discharging, the "mind-process" is absent. This can be verified by clinical observation: zero electrical activity as measured by an EEG equates to an absent mind. Now mentally extend the condition during ~10^29 Planck Intervals to 10 minutes of the same thing - an absent mind for 10 minutes - easily achievable with anesthesia. Now shrink it back down to ~10^29 Planck Intervals, the mind-process is still absent during this period; during this period it is what you would call a "brain object". And this is going on in *your* brain, right now, as you read this. So, your argument makes no sense, unless you agree that you are now a copy (as you have been all along), and the "old" version of you is deceased. During this ~10^29 Planck Intervals, a person's brain is very much in motion. As John said, we are each moving at an extremely high relative speed, we simply don't detect it. So buy the time the mind-process naturally starts up again (and the "brain object" becomes a *new* "instance" of "mind object"), our brains are quite shifted in their space/time position, and hence the new trajectory will be different. Imagine a very simplified "brain" that consists of a small, closed loop of neurons. Think of it as a single-neuron-thick necklace with a circumference of a penny. ~10^29 Planck Intervals will elapse between the firing of neuron A and its neighbor, neuron B. During this period, neuron B will undergo a huge number of internal physical changes, such that it is no longer neuron B. It is now a *copy* of neuron B (an imperfect one). Imagine how changed neuron Z is by the time the charge returns to it. No structure in the brain will ever stay unchanged. It is continually being imperfectly copied by physical processes, over time. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich P.S. Yes, I did receive your message. Heartland wrote: Hi Jeffrey, Jeffrey: > "So *how exactly* can a "copy" be distinguished from an (recently dead) > "original"? By tracking trajectories of separate instances of mind object, of course. Jeffrey: > 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? Wait. The whole purpose of trajectories is that they *do* give an objective observer reliable means of distinguishing copy from the original. Let me give you a simple example which you could then extrapolate to a mind object. Assume arbitrary 4D point x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0. There is a helium atom at point x1,y1,z1,t1. There is also another helium atom at point x2,y2,z2,t2. Assuming these atoms are not next to each other and cooled down to 0K, all the x,y,z,t coordinates for both atoms can never be equal. And since they will never be equal then this is how an objective observer could theoretically distinguish one atom from the other, one instance of an object from the other. S. P.S. Did you get my last response to you where I explain what I mean by mind object and brain object? If not, it's probably in the archives. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- 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 pharos at gmail.com Wed May 3 15:35:03 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:35:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Keith Henson wrote: > Sorry, I was looking at the Northern Ireland figures and don't have the > link handy. They were not broken out to religions IIRC. > The site you want for Northern Ireland stats is Unfortunately their figures don't agree with your claim either. :) and click on Vital Statistics. >From 1926 to 1965 the birth rate / 1000 population varied around 20-22 until it peaked in the 1961-65 period at 23 / 1000. It then fell fairly steadily in every 5yr period until 1996-2000 when it was 13.9 / 1000. That's where your 40% reduction memory probably comes from. But it wasn't a sudden one-off reduction. It was steadily reducing over a 35 year period. This is roughly in line with the steadily falling birthrate for the UK as a whole. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 3 15:41:19 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:41:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Dear Members, friends, and colleagues: This letter is an announcement of the events taking place at Extropy Institute as a result of its Strategic Plan 2006. A copy of the Plan is available on ExI's website [ http://www.extropy.org/strategicplan.htm ] for your review. The Plan identifies some factors that ExI's Board has considered in assessing the future of ExI and the best possible course of action to take for ExI, its members, and other stakeholders. The Past. ExI was formed in 1990 by Max More and Tom Bell with a mission to bring great minds together to incubate ideas about emerging technologies, life extension and the future. ExI's goals were to (1) develop an elegant, focused philosophy for transhumanism?the philosophy of "Extropy"; (2) encourage discussions and debates on improving the human condition; and (2) develop a culture for activists, energized and devoted to bringing these ideas to the public. The initiatives which realized these goals are (1) Extropy: the Journal of Transhumanist Thought; Principles of Extropy; Extro Conferences 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; public forums such as the famed "extropians" and "extropy-chat" email lists; public presentations in the news, radio, televised documentaries, talk shows, and films; and the VP Summit of 2004 addressing the backlash from conservatives against technological advancements. The Present. ExI deems its mission as essentially completed. With this said, and in respect for Extropy Institute?s legacy of achievement, the Board voted and has unanimously agreed to close Extropy Institute's doors. Extropy Institute's website is being memorialized by turning it into a reference "Library of Transhumanism, Extropy, and the Future," ?the beginnings, currents, and future of Transhumanism. On behalf of our members, I would like to thank Max for authoring the philosophy of Extropy1 and for his many efforts in working with others to steer the philosophical development of transhumanism, which is truly treasured by so many people in so many places. The Future. As you will see by reviewing the Strategic Plan, the Proactionary Principle stands first and foremost as the concept with the most potential for being of great service to humanity and transhumanity as we go forward. The Proactionary Principle (ProP) can help society by bridging the growing gap between conservative views and progress-oriented views, and educating society about the future. Meeting these two challenges by providing an active course of action can be of tremendous benefit to us all. In respect for the philosophy of Extropy and the Principles of Extropy, the Board of Extropy Institute believes that Extropy Institute has served its mission and achieved its goals and, in practicing the Principles of Extropy, our next step is to focus on developing worldwide awareness of the ProP [ http://www.extropy.org/prop.htm ] and a network for proactive futures. With my most sincere thanks for your support over the years, Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President _____________ Coined by Prof. Tom Bell (T.O. Morrow) in 1988. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 3 15:59:59 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:59:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future PDF file Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503104823.04ebc890@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Dear Members, Friends and Colleagues: As a follow-up, please see attached pdf letter. Also, the Strategic Plan can be downloaded at http://www.extropy.org/strategicplan.htm Toward the Future! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to Members 5-3-06.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 33887 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 15:04:08 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 08:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging Message-ID: <20060503150408.63653.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> I've sometimes pondered the mystery of the Methusaleh story. How to explain? Pure biblical hoo hah? Myth? Accounting irregularities? Or could it be an accurate account of an anomalous (no doubt genetically-mediated) incidence of superlongevity? It's a puzzlement. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles *************************** >From Cryonet. Message #27896 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 19:59:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Skrecky Subject: mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging [Farnesyltransferase inhibitors or lamin A specific oligonucleotides offer the prospect of effective treatments for Hutchinson-Gilford progeria. Since the Lamin A defect responsible for this progeria also plays a role in normal human aging, this raises the interesting possibility of a significant increase in the normal human lifespan in the near future. Treatment of those suffering from progeria is expected shortly.] Science. 2006 Apr 27; [Epub ahead of print] Lamin A-Dependent Nuclear Defects in Human Aging. Scaffidi P, Misteli T. National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA. Mutations in the nuclear structural protein lamin A cause the premature aging syndrome Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria (HGPS). Whether lamin A plays any role in the normal aging process is unknown. Here we show that the same molecular mechanism responsible for HGPS is active in healthy cells. Cell nuclei from old individuals acquire similar defects as HGPS patient cells including changes in histone modifications and increased DNA damage. Age-related nuclear defects are caused by sporadic use in healthy individuals of the same cryptic splice site in lamin A whose constitutive activation causes HGPS. Inhibition of this splice site reverses the nuclear defects associated with aging. These observations implicate lamin A in physiological aging. J Clin Invest. 2006 Mar;116(3):743-52. Prelamin A and lamin A appear to be dispensable in the nuclear lamina. Lamin A and lamin C, both products of Lmna, are key components of the nuclear lamina. In the mouse, a deficiency in both lamin A and lamin C leads to slow growth, muscle weakness, and death by 6 weeks of age. Fibroblasts deficient in lamins A and C contain misshapen and structurally weakened nuclei, and emerin is mislocalized away from the nuclear envelope. The physiologic rationale for the existence of the 2 different Lmna products lamin A and lamin C is unclear, although several reports have suggested that lamin A may have particularly important functions, for example in the targeting of emerin and lamin C to the nuclear envelope. Here we report the development of lamin C-only mice (Lmna(LCO/LCO)), which produce lamin C but no lamin A or prelamin A (the precursor to lamin A). Lmna(LCO/LCO) mice were entirely healthy, and Lmna(LCO/LCO) cells displayed normal emerin targeting and exhibited only very minimal alterations in nuclear shape and nuclear deformability. Thus, at least in the mouse, prelamin A and lamin A appear to be dispensable. Nevertheless, an accumulation of farnesyl-prelamin A (as occurs with a deficiency in the prelamin A processing enzyme Zmpste24) caused dramatically misshapen nuclei and progeria-like disease phenotypes. The apparent dispensability of prelamin A suggested that lamin A-related progeroid syndromes might be treated with impunity by reducing prelamin A synthesis. Remarkably, the presence of a single Lmna(LCO) allele eliminated the nuclear shape abnormalities and progeria-like disease phenotypes in Zmpste24-/- mice. Moreover, treating Zmpste24-/- cells with a prelamin A-specific antisense oligonucleotide reduced prelamin A levels and significantly reduced the frequency of misshapen nuclei. These studies suggest a new therapeutic strategy for treating progeria and other lamin A diseases. Science. 2006 Mar 17;311(5767):1621-3. Epub 2006 Feb 16. A protein farnesyltransferase inhibitor ameliorates disease in a mouse model of progeria. Progerias are rare genetic diseases characterized by premature aging. Several progeroid disorders are caused by mutations that lead to the accumulation of a lipid-modified (farnesylated) form of prelamin A, a protein that contributes to the structural scaffolding for the cell nucleus. In progeria, the accumulation of farnesyl-prelamin A disrupts this scaffolding, leading to misshapen nuclei. Previous studies have shown that farnesyltransferase inhibitors (FTIs) reverse this cellular abnormality. We tested the efficacy of an FTI (ABT-100) in Zmpste24-deficient mice, a mouse model of progeria. The FTI-treated mice exhibited improved body weight, grip strength, bone integrity, and percent survival at 20 weeks of age. These results suggest that FTIs may have beneficial effects in humans with progeria. [Interesting that nuclear deformation is here associated with proliferation defects. Some believe this to be the major reason for escalating age-associated mortality risks from vascular disease.] Cell Biol Int. 2005 Dec;29(12):1032-7. Epub 2005 Nov 28. Nuclear deformation characterizes Werner syndrome cells. Mutations in the lamin A gene have been shown, among other defects, to give rise to Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) and to atypical Werner syndrome (WS), both of which are progeroid disorders. Here, we have investigated well-characterized WS patient cell strains that are compound heterozygous for mutations in the WRN gene. As in HGPS and in atypical WS, we found nuclear deformations to be characteristic of all cell strains studied. In WS cells centrosome number, assembly of the nuclear lamina and nuclear pore distribution occurred normally. Furthermore, nuclear deformations were not associated with a defect in lamin A expression. We propose that nuclear deformation is a universal characteristic of progeroid cells and may result from slow cell cycle progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16690-5. Epub 2005 Nov 3. Age-related changes of nuclear architecture in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mutations in lamins cause premature aging syndromes in humans, including the Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS) and Atypical Werner Syndrome. It has been shown that HGPS cells in culture undergo age-dependent progressive changes in nuclear architecture. However, it is unknown whether similar changes in nuclear architecture occur during the normal aging process. We have observed that major changes of nuclear architecture accompany Caenorhabditis elegans aging. We found that the nuclear architecture in most nonneuronal cell types undergoes progressive and stochastic age-dependent alterations, such as changes of nuclear shape and loss of peripheral heterochromatin. Furthermore, we show that the rate of these alterations is influenced by the insulin/IGF-1 like signaling pathway and that reducing the level of lamin and lamin-associated LEM domain proteins leads to shortening of lifespan. Our work not only provides evidence for changes of nuclear architecture during the normal aging process of a multicellular organism, but also suggests that HGPS is likely a result of acceleration of the normal aging process. Because the nucleus is vital for many cellular functions, our studies raise the possibility that the nucleus is a prominent focal point for regulating aging. Hum Genet. 2005 Dec;118(3-4):444-50. Epub 2005 Oct 6. Correction of cellular phenotypes of Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria cells by RNA interference. The great majority of cases of the Hutchinson-Gilford progeroid syndrome (HGPS) ("Progeria of Childhood'') are caused by a single nucleotide mutation (1824 C->T) in the LMNA gene which encodes lamin A and C, nuclear intermediate filaments that are important components of the nuclear lamina. The resultant mutant protein (Delta50 lamin A) is thought to act in a dominant fashion. We exploited RNA interference technology to suppress Delta50 lamin A expression, with the long range goal of intervening in the pathogenesis of the coronary artery atherosclerosis that typically leads to the death of HGPS patients. Short hairpin RNA (shRNA) constructs were designed to target the mutated pre-spliced or mature LMNA mRNAs, and were expressed in HGPS fibroblasts carrying the 1824 C->T mutations using lentiviruses. One of the shRNAs targeted to the mutated mRNA reduced the expression levels of Delta50 lamin A to 26% or lower. The reduced expression was associated with amelioration of abnormal nuclear morphology, improvement of proliferative potential, and reduction in the numbers of senescent cells. These findings provide a rationale for potential gene therapy. J Lipid Res. 2005 Dec;46(12):2531-58. Epub 2005 Oct 5. Prelamin A, Zmpste24, misshapen cell nuclei, and progeria--new evidence suggesting that protein farnesylation could be important for disease pathogenesis. Prelamin A undergoes multistep processing to yield lamin A, a structural protein of the nuclear lamina. Prelamin A terminates with a CAAX motif, which triggers farnesylation of a C-terminal cysteine (the C of the CAAX motif), endoproteolytic release of the last three amino acids (the AAX), and methylation of the newly exposed farnesylcysteine residue. In addition, prelamin A is cleaved a second time, releasing 15 more residues from the C terminus (including the farnesylcysteine methyl ester), generating mature lamin A. This second cleavage step is carried out by an endoplasmic reticulum membrane protease, ZMPSTE24. Interest in the posttranslational processing of prelamin A has increased with the recognition that certain progeroid syndromes can be caused by mutations that lead to an accumulation of farnesyl-prelamin A. Recently, we showed that a key cellular phenotype of these progeroid disorders, misshapen cell nuclei, can be ameliorated by inhibitors of protein farnesylation, suggesting a potential strategy for treating these diseases. In this article, we review the posttranslational processing of prelamin A, describe several mouse models for progeroid syndromes, explain the mutations underlying several human progeroid syndromes, and summarize recent data showing that misshapen nuclei can be ameliorated by treating cells with protein farnesyltransferase inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 4;102(40):14416-21. Epub 2005 Sep 26. Inhibiting farnesylation reverses the nuclear morphology defect in a HeLa cell model for Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) is a devastating premature aging disease resulting from a mutation in the LMNA gene, which encodes nuclear lamins A and C. Lamin A is synthesized as a precursor (prelamin A) with a C-terminal CaaX motif that undergoes farnesylation, endoproteolytic cleavage, and carboxylmethylation. Prelamin A is subsequently internally cleaved by the zinc metalloprotease Ste24 (Zmpste24) protease, which removes the 15 C-terminal amino acids, including the CaaX modifications, to yield mature lamin A. HGPS results from a dominant mutant form of prelamin A (progerin) that has an internal deletion of 50 aa near the C terminus that includes the Zmpste24 cleavage site and blocks removal of the CaaX-modified C terminus. Fibroblasts from HGPS patients have aberrant nuclei with irregular shapes, which we hypothesize result from the abnormal persistence of the farnesyl and/or carboxylmethyl CaaX modifications on progerin. If this hypothesis is correct, inhibition of CaaX modification by mutation or pharmacological treatment should alleviate the nuclear morphology defect. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find that expression in HeLa cells of GFP-progerin or an uncleavable form of prelamin A with a Zmpste24 cleavage site mutation induces the formation of abnormal nuclei similar to those in HGPS fibroblasts. Strikingly, inhibition of farnesylation pharmacologically with the farnesyl transferase inhibitor rac-R115777 or mutationally by alteration of the CaaX motif dramatically reverses the abnormal nuclear morphology. These results suggest that farnesyl transferase inhibitors represent a possible therapeutic option for individuals with HGPS and/or other laminopathies due to Zmpste24 processing defects. [Blocking the manufacture of mutated lamin A with a modified oligonucleotide reverses progeria in the test tube as well.] Nat Med. 2005 Apr;11(4):440-5. Epub 2005 Mar 6. Reversal of the cellular phenotype in the premature aging disease Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) is a childhood premature aging disease caused by a spontaneous point mutation in lamin A (encoded by LMNA), one of the major architectural elements of the mammalian cell nucleus. The HGPS mutation activates an aberrant cryptic splice site in LMNA pre-mRNA, leading to synthesis of a truncated lamin A protein and concomitant reduction in wild-type lamin A. Fibroblasts from individuals with HGPS have severe morphological abnormalities in nuclear envelope structure. Here we show that the cellular disease phenotype is reversible in cells from individuals with HGPS. Introduction of wild-type lamin A protein does not rescue the cellular disease symptoms. The mutant LMNA mRNA and lamin A protein can be efficiently eliminated by correction of the aberrant splicing event using a modified oligonucleotide targeted to the activated cryptic splice site. Upon splicing correction, HGPS fibroblasts assume normal nuclear morphology, the aberrant nuclear distribution and cellular levels of lamina-associated proteins are rescued, defects in heterochromatin-specific histone modifications are corrected and proper expression of several misregulated genes is reestablished. Our results establish proof of principle for the correction of the premature aging phenotype in individuals with HGPS. __________________________________________________ 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 May 3 16:15:41 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 17:15:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605030915o47646d6dp507aa1619a61a02c@mail.gmail.com> It feels like the end of an era, even to me who came across the Extropy Institute relatively recently; I imagine all the more so to those who've been with it from the start. Natasha and company: Thanks for all your hard work over the years helping carry the flame a step further, and good luck with your endeavors in the future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 3 16:37:20 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 09:37:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605030915o47646d6dp507aa1619a61a02c@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <8d71341e0605030915o47646d6dp507aa1619a61a02c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4458DC40.1000508@pobox.com> I can only echo Russell Wallace. End of an era. Thanks to everyone. (Still in shock.) -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From mstriz at gmail.com Wed May 3 16:46:19 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:46:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: <070BBDED-11C4-4255-9A16-A92F232028C0@mac.com> References: <20060502143705.93801.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <070BBDED-11C4-4255-9A16-A92F232028C0@mac.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I am old enough (barely) to have attended a few Vietnam era > marches. I wasn't bored and there weren't that many heads broken. > It is not about being "sentimental". It is often about wanting to > take more of a stand than sending letters to unresponsive Congress > critters, sending money to this or that cause, writing letters to the > editor and voting when there really isn't a fit choice. Getting on > your feet and into the street doesn't get you a lot more but it is a > bit more active and beats sitting at home griping. Not to mention that, unlike the way that protesters have been characterized on this list, most of them genuinely want and expect their rallies to promulgate some kind of change, mostly by making the powers that be aware of where the public stands. They may be wrong in that belief, but that doesn't make them poseurs. I know a few people who attended the Darfur protest in DC who are trying to get an email campaign to the President started. The protests against the Iraq War may not have worked, but the immigrant protests, as well as the Darfur protests, are going to have a material impact on policy. It's also unrealistic to demand that protesters join the military or shut up. Many of them have families, and there are already people who have volunteered for military work, who are ready and willing to take on important causes. It's just a matter of making their leaders aware of where the military is needed. > > Countless hippies who don't remember or were born later don't > > realize that for every person who danced in the sunshine at > > Woodstock there was another who was shivering in the mud; they tend > > to remember the good times and forget the negative. Point is, the > > counterculture in general-- many of whom participate at protests-- > > are backward looking. Far too many of the protesters are > > participating out of nostalgia for a mythologized past, and this is > > the very thing I've spent decades trying to get away from. Markos Moulitsas takes this position in _Crashing the Gate_, that protests are vestiges of a by-gone era and that direct marketing (door-to-door and especially online) is the way to organize for change now. But a protest is a nice way to get free national advertising, as long as the media covers you. Martin From jef at jefallbright.net Wed May 3 16:57:06 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 09:57:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605030957r7c156dfaga441cfdce5868f1@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > *The Present. *ExI deems its mission as essentially completed. With this > said, and in respect for Extropy Institute's legacy of achievement, the > Board voted and has unanimously agreed to close Extropy Institute's doors. > I want to thank Max, Natasha, and several others for making ExI and this chat list such an inspirational and enlightening place on the web for so many years. Many seeds have been sown here and I look forward to their continued growth. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 16:09:14 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 09:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur Message-ID: <20060503160914.22933.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> I want to thank Samantha, and rise in support of her declaration of "Baloney" below. "Baloney. There was nothing backwards looking about hippies and I the current generation isn't all that impressed by hippies, some of whom are their parents or grandparents. Where do you get this stuff? Nor are older people there out of nostalgia. They are generally there because they are fed up." Much of the commentary regarding protests and protestors, demonstrations, hippies, etc seems to me little more than pissy denigration by cultural adversaries. Mass public activism is not at all a trivial matter. Ranging from simple demonstrations, to violent demonstrations, to open revolt, the stirrings of "people power" is serious business-not-as-usual business. If you missed the sixties, it's a shame. It was a great time, a dynamic time, a time of turmoil, a time of war and its horror, much like the current moment. Be careful. Peace and prosperity are far more fragile and potentially fleeting than the atmosphere of complacency they breed suggests. September the eleventh was a pinprick. Good luck. Best, Jeff Davis I know it is a weakness of human nature to become emotionally invested in inconsequential tribal spats, but people who want to be transhumanists need to be able to get past that almost as a prerequisite. In fact, a good portion of the transhumanist ideals are all about shedding this behavior. j. andrew rogers __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 16:58:12 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 12:58:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur EP In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200604302051.k3UKpJ9v025872@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060430224417.06dcc310@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501104907.026d73a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060501181330.02615288@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060503101147.0278f0d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503124741.027c2890@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:35 PM 5/3/2006 +0100, you wrote: >On 5/3/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > Sorry, I was looking at the Northern Ireland figures and don't have the > > link handy. They were not broken out to religions IIRC. > > > >The site you want for Northern Ireland stats is > >Unfortunately their figures don't agree with your claim either. :) > > >and click on Vital Statistics. > >From 1926 to 1965 the birth rate / 1000 population varied around 20-22 >until it peaked in the 1961-65 period at 23 / 1000. >It then fell fairly steadily in every 5yr period until 1996-2000 when >it was 13.9 / 1000. >That's where your 40% reduction memory probably comes from. But it >wasn't a sudden one-off reduction. It was steadily reducing over a 35 >year period. > >This is roughly in line with the steadily falling birthrate for the UK >as a whole. I looked the tables and they are not the ones I remembered. I think I captured the information, but it would be on another computer. It was year by year and not in 5 year blocks. It would be interesting to plot income per capita, particularly if it could be broken out by religions. I think the association between groups that are causing problems and groups that think they have a bleak future is really high. Can you think of an exception? Keith. From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 3 17:21:22 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:21:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On May 3, 2006, at 8:41 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Dear Members, friends, and colleagues: > > This letter is an announcement of the events taking place at > Extropy Institute as a result of its Strategic Plan 2006. A copy of > the Plan is available on ExI's website [ http://www.extropy.org/ > strategicplan.htm ] for your review. The Plan identifies some > factors that ExI's Board has considered in assessing the future of > ExI and the best possible course of action to take for ExI, its > members, and other stakeholders. > > The Past. ExI was formed in 1990 by Max More and Tom Bell with a > mission to bring great minds together to incubate ideas about > emerging technologies, life extension and the future. ExI's goals > were to (1) develop an elegant, focused philosophy for > transhumanism the philosophy of "Extropy"; (2) encourage > discussions and debates on improving the human condition; and (2) > develop a culture for activists, energized and devoted to bringing > these ideas to the public. The initiatives which realized these > goals are (1) Extropy: the Journal of Transhumanist Thought; > Principles of Extropy; Extro Conferences 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; public > forums such as the famed "extropians" and "extropy-chat" email > lists; public presentations in the news, radio, televised > documentaries, talk shows, and films; and the VP Summit of 2004 > addressing the backlash from conservatives against technological > advancements. > > The Present. ExI deems its mission as essentially completed. With > this said, and in respect for Extropy Institute?s legacy of > achievement, the Board voted and has unanimously agreed to close > Extropy Institute's doors. > The mission is certainly not complete. If the board has seen fit to close down that is fine but please don't claim the work is finished. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 17:34:41 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:34:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <200605031439.k43Ed3Mk004271@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503132602.0289feb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:38 AM 5/3/2006 -0700, you wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson >... > > > > Oh man, what we did was not particularly devious. I should write up the > > smoking pavement stunt my friend Mike pulled on a night watchman, that was > > devious, but it's K5 fodder. >... > > Keith Henson > >Smoking pavement? That sounds like a hoot. {8^D Yeah. Bank of inferred lamps and reflectors cut out in the shape of shoes. >What is K5? www.kuro5hin.org Pronounced "corrosion." Daily Kos is an offspring (engine wise). Widely auto linked on the net. Virtually any story posted there gets 15,000 links within a week. It is where my article "Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War" was posted. They are not bad in terms of editing suggestions, but it looks like I could have used a bit more checking. Should have linked and checked that bit about Northern Ireland. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 Keith Henson From jonkc at att.net Wed May 3 17:37:41 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 13:37:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > by then mind is gone forever anyway according to my argument According to your argument anesthesia causes the mind to go away forever too, but I wouldn't spread that around if I were you, not if you want people to take you seriously. > so BEC is meaningless in the context of this discussion. It means if the history of an atom is that ephemeral, if it can be erased from the universe that easily it can not be fundamental to the running of the cosmos as you say. When atoms lost their individuality in the lab the sky didn't open up, there was no clash of thunder, instead things went on much as they did before. So how can atoms individuality be the key to the universe when the universe itself doesn't seem to give a damn about it. If also means I could arrange things so you walk into a duplicating chamber and observe a person who looks just like you appear right in front of you; and if the atoms of both were put into a BEC before they were reassembled into human beings there is no way you or your twin or God or the Universe could know which had the original atoms and which had the copy atoms, and therefore there would be no reason to care. > "A" I designate a volume of matter on the original trajectory "F" and "B" > as the volume of matter along parallel trajectory "G" then if I gradually > shift the atoms from volume B to A and B to A then F=F and G=G. Your observation that F is F and G is G is deep, almost as deep as last time when you said A is A and the time before that when you said the original is the original. Your comments above remind me of what Lewis Carroll said in "Through the Looking Glass": T was brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. You know, we could save a great deal of time if you just said I refuse to say which is the original, then we could move on to other things. > Paper records are only needed when minds are alive. If you put a gun to my head I couldn't say what you were trying to get at here. > If you use 2 CD players, each pumping out the 9th, then you have two > instances of the type "9th Symphony" A CD is digital so the entire Beethoven's 9'th symphony is just a number, a rather large number but a number nevertheless, no different fundamentally from the number 9. So, how many instances of the number 9 exist in the universe? And remember I'm not talking about the symbol "9" I'm talking the concept the symbol represents. If the question has any meaning at all, and I doubt it does, the answer can only be one. But the fact is that arithmetic is not very good at counting up abstract adjectives and adverbs; like you and me for example. > If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one > instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. > Yes or no? No. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 17:55:57 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:55:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging In-Reply-To: <20060503150408.63653.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503135305.0278a718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:04 AM 5/3/2006 -0700, you wrote: >I've sometimes pondered the mystery of the Methusaleh >story. How to explain? Pure biblical hoo hah? Myth? > Accounting irregularities? Accounting errror between measuring in moons (months) and years. Keith Henson From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 3 17:42:13 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:42:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging In-Reply-To: <20060503150408.63653.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060503150408.63653.qmail@web60023.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Jeff Davis wrote: > > I've sometimes pondered the mystery of the Methusaleh > story. How to explain? Pure biblical hoo hah? Myth? > Accounting irregularities? Or could it be an > accurate account of an anomalous (no doubt > genetically-mediated) incidence of superlongevity? > > It's a puzzlement. More than a decade ago I gave a talk in Russia to some gerontologists and mentioned the Methuselah "legends". One of the scientists pointed out to me that if you interpret the numbers in terms of months instead of years the numbers make much more sense. He argued that there was a misinterpretation of the original material (or the "ancient legend" had been exaggerated). Since I just spent some time reviewing the Lamin A research I'll make a couple of comments (since the people who are hyping it do *not* have a long background in the study of aging/gerontology). 1) Accelerated aging is *NOT* the inverse of longevity! There are at least dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands of ways you can damage the "perfect" human genome and produce effects which cause one to die prematurely. Werner's Syndrome and Hutchinson-Guilford Syndrome are the two which most closely resemble "normal" aging. But George Martin wrote a paper long ago (20 years?) detailing the characteristics of many diseases, including Down's Syndrome, which have some symptoms which resemble aging. What can be said with relative accuracy is "If you damage the WS gene or the Lamin A gene in certain ways you will accumulate damage that resembles aging more quickly than is normally the case." 2) Drugs or gene therapies which correct the defective Lamin A which causes the accelerated aging in HGS will fix that specific genetic disease -- they will do little or nothing to prevent "normal" aging. Animals lacking Lamin A entirely *still* age and die (just animals on CR *still* age and die). There has been a recent discussion about this on the GRG list which was relatively informative. You should locate their archives (I don't have the URL) if you want to go into the topic in greater depth. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 3 18:41:15 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060503184115.83548.qmail@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I think ultimately the confusion boils down to the word descriptions. You seem to use the term "instance" in the sense of something that is constant, that never changes. A major thrust of my argument is that a person cannot be an "instance" in this sense. If anything, a person can only be described as a "type" given that a human brain and mind are constantly changing/copying. Anyway, I'm sad to see the ExI list go down. I've only been on about a month or so, but I was quite enjoying it; my thanks to all those involved. Heartland, I've really enjoyed this debate. I'm up for continuing it elsewhere if you are still interested. 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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 3 17:40:44 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 13:40:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <380-22006533174044473@M2W082.mail2web.com> Samantha, I wrote "essentially completed." Kind regards, Natasha Original Message: ----------------- From: Samantha Atkins sjatkins at mac.com Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:21:22 -0700 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future On May 3, 2006, at 8:41 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Dear Members, friends, and colleagues: > > This letter is an announcement of the events taking place at > Extropy Institute as a result of its Strategic Plan 2006. A copy of > the Plan is available on ExI's website [ http://www.extropy.org/ > strategicplan.htm ] for your review. The Plan identifies some > factors that ExI's Board has considered in assessing the future of > ExI and the best possible course of action to take for ExI, its > members, and other stakeholders. > > The Past. ExI was formed in 1990 by Max More and Tom Bell with a > mission to bring great minds together to incubate ideas about > emerging technologies, life extension and the future. ExI's goals > were to (1) develop an elegant, focused philosophy for > transhumanism the philosophy of "Extropy"; (2) encourage > discussions and debates on improving the human condition; and (2) > develop a culture for activists, energized and devoted to bringing > these ideas to the public. The initiatives which realized these > goals are (1) Extropy: the Journal of Transhumanist Thought; > Principles of Extropy; Extro Conferences 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; public > forums such as the famed "extropians" and "extropy-chat" email > lists; public presentations in the news, radio, televised > documentaries, talk shows, and films; and the VP Summit of 2004 > addressing the backlash from conservatives against technological > advancements. > > The Present. ExI deems its mission as essentially completed. With > this said, and in respect for Extropy Institute?s legacy of > achievement, the Board voted and has unanimously agreed to close > Extropy Institute's doors. > The mission is certainly not complete. If the board has seen fit to close down that is fine but please don't claim the work is finished. - samantha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 19:05:17 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Google glitch Message-ID: <20060503190517.69587.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Strange. Type in a keyword and search it repeatedly. Every 5-6 times, it returns fewer hits. 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 nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 19:32:38 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <4458DC40.1000508@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060503193238.96208.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Being a board member of the same institute your whole lives would be like working for General Motors a whole lifetime-- makes sense you would all want to move on to other things. --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 18:32:52 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] UFOs hoaxes and Occam's razor. (was NSA Disclosures) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503084828.0278ef90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060503183252.16153.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Keith Henson wrote: > They certainly could be, but I really doubt it. Can you quantify your doubt? That is what Bayes was all about after all. :) > > The first thing Eric Drexler did when he understood > the implications of > nanotechnology was to go looking for evidence in > photos of unusual > galaxies. He was looking for ones with an expanding > wave front that was > dimming the stars behind the leading edge into IR by > Dyson spheres or > something similar. To be particular, he was looking > for galaxies that > looked like Cookie Monster had taken a bite out of > them. He didn't find any. I would say that Drexler's argument against ETI was more speculative than the question of ETI itself. I am looking for simple explanations here, but I will nonetheless humor you and engage. First off, there is an assumption here that technological progress only has one possible sequence where molecular assemblers, and thereby Dyson solar tech, occur prior to FTL transport. Second it assumes that a Dyson sphere is the most practical form harnessing solar energy. A brief consideration of structural constraints imposed by gravitometric and rotational momentum considerations make a Niven type ring world far more practical and therefore likely. Such a construct would only block significant amounts of light if it was at a perfectly aligned angle. Third it assumes that any star would serve a Dyson sphere. In truth spectral considerations of the star in question would be very important for purposes of biological life as we know it. Futhermore the stars that are the most visible in a typical galaxy are the really high magnitude blue-white stars that reside in the hub and the arms of a spiral type galaxy. These really hot spectral types are short-lived and typically unstable with a tendency to supernova. Therefore they would probably not worth the effort of harnessing by Dyson-tech. Fourth, amongst the low magnitude stars lying outside of the spiral arms of a galaxy like ours (the life zone), there may very well be numerous Dyson spheres present. In fact Dyson spheres in this region seem as likely an explanation of the rotational speed anomaly of galaxies as speculative halos of dark matter consisting of exotic particles we have never seen and can't detect. Futhermore even if Dyson spheres did exist in this "life zone", it probably would not significantly alter the over-all luminosity of the galaxy in question. And of course the fifth and final consideration is that our light-cone has yet to catch up with the inflationary expansion of the universe so we are seeing most galaxies as they existed in their youth before they have had a chance to evolve life. Wait a few billion years and you may still see the cosmic Cookie-Monster in action. > It isn't so much a question of long term survival as > *short term.* > Reasoning runs this way. If technologically capable > races are common, > something eats every one of them, because every > direction we look we see > wilderness, vast wastage of matter and energy. We > cap blown out oil wells > for darn good reasons. A civilization with the > power to do would plug the > black holes. They certainly would be trapping the > light output from stars. Come on, what could eat so many civilizations and not be a civilization itself? Galactic conquest I can believe; giant invisible civilization-eating monsters, I can't. Even if the civilizations are self-destructing, we should be able to detect their death-throes. If we decided to go all out with thermonuclear war, I think someone around a nearby star should be able to pick up the EMP loud and clear. Also if they have learned to tap vaccuum/dark energy, then stars would be trivial energy sources for them. Just like if we invent Mr. Fusion, we would give a hoot about our oil wells. > > Since we don't see such, or the occasional > interstellar drive that happens > to be pointed our way, the conclusion is that there > are no technophiles > inside our light cone. Either they are so rare that > we are the only > example, or they commonly arise but something > removes them from the > observable universe. Maybe they are keeping tabs on us but don't want to talk to us. After all I don't see Jane Goodall inviting her chimps to cocktail parties. > > If they are common, we face a bleak future, probably > to be eaten by the > local singularity. If we are alone in our light > cone, then our future may > be a disaster, but it is not fore doomed. Great way to think yourself into an intellectual corner. What happened to optimism? I don't think our inability to detect ETI with outdated radio-tech means squat. If they are still using that kind of tech, which I doubt, it is probably highly directional and so unless their masers are pointed directly at us with the INTENT to communicate with us, we won't hear squat. This would be most especially true if there are multiple ETI civilizations out there that may not be the best of friends. There is a good reason why our submarines don't cruise around with active sonar on all the time and it isn't because we are worried about the dolphins going deaf. Just like the laws of physics, Darwinism would be the same throughout the universe. Why does SETI assume that technologically advanced civilizations would be game-theoretical morons running around the universe with their pants down? >> There were 6 of us in Arizona and 4 in New Mexico > that I knew > about. Nation wide that would give you roughly > 3600. Good to know. I will take it into consideration. > > Not always. Ezekiel described a B36 (four burning > and six turning). I > never checked to see of one fell through a time > warp, but I know how the > army had an M60 tank vanish. Hey... now there's a thought. Maybe David Copperfield is getting to ETI before SETI can. ;) 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 3 19:54:20 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:54:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Under Linux, the Firefox I've been running for a day or so is running 9 threads according to the System Monitor. So at least for some things it *is* multi-threaded. Whether page display is multi-threaded or not I don't know because often times if you don't have all of the HTML or JS specifying the size/location of various elements you have to wait until they all become available and/or have finished before you can properly render the window (tab) image and hand it over to the window manager (X in my case). There may be many cases where the pages are not written to be displayed efficiently. Pages which are designed properly (and not as resource hogs), e.g. the results of a google search or even Amazon.com pages display *very* quickly. Faulting Firefox for something which isn't its fault is shooting the messenger. With regard to memory management the problem is being caught between a rock and a hard place with efficiency vs. portability. You want to have very different memory management strategies for history records, bookmarks, scripts, HTML text, images, sound &| video, etc. You will not get that if they all go into a single heap managed by the ANSI C portable functions (malloc() and free()). I believe there is some tuning you could do with GNU's libc implementation of these (under Linux) but that isn't going to buy you squat on Windows. You could also rewrite the Linux VM manager to better handle cases of heap thrashing (but again that doesn't do squat for Windows). You have to bear in mind that it probably took a decade until Linux became robust enough that it could scale from the largest machines (supercomputers) to the smallest (routers & hand-held devices) and everything in between and adapt relatively well to most of that hardware. Robert On 5/2/06, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > > On 5/2/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > Gross! Is there a move afoot to add multi-threading and efficient > > related object/memory management? > > Not that I know, but I'm not partecipating in the firefox developing > community. Someone more knowledgeable is required for the correct > answers :-) > > Alfio > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mstriz at gmail.com Wed May 3 20:01:02 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:01:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > You have to bear in mind that it probably took a decade until > Linux became robust enough that it could scale from the largest machines > (supercomputers) to the smallest (routers & hand-held devices) and > everything in between and adapt relatively well to most of that hardware. Have you gotten Xgl + Compiz yet? Way trippy, dude. Martin From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 3 21:09:39 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:09:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations [Was: Commentary: Does Karl Schroeder's opinion reallymatter?] In-Reply-To: References: <4347A28B-D632-42DD-8241-D15E549F1040@mac.com> <4902d9990605011149p7ffc5801x1f1039339b63d013@mail.gmail.com> <4902d9990605021325l538184cka7b7d7ef5127398@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 3, 2006, at 12:54 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > With regard to memory management the problem is being caught > between a rock and a hard place with efficiency vs. portability. > You want to have very different memory management strategies for > history records, bookmarks, scripts, HTML text, images, sound &| > video, etc. You will not get that if they all go into a single > heap managed by the ANSI C portable functions (malloc() and free > ()). I believe there is some tuning you could do with GNU's libc > implementation of these (under Linux) but that isn't going to buy > you squat on Windows. You could also rewrite the Linux VM manager > to better handle cases of heap thrashing (but again that doesn't do > squat for Windows). You have to bear in mind that it probably took > a decade until Linux became robust enough that it could scale from > the largest machines (supercomputers) to the smallest (routers & > hand-held devices) and everything in between and adapt relatively > well to most of that hardware. > What I suggested is quite portable and has been used for many years on a variety of projects and platforms. Allocate large blocks using the underlying system/libc calls. Write alloc, free, etc. substitutes and any more specialized calls you might desire that suballocate from these large blocks with sufficient additional bookkeeping, tagging and such to more efficiently clean up garbage and compact the heap. This sort of thing has been written many times. Its main drawback is the larger memory increment when the current large blocks cannot satisfy a request. But with compacting of the heap large blocks themselves may be released if memory needs go down significantly enough. - samantha From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 20:22:46 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] darfur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060503202246.84331.qmail@web37515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> First went to a protest in 1969 and have had quite enough of them; besides, cynical isn't wrong as long as one doesn't raise one's voice to get vicious about it. BTW did not say I intensely dislike protesters, but rather it still can't be denied like everyone they have a combination of good & bad intentions, they go to demonstrations for a host of reasons, some participate to show off their social consciousness, some are serious. You don't think hippies were backward looking?? All that mysticism, astrology, traveling to rural locations such as Woodstock to find a lack of porta potties, to leave heaps of garbage, to take drugs in the rain. Why was doing so more enlightened than getting a bit drunk so as to neck and eat popcorn at the Drive-In during the '50s? It is true there were all different sorts of people labeled under the umbrella of 'counterculture', they were doing all sorts of things, but how was the counterculture necessarily forward looking? Look, all this is to say if some young inexperienced person wants to take drugs, protest, hitchike or whatever they want to do they are welcome to do so, but I want nothing to do anymore with the counterculture, nothing more to do with drugs, mysticism, colorful clothing, long hair, or protesting this war or that war or getting all indignant that oil companies are making nine cents a gallon. Let young people get all worked up and indignant about darfur-- and if you wish to then you can join them. Just count me out. >Naw. You can stay home and post cynical claims about the people who do show up >instead. Every so much more enlightened, genteel and compassionate. >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 velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 3 21:27:39 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 17:27:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >> instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. >> Yes or no? Clark: > No. 1+1 does not equal 2? Well, I guess that is my cue to leave this discussion. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 3 21:47:56 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:47:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Allocate large blocks using the underlying system/libc calls. Write > alloc, free, etc. substitutes and any more specialized calls you might > desire that > suballocate from these large blocks with sufficient additional > bookkeeping, tagging and such to more efficiently clean up garbage and > compact the heap. This sort of thing has been written many times. Its > main drawback is the larger memory increment when the current large blocks > cannot satisfy a request. But with compacting of the heap large blocks > themselves may be released if memory needs go down significantly enough. I understand that Samantha. It is a somewhat non-trivial problem because each type of memory (say history records vs. large images vs. garbage collected memory [Javascript???]) requires different memory management strategies. There seems to be 32+ types of *alloc() calls (png_malloc(), GC_malloc(), JS_malloc(), etc.) in the source for Mozilla. I'm not sure what subset is used by Firefox. What I am seeing suggests that they knew this would be useful but may not have yet taken steps to optimize it. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 3 21:56:17 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:56:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <44592701.8000109@pobox.com> Heartland wrote: > Heartland: > >>>If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >>>instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. >>>Yes or no? > > Clark: > >>No. > > 1+1 does not equal 2? Well, I guess that is my cue to leave this discussion. *Rolls eyes.* A floppy disk contains 100 bits of Shannon information about System S. How much information is in two copies of the floppy? Do you think that if your brain used twice as much atoms to store the same data, there would be twice as much people in your head? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 3 22:09:06 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 15:09:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <44592A02.4080701@pobox.com> John K Clark wrote: > > According to your argument anesthesia causes the mind to go away forever > too, but I wouldn't spread that around if I were you, not if you want people > to take you seriously. You're arguing by reductio ad absurdum to a conclusion that "sounds silly" but which you have not actually proven to be wrong. Not that I don't agree with you, just pointing this out. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 3 21:42:12 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060503214212.54094.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Natasha Vita-More wrote: > With my most sincere thanks for your support over > the years, > > Natasha Vita-More > Extropy Institute, President You are most welcome, Natasha. It was a sincere pleasure. ExI will be missed, but your strategic plan makes good sense. May your metamorphosis bring you ever greater success. Best Wishes, Stuart __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 3 21:54:03 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 17:54:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future of Extropy-chat list? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503175343.06dc4ea8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:41 AM 5/3/2006 -0700, Jeffrey wrote: snip >Anyway, I'm sad to see the ExI list go down. I've only been on about a >month or so, but I was quite enjoying it; my thanks to all those involved. Is the list going down? I don't see any reason it should since there isn't much more connection to the Institute than the name and the cost of running a list is low. What is the plan? If it is going to be shut down, we could reconstitute it somewhere else. Keith Incidentally, this bounce again From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed May 3 23:03:49 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Bird Brian" - Not! In-Reply-To: <200605020517.k425HGbQ025157@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060503230349.86789.qmail@web52605.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ian Goddard... > > > > In my teens I used to do a lot of bird watching > > with local groups like the Audubon Society and > > other birding enthusiasts. I kept a bird list and > > did the annual Christmas count and such... ~Ian > > > Ian I have become a bird fan in recent years, not > from learning species but just from noticing the > amazing things they do. The classic birdwatching > never has appealed to me much because it seems too > preoccupied with identification of species and > especially uncommon species. Right. In fact, my last formal bird watching event was an Audubon Society Christmas count some year in the early 80s, after which the reduction of the gentle art of bird watching to the busy sport of bird cataloging was so palpably repugnant I never went on an organized bird watch again. It's a good example of where the actual target activity (watching birds) becomes so lost in ritual behavior surrounding it that it no longer exists; all that exists in a Christmas count is a frantic race to score has many checks on a list of bird species as possible. > Crows and gulls are perhaps the very most common > birds around here, so they don't get a lot of > attention. They should. To me, the point of > watching wildlife isn't to find the most exotic, > but rather to really watch, really pay attention > to see what the beasts are doing. Excellent observations spike! In fact, among birding enthusiast there's a kind of bird racism that I too adopted. In its more benign form, average sparrow-type birds were called LBJs for "little brown jobs." The meaning was, "nothing much there, forget it." In its worst form, we'd refer to common birds like crows, starlings, or house sparrows as "junk birds." Of course that valuation structure stems from the high value placed in seeing rare birds. Of course that isn't 'bad' per se, it simply reflects the given focus of standard bird watchers. If we're more interested in watching bird behaviors, then that value structure can fade away. Although that may in turn place a greater value on birds with higher intelligence and define 'junk birds' as pigeons. Of course such a priori value structures can bias our observations, so being able to step outside of them can lead to better observations. ~Ian http://iangoddard.net "A proposition can be true or false only in virtue of being a picture of reality." - Ludwig Wittgenstein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu May 4 02:08:41 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 19:08:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future of Extropy-chat list? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503175343.06dc4ea8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060503175343.06dc4ea8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605031908n730b91e9n4da62305bee37f50@mail.gmail.com> i agree with you KEITH. On 5/3/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > At 11:41 AM 5/3/2006 -0700, Jeffrey wrote: > > snip > > >Anyway, I'm sad to see the ExI list go down. I've only been on about a > >month or so, but I was quite enjoying it; my thanks to all those > involved. > > Is the list going down? I don't see any reason it should since there > isn't > much more connection to the Institute than the name and the cost of > running > a list is low. > > What is the plan? > > If it is going to be shut down, we could reconstitute it somewhere else. > > Keith > > Incidentally, this bounce again > > _______________________________________________ > 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 velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu May 4 02:12:59 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:12:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer> <44592701.8000109@pobox.com> Message-ID: Heartland: >>>>If there are 2 instances of brain type AND each instance produces one >>>>instance of mind type, then this MUST add up to 2 instances of mind type. >>>>Yes or no? >> Clark: >>>No. Heartland: >> 1+1 does not equal 2? Well, I guess that is my cue to leave this discussion. Eliezer: > Do you think that if your brain used twice as much atoms to store the > same data, there would be twice as much people in your head? Of course not. The point is that if you have two identical, but separate brains, this must add up to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't imagine you don't, then you should know exactly what I mean. Why is the distinction between type and instance important? Because life that I subjectively experience now is an *instantiated* type of mind, never a static information about the mind. That experience irreversibly ends when the instance of mind process is no longer active. As I said to Clark, the concept of "mind type" is meaningless in the context of our survival. Cryonics preserves types of life, not instances of life so I see no point in signing up for suspension. Is it depressing that death is irreversible? Of course it is, but it's true. S. From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu May 4 01:28:14 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 18:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060503214212.54094.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If some of you want, assuming extropy-chat is terminated, you can come to transhumanistmentors-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Now of course nothing could take the place of extropy-chat, but anyone can write what they wish to at TM-- save for threats of violence. It is tolerable to get a little feisty at TM, not all the time of course however when people get angry they say what they think. --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Thu May 4 03:20:53 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 20:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with so many institutions. When the time has come to move on, recognizing and accepting that fact is always difficult. But the world has changed enormously since the 1980s when Max and Tom invented the idea of Extropy, and even since the early 1990s when this mailing list was born in its earlier incarnation. Ideas which at that time were considered too outlandish even for science fiction are now debated regularly in the corridors of power and on the front pages of major newspapers and other opinion leaders. My main concern during this time of transition is that the history of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy with regard to list archives. As a result, much of that free-wheeling discussion has been lost, an information exchange which many of us remember as among the most dynamic and engaging we have ever encountered. It may never be possible to reconstruct and restore those lost archives, but eventually the list policy changed, and we should make sure that what remains is not lost. Not only list archives, but the working papers and other documents produced by ExI over the years, should all be preserved for future study and reference. It's possible that someday this material will be seen as representing the birth of ideas which turn out to be key to the further development of humanity. Making data available for an indefinite period into the future will not happen automatically. It will take time and effort to make the preparations, and funds will be needed as well. If there are things I could do to help, I hope Natasha will feel free to ask, and I am sure that most of the rest of us in the community feel the same way. Hal Finney From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 03:27:57 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 22:27:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future of Extropy-chat list? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503222635.04b80e40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:54 PM 5/3/2006, Keith wrote: >Is the list going down? I don't see any reason it should since there isn't >much more connection to the Institute than the name and the cost of running >a list is low. > >What is the plan? The list will continue on, hopefully for decades to come and extrope from time to time as need be. Stay put! :-) 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 natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 03:29:51 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 22:29:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060503214212.54094.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503222818.04b34310@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:28 PM 5/3/2006, Ned wrote: >Now of course nothing could take the place of extropy-chat, Thanks Ned. The ExI Extropy Chat list will remain in place. 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 natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 03:40:00 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 22:40:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503223243.04b1e2f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:20 PM 5/3/2006, Hal wrote: >I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy >Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than >letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with >so many institutions. When the time has come to move on, recognizing >and accepting that fact is always difficult. But the world has changed >enormously since the 1980s when Max and Tom invented the idea of Extropy, >and even since the early 1990s when this mailing list was born in its >earlier incarnation. Ideas which at that time were considered too >outlandish even for science fiction are now debated regularly in the >corridors of power and on the front pages of major newspapers and other >opinion leaders. > >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy >with regard to list archives. As a result, much of that free-wheeling >discussion has been lost, an information exchange which many of us >remember as among the most dynamic and engaging we have ever encountered. > >It may never be possible to reconstruct and restore those lost archives, >but eventually the list policy changed, and we should make sure that >what remains is not lost. Not only list archives, but the working >papers and other documents produced by ExI over the years, should all >be preserved for future study and reference. It's possible that someday >this material will be seen as representing the birth of ideas which turn >out to be key to the further development of humanity. > >Making data available for an indefinite period into the future will >not happen automatically. It will take time and effort to make the >preparations, and funds will be needed as well. If there are things I >could do to help, I hope Natasha will feel free to ask, and I am sure >that most of the rest of us in the community feel the same way. Hal, I welcome your help, and the help of others, as we put together the Library of Transhumanism, Extropy and the Future. Mitch Porter (in Australia) was hired to work with us on this and he is making headway. It will take a little time, but it is the plan and I believe a good one. The list archives will be put together as we best can and eventually make it into the Extropy book section "Best of the List" which was David McFadzean's insightful suggestion a while back. What we will need is a web programming to put Mitch's work on the library into a format for the web. There will be other tasks in the near future that we will need help on. Hal, you have been a supportive member and friend for a long time and I hope our relationship continues into the future. Even though ExI is closing down, the philosophy of Extropy shall live and evolve in ways that only extropy can. My best to you, 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 spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 4 04:35:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 21:35:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <200605040447.k444lHMo007289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of "Hal Finney" > > I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy > Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than > letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with > so many institutions... Hal Finney Hal, I heartily concur, and wish to express how honored I feel to have been given the chance to be a moderator, then later the Temporary Volunteer Omnipotent Super-Autocratic Utterly Tyrannical Yet Strangely Benevolent List Dictator. I am one who has always been uncomfortable wielding authority. Power corrupts as we all know, and I was constantly aware of the corruption welling up with me, as expressed by my own self-awarded and ever expanding title above. I consequently endeavored to compensate for the corruption-spawning power granted me by me. Unfortunately I overcompensated to such a degree that the customary evil laugh "Muwaahahahahaaa" and the traditional "Fools! I shall destroy them all!" manifested themselves in an annoying horse-whinneying "Muweeheheheheee" and a "Wise persons! I shall co-operate with them all!" Far too silly was this. Many of us have one period of formative years in our lives, when we form the memetic framework, the philosophical basis of our entire lives. Usually these are in our youth. I am one who has enjoyed two periods of formative years, or rather the traditional formative years, then subsequently the reformative years. The former took place in my tragically misspent youth, as it is with most of us. But the latter, the far more interesting and unconventional reformative years, were during my tragically misspent adulthood. These years started about the time I found extropians, somewhere around 9 years ago. Finding there were others with thoughts and ideas in parallel to my own was a tremendous meme-affirming discovery. I owe much to those who have posted here, especially those who posted smart stuff and were never harsh nor overbearing. You know who you are. I shall forever treasure the friendships and acquaintances formed in this forum. I thank you all. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 4 05:03:37 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:03:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503222818.04b34310@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <200605040513.k445DXAv005398@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More ... The ExI Extropy Chat list will remain in place. Natasha Vita-More Excellent! That being said, I do wish to request that I be relieved of command as list dictator fairly soon. I am willing to serve until 1 June as I agreed in February. The responsibilities of family life are pressing hard upon me, simultaneously from the generation before and the one soon to follow. If some kind soul such as J. Andrew Rogers were to initiate a virtual palace coup before that time, I would gladly relinquish all this unlimited authority and corrupting power. Cheerfully, without a shot fired. {8-] I would even be willing to continue as the list Cajoler of Difficult and Overbearing Yahoos when such services are needed. In the mean time, I must prepare for a trip on an antiquated motorcycle to the Oregon ranch for another humiliating weekend of pretending to be an actual farmer. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 4 05:14:46 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:14:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <200605040447.k444lHMo007289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <200605040447.k444lHMo007289@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605032214h4bd52286gc11929dbb1493159@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/06, spike wrote: > to such a degree that the customary evil laugh "Muwaahahahahaaa" and the > traditional "Fools! I shall destroy them all!" manifested themselves in an > annoying horse-whinneying "Muweeheheheheee" and a "Wise persons! I shall > co-operate with them all!" > > Far too silly was this. > > Many of us have one period of formative years in our lives, when we form the > memetic framework, the philosophical basis of our entire lives. Usually > these are in our youth. I am one who has enjoyed two periods of formative > years, or rather the traditional formative years, then subsequently the > reformative years. The former took place in my tragically misspent youth, > as it is with most of us. But the latter, the far more interesting and > unconventional reformative years, were during my tragically misspent > adulthood. These years started about the time I found extropians, somewhere > around 9 years ago. > > Finding there were others with thoughts and ideas in parallel to my own was > a tremendous meme-affirming discovery. I owe much to those who have posted > here, especially those who posted smart stuff and were never harsh nor > overbearing. You know who you are. I shall forever treasure the > friendships and acquaintances formed in this forum. I thank you all. Spike, you most certainly must be my long-lost evil twin! ;-) - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 4 06:09:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 23:09:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical challenge In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605032214h4bd52286gc11929dbb1493159@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605040609.k4469CNr003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright ... > > Spike, you most certainly must be my long-lost evil twin! > > ;-) > > - Jef What would happen if instead of the usual good twin, evil twin, they were triplets? Would one still be good and one evil, and if so, what would the third one be? The tepid triplet? The ethically ambiguous sibling? The so-so-sister? spike From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 4 07:10:34 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 00:10:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical challenge In-Reply-To: <200605040609.k4469CNr003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <22360fa10605032214h4bd52286gc11929dbb1493159@mail.gmail.com> <200605040609.k4469CNr003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605040010g225558abid28bbcd5ec455ce4@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/06, spike wrote: > > What would happen if instead of the usual good twin, evil twin, they were > triplets? Would one still be good and one evil, and if so, what would the > third one be? The tepid triplet? The ethically ambiguous sibling? The > so-so-sister? > That fence-sitting figure, legend of lethargy, master of the mediocre, sibling without rivalry...the vexed of kin? In the long run, there is nothing more evil, more anti-extropic, more inducing of ennui, than apathetic acceptance of equilibrium! Or something like that... From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu May 4 07:31:44 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 03:31:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: "But as I said before, trajectory does not effect the functionality of any atom. Lets say I'm doing an open-skull surgery on a living, conscious human brain. I decide to remove a Carbon atom from a neuronal membrane. I can then insert *any* Carbon atom from my handy supply of Carbon atoms. It won't effect the functionality of that membrane in the slightest bit. The trajectory of an atom is a *byproduct* of the atoms existence and function; it doesn't give that atom any special properties, none. Trajectory from the past doesn't "run" a mind, real-time atoms do." I think we've addressed this issue before. Trajectories "don't run the mind." I don't think I ever said that. What I said was that trajectories give an objective observer the ability to distinguish between instances. That's it. They are only measurements of location of matter, nothing else. I'm not sure, but maybe you are confusing "trajectory" with "mind object". Perhaps a closer inspection of the definition of mind object I gave recently will be helpful. I said: "Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" that energy exchange process (e.g. atoms of brain tissue)." So mind object consists of *only* that matter which is *presently and actively* involved in producing the mind. So, if you exchange one instance of matter for another, the old instance no longer makes up mind object and so, accordingly, trajectory of mind object no longer includes the trajectory of that old instance of matter. Jeffrey: "Consider this, Heartland. During ~10^29 Planck Intervals when no neurons are discharging, the "mind-process" is absent." I don't agree with this assertion. Mind process is powered by energy and that energy is being conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. It's like you throw a ball upwards. Just because a ball becomes still at the highest point doesn't mean that during this time frame the energy that will force the movement of the ball downwards disappears. Besides, mind process necessarily consists of many consecutive brain states (any shorter chain of states would be just a non-mind process) each one taking longer than ~10^29 Planck Intervals. You can't declare mind process absent by considering arbitrary time frames like PI. My whole argument occurs in 4D, not 3D where t=0. Mind process is an *object in time*. Finally, Jeffrey, let me end this response with a surprising and depressing thought. You have been correct. It occurred to me very recently that we are really dying; not constantly, but "from time to time." Funny thing is that I reluctantly reached this conclusion using completely different reasoning from yours, based instead on my own argument justifying the "death occurs when mind process stops" part (i.e., the remaining part of my argument you disagree with). We are dying for a different reason but our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's illusion. I hate this. S. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu May 4 07:55:14 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 03:55:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060326112425.023ae2f0@gmu.edu> References: <20060313204316.E865257FB1@finney.org> <8d71341e0603131350v619b54e9r3d542379534f444f@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060318172237.02424920@gmu.edu> <7.0.1.0.2.20060326112425.023ae2f0@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7641ddc60605040055t4c78da3by7ac743245fe18c2@mail.gmail.com> Here I am back to my old tricks, not following on good threads for way too long... Sorry for the long delay. In the meantime, I reached lvl 55 as Undead warlock on the Khaz Modan server and amassed a fortune of 1700 gold, now ready to take on end-game instances. A note to all of you who still have a life - never, never, set foot on Azeroth, or would will be lost to this world. I will answer Robin's last post at the end of this contribution, which promises to be a long one. Let me first comment on a few other posts that accrued since my last presence here: Somebody mentioned that unidentified parties on this list have gone mau-mau on Robin's ass. Such activities are probably illegal in many jurisdictions and I strongly disapprove of them (except if on a strictly consensual basis). I expect that the list authorities will take a swift and uncompromising action to end the outrage. Now back to Robin's medical views: Jeff Medina wrote: as Robin's position is the consensus position of experts on this matter (or so he has claimed, and no evidence against this has been provided by anyone else, including you -- in fact, unsolicited corroboration was provided, by Finney armed with a mainstream health economics textbook). ### Robin makes two claims which according to the best of my knowledge are well beyond the mainstream of experts on medicine (much less being the consensus): 1) Smallpox vaccinations are responsible for between 1 and 10 % of the reduction in smallpox lifetime prevalence observed in developed countries since their introduction. 2) The utility of modern medicine in developed countries, as measured by life extension and improvement in the quality of life is negligibly different from zero. while I take issue with both of them, I agree with Robin's statement: 3) The utility of pre-modern medicine (before ~ 1850) is close to zero. We need to very clearly differentiate between claims #2 and #3. There are very good reasons to doubt the efficacy of almost all medical interventions before 1850, with the exception of vaccinations but after that time, with the work of Lister and Pasteur, the modern era of medicine started and eventually led to "exceptional returns". Let me quote a document from the Lasker foundation that Robin listed on his webpage of health-care resources: http://www.laskerfoundation.org/reports/pdf/exceptional.pdf "economists came to a virtual consensus that medical research has produced exceptionally high returns in the past and is likely to deliver exceptional returns in the future." The other documents listed on Robin's page are also in general supportive of the notion that medicine produces significant utility. A PubMed search for "(health-care OR healthcare) cost-effectiveness" yields today 17856 citations, and a random sampling of them shows that most describe net *gains* from specific medical treatments, rather than net losses. If there is anything that economists agree on, it is that overall medicine is useful. ------------------------------- No, but Robin didn't make that claim. In fact, he explicitly stated that he's perfectly willing to grant that *some* treatments are worthwhile. You don't mean to suggest that all, or nearly all, of the treatments suggested by doctors are backed up by RCTs, do you? Or that the gains from the minority of worthwhile treatments make up for the majority of low, zero, and negative value ones? It seems you'd have to back one or the other of these for your question to apply here. ### If you grant that some treatments work but still say that all treatments on average don't, then you must postulate that the beneficial effects of some treatments are precisely (within measurement error) offset by negative effects of others. I once posted here a long list of beneficial treatments, and I challenged Robin to come up with a list of deleterious treatments necessary to offset the beneficial effects. In another discussion on wta Robin actually conceded that clearly deleterious treatments are unlikely to survive the scrutiny of providers, patients, and their lawyers for long, so not surprisingly he didn't compile the anti-list I asked him about. But, this leaves the claim of zero average utility prominently unbalanced. ---------------------------- Robin: Let me confirm that the majority of medical practice is *not* now backed up by well-done RCT. An easy test: the next time your doc advices some treatment, ask him for the RCT that backs it up. If he gives you a RCT, look to see how well done it is and how relevant it is to your situation.v ### I will concede that under some legitimate interpretations of "majority of interventions" indeed the majority of medical practice would not be backed up by well-done RCT. However, under other interpretations, the opposite is the case. Specifically, if you look at the majority of medical treatment interventions (as opposed to diagnostic algorithms), most of them are pharmacological or surgical. All drugs in the US have to prove safety and efficacy in FDA-monitored trials (which should be abolished but this is another story) before being approved, and therefore their use tends to be supported by RCTs. Even the off-label use usually begins with a few case presentations, followed by RCTs if the use is significant. I can support virtually every prescribing decision I make daily by an RCT, or an AAN practice guideline. Furthermore, many if not most of the of the most common surgical procedures are backed by RCTs as well - from CABG to lithotripsy to epidural steroid injections, there is actually a lot of data. Sometimes it turns out that a traditional intervention is actually useless - for example, recently we have found out that surgery for intracranial hemorrhage is useless, or endoscopic knee surgery is useless - but the number of commonly used procedures without an RCT to their credit is probably dwindling. So, yes, I would contend that if you count my medical treatment decisions throughout a representative week, the majority of them will be RCT-supported. If you come to me for a consultation and ask questions, I will be able to dig out the data (but would charge you extra). I hardly think that I am exceptional in this respect. This is not to say that most doctors will be able to show that what they order is the optimal treatment - far from it, neither I nor most other practitioners have the comprehensive knowledge needed to select the best possible drug (in part because few entities have the economic incentive and means to conduct the research needed to find it) but most physicians will give medications that work somewhat, perhaps better than an alternative drug, perhaps a bit worse than a direct competitor. I vacillate between triptans (migraine medication) each time after eating a drug rep dinner but this because all triptans seem to work in a similar fashion, not because there are doubts whether they work at all. ----------------------- Robin: To be clear, I do not at all think the RAND study is anything close to "junk". Its quality is substantially better than the typical study you will find via MedLine, for example. Its main "flaws" are that it is now 30 years old and it only looked at 5000 people over five years, and that it had a needlessly complicated set of varying treatments (mainly because they didn't anticipate that the main result of the experiment would be no effect). It would cost about a billion dollars to now do a study of 10,000 people over ten years. ### Well, you might also mention that the study does not control for access to medicine in the control (uninsured) group - therefore it measures the effect of *free* medical care, not medicine in general. This is an important distinction - most people will actually pay for medical treatment that they feel is needed (e.g. extraction of an abscessed tooth), but many will undergo optional treatments only if they are free. The Rand control group still went to the dentist when they had a bad tooth-ache, didn't they? The Rand study didn't show a big difference in the number of abscessed teeth that were removed in the both groups, did it? It didn't count how many people would be dead from sepsis stemming from a tooth abscess if they were actually forbidden to use medical care, as opposed to merely having to pay out of pocket, isn't this right? Yes, this study was useful to prove that universal free medical insurance is a stupid commie idea gone berserk but it has nothing useful to say about the utility of medicine. If you wanted to actually tell how much medicine us worth using the general methodology used in the Rand study, you would need a control group of people who would not use any medicine, period. In fact, if you manage to convince enough people to follow your notion of medicine's futility, you could do the study. Have half of them use all medical services at their disposal (since medicine is only futile, not actively harmful, this would be ethical, if profligate), while the others will abstain from all medicine (again, since medicine is futile, this would be ethical, as no harm can be done from abstaining from useless stuff). And I mean no medicine - no heartburn drugs, no dentistry, no nursing home placement, no cast for a broken ankle, no blood transfusion after a car accident, no suturing of wounds, nothing. Ten years later we will poll the groups on the amount of suffering they have undergone, and count the disabled and the corpses. Are you ready to be the first subject of this study? Perhaps a patient I saw many years ago would be the inspiration for you: He had diabetes and never saw a doctor for it. As it frequently happens, he developed circulatory abnormalities in his foot, the "diabetic foot". After a while the foot died. It didn't really upset him, until one day it actually broke off above the ankle. This is when he finally came to the attention of my profession, and in line with your contention of medicine's futility, they didn't actually do much for him. This is an actual true and accurate first-hand story, not some Wes Craven fantasy. I am sure the proposed study would provide many more darkly entertaining yarns of this kind. ----------------------------------------------- On 4/18/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > >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. and then also: > 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. ### As Jeff Allbright (I think) has noted, even if I was unable to point to a study aggregating outcomes of treatments, this would not prove your point, merely indicate the absence of knowledge on which a point of view could be based. But, there are studies aggregating outcomes. You quoted one of them yourself, the Bunker et al. in Milbank Quarterly, Volume 72 Number 2, 1994. Such studies consistently show a benefit of anything from 2 to 5 years. Let me admit, my mind is totally boggled by all what you say on this subject. Rafal From amara at amara.com Thu May 4 10:38:51 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 12:38:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: Hal Finney: >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy >with regard to list archives. It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 4 12:49:14 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:49:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <44592701.8000109@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060504124914.GJ26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:12:59PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > Cryonics preserves types of life, not > instances of life so I see no point in signing up for suspension. Is it depressing > that death is irreversible? Of course it is, but it's true. While cryonics is not a safe bet (several critical factors are yet unknown) I wonder what makes you discard a distinct possibility. I presume you would reject general anaesthesia or artificial coma, too? Even if it would save your life, because it would be somebody else's life, not yours? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 4 12:55:04 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:55:04 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060503214212.54094.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> <20060504012814.54434.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060504125504.GK26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:28:14PM -0700, Ned Late wrote: > If some of you want, assuming extropy-chat is terminated, you can come to transhumanistmentors-subscribe at yahoogroups.com > Now of course nothing could take the place of extropy-chat, but anyone can write what they wish to at TM-- save for threats of violence. It is tolerable to get a little feisty at TM, not all the time of course however when people get angry they say what they think. Why creating a yet another transhumanist list? With only 10 members to boot? Thanks go to ExI for being there for us for all these years. The extropy@ list (along with old transhumanism on logrus) bears some of my fondest memories. Good wishes to you all, and may you succeed in your next endeavors. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu May 4 13:12:36 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 06:12:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504125504.GK26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060504131236.27640.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What's wrong with many small transhumanist groups with different purposes? The goal for this one is fifty members. Eugen Leitl wrote: Why creating a yet another transhumanist list? With only 10 members to boot? __________________________________________________ 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 eugen at leitl.org Thu May 4 13:52:32 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:52:32 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504131236.27640.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060504125504.GK26713@leitl.org> <20060504131236.27640.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060504135232.GP26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:12:36AM -0700, Ned Late wrote: > What's wrong with many small transhumanist groups with different purposes? The goal for this one is fifty members. Loss of synergy. Recursive fragmentation into obscure tribalism. It's getting really hard to track which new community is where, and doing what. We're making lists just because we can. It's easy to splinter, but hard to unify. There's value in dedicated lists, but only if there's a specific focus. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 4 14:18:00 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 07:18:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/06, Heartland wrote: > Finally, Jeffrey, let me end this response with a surprising and depressing > thought. You have been correct. It occurred to me very recently that we are really > dying; not constantly, but "from time to time." Funny thing is that I reluctantly > reached this conclusion using completely different reasoning from yours, based > instead on my own argument justifying the "death occurs when mind process stops" > part (i.e., the remaining part of my argument you disagree with). We are dying for > a different reason but our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's > illusion. I hate this. Dear Heartland, I have been watching this exchange with interest, not for any expected outcome, but with hope of better understanding the interaction and possible resolution of incongruent models of reality. It seems you have just recently experienced an update of your model, possibly as a result of the debate, and I wonder if you would do me (us) the favor of describing this experience from your point of view. It seems to me this question is highly relevent to the Extropy list. Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request. - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 4 14:43:23 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 07:43:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60605040055t4c78da3by7ac743245fe18c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki ... > > Somebody mentioned that unidentified parties on this list have gone > mau-mau on Robin's ass. Such activities are probably illegal in many > jurisdictions... Altho the term "mau-mau" was undefined, wikipedia says something about a Kenyan uprising. I do not think this was the intended definition, but in any case, it sounds abusive and we do not tolerate abusive treatment of animals on this list, wild, domestic or farm variety. > ...and I strongly disapprove of them (except if on a > strictly consensual basis)... > Rafal I strongly disapprove of even consensual basis, assuming you meant the consent of the owner of the ass. The actual beast is unable to express disapproval. Actually I might need to rethink that, for an ass might express his dismay in the form of a powerful hoof to the midsection of the abuser. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 4 15:00:43 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 11:00:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:38 PM 5/4/2006 +0200, you wrote: >Hal Finney: > >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember > >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy > >with regard to list archives. > >It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still >true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, >careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in >our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. > >Amara Unfortunately due to factors ranging from disk crashes to becoming a refugee, not many of us can remember those long gone days. (I.e., read the postings--brain memory just leaks out and is gone.) Shame too, because there was history made on that list. And some of it that diffused into the general net culture is just wrong and should be corrected from the original source. For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter brains." Keith Henson From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 15:39:07 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 10:39:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060504103533.04e37840@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 05:38 AM 5/4/2006, Amara Graps wrote: >Hal Finney: > >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember > >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy > >with regard to list archives. > >It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still >true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, >careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in >our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. The early list will be kept private *unless* post authors agree to have their posts included in the library, or in a book. In that case, the editors will contact post authors and get full permission to make the posts public. Amara, we can discuss this in detail so that everyone is assured that their privacy is protected. 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 natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 4 16:33:22 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 11:33:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060504104000.04e375b0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:00 AM 5/4/2006, you wrote: >At 12:38 PM 5/4/2006 +0200, you wrote: > >Hal Finney: > > >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > > >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > > >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember > > >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy > > >with regard to list archives. > > > >It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still > >true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, > >careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in > >our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. > > > >Amara > >Unfortunately due to factors ranging from disk crashes to becoming a >refugee, not many of us can remember those long gone days. (I.e., read the >postings--brain memory just leaks out and is gone.) > >Shame too, because there was history made on that list. We want to preserve that history and that it was made on this list. >And some of it >that diffused into the general net culture is just wrong and should be >corrected from the original source. Can you elaborate more? 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 May 4 16:56:49 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 12:56:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060427204608.33372.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com><001e01c66c6b$9f084e60$11094e0c@MyComputer><006801c66ce7$f8fc7e60$af084e0c@MyComputer><001201c66d38$0fba1f90$0d094e0c@MyComputer><003a01c66daf$9a726350$48084e0c@MyComputer><002001c66e11$24633a60$a70a4e0c@MyComputer> <002401c66ed8$58fe9b30$0f084e0c@MyComputer><44592701.8000109@pobox.com> Message-ID: <00af01c66f9b$c8b22550$4f094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > if you have two identical, but separate brains, > this must add up to two separate *instances* > of one *type* of mind. If you're correct let's see where that leads, if you have two identical but separate calculators adding up 2 + 2 they must add up to two separate *instances* of the number 4; the symbol "4" that one calculator displays stands for something profoundly different than what the symbol "4" the other calculator displays stands for. The same would be true of mental arithmetic, so if you ask me how much is 2 +2 and I say 4 I am incorrect, but if you answer your own question and say 4 then you are correct. This could be a teeny tiny bit of a problem for physicists and mathematicians. > Cryonics preserves types of life, not instances of life so I see no point > in signing up for suspension. But you oppose anesthesia for exactly the same reason, so you think Cryonics is no more dangerous than anesthesia, and that's a ringing endorsement in my book. John K Clark From brian at posthuman.com Thu May 4 17:06:20 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 12:06:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <445A348C.6000304@posthuman.com> spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki > ... >> Somebody mentioned that unidentified parties on this list have gone >> mau-mau on Robin's ass. Such activities are probably illegal in many >> jurisdictions... > > Altho the term "mau-mau" was undefined, wikipedia says something about a > Kenyan uprising. I do not think this was the intended definition, but in > any case, it sounds abusive and we do not tolerate abusive treatment of > animals on this list, wild, domestic or farm variety. > >> ...and I strongly disapprove of them (except if on a >> strictly consensual basis)... >> Rafal > > I strongly disapprove of even consensual basis, assuming you meant the > consent of the owner of the ass. The actual beast is unable to express > disapproval. Actually I might need to rethink that, for an ass might > express his dismay in the form of a powerful hoof to the midsection of the > abuser. > I suspect it's a reference to this bit from the very funny UK show League of Gentlemen: Death by Mau Mau Geoff: Ay Brian, tell Mike Mau Mau. Brian: You what?? Geoff: You know, the one about the Mau Mau. Brian: Ohh, I can't remeber it Geoff, you tell him. G: No, you can. Mike, Danny Taurus told this joke at the Con Club and it's the funniest bloddy joke, tell it Brian. B: Me? G: Yeah, go on. B: Ohh alright. Umm there's these 3 fellas.... G: Yeah Englishman, Irishman and Scotchman. B: Yeah, and they get lost in the desert... G: Jungle. B: Is it? G: Yeah go on. B: They get lost in the jungle and they get killed by these cannibals. G: Ohh not yet, you've missed the whole bloddy joke out you idiot. B: Well, I can't remember it Geoff, you tell it. G: You can, just think what the end is and then go back. B: There's an Englishman.... G: Fruit. B: What?? G: It's the fruit. B: Oh right. G: He remembers it now. B: Englishman, Irishman alright... They get captured by these cannibals and they have to go out in the jungle and pick 10 pieces of fruit and bring 'em back. So they come back and the Chief says "So Englishman..." G: Do the voice. B: Chief says "So Englishman, now you must choose between Death or Mau Mau." And the Englishman says "We English will not bow to you savages, I'll choose Mau Mau" So they grab him and they shove the 10 pieces of fruit up his arse!!! G: Yeah, and what did he pick?? B: Ohh the Englishman chose cherries!! G: Oooh imagine that Mike, 10 cherries shoved up your arse, cherries are only really small though aren't they?? Go on Brian. B: So the Chief turns to the Scotchman and says "Death or Mau Mau?" And the Scotchman says "Mau Mau" and... Oh what's the Scotchman's fruit Geoff? Is is bananas? G: Nah, it's smaller than that. B: Well, lets just say bananas. G: No, it's too big, it spoils the next one. B: Apples? G: No. Mike: Strawberries? G: What??!? In the jungle? Come on just think what it is for a minute. M: Not strawberries... B: Kiwi? M: Ay Brian, why are there no aspirins in the jungle? B: Dunno. M: Coz the parrots eat 'em all (pronounced paracetemol) B: See, I would have said paracetemol (pronounced differently from above) M: Well, either way I think it works you know. G: Plums!!!! B: What?? G: They're plums, come on. M: Ah Geoff, it doesn't matter now. G: Course it matters, he's right near the end. There's only the Irishman left. Come on Brian. The Chief turns to the Irishman, he says "Death or Mau Mau".... M: You didn't do the voice. G: It doesn't matter. Finish it. B: I can't remember it G: Finish it!!!!! B: I can't remember it Geoff. G: Please!! B: Geoff, I honestly can't remember. (Geoff breaks down and starts to cry) G: Ohh, it's just one big bloddy joke to you innit? Yeah, Geoff can't tell a joke, geoff is a joke! Geoff isn't funny enough to be Mike's best man. M: Geoff!!! G: Well you all know I've got this gun don't you?? Ohh you're listening now. Right, well, you are gonna tell this joke and we're all gonna laugh..... or else Mike gets it!!!! (Mike sounds scared s***less) B: Calm down, calm down, we'll get to the end of the joke, Jesus. Errmmm The Chief says to the Irishman "Death (stumbles a bit) death or Mau Mau" and the Irishman looks at his fruit.... G: Pineapples!!! B: Pineapples!! Looks at his pineapples and he says "I don't think I could stand the Mau Mau, I'll choose death" And the Chief says to him... (Gun clicks to mean that Geoff is serious) M: Get it right Brian!! B: The Chief says to the Irishman.... can't remember. M: He says "Death by Mau Mau" G: Ohh have you heard it?? M: Yeah. G: It's good though innit??? Oi! 3 Bluebirds!! (of course it's much better to watch than read) -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu May 4 16:40:36 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 09:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060504164037.25322.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, First I just want to express how happy I am that the ExI list will remain. This is great!! I am also very curious by what means of reasoning you've reached the same conclusion. But, I don't personally find the conclusion depressing, at all. If anything, I find it relieving. It has, with finality, convinced me that permanent death is really nothing to fear. It is only an unfulfilling life that I still fear. The foreknowledge of one's death and the uncertainty that goes with it, has for so long, brought so much grief to humanity. It is probably the single most responsible "event" that has frightened people into forming irrational and frequently destructive religions. Why does this conclusion depress you? Please do not misconstrue what I'm saying. Involuntary permanent death, in the sense of destruction of the brain, is horrible. It robs other minds of the experience of the individual, and it robs the individual of the (hopefully) pleasant illusion of life. I very much look forward to the day of indefinite human lifespan. I can't write for long. I have to go take a final exam for History. Yay! I'll attempt to respond to the technical points below at a later time. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Jeffrey: "But as I said before, trajectory does not effect the functionality of any atom. Lets say I'm doing an open-skull surgery on a living, conscious human brain. I decide to remove a Carbon atom from a neuronal membrane. I can then insert *any* Carbon atom from my handy supply of Carbon atoms. It won't effect the functionality of that membrane in the slightest bit. The trajectory of an atom is a *byproduct* of the atoms existence and function; it doesn't give that atom any special properties, none. Trajectory from the past doesn't "run" a mind, real-time atoms do." I think we've addressed this issue before. Trajectories "don't run the mind." I don't think I ever said that. What I said was that trajectories give an objective observer the ability to distinguish between instances. That's it. They are only measurements of location of matter, nothing else. I'm not sure, but maybe you are confusing "trajectory" with "mind object". Perhaps a closer inspection of the definition of mind object I gave recently will be helpful. I said: "Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" that energy exchange process (e.g. atoms of brain tissue)." So mind object consists of *only* that matter which is *presently and actively* involved in producing the mind. So, if you exchange one instance of matter for another, the old instance no longer makes up mind object and so, accordingly, trajectory of mind object no longer includes the trajectory of that old instance of matter. Jeffrey: "Consider this, Heartland. During ~10^29 Planck Intervals when no neurons are discharging, the "mind-process" is absent." I don't agree with this assertion. Mind process is powered by energy and that energy is being conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. It's like you throw a ball upwards. Just because a ball becomes still at the highest point doesn't mean that during this time frame the energy that will force the movement of the ball downwards disappears. Besides, mind process necessarily consists of many consecutive brain states (any shorter chain of states would be just a non-mind process) each one taking longer than ~10^29 Planck Intervals. You can't declare mind process absent by considering arbitrary time frames like PI. My whole argument occurs in 4D, not 3D where t=0. Mind process is an *object in time*. Finally, Jeffrey, let me end this response with a surprising and depressing thought. You have been correct. It occurred to me very recently that we are really dying; not constantly, but "from time to time." Funny thing is that I reluctantly reached this conclusion using completely different reasoning from yours, based instead on my own argument justifying the "death occurs when mind process stops" part (i.e., the remaining part of my argument you disagree with). We are dying for a different reason but our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's illusion. I hate this. 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu May 4 16:45:46 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 09:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060504164546.25829.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Amara, I certainly respect anyone's right to privacy. However, I think it would be counterproductive to hide or destroy *all* of the old archives. A good solution would be to hide any specific posts that the post author requests to remain undisplayed, if this can be achieved. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Amara Graps wrote: Hal Finney: >My main concern during this time of transition is that the history >of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme >unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember >today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy >with regard to list archives. It's not hard for me to remember today, because alot of it is still true. Many of those discussions could today still jeopardize contracts, careers and personal lives. I wish to remember those discussions in our private living rooms, not in a public Internet venue. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- 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 pharos at gmail.com Thu May 4 17:48:51 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 18:48:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are vaccinations useless? In-Reply-To: <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7641ddc60605040055t4c78da3by7ac743245fe18c2@mail.gmail.com> <200605041443.k44Ehh75001764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, spike wrote: > Altho the term "mau-mau" was undefined, wikipedia says something about a > Kenyan uprising. I do not think this was the intended definition, but in > any case, it sounds abusive and we do not tolerate abusive treatment of > animals on this list, wild, domestic or farm variety. > > I strongly disapprove of even consensual basis, assuming you meant the > consent of the owner of the ass. The actual beast is unable to express > disapproval. Actually I might need to rethink that, for an ass might > express his dismay in the form of a powerful hoof to the midsection of the > abuser. > It's almost certainly a misprint for "going moo-moo on Robin's ass" as it is well known that asses are easily frightened by cows sneaking up behind them. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 4 17:54:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:54:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Optimal computer configurations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E74D3D0-D30F-453B-AE9E-E4609746AD17@mac.com> I have written storage management and caching systems. There are a small set of truly different types of storage needs across all common types of software applications when you factor the space. It is possible to find a common supporting general memory/cache model with two primary subtypes of storage and a small set of storage/cache management primitives that can be mixed and matched to cover different needs. The storage subsystem can be designed to be adaptive to actual usage patterns. In this way different memory needs can be met at a much higher and more flexible level and with far greater performance and efficiency than attempting to satisfy all these types of needs using clib and equivalents. - samantha On May 3, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 5/3/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Allocate large blocks using the underlying system/libc calls. > Write alloc, free, etc. substitutes and any more specialized calls > you might desire that > suballocate from these large blocks with sufficient additional > bookkeeping, tagging and such to more efficiently clean up garbage > and compact the heap. This sort of thing has been written many > times. Its main drawback is the larger memory increment when the > current large blocks cannot satisfy a request. But with > compacting of the heap large blocks themselves may be released if > memory needs go down significantly enough. > > I understand that Samantha. > > It is a somewhat non-trivial problem because each type of memory > (say history records vs. large images vs. garbage collected memory > [Javascript???]) requires different memory management strategies. > There seems to be 32+ types of *alloc() calls (png_malloc(), > GC_malloc(), JS_malloc(), etc.) in the source for Mozilla. I'm not > sure what subset is used by Firefox. What I am seeing suggests > that they knew this would be useful but may not have yet taken > steps to optimize it. > > 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 Thu May 4 18:45:54 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 13:45:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, Keith Henson wrote: > For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter brains." You aren't in anything I'm responsible for. I researched this and Perry agreed that he was probably the source though he was unsure if he heard it from another source. (Though many of the references may not work and need to be relinked, you can get the gist of the history from [1].) The Wikipedia entry also doesn't have your name attached... So you can rest easy Keith :-). Of perhaps greater concern than the private extropy list from the early '90s may be the public list over the last decade or so. As I recall I first encountered the public list sometime in late '96. So everything since then should be available without having to obtain the permission of the authors. What I particularly miss is the old archives (from mailman?) which I think were maintained on lucifer.com. I suspect that multiple people may have these archived. It is up to someone to provide the space & bandwidth to make them available. It shouldn't be very much overhead in this day & age. I suspect the entire list contents for the decade would fit on a CD (or at worst a DVD). Robert 1. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/JupiterBrains/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 4 18:51:29 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:51:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060504185129.GH26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:45:54PM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > What I particularly miss is the old archives (from mailman?) which I think > were maintained on lucifer.com. I suspect that multiple people may have I would dearly love to get hold of those -- preferrably in mbox format, gzipped. > these archived. It is up to someone to provide the space & bandwidth to > make them available. It shouldn't be very much overhead in this day & age. Absolutely no problem with that. > I suspect the entire list contents for the decade would fit on a CD (or at > worst a DVD). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 4 19:02:21 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:02:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > On 5/4/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter brains." > > > You aren't in anything I'm responsible for. I researched this and Perry > agreed that he was probably the source though he was unsure if he heard it > from another source. (Though many of the references may not work and need > to be relinked, you can get the gist of the history from [1].) The > Wikipedia entry also doesn't have your name attached... So you can rest easy > Keith :-). > Heh! :) Do a Google search on henson jupiter brain You only have 61,000 entries to fix. BillK From benboc at lineone.net Thu May 4 18:40:32 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 19:40:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445A4AA0.1010400@lineone.net> Jeff Davis wrote: > > I've sometimes pondered the mystery of the Methusaleh > story. How to explain? Pure biblical hoo hah? Myth? > Accounting irregularities? Or could it be an > accurate account of an anomalous (no doubt > genetically-mediated) incidence of superlongevity? > > It's a puzzlement. Hm. How likely is it that a mutation, or set of mutations, would produce a very-long-lived human? I'd think we'd know about it if it happened. Unless the individuals were very crafty. I suppose they'd have reason to be. Highlander, anyone? I'm inclined to doubt it. ben From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 4 19:40:11 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:40:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, BillK wrote: > Do a Google search on henson jupiter brain > > You only have 61,000 entries to fix. Well I only get 58,600 so we are already getting there! At this rate we should be done by tomorrow. :-; Actually, if you limit it to Henson "Jupiter Brain" you only get 25 and some of those, e.g. [1] are correcting the association. Some of the other references are by people we know like Anders or Bruce Klein who could presumably be pursuaded to make corrections to the pages which have the errors. It is worth noting that while Keith is not the person responsible for "Jupiter Brain", he does appear to be the culprit(?) behind the "Far Edge Party" (aka "Far Side Party") if I believe Chapter 9 "Laissez le Bon Temps Rouler" in "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition". Robert 1. Anders for example gets it wrong here: http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Words/j.html I would bet that entry is the original source of the confusion. He does however manage to correct himself in Aug of '99 here: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:sTXrp055x0QJ:lists.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q99/2078.html+Henson+%22Jupiter+Brain%22&hl=en As Anders points out in that note the idea of planet-sized brains may have originated with Stapledon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 4 19:48:51 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:48:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] mutated lamin A likely key driver of human aging In-Reply-To: <445A4AA0.1010400@lineone.net> References: <445A4AA0.1010400@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 5/4/06, ben wrote: > > Hm. > How likely is it that a mutation, or set of mutations, would produce a > very-long-lived human? > I'd think we'd know about it if it happened. Unless the individuals were > very crafty. I suppose they'd have reason to be. > > Highlander, anyone? > Given evolutionary biology and the molecular mechanisms of aging it is very unlikely. My guess is that Jeanne Marie Calment got very lucky and has an optimal set of polymorphisms which reduced the rate of aging but did not stop it. That does not mean however that we cannot steal solutions which have evolved in other directions. The DNA double strand break repair machinery in some bacterial species, and in particular Deinococcus radiodurans, is quite different from that found in mammals and most eukaryotic cells. You should view aging & cancer as flip sides of the same coin -- they involve a variety of genes (potentially hundreds for both of them) and fixing them all isn't going to be trivial -- and it is highly unlikely that one would get there through natural evolutionary processes. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 4 19:16:24 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:16:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <380-22006544191624651@M2W028.mail2web.com> From: Robert Bradbury > It is up to someone to provide the space & bandwidth to >make them available. It shouldn't be very much overhead in this day & age. >I suspect the entire list contents for the decade would fit on a CD (or at >worst a DVD). Robert, read the Strategic Plan. The archives are going to be put in the library and book if and when people who wrote posts prior to the date the list went public, give approval (see Amara's post and my reply). It would be great for you and 'gene to work with ExI and Mitch Porter in putting this together. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 4 21:10:29 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 17:10:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:45 PM 5/4/2006 -0500, you wrote: >On 5/4/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> >wrote: >>For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter brains." > >You aren't in anything I'm responsible for. I researched this and Perry >agreed that he was probably the source though he was unsure if he heard it >from another source. (Though many of the references may not work and need >to be relinked, you can get the gist of the history from [1].) The >Wikipedia entry also doesn't have your name attached... So you can rest >easy Keith :-). Sure. Results 1 - 10 of about 31 for "keith henson" jupiter "that nanomachines". I think my contribution to that thread was a criticism that I have never seen answered. Namely that beyond a certain point, you get less from more since the amount of computation you can do goes up with the cube, but the clock rate has to go down because of speed of light delays. Beyond a size that isn't a lot larger than a human head, you are going to get a society of minds or one that thinks very slowly. But I have never seen an analysis with numbers in it. >Of perhaps greater concern than the private extropy list from the early >'90s may be the public list over the last decade or so. As I recall I >first encountered the public list sometime in late '96. So everything >since then should be available without having to obtain the permission of >the authors. > >What I particularly miss is the old archives (from mailman?) which I think >were maintained on lucifer.com. I suspect that >multiple people may have these archived. It is up to someone to provide >the space & bandwidth to make them available. It shouldn't be very much >overhead in this day & age. I suspect the entire list contents for the >decade would fit on a CD (or at worst a DVD). It probably is on a CD or DVD. Want me to ask David? Keith >Robert > >1. >http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/JupiterBrains/index.html > > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 4 21:31:09 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 14:31:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <445A729D.2050100@pobox.com> Keith Henson wrote: > > Beyond a size that isn't a lot larger than a human head, you are going to > get a society of minds or one that thinks very slowly. But I have never > seen an analysis with numbers in it. Human axons transmit signals at half a millionth the speed of light. You ought to be able to build a brain two million times as wide and with four trillion times the cortical area, which thinks at the same clock rate as human neurons, even if you don't miniaturize anything and just speed up the axons. Admittedly, relative fanout will be smaller unless you miniaturize the axons. That is, each neuron will talk to a smaller fraction of the total other neurons, because volume available for axons goes up as the cube of diameter, but cortical area goes up as the square, and N^2 connections would go up as the fourth power. But each neuron could easily talk to a constant number of other neurons; or fanout could increase as the square root of the total number of neurons. And that's if you don't miniaturize the axons. I think we can get brains significantly huger than human with the same relative internal bandwidth. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu May 4 22:59:40 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 18:59:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > Dear Heartland, > > I have been watching this exchange with interest, not for any expected > outcome, but with hope of better understanding the interaction and > possible resolution of incongruent models of reality. > > It seems you have just recently experienced an update of your model, > possibly as a result of the debate, and I wonder if you would do me > (us) the favor of describing this experience from your point of view. > > It seems to me this question is highly relevent to the Extropy list. > > Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request. > > - Jef I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new insight. But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down you correct the theory. As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I *knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere. Thanks for asking. S. From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu May 4 23:40:16 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504135232.GP26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060504234016.59705.qmail@web37515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This list will be capped at fifty subscribers so only a few messages a day, or week, will be posted. Anyway the list been in existence since last year and I'm not going to cancel it. Eugene Leitl: Loss of synergy. Recursive fragmentation into obscure tribalism. It's getting really hard to track which new community is where, and doing what. We're making lists just because we can. It's easy to splinter, but hard to unify. There's value in dedicated lists, but only if there's a specific focus. --------------------------------- 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 Thu May 4 23:57:51 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 19:57:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Email Lists Message-ID: <380-2200654423575158@M2W103.mail2web.com> Ned, Please watch the Subject line of threads. Please also start a new thread for your own specific email list which you are promoting. Thank you. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 00:10:33 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:10:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <44592701.8000109@pobox.com> <20060504124914.GJ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Heartland: > Cryonics preserves types of life, not > instances of life so I see no point in signing up for suspension. Is it > depressing > that death is irreversible? Of course it is, but it's true. Eugen: "While cryonics is not a safe bet (several critical factors are yet unknown) I wonder what makes you discard a distinct possibility. I presume you would reject general anaesthesia or artificial coma, too? Even if it would save your life, because it would be somebody else's life, not yours?" That's right. Life is a subjective experience of being in the present moment. Whenever an instance of that experience ends, this resulting state becomes functionally equivalent to a state of life before conception and after death (i.e., what is currently considered as "death"). In all these 3 states you experience nothing. This is the true essence of death. If my current instance ever reaches the death state I really don't care what happens next or if my type of mind gets instantiated again or not. As an instance I'm dead. As a good person I can only try to ensure that the next instance of SE based on my mind gets a better quality of experience then my current one so I would not reject general anesthesia because living with pain and suffering is pointless. The above statement is nothing more than an expression of my own meaning of life theory I developed few years ago which aims to optimize the *quality and quantity* of subjective experience. Trying to create best possible environment for future instances of SE enhances the quality of my current instance of SE because I would feel good about helping others, especially if others are the future instances of my mind. The only hope my current instance can have for immortality is definitely not cryonics, but that some entity in the future invents time machine that will go back and upload my current instance using Moravec Transfer. There's just no other way to do this. I expect that one of fundamental poshuman rights should be the right to maintain current instance of mind process. As of now, we, humans, are living in barbaric times. Death comes often and there's nothing we can do about it. And that makes me very sad. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 00:12:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 17:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505001237.5809.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Heartland wrote: "...Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong..." Well, suit yourself, but I beg to differ :-) My impression is that you perhaps just don't fully understand what I'm saying. I take responsibility for that, and I'll keep trying to convey it in different, and hopefully more straightforward, ways. How did you arrive at the "death happens often" conclusion? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: > Dear Heartland, > > I have been watching this exchange with interest, not for any expected > outcome, but with hope of better understanding the interaction and > possible resolution of incongruent models of reality. > > It seems you have just recently experienced an update of your model, > possibly as a result of the debate, and I wonder if you would do me > (us) the favor of describing this experience from your point of view. > > It seems to me this question is highly relevent to the Extropy list. > > Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request. > > - Jef I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new insight. But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down you correct the theory. As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I *knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere. Thanks for asking. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 00:30:10 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:30:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505001237.5809.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Heartland wrote: > "...Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong..." Jeffrey: > Well, suit yourself, but I beg to differ :-) > My impression is that you perhaps just don't fully understand what I'm saying. I > take responsibility for that, and I'll keep trying to convey it in different, and > hopefully more straightforward, ways. I think I understand what you are saying very well, but of course this might be just an illusion. What about my last post where I provided 2 different arguments for why mind process doesn't stop during a multiple of PI? You're not buying them? :) If so, then I wonder which parts you disagree with. > How did you arrive at the "death happens often" conclusion? Check my response to Eugen Leitl. S. From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Thu May 4 02:46:44 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:46:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FA92B@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> > Heartland wrote: > > Of course not. The point is that if you have two > identical, but separate brains, this must add up > to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. > If you have any >experience in OOP, and I can't > imagine you don't, then you should know exactly > what I mean. Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 5 01:54:44 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 18:54:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605050154.k451sr3G013203@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:02 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future > > On 5/4/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > > > On 5/4/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > For example, I should not be credited for the idea of "Jupiter > brains." > > Heh! :) > > Do a Google search on henson jupiter brain > > You only have 61,000 entries to fix. > > BillK Woohoo! I win. Google on spike jupiter brain: 153,000 hits! {8-] Uh oh, wait, I lose. Google on spike shit for brains: 234,000 hits. {8-[ spike Is Google the coolest thing to come along in recent memory, or what? {8-] From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 06:11:46 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 02:11:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FA92B@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: >> Heartland wrote: >> Of course not. The point is that if you have two >> identical, but separate brains, this must add up >> to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. >> If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't >> imagine you don't, then you should know exactly >> what I mean. Christopher Healy: > Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. Are you disagreeing with what seems to be your point? S. From anissimov at singinst.org Fri May 5 10:39:39 2006 From: anissimov at singinst.org (Michael Anissimov) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 03:39:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <445B2B6B.20501@singinst.org> Commentary on this important event: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog Thank you to Extropy Institute for introducing me to transhumanism. From alito at organicrobot.com Fri May 5 11:01:20 2006 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 21:01:20 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] was Re: ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future, but now tuned back to the usual program In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1146826881.13392.244.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 17:10 -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > . > I think my contribution to that thread was a criticism that I have never > seen answered. Namely that beyond a certain point, you get less from more > since the amount of computation you can do goes up with the cube, but the > clock rate has to go down because of speed of light delays. > > Beyond a size that isn't a lot larger than a human head, you are going to > get a society of minds or one that thinks very slowly. But I have never > seen an analysis with numbers in it. Why would synchronicity of the clock determine the process identity? Chips already in commercial use have section-local clocks (P4 ALU runs at twice the speed of the rest of the chip) and there's design for clockless chips. Would a mind operating on those chips not be one mind but a society of minds? From natasha at natasha.cc Fri May 5 14:00:42 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 09:00:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <445B2B6B.20501@singinst.org> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <445B2B6B.20501@singinst.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060505085742.04e7e160@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Thank you Michael, One very big correct, and a couple of tid-bits: First, the VP Summit was in 2004, not 2001. Second, ExI had a follow up summit in 2005 to crystallize ideas, and lastly ExI website was totally overhauled in 2005. Just a few things that we did, but I believe these things are important to note. Best wishes, Natasha At 05:39 AM 5/5/2006, you wrote: >Commentary on this important event: > >http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog > >Thank you to Extropy Institute for introducing me to transhumanism. >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 14:07:41 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 07:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Me: "How did you arrive at the "death happens often" conclusion?" Heartland: "Check my response to Eugen Leitl." Well, I did check your response to Eugen Leitl. That's not really an explanation. Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 13:41:58 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 06:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505134158.33697.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Heartland wrote: "I don't agree with this assertion. Mind process is powered by energy and that energy is being conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. It's like you throw a ball upwards. Just because a ball becomes still at the highest point doesn't mean that during this time frame the energy that will force the movement of the ball downwards disappears." Plenty of *non-mind* processes are also powered by energy. Energy exchange is not the exclusive property of a mind. The energy of a tomato is also conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. I never claimed that any energy "disappears". Energy is no doubt a component of the mind, but energy is also a component of *any* piece of matter. However, there is plenty of evidence that the human mind will cease in the absence of neuronal electrical discharges (which occur roughly only once every 10^29 Planck Intervals, in a normal brain), even while the life-support chemistry continues unabated. If you inject a syringe full of human neurotransmitters into a living tomato, the smart money says it is not going to become a mind. :-) Furthermore, you could theoretically "add" lots of extra neurotransmitters to the synaptic spaces of a medically deactivated human brain, and even with this new surplus the electrical discharges will not resume, until the patient revives by other means. Heartland: "Besides, mind process necessarily consists of many consecutive brain states (any shorter chain of states would be just a non-mind process) each one taking longer than ~10^29 Planck Intervals. You can't declare mind process absent by considering arbitrary time frames like PI. My whole argument occurs in 4D, not 3D where t=0. Mind process is an *object in time*." ~10^29 Planck Intervals is *not* a *single* "brain state". I've already explained that ~10^29 Planck Intervals represents a *span* of real time, in "motion". A *single* "brain state" would be represented by 1 Planck Interval... not ~10^29 of them. A physical *change* in the brain will occur within the passage of a only a few Planck Intervals. Therefore, a huge number of physical changes will occur within ~10^29 Planck Intervals. My argument has never been anything but "4-D". Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Jeffrey: "But as I said before, trajectory does not effect the functionality of any atom. Lets say I'm doing an open-skull surgery on a living, conscious human brain. I decide to remove a Carbon atom from a neuronal membrane. I can then insert *any* Carbon atom from my handy supply of Carbon atoms. It won't effect the functionality of that membrane in the slightest bit. The trajectory of an atom is a *byproduct* of the atoms existence and function; it doesn't give that atom any special properties, none. Trajectory from the past doesn't "run" a mind, real-time atoms do." I think we've addressed this issue before. Trajectories "don't run the mind." I don't think I ever said that. What I said was that trajectories give an objective observer the ability to distinguish between instances. That's it. They are only measurements of location of matter, nothing else. I'm not sure, but maybe you are confusing "trajectory" with "mind object". Perhaps a closer inspection of the definition of mind object I gave recently will be helpful. I said: "Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" that energy exchange process (e.g. atoms of brain tissue)." So mind object consists of *only* that matter which is *presently and actively* involved in producing the mind. So, if you exchange one instance of matter for another, the old instance no longer makes up mind object and so, accordingly, trajectory of mind object no longer includes the trajectory of that old instance of matter. Jeffrey: "Consider this, Heartland. During ~10^29 Planck Intervals when no neurons are discharging, the "mind-process" is absent." I don't agree with this assertion. Mind process is powered by energy and that energy is being conserved during ~10^29 Planck Intervals. It's like you throw a ball upwards. Just because a ball becomes still at the highest point doesn't mean that during this time frame the energy that will force the movement of the ball downwards disappears. Besides, mind process necessarily consists of many consecutive brain states (any shorter chain of states would be just a non-mind process) each one taking longer than ~10^29 Planck Intervals. You can't declare mind process absent by considering arbitrary time frames like PI. My whole argument occurs in 4D, not 3D where t=0. Mind process is an *object in time*. Finally, Jeffrey, let me end this response with a surprising and depressing thought. You have been correct. It occurred to me very recently that we are really dying; not constantly, but "from time to time." Funny thing is that I reluctantly reached this conclusion using completely different reasoning from yours, based instead on my own argument justifying the "death occurs when mind process stops" part (i.e., the remaining part of my argument you disagree with). We are dying for a different reason but our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's illusion. I hate this. 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 eugen at leitl.org Fri May 5 16:14:29 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 18:14:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060505161428.GD26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:59:40PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that > minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated It depends what your definition is (this is why I don't use the word mind, nor consciousness, nor similiar portmanteaus). Would you agree that a mind is a physical process, which happens to process information? So you only have to look at those relevant aspects of the physical system engaged in the abovementioned process, and can abstract away anything else? > their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me > finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a > discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens > during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck > at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't > get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the Are you sure that you're always getting of what other people are saying? No offense, but you were still arguing with yourself when I unsubscribed, and you don't seem to have made any progress since. > way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get > tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, > Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was I don't see why you would invoke Planck timescale for what happens in the brain, unless for a gedanken (which is always dangerous, because people will take you literally). Not much relevent happens in the brain significantly under 1 ms time scale, and subjectively the biochronon is at 50 ms, or larger, depending on how complex stimulus processing is. > wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal > examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just > activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view Now you're picking some arbitrarily single characteristic of a physical process, and declare it to be the only thing what matters. On basis of which evidence? Declaring that mind is energy is about as meaningfull as declaring that mind is information. Or that the mind is a future predictor. None of it is completely wrong, but perhaps the blind men shouldn let go of the nose hairs of the trunk, and look at the whole animal. > Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of > energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation > of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism Huh? > inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new > insight. Or maybe just an illusion of a new insight. You sound awfully sure, and awfully confused at the same time, this time. Are you realy sure you're making any progress when you're switching point of views? For an external observer, it looks like a random walk in concept space. > But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her > basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the If you model the mind as a physical process, there's not much you can reexamine without leaving the domain of science. > truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* > what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is Huh? > definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's > ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths You sound like a psychologist. This won't lead you anywhere. You need to be at least psychophysics-level tall to ride this ride. > denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way > to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to > open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, > in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a > territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test > cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down > you correct the theory. There's no need to get lost on the metalayer meanderings, when the issues are completely treatable with good old science and technology. > As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I > *knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, What is death? You better define it first, because most people don't know what death is. (Death being irreversible is quite true, because it's the definition of death -- irreversible loss of knowledge about a particular physical process). > most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my > own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people > commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere. > > Thanks for asking. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Fri May 5 16:15:24 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:15:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FAA40@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> > Chris Healey wrote: > > In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is > often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we > should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our > model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process > at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface > indications suggest. Heartland, Another point of my last paragraph is in regards to the definitions we use in uncovering truth. Whatever we *call* the things we describe, they are only labels, and ultimately labels shouldn't alter the measurable predictions we achieve. In doing what human minds do, they may occasionally, or even very often, do things that you label as dying. Some of those things could just as easily be labeled: operating as designed, system hibernation, or plain old "being alive". If it seems like we're dying an awful lot, but nobody seems to mind much, it's stronger evidence in support of revising our models, rather than revising our behavior. -Chris From jonkc at att.net Fri May 5 16:25:44 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:25:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> A B (Jeffrey Herrlich) Wrote: > Hi Heartland, > Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything. Yes, "you die when you die" really doesn't cut it, I had a similar problem with Heartland so he expanded on his answer and explained that the original is the original and the copy is the copy. In the post after that he told me that A is A and B is B. I still wasn't quite convinced he was right but then in yet another post said F is F and G is G, and suddenly it all clicked. John K Clark From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 17:48:36 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 10:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FAA40@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: <20060505174836.28778.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Chris, Chris wrote: "If it seems like we're dying an awful lot, but nobody seems to mind much, it's stronger evidence in support of revising our models, rather than revising our behavior." Yes, I agree with the above. Heartland, if you believe as I do, that our subjective lives are a "copy's illusion",then *why not* sign up for cryonics? Or, allow anesthesia? If you can be revived in the future, then your continuing subjective experience will be no less satisfying than what you are experiencing at this moment. The major difference is that you would most likely be unimaginably more capable and happy after revival. Isn't that worth "surviving" via cryonics, if it is necessary? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Christopher Healey wrote: > Chris Healey wrote: > > In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is > often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we > should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our > model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process > at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface > indications suggest. Heartland, Another point of my last paragraph is in regards to the definitions we use in uncovering truth. Whatever we *call* the things we describe, they are only labels, and ultimately labels shouldn't alter the measurable predictions we achieve. In doing what human minds do, they may occasionally, or even very often, do things that you label as dying. Some of those things could just as easily be labeled: operating as designed, system hibernation, or plain old "being alive". If it seems like we're dying an awful lot, but nobody seems to mind much, it's stronger evidence in support of revising our models, rather than revising our behavior. -Chris _______________________________________________ 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 jonkc at att.net Fri May 5 17:52:46 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:52:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060503142235.833.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <049001c6706c$d2d5e590$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > it occurred to me that minds are not information. It's true, minds are not information, at least that's not all they are; to make a mind you also need matter and energy. However atoms and energy are generic so they can't give us originality so it must be the information; if it's not information then it must be the soul just like the TV evangelists say. But I'm not a big fan of TV evangelists so I don't believe in souls. > Life is a subjective experience OK. >of being in the present moment. Redundant. "The present moment" is subjective. > Whenever an instance of that experience ends Let's change the word "ends" to "stops". > this resulting state becomes [..] what is currently considered as "death" That is a contradiction. If a mind objectively stops for a million years and then starts up again right where it left off what does it matter to the mind? You and I both agree that subjectivity is what's all important and subjectively nothing has stopped at all, his mind has been sailing along continuously without a hitch, the only thing he may notice is that the external world has made a very sudden jump, but that's the world's problem not his. >"Mind object consists of all matter but only that matter which is presently > and actively involved in energy exchanges that produce the mind > (e.g. electrons streaming down synapses). The only thing worse than trying to give individuality to atoms is trying to give individuality to electrons. > Brain object consists of all nonessential matter that merely "contains" > that energy exchange process You distinction between "brain object" and "mind objects" makes no sense. Zero. Far from being "nonessential" if that energy is not contained the mind will not work. And at the atomic level all interactions must involve an exchange process of some sort, an exchange of energy or charge or mass or spin. And if it doesn't involve an interaction there is no point in even talking about it. > our present subjective experience is indeed a copy's > llusion. I hate this. I don't see why you would hate this, I think it's wonderful. Your copy's "illusion" has served you very well your entire life, so I don't see why you'd suddenly become dissatisfied at the "illusion" your Cryonicly revived body produces. Put it another way, suppose just suppose tour subjective experience were NOT a copy's illusion, how would you be better off? For the life of me I can't think of any reason you would be. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 5 18:53:47 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 20:53:47 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060504124914.GJ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060505185347.GS26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > That's right. Life is a subjective experience of being in the present moment. I don't know what you mean with this sentence, but since in your definition death is something we experience routinely it's certainly not death as we know it, Jim. > Whenever an instance of that experience ends, this resulting state becomes So basically you're into continuity. If you suspend your computer, and resume upon next day, it's an undead computer running zombie programs. If you go to sleep, and wake up tomorrow you're a zombie, too. Or do you make a distiction between flat-EEG lacunae and sleep? > functionally equivalent to a state of life before conception and after death (i.e., > what is currently considered as "death"). In all these 3 states you experience > nothing. This is the true essence of death. When I sleep (non-REM) I also experience nothing. That's not exactly death, though. > If my current instance ever reaches the death state I really don't care what > happens next or if my type of mind gets instantiated again or not. As an instance So basically if you're a zombie, I can kill you, and you wouldn't object? Or it wouldn't be you, but some zombie objecting? > I'm dead. As a > good person I can only try to ensure that the next instance of SE based on my mind > gets a better quality of experience then my current one so I would not reject > general anesthesia because living with pain and suffering is pointless. The above Wow. You *are* pretty extreme. If you're really into continuity religion nothing I say can change that. I can only hope you won't get hurt as a result of strange beliefs (similiarly as Jehowa's Witnesses reject blood transfusions, and thus have a much poorer survival prognosis in ER setting). > statement is nothing more than an expression of my own meaning of life theory I > developed few years ago which aims to optimize the *quality and quantity* of > subjective experience. Trying to create best possible environment for future Don't we all try to lead an interesting and fulfilling life? > instances of SE enhances the quality of my current instance of SE because I would > feel good about helping others, especially if others are the future instances of my > mind. I don't know what SE is, so I'm not understanding this sentence very well. So you seem to make a distinction between related spatiotemporal patterns, and unrelated one, treating both differently? If you would encounter a spacetime portal and would meet your future self, how would you treat yourself? > The only hope my current instance can have for immortality is definitely not > cryonics, but that some entity in the future invents time machine that will go back > and upload my current instance using Moravec Transfer. There's just no other way to But each individual neuron is being killed, so you're winding up with a self consisting of zombie neurons. You're just smoothly turning into a zombie, but you still wind up a zombie. No? > do this. > > I expect that one of fundamental poshuman rights should be the right to maintain > current instance of mind process. As of now, we, humans, are living in barbaric I presume this means that sentient processes should have a right to uninterrupted and unaltered (from an external observer position) execution. I agree that this is desirable. But what if e.g. for economical reasons, or because it constraints the rights of other sentient processes some alternation or discontinuation will be required? > times. Death comes often and there's nothing we can do about it. And that makes me > very sad. Yes, but it's only le petit mort. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri May 5 18:14:52 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:14:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] was Re: ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future, but now tuned back to the usual program In-Reply-To: <1146826881.13392.244.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <1146826881.13392.244.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <321D9901-D579-4175-B1FC-CA7637F7D33B@ceruleansystems.com> On May 5, 2006, at 4:01 AM, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote: > Why would synchronicity of the clock determine the process identity? > Chips already in commercial use have section-local clocks (P4 ALU runs > at twice the speed of the rest of the chip) and there's design for > clockless chips. Would a mind operating on those chips not be one > mind > but a society of minds? There is no meaningful reality to clock synchronicity, just a probabilistic presumption of synchronicity. This notion is such a pain that engineers frequently pretend that this is not true when they can get away with it (as a matter of probability). Latency bounds the complexity of problems that can be addressed in some amount of time with some probability of error. It is by convention that we classify "minds" along the boundaries of communication bottlenecks. There is nothing special about a particular arrangement that defines a mind beyond relatively low local latency. The defining latency could be re-defined at will. Some networks today have higher bandwidth and lower latency than single computers in yesteryear, but we do not call the networks single computers, though we could by many old standards. J. Andrew Rogers From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 19:17:34 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <20060505161428.GD26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060505191734.71752.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Eugen, Eugen wrote: ..."I don't see why you would invoke Planck timescale for what happens in the brain, unless for a gedanken (which is always dangerous, because people will take you literally). Not much relevent happens in the brain significantly under 1 ms time scale, and subjectively the biochronon is at 50 ms, or larger, depending on how complex stimulus processing is."... Yes, it was not absolutely necessary for me to express the passage of time in Planck Intervals. Like yourself, I was aware that the "subjective moment" consisted of a humongous total number of Planck Intervals which far exceeded ~10^29 - a number that could be described just as validly in milliseconds. I chose Planck Intervals for the sake of simplifying my argument, because I was relating Time with neuronal discharges; because according to my calculation, approximately 10^29 Planck Intervals will elapse between the discharges of any two neurons (arbitrarily located anywhere in the brain). The total brain activity that would constitute the "subjective moment" would include far more discrete discharges than one or two, and hence, would occur over a far larger time span than 10^29 Planck Intervals - a time span perhaps better measured in milliseconds - but equally valid when described in Planck Intervals. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Eugen Leitl wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:59:40PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that > minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated It depends what your definition is (this is why I don't use the word mind, nor consciousness, nor similiar portmanteaus). Would you agree that a mind is a physical process, which happens to process information? So you only have to look at those relevant aspects of the physical system engaged in the abovementioned process, and can abstract away anything else? > their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me > finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a > discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens > during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck > at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't > get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the Are you sure that you're always getting of what other people are saying? No offense, but you were still arguing with yourself when I unsubscribed, and you don't seem to have made any progress since. > way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get > tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, > Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was I don't see why you would invoke Planck timescale for what happens in the brain, unless for a gedanken (which is always dangerous, because people will take you literally). Not much relevent happens in the brain significantly under 1 ms time scale, and subjectively the biochronon is at 50 ms, or larger, depending on how complex stimulus processing is. > wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal > examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just > activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view Now you're picking some arbitrarily single characteristic of a physical process, and declare it to be the only thing what matters. On basis of which evidence? Declaring that mind is energy is about as meaningfull as declaring that mind is information. Or that the mind is a future predictor. None of it is completely wrong, but perhaps the blind men shouldn let go of the nose hairs of the trunk, and look at the whole animal. > Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of > energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation > of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism Huh? > inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new > insight. Or maybe just an illusion of a new insight. You sound awfully sure, and awfully confused at the same time, this time. Are you realy sure you're making any progress when you're switching point of views? For an external observer, it looks like a random walk in concept space. > But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her > basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the If you model the mind as a physical process, there's not much you can reexamine without leaving the domain of science. > truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* > what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is Huh? > definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's > ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths You sound like a psychologist. This won't lead you anywhere. You need to be at least psychophysics-level tall to ride this ride. > denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way > to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to > open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, > in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a > territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test > cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down > you correct the theory. There's no need to get lost on the metalayer meanderings, when the issues are completely treatable with good old science and technology. > As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I > *knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, What is death? You better define it first, because most people don't know what death is. (Death being irreversible is quite true, because it's the definition of death -- irreversible loss of knowledge about a particular physical process). > most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my > own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people > commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere. > > Thanks for asking. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE _______________________________________________ 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 amara at amara.com Fri May 5 20:36:17 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 22:36:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Video: "They are made out of meat" Message-ID: They are made out of meat! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-NAvPzdjj0&search=made%20out%20of%20meat ===================================================================== http://www.electricstory.com/stories/story.aspx?title=meat/meat They're Made Out of Meat From the collection Bears Discover Fire and Other Stories by Terry Bisson "They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "Meat. They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?" "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines." "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact." "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines." "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat." "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat." "Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage." "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?" "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside." "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through." "No brain?" "Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you." "So . . . what does the thinking?" "You're not understanding, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat." "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!" "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?" "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat." "Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years." "Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?" "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, swap ideas and information. The usual." "We're supposed to talk to meat." "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there? Anybody home?' That sort of thing." "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?" "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat." "I thought you just told me they used radio." "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat." "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?" "Officially or unofficially?" "Both." "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear, or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing." "I was hoping you would say that." "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?" "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?" "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they can only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact." "So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe." "That's it." "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?" "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them." "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream." "And we marked the entire sector unoccupied." "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?" "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen-core cluster intelligence in a class-nine star in G445 zone was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again." "They always come around." "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone . . . " -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "My life has a superb cast but I can't figure out the plot." --Ashleigh Brilliant From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 5 20:57:41 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:57:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Video: They are made out of meat Message-ID: <380-22006555205741140@M2W013.mail2web.com> From: Amara Graps They are made out of meat! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-NAvPzdjj0&search=made%20out%20of%20meat Beautiful Amara! A refreshing read. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 21:18:55 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 17:18:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: >A B (Jeffrey Herrlich) Wrote: > >> Hi Heartland, >> Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything. Clark: > Yes, "you die when you die" really doesn't cut it, I had a similar problem > with Heartland so he expanded on his answer and explained that the original > is the original and the copy is the copy. In the post after that he told me > that A is A and B is B. I still wasn't quite convinced he was right but then > in yet another post said F is F and G is G, and suddenly it all clicked. Hey, I'm doing my best. I have no control over how people interpret my answers or if they understand what I'm saying. If I had an hour of face time with someone who *thinks* he's got a good argument against mine I could probably convince him, assuming I would be dealing with a rational person. I didn't say that "you die when you die." Why would you put your interpretation in quotes and imply that this is what I said? But you, Mr. Clark, haven't played fair from the beginning (insults, straw man after straw man) so why should you change your tactic now? I didn't expect anything else. But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail of an idea to have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to taking a principle and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? Instance is not a type. Activity is not information. Mind is not a brain. Would it be really so evil if I asked you or anyone else to think about these principles for a week, month or a year before challenging the conclusions that logically derive from these principles? S. From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Fri May 5 15:38:10 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:38:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FAA37@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> >>> Heartland wrote: >>> Of course not. The point is that if you have two >>> identical, but separate brains, this must add up >>> to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. >>> If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't >>> imagine you don't, then you should know exactly >>> what I mean. > >Christopher Healy: >> Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. > >Are you disagreeing with what seems to be your point? > >S. My point is that this seems like saying identical twins are really just two separate instances of type HumanBeing. Well, yeah! But it fails to capture the important distinction, and perhaps even subtly diverts attention from it: A particular instance possesses a higher amount of information content than a type, because in further constraining the realm of possibility, additional specification is always required. When forking a particular instance, all *specific* state information, as well as the type structure is preserved. To reduce the situation to a type comparison misses this deeper equivalence between the source and target instances. Jumping off this specific point, I don't think that this whole problem can be solved while simultaneously maintaining our current notions of identity. If we want to make useful progress on it, we need to put aside many of our deeply embedded notions regarding our everyday experience of life. We can't start off saying, "That cannot be the answer, for that would lead to the death of the mind!" We should instead simply say, "How does this thing we perceive as mind actually operate?" In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface indications suggest. -Chris Healey From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 22:10:50 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 18:10:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: > "How did you arrive at the "death happens often" conclusion?" Heartland: > "Check my response to Eugen Leitl." Jeffrey: "Well, I did check your response to Eugen Leitl. That's not really an explanation. Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything." That's not what I said. What I said was that the state of subjective experience that might occur during a lifetime of mind type (general anesthesia) would be functionally equivalent to state of subjective experience before conception and the state when the brain rots in the grave. What all these 3 states have in common is an absence of the part of mind process that creates subjective experience. But to realize that death should always be defined only as the absence of subjective experience, one must first understand that the essence of life is the presence of subjective experience. If all of this doesn't ring true intuitively, think about this. Let's say you are under general anesthesia, but not just for few hours, but forever. From perspective of life, wouldn't that be equivalent to a situation where the brain disintegrates in the grave or where the brain never existed at all? S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 5 21:41:05 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: <20060505185347.GS26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060505214105.59826.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Eugen, Eugen wrote: ..."Or do you make a distiction between flat-EEG lacunae and sleep?"... Generally speaking, there is a distinction. A brain is actually quite electrically active during sleep (over relevantly large time frames of course). Eugen: ..."When I sleep (non-REM) I also experience nothing."... My other arguments withstanding, I believe the brain retains some electrical activity during all phases of sleep, when viewed over the relevantly long time frames. So in my view, the "old" you is experiencing nothing because he is deceased, but the "copied" you does not experience nothing in the sense you are referring to. IOW, as it is commonly interpreted "you" will never experience true nothingness unless your brain is physically destroyed and incapable of supporting a conscious mind at a later time. Although, if viewed from my perspective, in reality the "you" of yesterday is experiencing nothingness, and the individual you are now is an imperfect copy who will very soon be replaced (I still can't say precisely how long this is - very complicated). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Eugen Leitl wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:10:33PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > That's right. Life is a subjective experience of being in the present moment. I don't know what you mean with this sentence, but since in your definition death is something we experience routinely it's certainly not death as we know it, Jim. > Whenever an instance of that experience ends, this resulting state becomes So basically you're into continuity. If you suspend your computer, and resume upon next day, it's an undead computer running zombie programs. If you go to sleep, and wake up tomorrow you're a zombie, too. Or do you make a distiction between flat-EEG lacunae and sleep? > functionally equivalent to a state of life before conception and after death (i.e., > what is currently considered as "death"). In all these 3 states you experience > nothing. This is the true essence of death. When I sleep (non-REM) I also experience nothing. That's not exactly death, though. > If my current instance ever reaches the death state I really don't care what > happens next or if my type of mind gets instantiated again or not. As an instance So basically if you're a zombie, I can kill you, and you wouldn't object? Or it wouldn't be you, but some zombie objecting? > I'm dead. As a > good person I can only try to ensure that the next instance of SE based on my mind > gets a better quality of experience then my current one so I would not reject > general anesthesia because living with pain and suffering is pointless. The above Wow. You *are* pretty extreme. If you're really into continuity religion nothing I say can change that. I can only hope you won't get hurt as a result of strange beliefs (similiarly as Jehowa's Witnesses reject blood transfusions, and thus have a much poorer survival prognosis in ER setting). > statement is nothing more than an expression of my own meaning of life theory I > developed few years ago which aims to optimize the *quality and quantity* of > subjective experience. Trying to create best possible environment for future Don't we all try to lead an interesting and fulfilling life? > instances of SE enhances the quality of my current instance of SE because I would > feel good about helping others, especially if others are the future instances of my > mind. I don't know what SE is, so I'm not understanding this sentence very well. So you seem to make a distinction between related spatiotemporal patterns, and unrelated one, treating both differently? If you would encounter a spacetime portal and would meet your future self, how would you treat yourself? > The only hope my current instance can have for immortality is definitely not > cryonics, but that some entity in the future invents time machine that will go back > and upload my current instance using Moravec Transfer. There's just no other way to But each individual neuron is being killed, so you're winding up with a self consisting of zombie neurons. You're just smoothly turning into a zombie, but you still wind up a zombie. No? > do this. > > I expect that one of fundamental poshuman rights should be the right to maintain > current instance of mind process. As of now, we, humans, are living in barbaric I presume this means that sentient processes should have a right to uninterrupted and unaltered (from an external observer position) execution. I agree that this is desirable. But what if e.g. for economical reasons, or because it constraints the rights of other sentient processes some alternation or discontinuation will be required? > times. Death comes often and there's nothing we can do about it. And that makes me > very sad. Yes, but it's only le petit mort. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE _______________________________________________ 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 Fri May 5 21:58:26 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505215826.83361.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I didn't mean to upset you. Believe me, I understand how it feels to present a strange or counter-intuitive argument. When many people begin to analyze or criticize your argument simultaneously, it can give you a feeling of being hounded or attacked. But, for your part, when you present an idea that goes against the grain, especially to a strongly science oriented group, you should *expect* a great deal of fine scrutiny. I expect the same thing for my very strange argument, and in fact I encourage it. The more constructive criticism I receive the better - it will either lead to a strengthening of my case or a weakening. If mine is an idea that should die, I'll let it die. I've largely refrained from any personal attacks, but I've tried to have a little fun with you on occasion. I'm sorry, if it led to a bad impression. Regarding the: ... you will die when you die ... comment. For the record, I didn't put it in quotations, and I didn't mean to imply those were your words. I expected anyone interested who read it, also read the full original. I think John was making a direct quotation of my summary and was not implying a quotation by you. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: >A B (Jeffrey Herrlich) Wrote: > >> Hi Heartland, >> Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything. Clark: > Yes, "you die when you die" really doesn't cut it, I had a similar problem > with Heartland so he expanded on his answer and explained that the original > is the original and the copy is the copy. In the post after that he told me > that A is A and B is B. I still wasn't quite convinced he was right but then > in yet another post said F is F and G is G, and suddenly it all clicked. Hey, I'm doing my best. I have no control over how people interpret my answers or if they understand what I'm saying. If I had an hour of face time with someone who *thinks* he's got a good argument against mine I could probably convince him, assuming I would be dealing with a rational person. I didn't say that "you die when you die." Why would you put your interpretation in quotes and imply that this is what I said? But you, Mr. Clark, haven't played fair from the beginning (insults, straw man after straw man) so why should you change your tactic now? I didn't expect anything else. But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail of an idea to have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to taking a principle and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? Instance is not a type. Activity is not information. Mind is not a brain. Would it be really so evil if I asked you or anyone else to think about these principles for a week, month or a year before challenging the conclusions that logically derive from these principles? S. _______________________________________________ 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 velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 23:07:46 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:07:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542960FAA37@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: Heartland: >>>> Of course not. The point is that if you have two >>>> identical, but separate brains, this must add up >>>> to two separate *instances* of one *type* of mind. >>>> If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't >>>> imagine you don't, then you should know exactly >>>> what I mean. Christopher Healey: >>> Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. Heartland: >>Are you disagreeing with what seems to be your point? Christopher Healey: > My point is that this seems like saying identical twins are really just > two separate instances of type HumanBeing. Well, yeah! > > But it fails to capture the important distinction, and perhaps even > subtly diverts attention from it: A particular instance possesses a > higher amount of information content than a type, because in further > constraining the realm of possibility, additional specification is > always required. When forking a particular instance, all *specific* > state information, as well as the type structure is preserved. To > reduce the situation to a type comparison misses this deeper equivalence > between the source and target instances. Christopher, I suppose you joined this discussion late so let me reiterate my point. Type is an abstract concept and is fundamentally different from a concept of an instance of that type. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you agree with this. But if that's the case, even though what you say above is true, I think the conclusion is true for a different and more important reason, namely, that activity is the only sufficient representation of itself, meaning that no amount of information can ever be equivalent to activity. Type is information. Instance is an activity. No amount of information can preserve an instance of mind process. Type does not preserve instance. Cryonics preserves only type. Christopher Healey: > Jumping off this specific point, I don't think that this whole problem > can be solved while simultaneously maintaining our current notions of > identity. Yes. IMO, identity should be defined as the unique space-time trajectory of an instance of subjective experience. Last time I checked, this definition is still pretty far from the mainstream. :) Christopher Healey: > If we want to make useful progress on it, we need to put aside many of > our deeply embedded notions regarding our everyday experience of life. > We can't start off saying, "That cannot be the answer, for that would > lead to the death of the mind!" We should instead simply say, "How does > this thing we perceive as mind actually operate?" Yes. Christopher Healey: > In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is > often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we > should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our > model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process > at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface > indications suggest. I'm constantly aware of that, Christopher. Thanks. S. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri May 5 22:41:19 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 15:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060505224119.94111.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Heartland wrote: > Instance is not a type. Activity is > not information. Mind is not a brain. Would it be > really so evil if I asked you or > anyone else to think about these principles for a > week, month or a year before > challenging the conclusions that logically derive > from these principles? I would tend to agree with you, Heartland. A person's state of mind and subjective experience is colored and enriched by the action of numerous factors that lay outside of the brain. For example, constant action potentials from nerve endings throughout the body and hormonal stimulation from glands such as the gonads and the adrenals. If you just took my memories (information content) and loaded them onto a unix box, the lifeless simulacrum of me you would obtain would resemble the real me as much as a midi rendition of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" resembles the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra's version. Especially if you "mind captured" me on a bad day which would presumably be the case in cryonics as few people would volunteer to be frozen down in the midst of having the time of their life. So the "me" that you managed to recover would probably be in a pretty pissy mood or perhaps even in great anguish. In fact, without "happy hormones" to change my frame of mind, I might be stuck in asshole mode permanently. Of course for some people, that may not be a big change. ;) 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri May 5 23:48:52 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 16:48:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) In-Reply-To: References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <467A2881-240B-4E70-AC1F-B4D6EF898B1B@ceruleansystems.com> On May 5, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Heartland wrote: > But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail > of an idea to > have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to > taking a principle > and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? The problem is that you do not make sense, and there is no clear logic to your conclusion. Many people have observed this so maybe, just maybe, it is not them and it really is you. At the very least you are not constructing a coherent argument, so let me help you out. In your arguments, you will do things such as stating that you "agree" with another poster on some point, and then proceed with some explanation that seems to logically contradict the very thing you just said you agreed with. And you've done it repeatedly. You also are repeatedly apparently failing to grok points of fundamental theory, and argue against them by couching your arguments in definition-free hand-waving that does not mean anything to anyone. What you are doing is not working, and for the obvious (to everyone else) reasons I've stated above among others. To get to the bottom of this and save us all a lot of time, you basically need to a RIGOROUS and STRICT construction of your argument: - Define, in as strict terms as possible, the basic concepts you are using (e.g. "brain","mind","die",etc) because without agreement on definitions, your logic is meaningless. Any basic concept that you do not define cannot be used in your argument, because there will be no established agreement on reasoning. Do not assume everyone is using the same definitions by default. - Specify, in as strict terms as possible, the assumptions that must be valid for your reasoning to be correct. Every conclusion is dependent on a range of assumed constraints for validity, and the applicability of the argument to a specific case can be determined by the particular set of assumptions used. Even mathematics assumes certain axioms when proving theorems. - Show, in as strict terms as possible, how your conclusion can be derived logically step-by-step from the definitions and assumptions previously agreed upon. Don't assert it, prove it. If you do all this, in proper order, by the time the process is complete there is a very good probability that most people will be able to agree with your reasoning, or a very excellently specified flaw will be isolated that invalidates the argument. You will be challenged at each step, but that is the way strong arguments are constructed and how agreement on the terms of discussion are set. One way or another, this will all be settled in a sequence of narrow assertions that are much easier to evaluate than the big ball of wax. So start defining all the terms of your argument that are to be used. After everyone agrees on the definitions, we can move on to constraints and assumptions. After all this is done, the logic and reasoning will almost write themselves. I think you will find the audience here very open to arguments carefully constructed in this fashion. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From velvet977 at hotmail.com Fri May 5 23:55:28 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 19:55:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505215826.83361.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: > I didn't mean to upset you. You didn't. Jeffrey: "When many people begin to analyze or criticize your argument simultaneously, it can give you a feeling of being hounded or attacked. But, for your part, when you present an idea that goes against the grain, especially to a strongly science oriented group, you should *expect* a great deal of fine scrutiny." I don't feel attacked. Am I annoyed? Maybe just a tiny little bit. More importantly, I've not seen a single challenge that threatened the logic of my argument, except yours. But that's not an "attack" but a part of constructive debate. Actually, your challenge even strengthened the logic of the argument. I appreciate your input. The annoying part is only when someone essentially tries to argue using the strategy of, "Oh, but that's too weird for me so this must be wrong" or "Look, I don't get it, so this must be wrong." It happens all the time. Jeffrey: "I expect the same thing for my very strange argument, and in fact I encourage it. The more constructive criticism I receive the better - it will either lead to a strengthening of my case or a weakening. If mine is an idea that should die, I'll let it die. I've largely refrained from any personal attacks, but I've tried to have a little fun with you on occasion. I'm sorry, if it led to a bad impression." No, that was response to John Clark. Jeffrey: "Regarding the: ... you will die when you die ... comment. For the record, I didn't put it in quotations, and I didn't mean to imply those were your words. I expected anyone interested who read it, also read the full original." Judging from replies under my quotes, most people don't really pay attention to what is actually being said. They just point out what's wrong with their false interpretation of the actual content. What else is new? :) Jeffrey: "I think John was making a direct quotation of my summary and was not implying a quotation by you." So you see how the rumor spreads? Please don't paraphrase in a form of assertion. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 00:56:31 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 20:56:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> <467A2881-240B-4E70-AC1F-B4D6EF898B1B@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: Heartland wrote: >> But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail >> of an idea to >> have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to >> taking a principle >> and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? J. Andrew Rogers: > The problem is that you do not make sense, and there is no clear > logic to your conclusion. Many people have observed this so maybe, > just maybe, it is not them and it really is you. Also, many people don't follow everything that is being said during this long thread where we discuss definitions, assertions and steps that lead to final conclusion. It's not my fault. You can't just jump in the middle of discussion and expect me to encapsulate the whole argument in each post. J. Andrew Rogers: > At the very least > you are not constructing a coherent argument, so let me help you > out. In your arguments, you will do things such as stating that you > "agree" with another poster on some point, and then proceed with some > explanation that seems to logically contradict the very thing you > just said you agreed with. And you've done it repeatedly. Please provide at least one example. J. Andrew Rogers: > - Define, in as strict terms as possible, the basic concepts you are > using (e.g. "brain","mind","die",etc) because without agreement on > definitions, your logic is meaningless. Any basic concept that you > do not define cannot be used in your argument, because there will be > no established agreement on reasoning. Do not assume everyone is > using the same definitions by default. > > - Specify, in as strict terms as possible, the assumptions that must > be valid for your reasoning to be correct. Every conclusion is > dependent on a range of assumed constraints for validity, and the > applicability of the argument to a specific case can be determined by > the particular set of assumptions used. Even mathematics assumes > certain axioms when proving theorems. > > - Show, in as strict terms as possible, how your conclusion can be > derived logically step-by-step from the definitions and assumptions > previously agreed upon. Don't assert it, prove it. I think I've already done all that (I know, it's not conveniently in one place) but it seems like you didn't find the argument sufficient. In the future I can only try to expand each step and assertion. I admit that after thinking about this for so long some things seem obvious in retrospect that I feel like they don't require explanation. S. From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat May 6 01:33:01 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 18:33:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) In-Reply-To: References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> <467A2881-240B-4E70-AC1F-B4D6EF898B1B@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <174E8E62-1A79-4223-82CA-7DD6F26B3B2E@ceruleansystems.com> On May 5, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Heartland wrote: > I think I've already done all that (I know, it's not conveniently > in one place) but > it seems like you didn't find the argument sufficient. Either you have not already done it, or your argument really was not sufficient. Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion right now. I do not appear to be alone in my impression. J. Andrew Rogers From max at maxmore.com Sat May 6 02:45:39 2006 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 21:45:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> Thank you for your words, Hal. As Natasha and Mitch have said, plans are afoot to preserve all the public material -- in fact to make it more available than ever before. As we work on this project, it would be very helpful to hear from List subscribers (especially you long-timers): which do you think are the best and most memorable discussions that have appeared on the List? Which discussions or individual posts should be included in any selection? Once the bulk of the existing material is online and searchable, we would like to go further, using more advanced tools and perhaps making the Extropy Library a repository that continues to build. Onward! Max Hal Finney wrote: > I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy > Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than > letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with > so many institutions. When the time has come to move on, recognizing > and accepting that fact is always difficult. But the world has changed > enormously since the 1980s when Max and Tom invented the idea of Extropy, > and even since the early 1990s when this mailing list was born in its > earlier incarnation. Ideas which at that time were considered too > outlandish even for science fiction are now debated regularly in the > corridors of power and on the front pages of major newspapers and other > opinion leaders. > > My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to remember > today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of quasi-secrecy > with regard to list archives. As a result, much of that free-wheeling > discussion has been lost, an information exchange which many of us > remember as among the most dynamic and engaging we have ever encountered. > > It may never be possible to reconstruct and restore those lost archives, > but eventually the list policy changed, and we should make sure that > what remains is not lost. Not only list archives, but the working > papers and other documents produced by ExI over the years, should all > be preserved for future study and reference. It's possible that someday > this material will be seen as representing the birth of ideas which turn > out to be key to the further development of humanity. > > Making data available for an indefinite period into the future will > not happen automatically. It will take time and effort to make the > preparations, and funds will be needed as well. If there are things I > could do to help, I hope Natasha will feel free to ask, and I am sure > that most of the rest of us in the community feel the same way. > > Hal Finney > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From jonkc at att.net Sat May 6 04:15:34 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 00:15:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002501c670c3$c11880e0$46094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > I didn't say that "you die when you die." Why would you put your > interpretation in quotes and imply that this is what I said? It wasn't my interpretation, I was quoting what somebody else interpreted what you said, a pretty accurate one in my opinion too. And in my though experiment when I asked you to point to the original you dodged it and just said nothing changed, when I asked you again to point to the original you said the original is the original, when I asked again to point to the original you said A is A and B is B, when I asked you again to point to the original you said F is F and G is G. I confess I've forgotten what F and G was but I'm certain you were correct, F is F and G is indeed G. But you still couldn't point to the original. > But you, Mr. Clark, haven't played fair from the beginning (insults, > straw man after straw man) Yes, I insulted your ideas but they were so dumb they deserved to be insulted, but I never used straw men. You kept saying my contempt of your reverence for atoms was a straw man, but then you'd start talking about trajectories in space time again and we're right back at atoms. Even worse you'd start talking about atoms (and even electrons) having individuality. > What happened to taking a principle and extrapolating it to its logical > conclusion? That's what I did, and what I got was that when two calculators add 2 +2 and display the symbol "4" they don't mean the same thing, and down that path leads madness. > Mind is not a brain. Exactly! Mind and brain are two different things, one is an object and one is not, one is made of atoms and one is not, one is a noun and one is an adjective. So there is no reason in principle why one brain couldn't produce two minds, or two brains produce one mind. It's true that with Human Beings you generally have one brain for each mind but that is an accident of Evolutional history not a fundamental truth. > Would it be really so evil if I asked you or anyone else to think about > these principles for a week, month or a year before challenging the > conclusions that logically derive from these principles? Mr. Heartland I strongly suspect I have thought about these matters longer than you have, I know for a fact I've thought about them deeper. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 05:08:43 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 01:08:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer> <002501c670c3$c11880e0$46094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John Clark: > And in my though > experiment when I asked you to point to the original you dodged it and just > said nothing changed, when I asked you again to point to the original you > said the original is the original, when I asked again to point to the > original you said A is A and B is B, when I asked you again to point to the > original you said F is F and G is G. I confess I've forgotten what F and G > was but I'm certain you were correct, F is F and G is indeed G. But you > still couldn't point to the original. You ask me to point the original 3 times and when I do exactly what you want me to do, each time you scream that I dodged the question. So, regardless of anything I say or don't say, you win. So, congratulations on winning this argument. Can you please torture someone else now? Thanks. (BTW, F and G stand for trajectories of A and B. A crucial piece of information that you have conveniently "forgotten".) ;-) S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 06:11:20 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 02:11:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com> <20060505161428.GD26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen: "Would you agree that a mind is a physical process, which happens to process information? So you only have to look at those relevant aspects of the physical system engaged in the abovementioned process, and can abstract away anything else?" All the "relevant aspects" contain all that is required for a mind to exist and function, nothing else is necessary. Otherwise they would be "irrelevant". Eugen: "Are you sure that you're always getting of what other people are saying?" Not always. Eugen: "No offense, but you were still arguing with yourself when I unsubscribed, and you don't seem to have made any progress since." "Arguing with yourself?" What does it mean? If you define "progress" as my ability to understand more about the problem then yes, I've made progress. If you mean the ability to convey that understanding to others, then no, I haven't seen much progress. I'm more interested in the first than the second definition. Eugen: "Declaring that mind is energy is about as meaningfull as declaring that mind is information. Or that the mind is a future predictor. None of it is completely wrong, but perhaps the blind men shouldn let go of the nose hairs of the trunk, and look at the whole animal." Okay, so what does that "whole animal" look like according to you? Eugen: "Are you realy sure you're making any progress when you're switching point of views?" No, the point of view is the same. I just sometimes realize new things based on that view. Heartland: > definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's > ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths Eugen: "You sound like a psychologist. This won't lead you anywhere. You need to be at least psychophysics-level tall to ride this ride." Look, Jef Allbright asked me for *personal* perspective on how I make an update to my argument. What you are responding to are only my personal impressions of that process, that's all. I'm not proposing the theory of everything here. Relax. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 06:18:39 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 02:18:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060504124914.GJ26713@leitl.org> <20060505185347.GS26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Heartland: Death comes often and there's nothing we can do about it. Eugen: "Yes, but it's only le petit mort." Can you be "little" pregnant too? S. From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Fri May 5 18:24:22 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:24:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542961B7B27@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> This post referenced another I had sent about 5 minutes previously. The original did not make it though, apparently, so I'm resending the original again now, below. -------------------------------------- >>> Heartland wrote: >>> Of course not. The point is that if you have two identical, but >>> separate brains, this must add up to two separate *instances* of one >>> *type* of mind. >>> If you have any experience in OOP, and I can't imagine you don't, >>> then you should know exactly what I mean. > >Christopher Healy: >> Is forking an instance equivalent to type? I think not. > >Are you disagreeing with what seems to be your point? > >S. My point is that this seems like saying identical twins are really just two separate instances of type HumanBeing. Well, yeah! But it fails to capture the important distinction, and perhaps even subtly diverts attention from it: A particular instance possesses a higher amount of information content than a type, because in further constraining the realm of possibility, additional specification is always required. When forking a particular instance, all *specific* state information, as well as the type structure is preserved. To reduce the situation to a type comparison misses this deeper equivalence between the source and target instances. Jumping off this specific point, I don't think that this whole problem can be solved while simultaneously maintaining our current notions of identity. If we want to make useful progress on it, we need to put aside many of our deeply embedded notions regarding our everyday experience of life. We can't start off saying, "That cannot be the answer, for that would lead to the death of the mind!" We should instead simply say, "How does this thing we perceive as mind actually operate?" In troubleshooting complex systems, what appears to be the problem is often really just the symptom of a deeper cause. In a similar way, we should be careful that what appears to be an important structure in our model of the mind is not just a surface indication of a deeper process at work, a process that may work very differently than its surface indications suggest. -Chris Healey -------------------------------------- [and this was the intended follow-up message, which was the only one to get through...] Heartland, Another point of my last paragraph is in regards to the definitions we use in uncovering truth. Whatever we *call* the things we describe, they are only labels, and ultimately labels shouldn't alter the measurable predictions we achieve. In doing what human minds do, they may occasionally, or even very often, do things that you label as dying. Some of those things could just as easily be labeled: operating as designed, system hibernation, or plain old "being alive". If it seems like we're dying an awful lot, but nobody seems to mind much, it's stronger evidence in support of revising our models, rather than revising our behavior. -Chris From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 6 16:18:09 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 12:18:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <1146826881.13392.244.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:01 PM 5/5/2006 +1000, you wrote: >On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 17:10 -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > . > > I think my contribution to that thread was a criticism that I have never > > seen answered. Namely that beyond a certain point, you get less from more > > since the amount of computation you can do goes up with the cube, but the > > clock rate has to go down because of speed of light delays. > > > > Beyond a size that isn't a lot larger than a human head, you are going to > > get a society of minds or one that thinks very slowly. But I have never > > seen an analysis with numbers in it. > >Why would synchronicity of the clock determine the process identity? >Chips already in commercial use have section-local clocks (P4 ALU runs >at twice the speed of the rest of the chip) and there's design for >clockless chips. Would a mind operating on those chips not be one mind >but a society of minds? I have engaged in this discussion before and completely failed to convey what I consider to be the problem. It is probably tied up in my notion of "spirit," that is an entity you can interact with, time subjectivity and a grim understanding of engineering fundamentals that nanotech will *not* change. Assuming you can't get around the speed of light, imagine an AI mind spread out over a cubic light year. If a person operating at human speeds tries to interact with such a creature, they better have life extension because there is no way such a thing can respond to them quickly in a way that engages the far corners of its "mind." The same kind of problem shows up in the design of computer systems. That's why looking out from the CPU we have levels of cache memory (extremely fast), main memory (fast) and disk (really slow). The problems have become *worse,* not better, as CPU speeds go up. At some point depending on the maximum practical clock rate, far away memory or processing power becomes of low value for real time interactions. Sure there are special uses (SETI, folding) being made of processing power on distributed net connected computers, but can you imagine trying to implement an AI you could talk to that way? To put scaling numbers on this, consider a human mind as operating at about 1 TPS (thought per second), supported by processors that run at 100 Hz. Speed of light says it could be spread over perhaps .001 light second, huge, a million feet or 200 miles. Run the processor speed up to 100 GHz though and that size drops by 10 exp -9. At some point in the run up, you reach the point where there just isn't enough volume to stick in the parts, power the hardware and cool it. *As a guess* this is within an order of magnitude of 1 foot, which implies a speed up in thinking on the order of a million times. I seem to remember that Eric Drexler came to similar conclusions in EoC. I don't have time to search either my hard copy or on line, but maybe some reader could do that. We don't consider the speed of light often because for our thinking rate and planetary dimensions it close enough to zero delay. But for creatures thinking a million times as fast, it is going to be a problem. Keith Henson From jonkc at att.net Sat May 6 16:47:05 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:47:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. References: <20060505140741.43814.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><003001c67060$96c768a0$0a0a4e0c@MyComputer><002501c670c3$c11880e0$46094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002801c6712c$b8da6ce0$03084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > You ask me to point the original 3 times I think it was 4 times actually. > and when I do exactly what you want me to > do, each time you scream that I dodged the question. You NEVER did what I asked you to do, I asked is A the original or is B the original, and you informed me, as if you'd made a profound discovery, that the original is the original and A is A and B is B. Well thanks a bunch for that info buddy, but to this day you never said is A the original or is B the original like I asked about twelve posts ago. And that is what is called dodging the question. > BTW, F and G stand for trajectories of A and B. A crucial piece of > information that you have conveniently "forgotten". Oh yes, your famous trajectory made by a sacred atom that is unique and profoundly different from any other atom in the universe, yes, I can see why I've forgotten that. I must admit however that what you said was true, F=F and G=G, although it's not exactly higher mathematics. > Can you please torture someone else now? No, you're on the Extropian list, you can't post bilge and expect it to go unchallenged. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. John K Clark From exi at syzygy.com Sat May 6 17:31:54 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 6 May 2006 17:31:54 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> Keith: >Assuming you can't get around the speed of light, imagine an AI mind spread >out over a cubic light year. If a person operating at human speeds tries >to interact with such a creature, they better have life extension because >there is no way such a thing can respond to them quickly in a way that >engages the far corners of its "mind." While this is true, think about how much of that AI would really be needed to respond to a human: not very much. Suppose the AI operates as a collection of independent mind processes that are each spatially located to maintain local clock synchronization. They talk to each other over connections that become progressively less coordinated as the distance increases. The AI as a whole "changes it's mind" only very slowly, but local subunits can react quickly. I imagine such creatures would occasionally divide, with each portion competing for resources to grow again. If a set of such creatures is willing to form a corporate entity, does that turn it into a larger creature again? Hmmmmm..... -eric From starman2100 at cableone.net Sat May 6 17:19:45 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 10:19:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future Message-ID: <1146935985_79819@S1.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfj.eav at gmail.com Sat May 6 18:46:01 2006 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 13:46:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Life after Extropy.org Message-ID: <61c8738e0605061146o3ed1f577u2a3900f0f9aad4fe@mail.gmail.com> Over the last 4 months I have completed a HACCP Diploma course, the first of its kind in Canada, they say. As part of our course we took part in a Canadian Food Inspection Agency conference. At the end between finals and getting the diplomas I attended a conference called Improving Human Health at which the keynot speaker was the Global Head of Business Development for Bayer Cropscience. As well I note the shut-down of Extropy. >From these I have some observations: We are now in the quiet period where the Robin Hansens's , Ray Kurzweils, Aubrey-De-Gray's of the world and a thousand others are moving from small scale academia, and mom-pop businesses, and consultancies to engage the engine of change and take ownership of the delivery process to implement the Singularity. Yes, some fear like with agbiotech that the dog-in-the -mangers, luddites and such will derail a future before we can capture it and each personally surf the wave to an indeterminate lifespan etc. I sense that the "Black Projects" of the world are already well onstream and see the singularity as a beneficial thing. The problem is the 6.5 billlion people who are in varying stages from stone age to energy dependant high tech sophisticated person's still lack the mindset required to survive in a post-human singularity civilization. The 6.5 billion are one huge "omics" project from which will emerge the new species or should I say genesis of divergent life forms suited to each of the niches humanity is headed for. A borgian future is no doubt in store for some. That is simply a networked AI and 100,000 to 1,000,000 biological nodes in human flesh. The post singularity, in part will depend upon that which we do not know such as the universal limitations of matter and computation which most likely are just beyond the scope of our peception as we speak. Morris -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-290-8734 Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com extropian.pharmer at gmail.com Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth" -Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush, June 2005 Extropian Smoke Signals Waft Softly but Carry a big Schtick ... Morris Johnson - June 2005* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 6 19:17:42 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 14:17:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ARTS: Ubiq: A Mental Odyssey Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060506141537.02f7b500@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Ubiq: A Mental Odyssey "Marseilles-based artist Mathieu Briand works in various installation forms with computers, electronic music, robots and video technology to explore systems of stimulation, play and perception. His use of new technologies requires active participation and engagement, playing with the viewer's point of view and questioning the reality of his/her perceptions. Briand's extraordinary output engages users and mechanisms, technology and anarchy responding to informal movements in consumption, particularly techno or rave culture and the constant struggle to enhance everyday experience through technology." http://redcat.org/gallery/0506/briand.php 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sat May 6 19:49:39 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, I think the advice from J. Andrew Rogers is sound and helpful. I can say for myself that so far my own sub-arguments and illustrations have been somewhat sloppy and informal. I think that now would be a good opportunity for both of us to solidify our argument(s). It appears that you and I have reached essentially the same conclusion. The method by which we both reached this conclusion seems to be different, and without a doubt some of the details don't match up perfectly. However, it is my impression (and there is a chance that I am wrong) that at least some of the spectators and commentators to this thread have not rejected the principle of our shared conclusion: That our current subjective lives are a "copy's illusion", and previous "versions" of "ourselves" are now permanently deceased and "experience" nothingness. (Heartland, please correct me if you don't share this particular conclusion). Given that you and I (and possibly others) now roughly agree on the conclusion, I think that the exchanges between you and I (and possibly others) can take the form of a constructive collaboration, rather than a *pure* disagreement. The conclusion is in place, now it's time to formalize the premises and tidy up the structure, if this can be done. I think this idea is something that could definitely benefit from the participation of as many interested people on this list as possible. I've made this invitation before, but, I would like to extend it again: If any interested person on this list has evidence, or an argument that the above-mentioned conclusion is impossible or improbable, *please* share it with me/us. Condemning evidence or a strong counter-argument can reveal this idea as a dead horse, and could save us a lot of time and effort. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Heartland wrote: >> But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail >> of an idea to >> have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to >> taking a principle >> and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? J. Andrew Rogers: > The problem is that you do not make sense, and there is no clear > logic to your conclusion. Many people have observed this so maybe, > just maybe, it is not them and it really is you. Also, many people don't follow everything that is being said during this long thread where we discuss definitions, assertions and steps that lead to final conclusion. It's not my fault. You can't just jump in the middle of discussion and expect me to encapsulate the whole argument in each post. J. Andrew Rogers: > At the very least > you are not constructing a coherent argument, so let me help you > out. In your arguments, you will do things such as stating that you > "agree" with another poster on some point, and then proceed with some > explanation that seems to logically contradict the very thing you > just said you agreed with. And you've done it repeatedly. Please provide at least one example. J. Andrew Rogers: > - Define, in as strict terms as possible, the basic concepts you are > using (e.g. "brain","mind","die",etc) because without agreement on > definitions, your logic is meaningless. Any basic concept that you > do not define cannot be used in your argument, because there will be > no established agreement on reasoning. Do not assume everyone is > using the same definitions by default. > > - Specify, in as strict terms as possible, the assumptions that must > be valid for your reasoning to be correct. Every conclusion is > dependent on a range of assumed constraints for validity, and the > applicability of the argument to a specific case can be determined by > the particular set of assumptions used. Even mathematics assumes > certain axioms when proving theorems. > > - Show, in as strict terms as possible, how your conclusion can be > derived logically step-by-step from the definitions and assumptions > previously agreed upon. Don't assert it, prove it. I think I've already done all that (I know, it's not conveniently in one place) but it seems like you didn't find the argument sufficient. In the future I can only try to expand each step and assertion. I admit that after thinking about this for so long some things seem obvious in retrospect that I feel like they don't require explanation. 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 sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 6 21:04:06 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 14:04:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain. In-Reply-To: References: <20060505215826.83361.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 5, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Heartland wrote: > Jeffrey: >> I didn't mean to upset you. > > You didn't. > > Jeffrey: > "When many people begin to analyze or criticize your argument > simultaneously, it > can give you a feeling of being hounded or attacked. But, for your > part, when you > present an idea that goes against the grain, especially to a > strongly science > oriented group, you should *expect* a great deal of fine scrutiny." > > I don't feel attacked. Am I annoyed? Maybe just a tiny little bit. > More > importantly, I've not seen a single challenge that threatened the > logic of my > argument, except yours. But that's not an "attack" but a part of > constructive > debate. Actually, your challenge even strengthened the logic of the > argument. I > appreciate your input. > > The annoying part is only when someone essentially tries to argue > using the > strategy of, "Oh, but that's too weird for me so this must be > wrong" or "Look, I > don't get it, so this must be wrong." It happens all the time. > Please drop the meta level assertions about other people. I agree roughly with with the assessment of J. Rogers. I have stayed out of this discussion because so much of it, especially from you, appears "not even wrong". It appears to me too sloppy and loose and at the same time strident to be worthwhile in its current form. - samantha From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sat May 6 21:33:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 14:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again (was: "Dead Time" of the Brain.) In-Reply-To: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060506213337.49082.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And for "God Sakes" (how does one write this expression??), let's get rid of the horrid title of this thread! "Dead Time of the Brain". I made it up, and even I hate it. I must have been exhausted at the time... :-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich A B wrote: Hi Heartland, I think the advice from J. Andrew Rogers is sound and helpful. I can say for myself that so far my own sub-arguments and illustrations have been somewhat sloppy and informal. I think that now would be a good opportunity for both of us to solidify our argument(s). It appears that you and I have reached essentially the same conclusion. The method by which we both reached this conclusion seems to be different, and without a doubt some of the details don't match up perfectly. However, it is my impression (and there is a chance that I am wrong) that at least some of the spectators and commentators to this thread have not rejected the principle of our shared conclusion: That our current subjective lives are a "copy's illusion", and previous "versions" of "ourselves" are now permanently deceased and "experience" nothingness. (Heartland, please correct me if you don't share this particular conclusion). Given that you and I (and possibly others) now roughly agree on the conclusion, I think that the exchanges between you and I (and possibly others) can take the form of a constructive collaboration, rather than a *pure* disagreement. The conclusion is in place, now it's time to formalize the premises and tidy up the structure, if this can be done. I think this idea is something that could definitely benefit from the participation of as many interested people on this list as possible. I've made this invitation before, but, I would like to extend it again: If any interested person on this list has evidence, or an argument that the above-mentioned conclusion is impossible or improbable, *please* share it with me/us. Condemning evidence or a strong counter-argument can reveal this idea as a dead horse, and could save us a lot of time and effort. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Heartland wrote: >> But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail >> of an idea to >> have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to >> taking a principle >> and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? J. Andrew Rogers: > The problem is that you do not make sense, and there is no clear > logic to your conclusion. Many people have observed this so maybe, > just maybe, it is not them and it really is you. Also, many people don't follow everything that is being said during this long thread where we discuss definitions, assertions and steps that lead to final conclusion. It's not my fault. You can't just jump in the middle of discussion and expect me to encapsulate the whole argument in each post. J. Andrew Rogers: > At the very least > you are not constructing a coherent argument, so let me help you > out. In your arguments, you will do things such as stating that you > "agree" with another poster on some point, and then proceed with some > explanation that seems to logically contradict the very thing you > just said you agreed with. And you've done it repeatedly. Please provide at least one example. J. Andrew Rogers: > - Define, in as strict terms as possible, the basic concepts you are > using (e.g. "brain","mind","die",etc) because without agreement on > definitions, your logic is meaningless. Any basic concept that you > do not define cannot be used in your argument, because there will be > no established agreement on reasoning. Do not assume everyone is > using the same definitions by default. > > - Specify, in as strict terms as possible, the assumptions that must > be valid for your reasoning to be correct. Every conclusion is > dependent on a range of assumed constraints for validity, and the > applicability of the argument to a specific case can be determined by > the particular set of assumptions used. Even mathematics assumes > certain axioms when proving theorems. > > - Show, in as strict terms as possible, how your conclusion can be > derived logically step-by-step from the definitions and assumptions > previously agreed upon. Don't assert it, prove it. I think I've already done all that (I know, it's not conveniently in one place) but it seems like you didn't find the argument sufficient. In the future I can only try to expand each step and assertion. I admit that after thinking about this for so long some things seem obvious in retrospect that I feel like they don't require explanation. 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._______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sat May 6 22:37:09 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 18:37:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again References: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: "I think the advice from J. Andrew Rogers is sound and helpful. I can say for myself that so far my own sub-arguments and illustrations have been somewhat sloppy and informal. I think that now would be a good opportunity for both of us to solidify our argument(s)." Let me ask you this, Jeffrey. As probably the only one person on this list who followed the whole thing from the beginning, do you think you at least understand my logic? Or is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? Jeffrey: "It appears that you and I have reached essentially the same conclusion. The method by which we both reached this conclusion seems to be different, and without a doubt some of the details don't match up perfectly. However, it is my impression (and there is a chance that I am wrong) that at least some of the spectators and commentators to this thread have not rejected the principle of our shared conclusion: That our current subjective lives are a "copy's illusion", and previous "versions" of "ourselves" are now permanently deceased and "experience" nothingness. (Heartland, please correct me if you don't share this particular conclusion)." That is exactly what you and I claim, yes. "Given that you and I (and possibly others) now roughly agree on the conclusion, I think that the exchanges between you and I (and possibly others) can take the form of a constructive collaboration, rather than a *pure* disagreement. The conclusion is in place, now it's time to formalize the premises and tidy up the structure, if this can be done." Following the advice from J. Andrew Rogers, I wrote very short list of steps followed by brief explanations that encapsulates the argument for why death is irreversible even if the information about the original mind exists. Maybe it will be sufficient to show why the conclusion is true. This should appear on the list in a matter of days. It's not going to be something you, Jeffrey, have not seen before, but at least it's going to be in one short post. Jeffrey: "If any interested person on this list has evidence, or an argument that the above-mentioned conclusion is impossible or improbable, *please* share it with me/us. Condemning evidence or a strong counter-argument can reveal this idea as a dead horse, and could save us a lot of time and effort." That's a good challenge to the list. S. From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat May 6 22:00:14 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 15:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060503103352.04ec9490@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060506220014.15746.qmail@web81609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The ExI is shutting down...but what is the ExI? Is it the list? No, the list will remain. Is it the group of people trying to achieve a certain set of transhumanist goals? No, they're still trying, although they are changing their stated objectives and means. The Website is changing, becoming a memorial/archive. But clearly the ExI was far more than just its Website - and even that still has present and future use, as a rally site for the Proactionary Principle. Is it the drive to establish transhumanism as a respectable idea? As Samantha pointed out, that mission is far from even "essentially" completed. Even today, publically identifying oneself as a transhumanist is more likely, in many - possibly most - places in First World countries, to have negative consequences than positive. So...what's shutting down? We'll see, of course. But this feels more like a transformation of a still-living thing than an ending. From starman2100 at cableone.net Sun May 7 02:30:11 2006 From: starman2100 at cableone.net (starman2100 at cableone.net) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 19:30:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: A Question for Eliezer about the SI Message-ID: <1146969011_89895@S4.cableone.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 7 01:56:00 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 18:56:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Humor: A Question for Eliezer about the SI In-Reply-To: <1146969011_89895@S4.cableone.net> References: <1146969011_89895@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <445D53B0.8080404@pobox.com> starman2100 at cableone.net wrote: > Well..., I've now largely gotten over the shock that the Extropy > Institute is closing its doors. But now I'm wondering what it would > take for Eliezer to declare that the Singularity Institute has achieved > its goals and no longer needs to be around! heehee I would think I > could safely guess that until the Singularity wave passes over us, he > would never say his work is finished. Correct. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 7 02:34:09 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 19:34:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <445D5CA1.1050504@pobox.com> If the maximum size of a mind is limited by the requirement for all of its computing elements be within roughly one clock tick of each other... Then the Great Old Ones think their vast, incomprehensible thoughts very slowly. By the time a mind was a few trillion times the size of a human, she would have to slow down to around a human clock rate. When she grew to a few quintillion times the size of a human, she might start to see the stars moving in their slow dance across the sky. ...what's so wrong about that? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 7 14:43:31 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 10:43:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <445D5CA1.1050504@pobox.com> References: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:34 PM 5/6/2006 -0700, you wrote: >If the maximum size of a mind is limited by the requirement for all of >its computing elements be within roughly one clock tick of each other... > >Then the Great Old Ones think their vast, incomprehensible thoughts very >slowly. > >By the time a mind was a few trillion times the size of a human, she >would have to slow down to around a human clock rate. When she grew to >a few quintillion times the size of a human, she might start to see the >stars moving in their slow dance across the sky. > >...what's so wrong about that? It *is* a way to avoid boredom while you wait for the end of the universe. At warp 8 (slowing your clock by 10 exp -8) and .5 c, you can cross the galaxy in a subjective 8 hours while you watch 1000 super novas twinkle. Subjective time is an element of AIs. If you knew how to do it at all, you could implement an AI on an Apple II. But I would not expect it to do well on a timed intelligence test. The point being that speed of light and the size of processor elements (ultimately the granularity of atoms) will interact to limit the largest practical size of an AI's hardware. And I would bet that limit is a good deal smaller than Jupiter. Keith Henson From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun May 7 16:03:23 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 09:03:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death Refusniks References: <22360fa10605040718n3d16853fwd92c6894c40d8adf@mail.gmail.com><20060505161428.GD26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <005f01c671ef$c5197460$6600a8c0@brainiac> The article is in a facetious tone, the death occurrences cited may not be statistically significant, but note how it ends: "Some scientists envision a day when people could live to be 150. Hmm ... 150. Hard to imagine. Even then, die-hards may be holding on, just a little bit longer, to see the Cubs win a World Series.": http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0605070415may07,0,202135.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed One who loves imagining what may be hard to imagine, Olga From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 7 17:06:07 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 19:06:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060507170607.GD26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:43:31AM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > It *is* a way to avoid boredom while you wait for the end of the universe. Living beings know no boredom. Co-evolutionary pressure will require everybody running at the fastest rates (not clocks, global clocks don't exist), after just a few iterations. Sartre would have said something about others making you optimize for Ops/s instead of Ops/J. > At warp 8 (slowing your clock by 10 exp -8) and .5 c, you can cross the > galaxy in a subjective 8 hours while you watch 1000 super novas twinkle. If you're travelling at mere 0.5 c, you will be overtaken in transit by later but faster others, and won't arrive at the target you set out to arrive. > Subjective time is an element of AIs. If you knew how to do it at all, you > could implement an AI on an Apple II. But I would not expect it to do well Everybody has been claiming AI needs only 5 MIPS, but I must admit 2 MHz 6502 is a genuine novelty. > on a timed intelligence test. An Apple ][ might not do too badly -- against a virus. > The point being that speed of light and the size of processor elements > (ultimately the granularity of atoms) will interact to limit the largest > practical size of an AI's hardware. There are always limits. Not nearly as tight limits as biology currently suffers (~120 m/s, ~1 l, ~20 W). Superpersonal organization levels allow you to synchronize loosely (but at a very high level), while achieving full-realtime personal response. Including some primitive but meaningful response at the um/ps level. > And I would bet that limit is a good deal smaller than Jupiter. I'm sure procaryontes would have considered our brain something quite impossible. Nevertheless, here we are, and busily organizing ourselves at the ~lightsecond level, reaching out towards ~lighthour level. I honestly don't share your disappointment. Yes, there will be limits. But nothing like the limits we're currently laboring under. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 7 18:48:05 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 14:48:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <20060507170607.GD26713@leitl.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:06 PM 5/7/2006 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:43:31AM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > > It *is* a way to avoid boredom while you wait for the end of the universe. > >Living beings know no boredom. Co-evolutionary pressure will require >everybody running at the fastest rates (not clocks, global clocks don't >exist), after just a few iterations. Sartre would have said something >about others making you optimize for Ops/s instead of Ops/J As a bet you are not an engineer. Getting rid of waste heat is the bane of engineers. > > At warp 8 (slowing your clock by 10 exp -8) and .5 c, you can cross the > > galaxy in a subjective 8 hours while you watch 1000 super novas twinkle. > >If you're travelling at mere 0.5 c, you will be overtaken in transit >by later but faster others, and won't arrive at the target you set >out to arrive. That was just to put a number on it, but in fact, some speed short of c, perhaps way short, may be as fast as it is practical to go. Depends on how much dust you run into. > > Subjective time is an element of AIs. If you knew how to do it at all, > you > > could implement an AI on an Apple II. But I would not expect it to do > well > >Everybody has been claiming AI needs only 5 MIPS, but I must admit 2 MHz 6502 >is a genuine novelty. Any reasonable computer can emulate another. Of course the performance might really suck. > > on a timed intelligence test. > >An Apple ][ might not do too badly -- against a virus. > > > The point being that speed of light and the size of processor elements > > (ultimately the granularity of atoms) will interact to limit the largest > > practical size of an AI's hardware. > >There are always limits. Not nearly as tight limits as biology currently >suffers (~120 m/s, ~1 l, ~20 W). Superpersonal organization levels allow you >to synchronize loosely (but at a very high level), while achieving >full-realtime >personal response. Including some primitive but meaningful response at the >um/ps level. um I am not sure of. If ps is pico second, I really don't understand. > > And I would bet that limit is a good deal smaller than Jupiter. > >I'm sure procaryontes would have considered our brain something quite >impossible. Nevertheless, here we are, and busily organizing >ourselves at the ~lightsecond level, reaching out towards ~lighthour >level. > >I honestly don't share your disappointment. Yes, there will be limits. >But nothing like the limits we're currently laboring under. Oh I am not disappointed. Wasn't interested in becoming a "Jupiter brain," just thought the notion was silly. And if you agree that there are any limits at all, you are in my camp because that argues for more than one AI. Keith From jonkc at att.net Sun May 7 20:50:05 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 16:50:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <10ea01c67218$1aff7a50$730a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? > And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more > specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I > introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? Mr. Heartland asked for specifics and I have done so, I do not claim this is a comprehensive list of the difficulties with his ideas but it's a start: 1) Mr. Heartland says having someone tomorrow who remembers being you today is not sufficient to conclude you have survived into tomorrow, he says more is required but he never explains what or why. This leads to rather odd conclusions, like anesthesia is equivalent to death and like you may have died yesterday and not even know it. Mr. Hartland thinks your subjectivity is an "illusion" created by a copy of you, Mr. Hartland says he hates this and thinks it is a great tragedy, but even if true he never explains why this is supposed to be upsetting. 2) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but he ignores the fact that our atoms get recycled every few weeks. 3) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but science can find no difference between one atom and another. Mr. Heartland points out, quite correctly, that subjectivity and consciousness are what we should be concerned about, but then he says particular atoms are what makes our consciousness unique. It's true that the scientific method can not investigate consciousness directly so nobody will ever be able to prove the idea is wrong, nobody will ever prove that there isn't a difference between atoms that the scientific method can't detect, but theologians since the middle ages have been making the exact same argument about the existence of the human soul. It seems a little too pat that the only difference between atoms is something the scientific method can not see but nevertheless is of profound astronomical importance, it's just like saying atoms have souls. 4) Mr. Heartland says the history (or if you want to sound scientific brainy and cool "the space time trajectory") of atoms are what makes atoms unique; but many atoms have no history and even for those that do it is not permanent, the entire record of an atom's past exploits can be erased from the universe and it's not difficult to do. This is not theory, this has been proven in the lab and any theory that just ignores that fact can not be called scientific. 5) Mr. Heartland insists his theory is consistent and logically rigorous but he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest questions about it, like is A the original or B. Instead Mr. Heartland thinks informing us that A=A and B=B is sufficient. 6) Several times Mr. Heartland informed us that location is vital in determining which mind is which, but he never explained why because mind by itself can never determine it's location. Also Mr. Heartland never explains the position relative to what as we've known for over a century that absolute position is meaningless. 7) Mr. Heartland, wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or not" and then he wrote "My copy" is not me". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 8) Mr. Heartland wrote "Mind is not a brain" and he was absolutely correct about that, but then he said mind "is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 9) As noted above Mr. Heartland thinks mind is a "4-D mind object", but he is unable on unwilling to give the 4-D coordinates of the vital things the constitute mind, like fun or red or fast or logic or love or fear or the number eleven or my memory of yesterday. 10) Mr. Heartland wrote "creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type" but if so he never explained why two calculators the add 2 +2 would not produce answers that were profoundly different; and if they are profoundly different he never explained how it is possible to do science. 11) Mr. Heartland insists that if two CD's are synchronized and playing the same symphony then two symphonies are playing, but a CD is just a number thus there are always profound differences even between the same number, and 9 is not equal to 9. If true Mr. Heartland is unable to explain how it is nevertheless possible to do science. Finally I believe another reason many find it difficult to take Mr. Heartland seriously is his treatment of criticism, whenever somebody point out a flaw in his ideas he either ignores it, pleads persecution, or makes assurances without giving one bit of evidence. For example, the existence of Bose Einstein Condensations, the fact that Mr. Heartland's trajectories through space time are temporary things that are easy to erase would seem to blow a very large hole in his theory, but Mr. Heartland says it does not, in fact he says his theory "has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensations". Mr. Heartland does not explain how he reached this astonishing conclusion, we must just take it on faith. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 7 21:20:40 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 23:20:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060507212040.GF26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > As a bet you are not an engineer. Getting rid of waste heat is the bane of > engineers. One of my hats is a chemist. The other, molecular biologist. Third, computational chemist. A yet another is someone who takes an interest in cluster supercomputing, and operates enough hardware concentration in the rack that power dissipation density is an issue. (I have also other headgear that is less used, but that's enough for the moment). Outside of an engineer's domain, a bee's brain takes a microwatt, and a human brain ~20 W. Also outside of an engineer's domain there are supercold condensed phase, reversible computation, and nonclassical (quantum) computation. Biology makes many things differently than classical engineering, one of them is dealing with power issues creatively. Biology has other limits however, so there are no reasons why we can't beat biology by many orders of magnitude still as it comes to computation efficiency. Spintronics in a buckytronics context makes any synapse turn GFP-green from envy. If you look into Nanosystems, the limits on manageable power dissipation density are quite wide, so things remain quite interesting even for classical systems in few 100 K range. I must admit I never bought into Jupiter Brains much, because of a power issue. Assemblies of computational nodes revolving around their own gravitation center have a problem of being powered from the outside (pumped by a larger assembly of photovoltaics modules in a circumstellar orbit), while being able to dissipate simulataneously. This are more suitable if there's a power source at the center (a microsingularity, or similiar), or if each individual node is being powered by a fusion power source. I must admit I don't see why one just doesn't surround the star with an optically (semi-)opaque cloud of modules, and just uses the star's output directly, and dumps into the 4 K cosmic background. You need a lot of orbiting stuff to blot out a star, so locally the concentration is at leat Jupiter Brain grade, but it wraps a thick cloud shell around the star. > That was just to put a number on it, but in fact, some speed short of c, > perhaps way short, may be as fast as it is practical to go. Depends on how > much dust you run into. Because you see where you're going in advance, mapping dust is not difficult. Because impact damage is localized, and relativistic launches will be done using redundant probe clusters, individual destructive encounters are manageable (of course if you hit a big dark body in transit you're just emulating a few MT of nuclear firework equivalents -- very pretty, end of the journey). Because resilient, self-rebuilding probes are a must and just because of the neutral hydrogen background (which is equivalent to a pretty luminous proton beam if you're travelling really fast) localized circuitry nuking is not a problem by design. You can't travel unless you have a metabolism, and a very active background rebuilding machinery. D. radidurans would never have a chance. > Any reasonable computer can emulate another. Of course the performance One reasonable computer can emulate another -- provided it has more memory (compression accounted for) than the system emulated. If it doesn't, it can't. I can't emulate an Apple ][ 48 k running ucsd-p on a 4 k Sinclair Z-80. I can't emulate even Alfred E. Neumann with a current Blue Gene. > might really suck. If I need 10^13 real years to simulate 1 ms of what happens within a biological system (assuming, I have enough storage to represent said system) effectively I can't run this simulation. In practical terms, currently, any simulation taking more than 2-3 years is impractical. > um I am not sure of. If ps is pico second, I really don't understand. It appears reasonable that you can emulate what 1 ms scale biological processes do in solid-state classical computation at 1 ns to 1 ps range (1 ns is certain, 1 ps might be pushing it depending on issues like power dissipation density, and computation reversibility (if your ratio of ones and zeros roughly balance each other locally, no need to erase thermodynamics bits). That's a speedup of 10^6..10^9 in regards to the wall clock. > Oh I am not disappointed. Wasn't interested in becoming a "Jupiter brain," > just thought the notion was silly. > > And if you agree that there are any limits at all, you are in my camp > because that argues for more than one AI. Absolutely. I'm in the postradiation/postspeciation high-diversity population of postbiological beings scenario. Some of them smart, most of them (by weight) dumb, just like a rain forest/tropical reef, only in deep space, and lots faster (most of processing involving moving bits, much less atoms). A lot of the activity has to occur at the physical layer, though, given that whoever controls the physical layer, controls everything. You can't control nanopests gnawing away at cyberleviathans unless you have a physical-layer immune system operating. Best perimeter security gives you naught if someone sneaks up, and eats your crunchy computronium chunk brains with a little sunlight. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun May 7 22:07:45 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <10ea01c67218$1aff7a50$730a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi John, Your criticisms are useful. Thank you for them. I suspect that Heartland and/or I (or others) will try to address some or all of them in the near future. However, it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* young. It's only a few weeks old, at most. Heartland reluctantly accepted the conclusion only a matter of days ago. I think that some of the criticisms below only apply to an earlier stage of development, while the final conclusion was still unclear in everyone's mind. I don't deny that huge holes are missing from the argument; I think it will take a long time to resolve this issue. The more participants, the better. I am not an expert in any field relevant to this discussion, but I realize that many people on this list are experts, and can provide helpful nudges if they are inclined. I propose something of a clean slate for this idea. Let's take the conclusion and work backwards to put together a convincing argument, further supported by evidence if possible. I still believe, in some ways that I can't yet articulate, that the conclusion is true. That's the only reason I've remained in this debate. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich P.S. Does anyone have an idea for a new name for the thread? (Oh dear, this may be a dangerous question :-) ) John K Clark wrote: "Heartland" > is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? > And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more > specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I > introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? Mr. Heartland asked for specifics and I have done so, I do not claim this is a comprehensive list of the difficulties with his ideas but it's a start: 1) Mr. Heartland says having someone tomorrow who remembers being you today is not sufficient to conclude you have survived into tomorrow, he says more is required but he never explains what or why. This leads to rather odd conclusions, like anesthesia is equivalent to death and like you may have died yesterday and not even know it. Mr. Hartland thinks your subjectivity is an "illusion" created by a copy of you, Mr. Hartland says he hates this and thinks it is a great tragedy, but even if true he never explains why this is supposed to be upsetting. 2) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but he ignores the fact that our atoms get recycled every few weeks. 3) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but science can find no difference between one atom and another. Mr. Heartland points out, quite correctly, that subjectivity and consciousness are what we should be concerned about, but then he says particular atoms are what makes our consciousness unique. It's true that the scientific method can not investigate consciousness directly so nobody will ever be able to prove the idea is wrong, nobody will ever prove that there isn't a difference between atoms that the scientific method can't detect, but theologians since the middle ages have been making the exact same argument about the existence of the human soul. It seems a little too pat that the only difference between atoms is something the scientific method can not see but nevertheless is of profound astronomical importance, it's just like saying atoms have souls. 4) Mr. Heartland says the history (or if you want to sound scientific brainy and cool "the space time trajectory") of atoms are what makes atoms unique; but many atoms have no history and even for those that do it is not permanent, the entire record of an atom's past exploits can be erased from the universe and it's not difficult to do. This is not theory, this has been proven in the lab and any theory that just ignores that fact can not be called scientific. 5) Mr. Heartland insists his theory is consistent and logically rigorous but he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest questions about it, like is A the original or B. Instead Mr. Heartland thinks informing us that A=A and B=B is sufficient. 6) Several times Mr. Heartland informed us that location is vital in determining which mind is which, but he never explained why because mind by itself can never determine it's location. Also Mr. Heartland never explains the position relative to what as we've known for over a century that absolute position is meaningless. 7) Mr. Heartland, wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or not" and then he wrote "My copy" is not me". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 8) Mr. Heartland wrote "Mind is not a brain" and he was absolutely correct about that, but then he said mind "is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 9) As noted above Mr. Heartland thinks mind is a "4-D mind object", but he is unable on unwilling to give the 4-D coordinates of the vital things the constitute mind, like fun or red or fast or logic or love or fear or the number eleven or my memory of yesterday. 10) Mr. Heartland wrote "creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type" but if so he never explained why two calculators the add 2 +2 would not produce answers that were profoundly different; and if they are profoundly different he never explained how it is possible to do science. 11) Mr. Heartland insists that if two CD's are synchronized and playing the same symphony then two symphonies are playing, but a CD is just a number thus there are always profound differences even between the same number, and 9 is not equal to 9. If true Mr. Heartland is unable to explain how it is nevertheless possible to do science. Finally I believe another reason many find it difficult to take Mr. Heartland seriously is his treatment of criticism, whenever somebody point out a flaw in his ideas he either ignores it, pleads persecution, or makes assurances without giving one bit of evidence. For example, the existence of Bose Einstein Condensations, the fact that Mr. Heartland's trajectories through space time are temporary things that are easy to erase would seem to blow a very large hole in his theory, but Mr. Heartland says it does not, in fact he says his theory "has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensations". Mr. Heartland does not explain how he reached this astonishing conclusion, we must just take it on faith. John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sun May 7 22:33:46 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 18:33:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060506194939.25209.qmail@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <10ea01c67218$1aff7a50$730a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? >> And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more >> specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I >> introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? John Clark: > Mr. Heartland asked for specifics and I have done so, I do not claim this > is a comprehensive list of the difficulties with his ideas but it's a > start: Just for the record, what follows "Mr. Heartland says" in John Clark's list is a personal interpretation of what I actually said or meant to say. Some of it is correct, most of it is not. I accept it as an indication of my failure to present this view in a coherent form, not a failure of the argument itself, and will try to apply all that criticism toward a clearer version of the argument. Thank you. S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun May 7 22:45:02 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 15:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060507224502.78807.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Heartland wrote: "...do you think you at least understand my logic?" Generally speaking, I *understand* what you are *saying*, although I have had many *disagreements* with you. I would say, that I probably have a greater understanding of what you write, than you frequently think I do. In other words, I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I have frequently disagreed with the logic you have used, and with the validity of the point itself. Although on several important points, we have agreed fully, and we do both agree on the conclusion at least. I would definitely not say that I "have no idea what you are saying" (paraphrasing from below). I generally feel that I fully comprehend the specific sentences that you write. As you have indicated, you may unconsciously be taking some of your own explanations for granted, without sharing them with us. Heartland: "...could you tell me at what point I lost you?" This thread is soooo long that this is a difficult question to answer. I currently lack a perfect memory or the time available to review all the different posts under this thread. In the course of this debate, you have entered many new terms, definitions, and explanations and some of them don't really seem back-compatible. I would recommend, that we basically resume with a *blank slate* and provide strict and robust definitions as J. Andrew Rogers suggested. You and I, and others, can all widdle away at these terms and definitions until we are all satisfied that they are adequate. The same applies for the concepts we introduce. Heartland: "...I wrote very short list of steps followed by brief explanations that encapsulates the argument for why death is irreversible even if the information about the original mind exists." I very much look forward to reading this, and providing feedback. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Jeffrey: "I think the advice from J. Andrew Rogers is sound and helpful. I can say for myself that so far my own sub-arguments and illustrations have been somewhat sloppy and informal. I think that now would be a good opportunity for both of us to solidify our argument(s)." Let me ask you this, Jeffrey. As probably the only one person on this list who followed the whole thing from the beginning, do you think you at least understand my logic? Or is it that you, like others, still have no idea what I'm talking about? And if so, then could you tell me at what point I lost you? The more specific you get, the better. What concepts or definitions that I introduced were not clear? Which steps did not seem to follow from others? Jeffrey: "It appears that you and I have reached essentially the same conclusion. The method by which we both reached this conclusion seems to be different, and without a doubt some of the details don't match up perfectly. However, it is my impression (and there is a chance that I am wrong) that at least some of the spectators and commentators to this thread have not rejected the principle of our shared conclusion: That our current subjective lives are a "copy's illusion", and previous "versions" of "ourselves" are now permanently deceased and "experience" nothingness. (Heartland, please correct me if you don't share this particular conclusion)." That is exactly what you and I claim, yes. "Given that you and I (and possibly others) now roughly agree on the conclusion, I think that the exchanges between you and I (and possibly others) can take the form of a constructive collaboration, rather than a *pure* disagreement. The conclusion is in place, now it's time to formalize the premises and tidy up the structure, if this can be done." Following the advice from J. Andrew Rogers, I wrote very short list of steps followed by brief explanations that encapsulates the argument for why death is irreversible even if the information about the original mind exists. Maybe it will be sufficient to show why the conclusion is true. This should appear on the list in a matter of days. It's not going to be something you, Jeffrey, have not seen before, but at least it's going to be in one short post. Jeffrey: "If any interested person on this list has evidence, or an argument that the above-mentioned conclusion is impossible or improbable, *please* share it with me/us. Condemning evidence or a strong counter-argument can reveal this idea as a dead horse, and could save us a lot of time and effort." That's a good challenge to the list. S. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sun May 7 23:16:24 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 19:16:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: "However, it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* young. It's only a few weeks old, at most. Heartland reluctantly accepted the conclusion only a matter of days ago." While this particular conclusion is indeed fresh, the underlying logic that inevitably leads to this conclusion is probably 5 years old. It's the same logic that led to much older conclusions that mind is a process and that death is irreversible. In one form or the other, I've been explaining that logic for years on forums just like this one. :) S. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun May 7 23:34:26 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 16:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060507233426.8599.qmail@web37406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Heartland, Yes, I accept that what you've written below is true. I think we would both agree that this particular (new) conclusion is very bizarre and counter-intuitive, and it will be a steeply uphill battle to prove that it is true. This new conclusion will probably also require some major alterations to the arguments that have brought you up to this point. We basically need to work backwards and start over, in my humble opinion. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Heartland wrote: Jeffrey: "However, it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* young. It's only a few weeks old, at most. Heartland reluctantly accepted the conclusion only a matter of days ago." While this particular conclusion is indeed fresh, the underlying logic that inevitably leads to this conclusion is probably 5 years old. It's the same logic that led to much older conclusions that mind is a process and that death is irreversible. In one form or the other, I've been explaining that logic for years on forums just like this one. :) S. _______________________________________________ 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 velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 00:51:44 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:51:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I. Terms and definitions: Subjective experience - Collective sense of perception and/or cognition. Process/activity by which mind experiences reality. Death/Nonexistence - Subjective experience of nothingness. Absence of that part of mind process which is responsible for producing subjective experience. (A type of subjective experience one would have if one did not exist at all). Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is the presence of that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for producing subjective experience. Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space consisting of all matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in producing the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter and energy in time and space. Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that consists of all matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary to support its existence. Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that object. It is a list of all present space-time locations of all matter that currently makes up the object. Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and space. Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For example, apples and oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. Instance of a type - Individual object that belongs to the same type. For example, an apple is an instance of fruit type and an orange is also an instance of fruit type. ------ II. The argument: 1. Instances of the same type are distinguishable. Assuming that instances of an object contain energy, each instance has its own unique trajectory in time and space that is parallel to a trajectory of any other instance, including an instance of the same type. At no point all four space-time coordinates for all particles of matter that make up the object will be equal which gives an objective observer the ability to distinguish between instances, including instances of the same type. 1a. A single break in the trajectory produces two instances that are different and distinguishable. 1b. Instances are always isolated from different instances, including instances of the same type. Two different instances cannot occupy same space and time. 2. Activity itself cannot be stored in information. Someone throws a baseball. Series of cameras record this event. Measurement equipment precisely traces trajectory of flight of the ball and the values of 4-D coordinates are being stored in a file. Another file stores a complete molecular structure of the ball. Extrapolation of this measurement process could result in a state where everything that can be known about this event could be translated into information. But is this information the event itself? For that to be true the fact of existence of information itself would have to cause the event. But even if I replay the tape, look at the coordinates of a trajectory or inspect a molecular structure of the ball, this won't cause the event to occur. No amount of information about the activity can store that activity itself. (It is perhaps because information is dimensionless and matterless while activity occurs in dimensions of space and time and requires matter. It is impossible for an activity itself to exist in the form of information.) 3. Activities based on the same information about the activity are distinguishable. Each activity is an instance so the rules of instances apply to activities. Each activity of matter in space and time has a unique trajectory so that it is distinguishable from any other activity (1). 4. Subjective experience is an activity so it is also distinguishable from any other instance of subjective experience, including any duplicate instance of the same type of subjective experience (3). 5. An absence of subjective experience activity marks the end of an instance of that subjective experience (1a). Conclusion: A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from the old one (4), so since (5), (1b), (2), the old instance experiences nothingness instead of whatever the new instance experiences. Death is irreversible despite the existence of any amount of information about the mind. S. From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 8 03:23:00 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 23:23:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <20060507212040.GF26713@leitl.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507215848.025a5208@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:20 PM 5/7/2006 +0200, you wrote: >On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 02:48:05PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > > As a bet you are not an engineer. Getting rid of waste heat is the > bane of > > engineers. > >One of my hats is a chemist. The other, molecular biologist. Third, >computational >chemist. A yet another is someone who takes an interest in cluster >supercomputing, >and operates enough hardware concentration in the rack that power dissipation >density is an issue. (I have also other headgear that is less used, but >that's >enough for the moment). > >Outside of an engineer's domain, a bee's brain takes a microwatt, and a human >brain ~20 W. Also outside of an engineer's domain there are supercold >condensed phase, reversible computation, and nonclassical (quantum) >computation. >Biology makes many things differently than classical engineering, one >of them is dealing with power issues creatively. Biology has other limits >however, so there are no reasons why we can't beat biology by many orders >of magnitude still as it comes to computation efficiency. Spintronics >in a buckytronics context makes any synapse turn GFP-green from envy. All this indicates to me that you think computation per joule is going to be a consideration up there with c/second. Even if you have lots of energy, it's no good if your brain catches on fire. >If you look into Nanosystems, My wife is listed as one of the editors. I read it first in draft. >the limits on manageable power dissipation >density are quite wide, so things remain quite interesting even for >classical systems in few 100 K range. I must admit I never bought into >Jupiter Brains much, because of a power issue. Assemblies of computational >nodes revolving around their own gravitation center have a problem of >being powered from the outside (pumped by a larger assembly of photovoltaics >modules in a circumstellar orbit), while being able to dissipate >simulataneously. >This are more suitable if there's a power source at the center (a >microsingularity, >or similiar), or if each individual node is being powered by a fusion >power source. >I must admit I don't see why one just doesn't surround the star with an >optically >(semi-)opaque cloud of modules, and just uses the star's output directly, >and dumps >into the 4 K cosmic background. You need a lot of orbiting stuff to blot out >a star, so locally the concentration is at leat Jupiter Brain grade, but it >wraps a thick cloud shell around the star. If you can keep the average thickness down to the equal of a few nanometer of aluminum you can float on the light and surround the star without being in orbit. If you leave the cover off one side, the star becomes a fusion/photon drive (for those not in a hurry). If you are going to orbit, a computation node becomes mostly power plant and radiator. In 1979 Drexler and I wrote a paper for a conference at Princeton on space radiators that used ground up rock as the heat transfer medium. I scanned in a copy of it a few days ago if you would like to see it. One of the discoveries we made is that radiators have a inherent square root dis-economy of scale. > > That was just to put a number on it, but in fact, some speed short of c, > > perhaps way short, may be as fast as it is practical to go. Depends on > how > > much dust you run into. > >Because you see where you're going in advance, mapping dust is not difficult. I would be really interested in how you would do this. If you are going to probe the path to the target with a laser before launch, you might as well launch at 1/3 c. >Because impact damage is localized, and relativistic launches will be done >using redundant probe clusters, individual destructive encounters are >manageable (of course if you hit a big dark body in transit you're just >emulating >a few MT of nuclear firework equivalents -- very pretty, end of the journey). >Because resilient, self-rebuilding probes are a must and just because of >the neutral hydrogen background (which is equivalent to a pretty luminous >proton beam if you're travelling really fast) localized circuitry nuking is >not a problem by design. You can't travel unless you have a metabolism, >and a very active background rebuilding machinery. D. radidurans would >never have a chance. > > > Any reasonable computer can emulate another. Of course the performance > >One reasonable computer can emulate another -- provided it has more >memory (compression accounted for) than the system emulated. If it doesn't, >it can't. I can't emulate an Apple ][ 48 k running ucsd-p on a 4 k >Sinclair Z-80. I can't emulate even Alfred E. Neumann with a current >Blue Gene. > > > might really suck. > >If I need 10^13 real years to simulate 1 ms of what happens within >a biological system (assuming, I have enough storage to represent >said system) effectively I can't run this simulation. In practical >terms, currently, any simulation taking more than 2-3 years is >impractical. 10 exp 13 years might try the patience of even the immortals. > > um I am not sure of. If ps is pico second, I really don't understand. > >It appears reasonable that you can emulate what 1 ms scale biological >processes do in solid-state classical computation at 1 ns to 1 ps range >(1 ns is certain, 1 ps might be pushing it depending on issues like power >dissipation density, and computation reversibility (if your ratio of >ones and zeros roughly balance each other locally, no need to erase >thermodynamics bits). That's a speedup of 10^6..10^9 in regards to the >wall clock. That's about what I get. Spiffy, but the stars recede out of reach. > > Oh I am not disappointed. Wasn't interested in becoming a "Jupiter > brain," > > just thought the notion was silly. > > > > And if you agree that there are any limits at all, you are in my camp > > because that argues for more than one AI. > >Absolutely. I'm in the postradiation/postspeciation high-diversity >population of postbiological beings scenario. Some of them smart, most >of them (by weight) dumb, just like a rain forest/tropical reef, only in >deep space, and lots faster (most of processing involving moving bits, >much less atoms). A lot of the activity has to occur at the physical >layer, though, given that whoever controls the physical layer, controls >everything. You can't control nanopests gnawing away at cyberleviathans >unless you have a physical-layer immune system operating. Best perimeter >security gives you naught if someone sneaks up, and eats your crunchy >computronium chunk brains with a little sunlight. It could happen. It could also be very different. Keith Henson From jonkc at att.net Mon May 8 04:56:29 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 00:56:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005001c6725b$cbd67de0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer> A B Wrote: > it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* > young. Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as the hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can not possibly be true. Mr. Heartland's could have presented a stronger case in the 19'th century than he can now, but even then the idea that the you of yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been crazy. > I don't deny that huge holes are missing from the argument When there are far more holes than arguments it's time to look for another theory. > Let's take the conclusion and work backwards to put together a convincing > argument, further supported by evidence if possible. That's not the way science works, you don't decide what is true and then look for evidence of it, you look at the evidence and then form a conclusion. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Mon May 8 05:51:11 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 01:51:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005d01c67263$7da40db0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. Since it is imposable to talk about the present moment without bringing in subjective the above means "A subjective experience of being subjective", a comment without content. > Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space Mr. Heartland has said this many many many times, and each time he has I have asked him the space time coordinates of things that make up a mind, things like logic and love and the number 9, and each time he has responded to this very reasonable question with silence. I have also asked him over and over why if position is so important in determining a mind why is it that a mind by itself has absolutely no way of knowing even approximately where it is? And again Mr. Heartland resounded to this question with silence. > Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space OK. > that consists of all matter that currently does not make up mind object > but is necessary to support its existence. If a "brain object" is "necessary to support its existence" then why isn't it what you call a "mind object", after all you say the definition is "matter which is presently and actively involved in producing the mind". This is rigor? I have pointed this out before and received the usual response from Mr. Heartland, silence. > Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and > space. As I said in another post, it you had said that 90 years ago it might have sounded reasonable, and naive intuition would seem to support it; but we now know there is no way that can be correct. And even if it were correct it would be irrelevant because some things, even very important things, are not objects. Mind is one of them. > Subjective experience is an activity so it is also distinguishable from > any other instance of subjective experience, including any duplicate > instance of the same type of subjective experience Distinguishable by who? An outside observer may or may not be able to distinguish who is the original and who is the copy (although you can arrange things so NOBODY knows) but the original and copy have no way by themselves of doing so, and subjectivity is what's important not objectivity. If subjectively I'm alive then I don't give a rat's ass if objectively I'm dead. > A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from > the old one (4) I add 2 +2 on my calculator and get 4, I add 2 +2 again and get 4 again, but the second 4 is vastly different from the first 4. I don't think so. John K Clark From exi at syzygy.com Mon May 8 05:58:31 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 8 May 2006 05:58:31 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> Heartland writes: >I. Terms and definitions: >[...] >Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space consisting of all >matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in producing >the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter and energy in >time and space. > >Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that consists of all >matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary to support its >existence. These are curious definitions. You've defined mind and brain as disjoint physical objects. I would think that the physical objects that are involved in a mind would be a subset of the physical objects that we would ordinarily call a brain. On the other hand, you can say from these definitions that the entire body is part of the mind object, since all of it is in use supporting the activity of mind. Without the heart to pump blood, the brain dies and mind ceases, so mind object must include the heart, and by extension the rest of the body. Actually, by extension it includes the rest of the universe, so that means it's not a very useful definition. So, can we restrict it somewhat and say that the mind object is composed of all of the neurons in a single body? It's still an odd definition, because thinking of the mind as a physical object rather than an activity is quite unconventional. This particular point has been hashed about for a while in this thread, and I think it's (one of) the fundamental disagreement(s). >[...] >1. Instances of the same type are distinguishable. >[...] >1a. A single break in the trajectory produces two instances that are different and >distinguishable. > >1b. Instances are always isolated from different instances, including instances of >the same type. Two different instances cannot occupy same space and time. You're not allowing any grey area here, where there really needs to be some. Two minds could be operating with a large portion of their constituent objects in common, with a small amount of state that is unique to each instance. That state would not be sufficient to form a mind, it only specifies the differences from a complete mind. Such instances would not be completely distinct. Part of this problem stems from the physical object definition of mind, rather than the activity definition. >2. Activity itself cannot be stored in information. No, but sufficient information about an activity can be stored to continue the activity. This is the essence of the "Planck interval" argument from earlier in the thread. The universe stores enough information about the state of an activity at any given Planck interval to allow it to continue in the next one. An important point is that much of that information is superfluous. We don't really need to know the exact positions of all of the neurotransmitters within a synapse to know when it is firing. We could record the necessary information and restart the process later. This is in essence no different from the universe recording information for restarting the process one Planck interval later. There is no bright line difference between these two processes. >[...] >Conclusion: >A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from the old >one (4), so since (5), (1b), (2), the old instance experiences nothingness instead >of whatever the new instance experiences. Death is irreversible despite the >existence of any amount of information about the mind. The old instance does not "experience nothingness". It does not experience. The new instance continues the subjective experience which the old instance started. Death becomes irreversible when the information about the mind can no longer be reconstructed with sufficient fidelity to continue the mind. This is the distinction between metabolic death (the cessation of activity necessary to support a mind), and information theoretic death (the loss of information about a mind). -eric From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 8 08:31:37 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 09:31:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: > > Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space consisting of all > matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in producing > the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter and energy in > time and space. > > Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that consists of all > matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary to support > its existence. > > Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that object. It is a > list of all present space-time locations of all matter that currently makes up the > object. > > Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and space. > Where does multiple personality disorder fit in to these speculations? Dissociative identity disorder is a diagnosis described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Revised, as the existence in an individual of two or more distinct identities or personalities, each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment. At least two of these personalities are considered to routinely take control of the individual's behavior, and there is also some associated memory loss, which is beyond normal forgetfulness. This memory loss is often referred to as "losing time". ------------------------ Sounds like two or more of your 'minds' sharing the same brain and the same atoms to maintain themselves. They have different memories, identities and experiences and neither remembers what the other was doing. Each identity must be 'dying' in your terms then restarting again as each mind hands the brain over to another. But, of course, they're not dying. They just go to sleep, like we do every night, or under anesthesia, or when we get hit by Frank Tyson. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 8 10:17:40 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:17:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clock rate or rather communication delays In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060507215848.025a5208@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504103757.0273d5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060504170002.027d21f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060506100127.024db720@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060506173154.30482.qmail@syzygy.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507101801.0b9cf098@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507143418.0ba0fa20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060507215848.025a5208@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060508101740.GR26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:23:00PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > All this indicates to me that you think computation per joule is going to > be a consideration up there with c/second. Even if you have lots of > energy, it's no good if your brain catches on fire. With current high-flux reactor cores we can easily remove some 20 MW from a volume of a paper basket. Whether with weaved buckytronic, cooled by a stiff flux of helium through orthogonal nanotube channel array or fractal channels in diamond or sapphire I don't see how you could dump enough power into a ~l chunk of machinery while doing computing and being unable to cool it. Dark horses like reversible computing and nonclassical computing even not considered. > >If you look into Nanosystems, > > My wife is listed as one of the editors. I read it first in draft. Yeah, I read it as a preprint too, as one of my organics profs was doing a stint in Stanford before. He thought it was crap, I wasn't so sure. It took me a while to understand why machine-phase is so different from both biology and organic chemistry. > If you can keep the average thickness down to the equal of a few nanometer > of aluminum you can float on the light and surround the star without being > in orbit. If you leave the cover off one side, the star becomes a > fusion/photon drive (for those not in a hurry). Yes, but I want to power hardware. Whether um or mm, that's way too heavy to be anywhere else than in orbit. Solid shells could be an option for small (<100 km) assemblies around a central power source (microsingularity, or matter/antimatter reactor). I can't quite imagine a cloud of fat nodes, each with a tokamak rotating around their own gravity center. It strikes me as improbable, though I can't put my finger on it. It's probably the bloat. > If you are going to orbit, a computation node becomes mostly power plant > and radiator. In 1979 Drexler and I wrote a paper for a conference at To minimize signalling latency you have to have a spherical assembly. I'm assuming a large flat panel powering a small spherical (cubical) computation node, and talking to neighbour nodes in flyby by line of sight laser. > Princeton on space radiators that used ground up rock as the heat transfer > medium. I scanned in a copy of it a few days ago if you would like to see > it. One of the discoveries we made is that radiators have a inherent square > root dis-economy of scale. What I see as a problem if that the node density is so high you no longer have an occasional line of sight to colder space to dump heat to. There might be ways to have the inner cloud work at some 800 K, and reradiate it a couple of times, until you eventually power some ultra-cold machinery lighthours/lighdays away from the hot core. > >Because you see where you're going in advance, mapping dust is not difficult. > > I would be really interested in how you would do this. If you are going to > probe the path to the target with a laser before launch, you might as well > launch at 1/3 c. I mean you're looking towards the star you're travelling to, so you use star's photons to see how much dust is there. Moreover, you're launching with a high-power microwave beam (by a said circumstellar assembly, acting as a phased-array microwave source pushing your carbon sail(s), with the trailing probe(s). The photon flux is dense enough to heat your carbon sail to white incandescence, so it's going to clear a path in the interstellar medium before you come through. You could still meet a pebble, but that's what redundant probes are there for. > 10 exp 13 years might try the patience of even the immortals. They need not be immortals, nor do they need to be very smart. I don't expect Darwin to exist the stage to the left. Postbiology is like biology, only more so. Some of them will be smart. Some of them will be gods. But even gods have fleas. And a metabolism. > That's about what I get. Spiffy, but the stars recede out of reach. The local ecology will never interact with antipode ecology, but it continues nevertheless. A cubic mile of circuitry is also harboring an ecosystem. Does inviduality have to cease to exist? I don't think so. Our cells have individual indentities, and bees and people have individual identities, even though being part of a superorganism. If you tweak a cell, it will jump. If you poke a bee, it will sting. If you kick a human, he will respond -- though you might send a diplomatic note or try a hostile takeover if you want to evoke some high-order behaviour. So I think even Very Large Beings will be highly responsive on the local scale. But it could take a megayear to get a meaningful high-level response. That's okay, though, because whoever that great whale is singing to is a leviathan just as ponderous and slow. > It could happen. It could also be very different. No disagreement. But I have to use specific models in order to deal with postbiology. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 11:07:15 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 07:07:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: BillK: > Where does multiple personality disorder fit in to these speculations? The only relevant aspect of subjective experience to this argument is whether subjective experience exists or not. The *content* of that subjective experience does not impact the argument in any way. It is because the focus of the argument is on the physical "substance" of subjective experience (activity of matter in time and space), not its information content. BillK: > Sounds like two or more of your 'minds' sharing the same brain and the > same atoms to maintain themselves. They have different memories, > identities and experiences and neither remembers what the other was > doing. Each identity must be 'dying' in your terms then restarting > again as each mind hands the brain over to another. This would be true from "mind is a pattern of information" perspective, which is implied here, but it certainly wouldn't be true from my perspective, which is that "mind is an instance of activity of matter in time and space." According to the argument, a person with this disorder would maintain the same identity (in the physical sense) for the duration of an instance of his subjective experience regardless of personality changes (the content of that subjective experience). The same would be true for any other person not suffering from this disorder. S. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 8 12:35:00 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:35:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: [argument snipped] This seems quite clear (though it is not a position I myself hold); it also implies that you (like the rest of us) are currently under a death sentence (which you quite reasonably wish to avoid) - with no hope of cryonics providing a reprieve by your definition. Given that, impressive though the length of this argument has been, would it not be a more productive use of your time to do everything you can to further the progress of biological life extension? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 13:11:14 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 09:11:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: Heartland: >>Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space consisting of all >>matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively involved in >>producing >>the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter and energy in >>time and space. >> >>Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that consists of all >>matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary to support >>its >>existence. Eric: > These are curious definitions. You've defined mind and brain as > disjoint physical objects. I would think that the physical objects > that are involved in a mind would be a subset of the physical objects > that we would ordinarily call a brain. > On the other hand, you can say from these definitions that the entire > body is part of the mind object, since all of it is in use supporting > the activity of mind. Without the heart to pump blood, the brain dies > and mind ceases, so mind object must include the heart, and by > extension the rest of the body. Actually, by extension it includes > the rest of the universe, so that means it's not a very useful > definition. According to the definition, mind consists of *only* that activity of matter which directly implements mind. That excludes heart or any other organ. The point of the definition is to delineate between relevant activity that creates mind and all other activities that indirectly support existence of that mind. There is the mind, and everything else that supports it is replaceable, therefore, not relevant to this analysis. Eric: > So, can we restrict it somewhat and say that the mind object is > composed of all of the neurons in a single body? But that wouldn't be correct. To say that mind is composed of neurons would be analogous to a claim that flight is composed of plane's engines. Eric: > It's still an odd definition, because thinking of the mind as a > physical object rather than an activity is quite unconventional. This > particular point has been hashed about for a while in this thread, and > I think it's (one of) the fundamental disagreement(s). It's counterintuitive for anyone to imagine a mind as an "object." This is probably the main reason why it's so hard for me to convey these ideas. Maybe this will be helpful. Mind is an activity. Now, any activity necessarily requires four things to exist. The first is matter. The second is energy. The third is space. And the fourth is time. In other words, any activity isn't something that is abstract and dimensionless. It is not just "matter and energy" but "matter and energy in time and space." And since activity consists of matter, it must have properties of matter, just like any object made of matter. Hence, "mind object" - an "object in time and space." Heartland: >>1. Instances of the same type are distinguishable. >>1b. Instances are always isolated from different instances, including instances >>of >>the same type. Two different instances cannot occupy same space and time. Eric: > You're not allowing any grey area here, where there really needs to be > some. Two minds could be operating with a large portion of their > constituent objects in common, with a small amount of state that is > unique to each instance. If "two minds" operate "with a large portion of their constituent objects in common, with a small amount of state that is unique to each instance," then, by definition, they have become a single instance of a mind. It is not possible to merge two different minds into one instance, because the merger process would inevitably reach a "critical" point when one mind would be forced to "switch off/sacrifice" its own instance of subjective experience for another. Heartland: >>2. Activity itself cannot be stored in information. Eric: > No, but sufficient information about an activity can be stored to > continue the activity. True, but that doesn't change the fact that activity *itself* cannot be stored in information. Heartland: >>Conclusion: >>A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from the old >>one (4), so since (5), (1b), (2), the old instance experiences nothingness >>instead >>of whatever the new instance experiences. Death is irreversible despite the >>existence of any amount of information about the mind. Eric: > The old instance does not "experience nothingness". It does not > experience. That's basically the point I'm trying to make. :) Old instance experiences nothingness <=> Old instance doesn't exist. It's what cryonics patients "experience" at this time. According to my argument, this state will last forever. > The new instance continues the subjective experience > which the old instance started. Rather, it starts from the last state of the old instance and experiences an illusion of continuity. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 14:10:23 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:10:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell: "This seems quite clear (though it is not a position I myself hold); it also implies that you (like the rest of us) are currently under a death sentence (which you quite reasonably wish to avoid) - with no hope of cryonics providing a reprieve by your definition." Russell, if the argument seems clear, and yet it failed to convince you, then it should be clear to you what is wrong with it. If you know what that is, please don't hesitate to point that out. Russell: "Given that, impressive though the length of this argument has been, would it not be a more productive use of your time to do everything you can to further the progress of biological life extension?" You mean more productive than writing arguments like these? Perhaps arguments like these will someday help further the progress of biological life extension by steering that progress in the right direction. One can only hope. I don't think I like the idea of altering my behavior to appease the ghost of economics of time management with its goal to maximize productivity in shortest amount of time. This subgoal may not serve well the goal of maximizing the quality of my subjective experience (whatever remains of it, that is). I don't know. S. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 8 14:55:52 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:55:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605080755h4c69e3ffv52bc5cfcaf64a9c2@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: > > Russell, if the argument seems clear, and yet it failed to convince you, > then it > should be clear to you what is wrong with it. If you know what that is, > please > don't hesitate to point that out. Sure: you said intelligence is more like a brick than a symphony. It's not; it's more like a symphony ^.^ (I'm not proposing to join this debate - more than enough electrons have been spilled on it already; I'm happy to leave naming the pattern, thread and substrate views as my contribution. But I've answered the question you asked.) You mean more productive than writing arguments like these? Perhaps > arguments like > these will someday help further the progress of biological life extension > by > steering that progress in the right direction. One can only hope. Let's be honest here: we all know that anyone who's going to be persuaded by this argument to change their actions, has been persuaded already. If one finds it fun to continue such arguments anyway, then by all means; but let's call things entertainment when they are entertainment, and productive when they are productive, and not deceive ourselves about which is which. I don't think I like the idea of altering my behavior to appease the ghost > of > economics of time management with its goal to maximize productivity in > shortest > amount of time. This subgoal may not serve well the goal of maximizing the > quality > of my subjective experience (whatever remains of it, that is). I don't > know. > Your time is of course yours to dispose of as you choose, but I figure it's worth making this point (in general, not addressed only to you): We are evolved to want to spend a lot of time debating politics, religion and philosophy with our neighbors, to believe it's an important thing to do - because it _was_ important when our world consisted primarily of a tribe of 200 people and our chance of finding a mate and producing healthy offspring depended heavily on our social status within that tribe. This situation no longer holds, but we still have the instincts that evolved therein; it takes conscious thought to realize they are maladaptive and an effort of will to override them. What's important now is to bring about a better future (and preferably quickly enough that we - as many as possible of the six billion of us - live to see it). To bring it about not only as a plausible sounding argument, but a state of affairs that actually exists in the physical world. Arguing with fellow subscribers to extropy-chat can contribute to that goal when it helps bring about better understanding, but once each side is clear on the other's views and the reasoning behind them, once there's nothing new being said on the topic, the expected utility of further argument is low. Sitting down in the laboratory and doing the actual work; contributing money and time to support those who are doing so; marketing for better public appreciation and campaigning for more resources for those who are doing the work - those are the things that retain their value. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 8 13:59:40 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 06:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <005001c6725b$cbd67de0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi John, John wrote: "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as the hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can not possibly be true."... When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, I actually died yesterday." John, "...the idea that the you of yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been crazy." I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. John: "When there are far more holes than arguments it's time to look for another theory." Except in cases where the answer is staring you in the blood face, almost all theories begin with far more holes than arguments. Radical theories typically begin with only the faintest insight, and then build up from there. If a new idea was dismissed every time an inconsistency appeared, we would still be living in the 12th Century. John: "That's not the way science works, you don't decide what is true and then look for evidence of it, you look at the evidence and then form a conclusion." In almost all cases, the evidence alone is fragmentary and insufficient. You bring as much evidence together as you can and form a *hypothesis* which you then attempt to strengthen through experimentation or logic. Our conclusion as of right now represents our hypothesis. If this were a simple 3 part argument, we would prefer to move in a beginning-to-end direction. But this hypothesis is not simple or straightforward, it's ugly and counter-intuitive. If in the end, the logic is perfectly sound and the conclusion is proven true, it won't matter how we arrived at it; it's still valid, even if not pretty during construction. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich John K Clark wrote: A B Wrote: > it's important to keep in mind, that this conclusion/idea is still *very* > young. Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as the hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can not possibly be true. Mr. Heartland's could have presented a stronger case in the 19'th century than he can now, but even then the idea that the you of yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been crazy. > I don't deny that huge holes are missing from the argument When there are far more holes than arguments it's time to look for another theory. > Let's take the conclusion and work backwards to put together a convincing > argument, further supported by evidence if possible. That's not the way science works, you don't decide what is true and then look for evidence of it, you look at the evidence and then form a conclusion. John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 8 14:19:47 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 07:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060508141947.72293.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Russel, This is something that I'm unclear on also. If Heartland believes that he is already experiencing a "copy's illusion", and after revival his "copy's illusion" would remain, I don't understand his reason for refusing Cryonics. I intend to sign to up. Heartland, perhaps you can clarify your position on this for us. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Russell Wallace wrote: On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: [argument snipped] This seems quite clear (though it is not a position I myself hold); it also implies that you (like the rest of us) are currently under a death sentence (which you quite reasonably wish to avoid) - with no hope of cryonics providing a reprieve by your definition. Given that, impressive though the length of this argument has been, would it not be a more productive use of your time to do everything you can to further the progress of biological life extension? _______________________________________________ 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 jonkc at att.net Mon May 8 15:31:48 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:31:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007d01c672b4$952334b0$ac084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > mind is an instance of activity of matter in time and space. A keen grasp of the obvious, ALL activities happen at a time and at a place, the question is when do these activities do the same thing. I add 2 +2 at one time and one place with my calculator, I add 2+ 2 at another time and another place with another calculator; and both times I get the exact same 4. > a person with this disorder [multiple personality disorder] would maintain > the same identity (in the physical sense) for the duration of an instance > of his subjective experience regardless of personality changes You say 2 minds with completely different memories, completely different intelligence and completely different personalities have the "same identity", but before when we were talking about identical copies you said minds with identical memories identical intelligence and identical personalities do NOT have the "same identity". This can only be true if the phrase "same identity" is not applicable to the scientific method. In other words the phrase "same identity" has no consistent meaning in your vocabulary. > mind consists of *only* that activity of matter which directly implements > mind. You say this is a scientific theory so you must be precise and clear, exactly how direct must it be for you to call it "directly"? When a sodium or potassium ion enters a neuron does that "directly" implement the mind? The ion by itself will not cause the synapse to fire, it takes many to do that. Does a synapse firing "directly" implement the mind? One synapse firing will not form a memory, it takes lots of firings before Long Term Potentiation sets in. On the other hand the heart does directly influence the mind, if you remove the heart the mind will change very quickly and rather dramatically. Your distinction between directly and indirectly is arbitrary and artificial. > To say that mind is composed of neurons would be > analogous to a claim that flight is composed of plane's engines. To say mind is composed of matter of any sort is analogous to saying flight is composed of airplane. Gibberish. John K Clark From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 8 15:51:27 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:51:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <005001c6725b$cbd67de0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer> <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605080851l53366897g988a6b6a6576a577@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/06, A B wrote: > > Hi John, > > John wrote: > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as > the > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can > not possibly be true."... > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) conclusion > which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I doubt any philosopher > from the past has stood before his peers and claimed with a straight face: > "Though I appear to you to be alive, I actually died yesterday." > > Jeffrey - This topic is thousands of years old. For examples, google "Ship of Theseus." - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From exi at syzygy.com Mon May 8 17:00:10 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 8 May 2006 17:00:10 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <20060508170010.6969.qmail@syzygy.com> Eric: >> So, can we restrict it somewhat and say that the mind object is >> composed of all of the neurons in a single body? Heartland: >But that wouldn't be correct. To say that mind is composed of neurons would be >analogous to a claim that flight is composed of plane's engines. But I didn't say "mind is composed of neurons", I said "mind *object* is composed of [...] neurons". I'm trying to use your terminology here. You have made a distinction between mind (an activity) and mind object (the physical stuff involved in that activity). I'm trying to figure out which physical stuff is important enough to warrant being included in the mind object. So, let's consider the entirety of all of the neurons in a body as a physical object, and call it the "nervous system". We're excluding glial cells here, otherwise we'd have most of the mass of the brain, and that would keep brain object from being distinct enough from mind object to be useful. What relationship does "nervous system" have to "mind object"? Is it a subset, a superset, do they intersect, or not? >[...] >If "two minds" operate "with a large portion of their constituent objects in >common, with a small amount of state that is unique to each instance," then, by >definition, they have become a single instance of a mind. What if two mind objects start out as separate, then merge one percent of their hardware, so 99% of each mind is distinct, and 1% shared? Then we continue the merging until it is 99% shared and 1% distinct. This process must involve grey areas where it becomes difficult to talk about the separate identity of each of the mind objects. >It is not possible to merge two different minds into one instance, because the >merger process would inevitably reach a "critical" point when one mind would be >forced to "switch off/sacrifice" its own instance of subjective experience for >another. That depends on how the merger process takes place. Again, you're trying to describe a grey area with a binary distinction. It just doesn't work. >> No, but sufficient information about an activity can be stored to >> continue the activity. > >True, but that doesn't change the fact that activity *itself* cannot be stored in >information. Activity is not information, but can be encoded in information. You're placing activity in the supreme position as the defining characteristic of mind, but you run headlong into the Planck interval argument again. There is no activity between Planck intervals. Activity is what we label as the change in information content over time. Activity can be slowed, stopped, and resumed. It's only a question of how long the delay is. >> The old instance does not "experience nothingness". It does not >> experience. > >That's basically the point I'm trying to make. :) Old instance experiences >nothingness <=> Old instance doesn't exist. > >It's what cryonics patients "experience" at this time. According to my argument, >this state will last forever. > >> The new instance continues the subjective experience >> which the old instance started. > >Rather, it starts from the last state of the old instance and experiences an >illusion of continuity. Ok, the old instance is dead. The new instance only thinks it's a continuation of the old one. If we use the model of cryonics where the actual brain of a suspendee is revived as a biological entity, then the neurons that are involved in the new instance are the same as the neurons in the old instance. All that has happened is that we've slowed the activity of mind to a stop, then restarted it. For a while it was stopped. So what? Back to Planck: For a while between Planck intervals it was stopped. Again, so what? No one cares at that time scale. There is no bright line where this description changes fundamentally. Why should anyone care at the new time scale? We can track in 4 space the trajectories of all of the atoms involved in the mind object through the suspension period. They slow down, they speed up. Their identity does not change. The activity of those atoms does not stop, it only slows. At what point is the atomic activity no longer sufficient to maintain the continuity of the mind object? -eric From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 8 17:21:15 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605080851l53366897g988a6b6a6576a577@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060508172115.52086.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Jef, I looked over the first few Google entries under "Ship of Theseus". It seems to be a more general description of the difficulties of establishing the identity of things that change; I didn't find a specific reference to the debate we are having here except possibly through a quote from Heraclitus: "No man can cross the same river twice, because neither the man nor the river are the same." But, I couldn't fully interpret that implying that the "first man" died, and the "second man" is a copy. I interpreted it as saying that a human will change over time, eg. a child growing into an adult. But, my interpretation could be wrong. But, you could easily be right, and this particular hypothesis might be very old. I simply assumed it was not, because until now, no one on the list suggested it was. If it is very old, perhaps the "answer" can already be found somewhere ;-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Jef Allbright wrote: On 5/8/06, A B wrote: Hi John, John wrote: "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as old as the hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves this can not possibly be true."... When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, I actually died yesterday." Jeffrey - This topic is thousands of years old. For examples, google "Ship of Theseus." - Jef _______________________________________________ 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 Mon May 8 17:35:43 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605080755h4c69e3ffv52bc5cfcaf64a9c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060508173543.57767.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Russell, I think Russell makes a good point. Perhaps this discussion could best be conducted off-list, so that more pro-actionary things can be discussed here. That's just my 2 cents. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich P.S. I still certainly hope that everyone here makes Cryonics arrangements, if they are able and interested. Russell Wallace wrote: On 5/8/06, Heartland wrote: Russell, if the argument seems clear, and yet it failed to convince you, then it should be clear to you what is wrong with it. If you know what that is, please don't hesitate to point that out. Sure: you said intelligence is more like a brick than a symphony. It's not; it's more like a symphony ^.^ (I'm not proposing to join this debate - more than enough electrons have been spilled on it already; I'm happy to leave naming the pattern, thread and substrate views as my contribution. But I've answered the question you asked.) You mean more productive than writing arguments like these? Perhaps arguments like these will someday help further the progress of biological life extension by steering that progress in the right direction. One can only hope. Let's be honest here: we all know that anyone who's going to be persuaded by this argument to change their actions, has been persuaded already. If one finds it fun to continue such arguments anyway, then by all means; but let's call things entertainment when they are entertainment, and productive when they are productive, and not deceive ourselves about which is which. I don't think I like the idea of altering my behavior to appease the ghost of economics of time management with its goal to maximize productivity in shortest amount of time. This subgoal may not serve well the goal of maximizing the quality of my subjective experience (whatever remains of it, that is). I don't know. Your time is of course yours to dispose of as you choose, but I figure it's worth making this point (in general, not addressed only to you): We are evolved to want to spend a lot of time debating politics, religion and philosophy with our neighbors, to believe it's an important thing to do - because it _was_ important when our world consisted primarily of a tribe of 200 people and our chance of finding a mate and producing healthy offspring depended heavily on our social status within that tribe. This situation no longer holds, but we still have the instincts that evolved therein; it takes conscious thought to realize they are maladaptive and an effort of will to override them. What's important now is to bring about a better future (and preferably quickly enough that we - as many as possible of the six billion of us - live to see it). To bring it about not only as a plausible sounding argument, but a state of affairs that actually exists in the physical world. Arguing with fellow subscribers to extropy-chat can contribute to that goal when it helps bring about better understanding, but once each side is clear on the other's views and the reasoning behind them, once there's nothing new being said on the topic, the expected utility of further argument is low. Sitting down in the laboratory and doing the actual work; contributing money and time to support those who are doing so; marketing for better public appreciation and campaigning for more resources for those who are doing the work - those are the things that retain their value. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 8 17:53:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:53:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> On May 7, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Heartland wrote: > I. Terms and definitions: > > Subjective experience - Collective sense of perception and/or > cognition. > Process/activity by which mind experiences reality. What is the "collective" for? Collective among what? Would "sum of" be better? What about self-identity or reflection? > > Death/Nonexistence - Subjective experience of nothingness. Absence > of that part of > mind process which is responsible for producing subjective > experience. (A type of > subjective experience one would have if one did not exist at all). > Death is a subjective experience? Really? I thought you agreed it is a lack of any experience. How can that which does not exist have any experience? > Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is > the presence of > that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for > producing subjective > experience. Huh? This is the total of your definition of "life"? > > Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space > consisting of all > matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively > involved in producing > the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter > and energy in > time and space. > This is circular and meaningless. A delimited subset of all matter "involved in producing the mind" cannot be a definition of "mind". > Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that > consists of all > matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary > to support its > existence. What? You have mind as a material object as far as I can tell but brain as some other material object not part of "mind object"? This is confusing. You need to have mind as a process and not an object to make this work I think. > > Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that > object. It is a > list of all present space-time locations of all matter that > currently makes up the > object. > What is this useful for? There is only one space-time location for an object at any moment. Are you speaking of across the entire existence of said object? > Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and > space. > Nope. You can't have identity be the same as the trajectory because then you leave the question "trajectory of what" unanswered. > Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For > example, apples and > oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. > All three are types. Apple and Orange are more specific types of Fruit. > Instance of a type - Individual object that belongs to the same > type. For example, > an apple is an instance of fruit type and an orange is also an > instance of fruit > type. > > ------ > II. The argument: With the above broken definitions you have no basis for an argument. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 8 18:20:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:20:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8460289F-3DE6-4B5F-9421-843BC2C39619@mac.com> On May 8, 2006, at 6:59 AM, A B wrote: > Hi John, > > John wrote: > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as > old as the > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves > this can > not possibly be true."... > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) > conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I > doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, > I actually died yesterday." > > John, > "...the idea that the you of > yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been > crazy." > > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that > alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. In absence of a convincing argument, which certainly has not been provided, we have quite sufficient grounds for dismissing these assertions as nonsense. Can we move on to something productive now? - samantha From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 8 18:51:43 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <8460289F-3DE6-4B5F-9421-843BC2C39619@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060508185143.66566.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, It is equally inappropriate to claim that the idea is "nonsense", unless you have relevant evidence or a counter-argument. However, I agree that there are more pressing matters at this time. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 8, 2006, at 6:59 AM, A B wrote: > Hi John, > > John wrote: > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as > old as the > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves > this can > not possibly be true."... > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) > conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I > doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, > I actually died yesterday." > > John, > "...the idea that the you of > yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been > crazy." > > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that > alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. In absence of a convincing argument, which certainly has not been provided, we have quite sufficient grounds for dismissing these assertions as nonsense. Can we move on to something productive now? - samantha _______________________________________________ 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 jonkc at att.net Mon May 8 20:33:20 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:33:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer> Jeffrey Herrlich > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that alone is > not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. That' true, I've always loved the Niels Bohr quote: " Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true". However when I say Mr. Heartland's ideas are crazy I don't just mean they are very odd, I mean they are illogical and not connected to reality. According to him if I went to the dentist yesterday to have a tooth pulled and had a anesthetic then I died and today I am only one day old, I am going to the dentist again tomorrow but Mr. Hartland would advise me not to or the same horrible thing would happen to me again. The disconnect from reality is that apart from the loss of a tooth nothing horrible happened to me yesterday so there is no reason to fear the dentist tomorrow. If I "die" tomorrow in the same way I "died" yesterday then I don't care, the word has lost its power and meaning. > I doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, I > actually died yesterday." I couldn't say that with a straight face either, but I know one man who could. John K Clark From ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 8 20:10:34 2006 From: ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk (Pes Udoname) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 21:10:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Introduction Message-ID: <20060508201034.96590.qmail@web26404.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Ok, slightly unsure about this as there seems to be something about extropy shuting down, so this might be a bad time to make an introduction post, but anyway. Also after the introduction bit I would like some advice about what to study.. Introduction bit: I'm, currently at university in the UK studying on a maths degree. Due to being exposed to a lot of science early on, as well as reading serious S.F., I first realised about transhumanism several years ago, but assumed the technology would be a long time in the future. Also anyone I mentioned my thoughts about life extension to reacted hostility and I assumed no-one thought like me. Then while doing some research for the computing section of my degree I came across the singularity institute site, and realised that there are people who think like me, and also that the singularity is much closer then I thought. I folowed links and eventually ended up here. >From my own egotistical point of view, being young I am less worried about life extiention and cryonics then I am about the singularity, which will (hopefully) happen before I get old. I think the risks of an unfreindly singularity are best avoided by getting there first, and by not giving AIs equal rights as humans/posthumans. And then there is the problem of what exactly consionusness is, and to cap it all the bioconservatives want us dead..... I think I am immune to future shock by now. I want to live forever, or at least a mind-bogglingly long time. I also want to be uploaded, but it is important to do this in a way that ensures that it is you that is uploaded, not just a copy. Once I finish my degree I want to get involved in recearch in some transhumanist field, but I'm not sure what... any advice will be appreacated. I am taking this seriously. I want to get invoved and I am prepared to devote time to whatever will help the singularity. What else is there to say? Philosophically I am a weak athist and libertarian. I take omega 3 and eat a healthy diet, but it's frustrating being healthy while at uni when your friends drink and smoke and take 'shrooms... I can't wait for the future. "Say goodbye to gravity and say goodbye to death, Hello to eternity and live for every breath....." Advice bit: I am currently worried that my maths course has little relivence to real life in any way. I am doing some computing, but it is getting frustrating the ammount of time I have to spend debugging stuff. So what should I specialise in? Is there any point in pure maths? Does knowing about Riemann intergration help with anything? I would like to do somthing that would help towards transhumanism/ singulartarianism in the future. Options I have: Pure maths like group theory, Galois theory etc Pure maths like Riemann intergration etc, all of which seems too rigorous to me Applied maths Physics- quantum mechanics, thermodynamics Computing - formal logic, computer algebra Computing - actually coding stuff (very annoying) Any advice ASAP would be very much appreciated. :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 8 21:07:18 2006 From: ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk (Pes Udoname) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:07:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro Message-ID: <20060508210718.89077.qmail@web26406.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Ok, slightly unsure about this as there seems to be something about extropy shuting down, so this might be a bad time to make an introduction post, but anyway. Also after the introduction bit I would like some advice about what to study.. Introduction bit: I'm, currently at university in the UK studying on a maths degree. Due to being exposed to a lot of science early on, as well as reading serious S.F., I first realised about transhumanism several years ago, but assumed the technology would be a long time in the future. Also anyone I mentioned my thoughts about life extension to reacted hostility and I assumed no-one thought like me. Then while doing some research for the computing section of my degree I came across the singularity institute site, and realised that there are people who think like me, and also that the singularity is much closer then I thought. I folowed links and eventually ended up here. >From my own egotistical point of view, being young I am less worried about life extiention and cryonics then I am about the singularity, which will (hopefully) happen before I get old. I think the risks of an unfreindly singularity are best avoided by getting there first, and by not giving AIs equal rights as humans/posthumans. And then there is the problem of what exactly consionusness is, and to cap it all the bioconservatives want us dead..... I think I am immune to future shock by now. I want to live forever, or at least a mind-bogglingly long time. I also want to be uploaded, but it is important to do this in a way that ensures that it is you that is uploaded, not just a copy. Once I finish my degree I want to get involved in recearch in some transhumanist field, but I'm not sure what... any advice will be appreacated. I am taking this seriously. I want to get invoved and I am prepared to devote time to whatever will help the singularity. What else is there to say? Philosophically I am a weak athist and libertarian. I take omega 3 and eat a healthy diet, but it's frustrating being healthy while at uni when your friends drink and smoke and take 'shrooms... I can't wait for the future. "Say goodbye to gravity and say goodbye to death, Hello to eternity and live for every breath....." Advice bit: I am currently worried that my maths course has little relivence to real life in any way. I am doing some computing, but it is getting frustrating the ammount of time I have to spend debugging stuff. So what should I specialise in? Is there any point in pure maths? Does knowing about Riemann intergration help with anything? I would like to do somthing that would help towards transhumanism/ singulartarianism in the future. Options I have: Pure maths like group theory, Galois theory etc Pure maths like Riemann intergration etc, all of which seems too rigorous to me Applied maths Physics- quantum mechanics, thermodynamics Computing - formal logic, computer algebra Computing - actually coding stuff (very annoying) Any advice ASAP would be very much appreciated. :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk Mon May 8 21:17:46 2006 From: ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk (Pes Udoname) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:17:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro Message-ID: <20060508211746.87849.qmail@web26412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Ok, slightly unsure about this as there seems to be something about extropy shuting down, so this might be a bad time to make an introduction post, but anyway. Also after the introduction bit I would like some advice about what to study.. Introduction bit: I'm, currently at university in the UK studying on a maths degree. Due to being exposed to a lot of science early on, as well as reading serious S.F., I first realised about transhumanism several years ago, but assumed the technology would be a long time in the future. Also anyone I mentioned my thoughts about life extension to reacted hostility and I assumed no-one thought like me. Then while doing some research for the computing section of my degree I came across the singularity institute site, and realised that there are people who think like me, and also that the singularity is much closer then I thought. I folowed links and eventually ended up here. >From my own egotistical point of view, being young I am less worried about life extiention and cryonics then I am about the singularity, which will (hopefully) happen before I get old. I think the risks of an unfreindly singularity are best avoided by getting there first, and by not giving AIs equal rights as humans/posthumans. And then there is the problem of what exactly consionusness is, and to cap it all the bioconservatives want us dead..... I think I am immune to future shock by now. I want to live forever, or at least a mind-bogglingly long time. I also want to be uploaded, but it is important to do this in a way that ensures that it is you that is uploaded, not just a copy. Once I finish my degree I want to get involved in recearch in some transhumanist field, but I'm not sure what... any advice will be appreacated. I am taking this seriously. I want to get invoved and I am prepared to devote time to whatever will help the singularity. What else is there to say? Philosophically I am a weak athist and libertarian. I take omega 3 and eat a healthy diet, but it's frustrating being healthy while at uni when your friends drink and smoke and take 'shrooms... I can't wait for the future. "Say goodbye to gravity and say goodbye to death, Hello to eternity and live for every breath....." Advice bit: I am currently worried that my maths course has little relivence to real life in any way. I am doing some computing, but it is getting frustrating the ammount of time I have to spend debugging stuff. So what should I specialise in? Is there any point in pure maths? Does knowing about Riemann intergration help with anything? I would like to do somthing that would help towards transhumanism/ singulartarianism in the future. Options I have: Pure maths like group theory, Galois theory etc Pure maths like Riemann intergration etc, all of which seems too rigorous to me Applied maths Physics- quantum mechanics, thermodynamics Computing - formal logic, computer algebra Computing - actually coding stuff (very annoying) Any advice ASAP would be very much appreciated. :-) --------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Mon May 8 22:05:18 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 23:05:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445FC09E.1060700@lineone.net> This is just getting worse and worse. Heartland writes: "According to the definition, mind consists of *only* that activity of matter which directly implements mind" So X consists of /activity which implements/ X? ben From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 23:35:12 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:35:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <445FC09E.1060700@lineone.net> Message-ID: > Heartland writes: > "According to the definition, mind consists of *only* that activity of > matter which directly implements mind" Ben: > So X consists of /activity which implements/ X? No, what I actually said was that X consists of **Y of Z** which directly implements X. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Mon May 8 23:51:07 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:51:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <005001c6725b$cbd67de0$ab0a4e0c@MyComputer><20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10605080851l53366897g988a6b6a6576a577@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) conclusion > which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I doubt any philosopher > from the past has stood before his peers and claimed with a straight face: > "Though I appear to you to be alive, I actually died yesterday." Jef: "This topic is thousands of years old. For examples, google "Ship of Theseus" Thanks for this great link. Yes, it appears that this *topic* or problem is thousands years old. However, the *solution* is just few years old and some *conclusions* based on that solution are months or weeks old. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 00:11:43 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 20:11:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Jeffrey: >> I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that alone is >> not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. John: > That' true, I've always loved the Niels Bohr quote: > " Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true". However when > I say Mr. Heartland's ideas are crazy I don't just mean they are very odd, I > mean they are illogical and not connected to reality. Please don't make such empty statements without being specific. Which points in the argument are illogical and why? Which are not connected to reality? Show, don't tell. S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 00:30:56 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 20:30:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605080755h4c69e3ffv52bc5cfcaf64a9c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Heartland: > Russell, if the argument seems clear, and yet it failed to convince you, > then it should be clear to you what is wrong with it. If you know what that is, > please don't hesitate to point that out. Russell: "Sure: you said intelligence is more like a brick than a symphony. It's not; it's more like a symphony " Except I didn't say "intelligence," but "mind." What I meant by "mind is more like a brick" was that mind requires matter so it must have properties of matter, but it's not *just* matter. It's *matter in time and space.* (In the next version of the argument I'm definitely dropping the terms like "object" and replacing "matter in time and space" by a single term to avoid the confusion with static "matter.") S. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 01:39:55 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 21:39:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: Heartland: >> Subjective experience - Collective sense of perception and/or >> cognition. >> Process/activity by which mind experiences reality. Samantha: > What is the "collective" for? Collective among what? Would "sum of" > be better? Sure, "sum of" could work just as well. >What about self-identity or reflection? All part of the "sum." Heartland: >> Death/Nonexistence - Subjective experience of nothingness. Absence >> of that part of >> mind process which is responsible for producing subjective >> experience. (A type of >> subjective experience one would have if one did not exist at all). Samantha: > Death is a subjective experience? Really? I thought you agreed it > is a lack of any experience. How can that which does not exist have > any experience? The point of "you would experience nothingness" is to help the audience imagine that experience. I'm just using poetic license here to make that particular point across. It's absolutely the case that, "subjective experience of nothingness <=> subjective experience doesn't exist." Or just "subjective experience doesn't exist." Heartland: >> Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is >> the presence of >> that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for >> producing subjective >> experience. Samantha: > Huh? This is the total of your definition of "life"? Remember that this argument deals exclusively, as it should, with the physical substance of life, not its *content* or meanings of that content. So, physically, that's precisely what life is. Heartland: >> Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space >> consisting of all >> matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively >> involved in producing >> the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter >> and energy in >> time and space. Samantha: > This is circular and meaningless. A delimited subset of all matter > "involved in producing the mind" cannot be a definition of "mind". You misinterpreted the definition. Mind isn't a "subset of all matter." It's a subset of all "activity of matter in time and space," that produces the mind. There's a huge difference. I will adjust this definition to better reflect the true meaning. Heartland: >> Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that >> consists of all >> matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary >> to support its >> existence. Samantha: > What? You have mind as a material object as far as I can tell but > brain as some other material object not part of "mind object"? This > is confusing. You need to have mind as a process and not an object > to make this work I think. I hear you loud and clear. There will be no more "objects" in the next iteration of this argument. It's just too confusing to people and makes them miss the whole point. Mind, as any process/activity, requires matter, among other things, to exist. When I say "mind object," it gives the audience wrong impression that mind is *just* static matter. It's not fair to "other things that allow activity to exist" to leave them out of the term. Heartland: >> Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that >> object. It is a >> list of all present space-time locations of all matter that >> currently makes up the >> object. Samantha: > What is this useful for? There is only one space-time location for > an object at any moment. Are you speaking of across the entire > existence of said object? Objective observer uses trajectories to distinguish between instances of matter or activities of matter in time and space, including instances of the same type, across the entire existence of an instance. Heartland: >> Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and >> space. Samantha: > Nope. You can't have identity be the same as the trajectory because > then you leave the question "trajectory of what" unanswered. But that answer is always automatically assumed before the process of distinguishing between instances can begin. Hence, "identity of an object," instead of "identity." We can't distinguish between things if we don't already know what these things are in the first place. Heartland: >> Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For >> example, apples and >> oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. Samantha: > All three are types. Apple and Orange are more specific types of Fruit. They are, but their instances would require matter to exist. Types are dimensionless and matterless so they can't store matter. In other words, types (information) do not have physical presence in this universe. Only instances actually exist. Samantha: > With the above broken definitions you have no basis for an argument. I'll just need to slightly adjust few descriptions, not meanings, that's all. Thank you for your feedback. S. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 9 00:43:32 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 17:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible - unless you are a cute little moss piglet. In-Reply-To: <445FC09E.1060700@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20060509004332.81027.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Behold the "water bears" aka "moss piglets" - phylum tardigrada. Yeah, they have their own phylum all to themselves with about 650 representative species. The videos on the first site are exceptionally cool. http://www.tardigrades.com/ http://www.iwu.edu/~tardisdp/tardigrade_facts.html When the going gets rough, they can just shut down metabolism to undetectable levels in a process called cryptobiosis that theoretically last for a century or more. Then when things start looking up again, they come back to life and pick up right where they left off. They make their own cyroprotectant that lets them run around at temperatures below freezing. They can survive, high and low pressures, heat, cold, dessication, acids, solvents, and tons of radiation. Yeah so what? Lots of microorganisms make ultra-resistant spores that cheat death you say? Well the really cool thing about these guys is that they don't form spores but instead they turn into little corpses called tuns that look like little mummified versions of themselves. Furthermore they are not bacteria, not fungi, and are not even unicellular organisms, but bona fide ANIMALS composed of cells and organs. They have eyes, muscles, legs, claws, and even multi-lobed BRAINS. They come in male and female varieties and have red-hot-animal-sex. I wonder if they subscribe to the thread or pattern view of consciousness? :) 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 Tue May 9 02:27:41 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:27:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> <20060508170010.6969.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: >Eric: >>> So, can we restrict it somewhat and say that the mind object is >>> composed of all of the neurons in a single body? > > Heartland: >>But that wouldn't be correct. To say that mind is composed of neurons would be >>analogous to a claim that flight is composed of plane's engines. Eric: > But I didn't say "mind is composed of neurons", I said "mind *object* > is composed of [...] neurons". I'm trying to use your terminology > here. You have made a distinction between mind (an activity) and mind > object (the physical stuff involved in that activity). I'm trying to > figure out which physical stuff is important enough to warrant being > included in the mind object. Okay, I see what you were getting at. I think that the stuff that mind is made of looks more like electrons than neurons. And if we dig to the bottom of it, it is energy. (I refrained from using energy in the argument to avoid any more confusion, but, ultimately, a true argument should use energy.) Eric: > So, let's consider the entirety of all of the neurons in a body as a > physical object, and call it the "nervous system". We're excluding > glial cells here, otherwise we'd have most of the mass of the brain, > and that would keep brain object from being distinct enough from mind > object to be useful. > What relationship does "nervous system" have to "mind object"?> > Is it a subset, a superset, do they intersect, or not? "Nervous system" is a superset of "mind object." Heartland: >>If "two minds" operate "with a large portion of their constituent objects in >>common, with a small amount of state that is unique to each instance," then, by >>definition, they have become a single instance of a mind. Eric: > What if two mind objects start out as separate, then merge one percent > of their hardware, so 99% of each mind is distinct, and 1% shared? > Then we continue the merging until it is 99% shared and 1% distinct. > This process must involve grey areas where it becomes difficult to > talk about the separate identity of each of the mind objects. Heartland: >>It is not possible to merge two different minds into one instance, because the >>merger process would inevitably reach a "critical" point when one mind would be >>forced to "switch off/sacrifice" its own instance of subjective experience for >>another. Eric: > That depends on how the merger process takes place. Again, you're > trying to describe a grey area with a binary distinction. It just > doesn't work. Why? Heartland: >>>>Activity itself cannot be stored by information. Eric: >>> No, but sufficient information about an activity can be stored to >>> continue the activity. Heartland: >>True, but that doesn't change the fact that activity *itself* cannot be stored in >>information. Eric: > Activity is not information, but can be encoded in information. Only *information about an activity* can be encoded in information, not that activity *itself.* Eric: > You're placing activity in the supreme position as the defining > characteristic of mind, but you run headlong into the Planck interval > argument again. There is no activity between Planck intervals. But there exists potential energy during PI that causes that activity to continue. Eric: > Activity is what we label as the change in information content over > time. And that "change" is what mind physically is. Eric: >>> The new instance continues the subjective experience >>> which the old instance started. Heartland: >>Rather, it starts from the last state of the old instance and experiences an >>illusion of continuity. Eric: > Ok, the old instance is dead. The new instance only thinks it's a > continuation of the old one. > If we use the model of cryonics where the actual brain of a suspendee > is revived as a biological entity, then the neurons that are involved > in the new instance are the same as the neurons in the old instance. > All that has happened is that we've slowed the activity of mind to a > stop, then restarted it. What actually happened was that all the energy that powered that activity has dissipated, causing irreversible end of an instance. Eric: > For a while it was stopped. So what? You will remain dead forever. Thanks for the feedback, Eric. S. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue May 9 03:07:11 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 23:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... Message-ID: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm trying to understand cryonics a bit better and I had a few questions. (These questions are on a broad sense.) Is mind solely information and is the brain just matter? Will reversal cryonics only be made available when mind experiences will be able to be transfered and/or when the matter can be transfered? If I'm not understanding clearly please let me know, it would be appreciated. Thanks Anna --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail --------------------------------- Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From exi at syzygy.com Tue May 9 04:17:52 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 9 May 2006 04:17:52 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060508055831.4873.qmail@syzygy.com> <20060508170010.6969.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <20060509041752.12429.qmail@syzygy.com> Heartland: >Okay, I see what you were getting at. I think that the stuff that mind is made of >looks more like electrons than neurons. And if we dig to the bottom of it, it is >energy. (I refrained from using energy in the argument to avoid any more confusion, >but, ultimately, a true argument should use energy.) and: >"Nervous system" is a superset of "mind object." Good. That makes sense to me. Mitochondria (among other things) within neurons are part of the support structure for the neuron, but are not fundamental to the process of producing mind. If the mind is running on a different type of substrate there may be no mitochondria. A silicon computer simulating a neuron need not include such support structures if the simulation is of mind operations rather than metabolic functions. My understanding is that the important pieces of activity are the following: Electrical impulses polarize the cellular membrane (change the relative electrical potential of the inside versus the outside). Polarization affects the shape of ion channels in the membrane allowing charged particles to diffuse through the channels. That diffusion maintains and propagates electrical impulses. When an electrical impulse reaches a synapse, the altered polarization causes conformational changes to molecules embedded in the cell wall, resulting in the release of neurotransmitters into the synaptic gap. The neurotransmitters diffuse across the synaptic gap to the another neuron, where they bind to receptor molecules on the outer surface of the cellular membrane. Those molecules change their conformation in response to binding the neurotransmitter. That conformational change extends to the interior of the post-synaptic neuron where it activates enzymes which perform chemical reactions within the cell. Those reactions change the concentration of various chemicals within the post-synaptic neuron. The concentrations control various functions within the cell. The cell may become more or less likely to fire an electrical impulse as a result of the change in concentration. The cell may become more susceptible to firing in the future. The cell may manufacture more receptors to strengthen the synaptic connection. The cell may begin growing new dendrites which can form new connections with other neurons. These changes occur at various time scales, and control processes that occur at similar time scales. Single electrical impulses can propagate from one neuron to another on the order of milliseconds. Changes in the synaptic strength can last for minutes or hours, and result in the formation of active memories. Permanent changes in synaptic strength, or the number of synapses result in long term memories. In addition to the release of neurotransmitters affecting cells across a synaptic gap, neurotransmitters and other hormones can diffuse through the brain and change the behavior of larger numbers of neurons in a much less localized manner. So, the crucial pieces of information are: What are the physical locations of all of the synapses and the neural cell walls that connect them? This is needed to deal with diffuse neurotransmitters. What neurons connect to what other neurons? What are the type and strength of all of the synapses in each of those connections? This is necessary to deal with the propagation of electrical impulses. What are the concentrations and concentration gradients of the active chemicals within and around each neuron? This is necessary to model the chemical changes which mediate the slower changes in the neurons. These are the things which have to be included in a "mind object". Heartland: >>>It is not possible to merge two different minds into one instance, because the >>>merger process would inevitably reach a "critical" point when one mind would be >>>forced to "switch off/sacrifice" its own instance of subjective experience for >>>another. Eric: >> That depends on how the merger process takes place. Again, you're >> trying to describe a grey area with a binary distinction. It just >> doesn't work. Heartland: >Why? Because the merger process can be gradual. If you pour a bucket of red paint and a bucket of blue paint into a third bucket, at some point you end up with a bucket of purple paint. When was there no longer a bucket of red paint? Heartland: >Only *information about an activity* can be encoded in information, not that >activity *itself.* Yes. Activity is embodied in matter in motion. Matter can be set into motion based on information. Information can be generated based on the activity of matter. The two are equivalent ways of looking at the same system. I think you may not accept the above statement. I think it is the key to why people are disagreeing with you. We record and reproduce activity all the time, but not yet at the fidelity necessary to reproduce mind. Can you accept that we will be able to do that? Heartland: >What actually happened was that all the energy that powered that activity has >dissipated, causing irreversible end of an instance. No! The energy is not all dissipated. The kinetic energy has mostly (but not totally) dissipated. There remains a significant amount of potential energy. How do we know this? It took energy -- metabolism -- to construct the cells of the brain. That energy is still there. A brain is at a higher potential energy than a cloud of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen atoms. They're held together by the molecular binding energy of the bonds between the atoms. And, there's information content in those bonds. They tell how the brain would have reacted to a stimulus while it was alive. Eric: >> For a while it was stopped. So what? Heartland: >You will remain dead forever. Not if we can restart the activity. The instance retains it's identity as long as the information encoding the mind can still be used to reconstruct the mind. >Thanks for the feedback, Eric. No problem. -eric From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 04:47:34 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:47:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><8d71341e0605080535s438c8394v6370680a209ecd09@mail.gmail.com><8d71341e0605080755h4c69e3ffv52bc5cfcaf64a9c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001801c67323$b57c2720$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > What I meant by "mind is more like a brick" was that mind requires matter > so it must have properties of matter A symphony requires matter too. Hardness requires matter also, so does wetness, but any matter will do, neither requires a particular bit of matter, and neither is an object, and neither is a noun. > but it's not *just* matter. It's *matter in time and space.* You keep saying that over and over as if you've made the discovery of the ages, yes things happen at a time and at a place, chimpanzees have figured that out, in fact so have sea slugs, so can you go on to something more interesting. > In the next version of the argument I'm definitely dropping the terms like > "object" and replacing "matter in time and space" I know it doesn't sound as cool but unless you can tell us about matter not in time and space why not just call it matter, or better yet use one of Richard Feynman's favorite words "stuff". Feynman's ideas were so profound he didn't need pompous words to make them sound intelligent. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 04:54:36 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:54:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna: > Is mind solely information and is the brain just > matter? The physical essence of mind is an activity of matter in time and space. Information cannot store activity itself while static matter by itself isn't activity so a frozen, static brain matter plus information about the structure of that brain is not enough to preserve an instance of a mind because laws of physics simply do not allow it. It's not a conventional view even among transhumanists, but I'm confident that with time it will be accepted as an undisputed fact. Even though an *instance* of mind cannot be preserved, cryonics should be able to preserve the *type* of the mind. You just need to decide what's more important to you, your type or your instance. If it's type then I think it would be a good idea to sign up for suspension. If it's instance, then I'm afraid that time travel technology is the only hope. S. From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 9 05:10:49 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:10:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:54:36AM -0400, Heartland wrote: > Anna: Anna: don't listen to him, he's confused. > > Is mind solely information and is the brain just > > matter? > > The physical essence of mind is an activity of matter in time and space. > Information cannot store activity itself while static matter by itself isn't > activity so a frozen, static brain matter plus information about the structure of > that brain is not enough to preserve an instance of a mind because laws of physics > simply do not allow it. It's not a conventional view even among transhumanists, but > I'm confident that with time it will be accepted as an undisputed fact. > > Even though an *instance* of mind cannot be preserved, cryonics should be able to > preserve the *type* of the mind. You just need to decide what's more important to > you, your type or your instance. If it's type then I think it would be a good idea > to sign up for suspension. If it's instance, then I'm afraid that time travel > technology is the only hope. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 05:21:47 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 01:21:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <006c01c67328$97f66030$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" Wrote: > it appears that this *topic* or problem is thousands years old. However, > the *solution* is just few years old and some *conclusions* based on that > solution are months or weeks old. Never let it be said that Mr. Heartland does not have a sense of humor. > Which points in the argument are illogical and why? Which are not > connected to reality? Show, don't tell. Just yesterday at his request I posted eleven very specific points in his theory that were illogical or not connected to reality. And he did respond to my objections, his responded with ten words, that's less than one word per point, all he said was "Some of it is correct, most of it is not". Apparently Mr. Heartland's long term memory is not very good for he seems to have forgotten all about it, for his benefit I repeat them now. I'm hoping he writes a response immediately after reading them before he forgets again, perhaps then he can break the one word per point response barrier. 1) Mr. Heartland says having someone tomorrow who remembers being you today is not sufficient to conclude you have survived into tomorrow, he says more is required but he never explains what or why. This leads to rather odd conclusions, like anesthesia is equivalent to death and like you may have died yesterday and not even know it. Mr. Hartland thinks your subjectivity is an "illusion" created by a copy of you, Mr. Hartland says he hates this and thinks it is a great tragedy, but even if true he never explains why this is supposed to be upsetting. 2) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but he ignores the fact that our atoms get recycled every few weeks. 3) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but science can find no difference between one atom and another. Mr. Heartland points out, quite correctly, that subjectivity and consciousness are what we should be concerned about, but then he says particular atoms are what makes our consciousness unique. It's true that the scientific method can not investigate consciousness directly so nobody will ever be able to prove the idea is wrong, nobody will ever prove that there isn't a difference between atoms that the scientific method can't detect, but theologians since the middle ages have been making the exact same argument about the existence of the human soul. It seems a little too pat that the only difference between atoms is something the scientific method can not see but nevertheless is of profound astronomical importance, it's just like saying atoms have souls. 4) Mr. Heartland says the history (or if you want to sound scientific brainy and cool "the space time trajectory") of atoms are what makes atoms unique; but many atoms have no history and even for those that do it is not permanent, the entire record of an atom's past exploits can be erased from the universe and it's not difficult to do. This is not theory, this has been proven in the lab and any theory that just ignores that fact can not be called scientific. 5) Mr. Heartland insists his theory is consistent and logically rigorous but he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest questions about it, like is A the original or B. Instead Mr. Heartland thinks informing us that A=A and B=B is sufficient. 6) Several times Mr. Heartland informed us that location is vital in determining which mind is which, but he never explained why because mind by itself can never determine it's location. Also Mr. Heartland never explains the position relative to what as we've known for over a century that absolute position is meaningless. 7) Mr. Heartland, wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or not" and then he wrote "My copy" is not me". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 8) Mr. Heartland wrote "Mind is not a brain" and he was absolutely correct about that, but then he said mind "is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 9) As noted above Mr. Heartland thinks mind is a "4-D mind object", but he is unable on unwilling to give the 4-D coordinates of the vital things the constitute mind, like fun or red or fast or logic or love or fear or the number eleven or my memory of yesterday. 10) Mr. Heartland wrote "creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type" but if so he never explained why two calculators the add 2 +2 would not produce answers that were profoundly different; and if they are profoundly different he never explained how it is possible to do science. 11) Mr. Heartland insists that if two CD's are synchronized and playing the same symphony then two symphonies are playing, but a CD is just a number thus there are always profound differences even between the same number, and 9 is not equal to 9. If true Mr. Heartland is unable to explain how it is nevertheless possible to do science. Finally I believe another reason many find it difficult to take Mr. Heartland seriously is his treatment of criticism, whenever somebody point out a flaw in his ideas he either ignores it, pleads persecution, or makes assurances without giving one bit of evidence. For example, the existence of Bose Einstein Condensations, the fact that Mr. Heartland's trajectories through space time are temporary things that are easy to erase would seem to blow a very large hole in his theory, but Mr. Heartland says it does not, in fact he says his theory "has nothing to do with Bose Einstein Condensations". Mr. Heartland does not explain how he reached this astonishing conclusion, we must just take it on faith. John K Clark From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 05:35:39 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 01:35:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen: "Anna: don't listen to him, he's confused." Personal opinions don't count. From my point of view you are very confused yourself. So what? Either provide an argument that proves my view wrong or don't say anything. Thank you. S. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue May 9 05:45:06 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:45:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/8/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Is mind solely information and is the brain just matter? > > Will reversal cryonics only be made available when > mind experiences will be able to be transfered > and/or when the matter can be transfered? > For all practical purposes one can consider the "brain" (as in the biological system) to be the matter which the mind. You can to a large degree (at least IMO) consider the "mind" to be the successive information states that brain goes through. For example you can consider taking a piece of paper and turning it into an origami crane. The paper goes through successive information states each a little different from the one before it. You can kind of consider the "mind" to be the successive forms that the paper (brain) goes through in the process of going from a flat sheet to a folded crane. Cryonics "reversal" or "reanimation" as I like to call it will depend upon the technical capabilities which may be developed in the future. One group of followers prefers to believe that the brain will be restored and the "mind" will be reactivated. (Similar to individuals who recover from a low temperature drowning). Another group of followers prefers the option of simply transferring the information state from the brain to a computer which can perform the identical or highly similar processing functions (this is commonly known as uploading). There at least a third form which I've been thinking about lately where a person may choose to have their "information" recovered (i.e. memory readout) but require that the essential structure/information which would allow one to run the mind. This is kind of the difference between restoring a computer from a "suspend" state (nanobiological cryonics reanimation), rebooting the computer [on different hardware which can function "like the original" [1]] (uploading) and data restoration (from a hard drive, tape, etc.). To a large degree what will be possible may depend on when one attempts them. I happen to think that the order in which they will be developed will be: 1) Biological reanimation (probably leveraged using nanorobots). 2) Information recovery (memory readout). 3) Full uploading onto non-wet-brain hardware. #2 is probably a prerequisite for #3. Whether (1) or (2 + 3) will be first developed first remains an open question. I tend to lean towards (1) as being possible probably 5-10 years before (2 + 3). Also, IMO, I would expect that humanity would have to suffer a severe developmental setback ( e.g. an "Armageddon" type event) for these not to be available by the 2050-2060 time frame. If we pushed a little harder on them we could have them in the 2020-2030 time frame. Some people might want to ask why you would ever want #2 and not #3. My answer would be that most people do not like to function in environments in which they are not comfortable. Most people transitioning from the slow run up to the singularity to the stage where it becomes painfully unavoidable may consciously choose to not want to have to live in that "crazy" world. They might however want to leave humanity their memorys, insights, stories, etc. Right now one only has available very crude tools for sharing oneself (teaching children or students, establishing foundations, created entities (companies, art, estates, etc.), writing autobiographies, ...). Choosing #2 without #3 allows you to give humanity literally "all of oneself" without having the problem of getting up sometime in 20, 30 or 40 years and having to upload 100, 102, 104, 108, 116, 132, etc. terabytes of information *each* successive morning just to keep up with everything that changed in the world while you were sleeping. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 06:13:05 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 02:13:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00a901c6732f$ab13da60$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > The physical essence of mind is an activity of matter in time and space. Cool! And I just made a brilliant discovery too, I'm responding to you post by punching keys on my keyboard in time and space. > Information cannot store activity Information can initiate activity, it can also suppress activity. > static brain matter plus information about the structure of that brain is > not enough to preserve an instance of a mind because laws of physics > simply do not allow it. If that were true, if the laws of physics did not allow you to stop a mind and then restart the same mind then that would mean there must be some test you could use to see if a mind had been temporarily halted or not, BUT NO SUCH TEST EXISTS. > Even though an *instance* of mind cannot be preserved, cryonics should be > able to preserve the *type* of the mind. So the last post from you that I read on my computer was just a *type* of your post, perhaps that's why it didn't convince me. I need to read an *instance* of your post, but to do that I need to read it on your computer and I need to read it at the same time and place you wrote it. So all you need to do to convince me is send me an airline ticket and a time machine. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 06:22:56 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 02:22:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> > Eugen: > "Anna: don't listen to him, he's confused." "Heartland" > Either provide an argument that proves my view wrong or don't > say anything. Thank you. Why should Eugen do that? If Eugen had bothered to write a list of the things he found wrong with your ideas you'd just ignore them as you did with me, and the next day you'd complain that he hadn't sent it. And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 9 05:53:16 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:53:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cool! foresight institute in the national news In-Reply-To: <321D9901-D579-4175-B1FC-CA7637F7D33B@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <200605090629.k496TeKr013070@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Check this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194734,00.html Nanotech Policy Faces No Small Hurdles Monday, May 08, 2006 By Greg Simmons WASHINGTON - Air purifiers, cosmetics, sports equipment, computers, clothing, bedding, household appliances, medical devices. Nearly every item of daily life has been made - and made better, say supporters - with nanotechnology. But with billions spent by U.S. taxpayers and private industry on nanotechnology research and product development, some policymakers, scientists and business leaders are still trying to figure out exactly what nanotechnology is, what it can do and whether it is harmful to consumers. "It's very, very broad. ... It's like everything and the kitchen sink is nanotechnology," said Christine Peterson, who has been following nanotech issues since before most people knew nanotechnology existed. She founded the Foresight Nanotech Institute in 1986 and is now its vice president for public policy. Nanotechnology is the broad term used to describe both materials constructed at the atomic and molecular levels and the research and development of them. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, or about .00000004 inches. As a matter of scale, a sheet of office copy paper is about .004 inches thick, or about 10,000 nanometers. Most of the materials created by nanotech researchers tend to be between 1 and 100 nanometers wide. Peterson said she thinks the federal government isn't acting quickly enough to get nanotech research into regular use, though she qualified her criticism by saying it may not be possible. "You know, I don't think it can," she said, explaining that massive changes in technology - aviation or open-heart surgery, for instance - have taken years to perfect and be declared safe. It's unrealistic, she said, for people to expect the government to be completely prepared for all the impacts of nanotechnology. But Andrew Maynard, a scientist and research fellow with the Woodrow Wilson Institute for International Scholars, said the government is behind the private sector in developing uses and safeguards for nanotechnology products. "The [federal] government is the conductor who is running after the train ... but the train is accelerating pretty fast," he said. In March, Maynard's organization released what is believed to be the first listing of products that use nanotechnology and are available to the general public. The list is more than 200 products long. Maynard and his colleagues said that while his organization tried to include every product that boasts the use of the technology in its literature, the list is by no means exhaustive. Buckeyballs and Nanotubes Among the creations credited to nanotechnology are buckeyballs, microscopic balls made from carbon that can be used as lubricants, and nanotubes, tiny-sized additives used to strengthen metals or construction materials. Similar technology is being developed by scientists in the United States and around the world to combat cancer, improve fuel efficiency, fight lethal viruses like AIDS, harness solar power, make lighter materials for aircraft and remove air and water pollutants, to name a few. But serious questions have arisen with the technology, including how the resources are being developed, how international trade of the materials should be handled, whether nanotechnology can or should be used to develop weapons and whether it poses any health risks. Another question that is frequently asked is what the government's role is in protecting the public from would-be misuse or dangerous side effects of the products. Because developments in nanotechnology have the possibility of affecting any, and maybe every, manmade material, U.S. lawmakers say the federal government is going to continue to play an important role in both fostering its potential and protecting citizens from harm. "As we move forward, we need to adequately address the potential safety concerns that are raised by this dynamic field of development and, at the same time, be cautious about introducing premature regulations that could unintentionally squelch the positive innovation that is occurring in the field," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness, which recently held hearings on nanotechnology development. "The potential economic and societal benefits of nanotechnology are truly endless," added Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the committee. "Since we still know so little about this emerging field, we must be diligent in understanding the health, safety and environmental consequences of nanotechnology and adopt appropriate safeguards to ensure this technology is deployed in a responsible way." Federal Government Goes Nano Five years since the government established its nanotech program - called the National Nanotechnology Initiative - this year's nanotech research budget is approximately $1.3 billion and the spending of it will involve about 150 universities nationwide, said Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, an agency nestled in the bureaucracy of a Cabinet-level advisory group, the National Science and Technology Council. Teague is often called to testify before Congress, and it is his job to know what is going on with the nearly 40 government agencies that either are funding nanotechnology research, have some regulatory jurisdiction over it or have a vested interest in its use. The agencies interested in nanotechnology include the departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, Homeland Security and Transportation, as well as regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration, research-oriented centers like the National Institutes of Health and the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health and about a dozen or so U.S. intelligence agencies. Teague said that dozens of officials from different agencies meet regularly to discuss nanotechnology developments and to share new ideas. The council reports directly to the president. The subcommittee that Teague's office serves in the council has established a set of priorities for nanotechnology, forming the guiding documents on how the government intends to handle nanotech issues. "With respect to how we coordinate across all the government agencies participating," the federal government is proceeding "quite carefully," he said. Teague said the most important thing for government to do right now is to continue expanding its capacity to learn about nanoscience by funding research and helping to build facilities and laboratories specifically used for nanoscience. But equally important, he said, is trying to find ways to put the research to use in the marketplace, and looking at what the societal implications might be, including the impact it might have on the health and safety of Americans. "Everyone of them are critical investment areas ... [in] the ultimate bringing of this technology for benefiting our society," Teague said. Early Warnings Several government offices are already being forced to grapple with nanotech problems. The Food and Drug Administration, for instance, last month announced it would hold a public meeting on nanotech issues to be held in October. The announcement was spurred by a scare in Germany where officials were forced to recall a product called "Magic Nano," a household cleaner that caused breathing problems in dozens of people around that country. It still isn't clear whether the product actually uses a nanotech material. As a result of the incident in Germany, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which hasn't yet had any product recalls, is also looking into safety concerns. The agency has released a three-page policy statement on the issue, but officials there acknowledge that they still have much to learn. "Because of the wide variation in potential health effects and the dearth of data on exposure and toxicity data of specific nanomaterials, CPSC staff is unable to make any general statements about the potential consumer exposures to or the health effects that may result from exposure to nanomaterials during the consumer use and disposal," the statement reads. The statement goes on to say that one of the top priorities of the CPSC is to determine the type of nanomaterial in a product and then figure out a way to determine the potential health hazards. It also says that without any other specific regulation regarding nanotechnology - or any other product for that matter - CPSC doesn't begin looking at products until they hit the market. "That's about as much as we've put out about" nanotechnology, said CPSC spokesman Mark Ross. "Basically, we're monitoring the situation and ... looking out for any possible problems that could develop." Teague said that most other government agencies have similar policy statements, which can be accessed through his office's Web site. Gargantuan Challenges Posed By Very Small Particles While a number of congressional hearings have been held about the impact and developments of nanotechnology, one measure of Congress' interest suggests nanotechnology isn't really a priority: The Government Accountability Office, which produces more than 1,000 reports a year for Congress on topics of all kinds, had yet to receive a request for any report regarding nanotechnology by mid-April, an agency spokeswoman said. Press aides for Ensign and Kerry did not respond to questions about what, if any legislative measures regarding nanotechnology were being considered. Peterson and others say Congress has plenty of avenues on which to make its mark. Aside from the basic budgeting of nanoscience at the federal level, intellectual property rules need to be considered. She said current patent law makes it easy for companies to sweep up patents given to universities, making it difficult for others to access the technology. "It's potentially a problem, and some companies are complaining about the system," Peterson said. "The whole purpose of universities and research is to share information. ... This constrains the information from being shared." >From the academic side, Gary Rubloff, who directs the University of Maryland, College Park's nanotechnology research center, said it is taking a lot longer to get patents than in the past. Rubloff, who is also a researcher and acts as a liaison between university staff, public officials and the research community, said a slow patent process could end up tying the technology in litigation, or preventing investment dollars from getting where they need to be. Peterson also pointed to international trade and its impact on the economy. She said she's heard discussions about limiting nanotech exports, especially ones that could hurt national security. But harsher controls could do more harm than good, she said. Tighter controls might force a company with a controversial product to go overseas, and "then they're just totally out of our control. ... It's not clear that this is the way to go," she said. Ethical questions over nanotechnology, however, could be the ones that decide whether nanotechnology truly catches on, or whether its potential remains untapped, said Nigel Cameron, director of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. "This is a discussion about human values," Cameron said. One of the last technological breakthroughs - genetically modified food - has been a major disappointment, and nanotech could suffer the same fate if it's not handled correctly. Europeans, in particular, label genetically modified products "Franken-food." And like the genetically modified food discussion and genetics as a whole, nanotech developments raise deep philosophical questions over what it means to be human, and the change of the human condition. "That conversation haunts every discussion about nanotechnology," Cameron said. Cameron said one frightening development is so-called "transhumanism," where people might create things to replace human functions like thinking with nanotechnology. While a technology could be used for a good purpose, like recovering from a stroke, "the same technology could allow you to have Google in your brain," Cameron said, which "raises huge questions for public policy." Cameron said he also can foresee the use of nanotechnology further widening class divisions. With expensive nanotech solutions for cancer or other health problems, it's likely that those with the best health care would be able to get the new care and live longer whereas the poor would be left behind. A Nano Future Despite the pitfalls and the unknown direction that nanotechnology is headed, it's certain that it is here and will be around for years to come. Teague, the government nanotech specialist, said no specific topic for nanotech research has taken a priority. Health care, energy, materials, environmental clean-up and the like are all being looked at equally, and that is one reason why nanotechnology is such an important subject, and also progressing at an uneven pace. "I think it will be one of the most transforming technologies that have come to the fore, certainly in the last 100 years," Teague said. "Almost every aspect of life, I think, will ultimately be transformed by it." And Rubloff, said regardless of the problems nanotech faces and the strides nanotech has made, the real focus is on the future. "It's going to be the next industrial revolution. ... I think there's no doubt about it," Rubloff said. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 9 10:03:57 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 03:03:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <20060508185143.66566.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060508185143.66566.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9275E8CE-21B9-43A7-A9B1-0348D4E40D93@mac.com> On May 8, 2006, at 11:51 AM, A B wrote: > Hi Samantha, > > It is equally inappropriate to claim that the idea is "nonsense", > unless you have relevant evidence or a counter-argument. However, I > agree that there are more pressing matters at this time. > What do I mean by nonsense? That which is counter to what we already regard as true within the context of our knowledge and which adds nothing of value to our knowledge and does not add to the ability to make sense of our world and which has nothing at all compelling to recommend it is nonsense. Especially when it proclaims at length that it is the most accurate position to hold on the matters under consideration. - samantha > > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 8, 2006, at 6:59 AM, A B wrote: > > > Hi John, > > > > John wrote: > > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as > > old as the > > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves > > this can > > not possibly be true."... > > > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) > > conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I > > doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, > > I actually died yesterday." > > > > John, > > "...the idea that the you of > > yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been > > crazy." > > > > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that > > alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. > > > In absence of a convincing argument, which certainly has not been > provided, we have quite sufficient grounds for dismissing these > assertions as nonsense. Can we move on to something productive now? > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 May 9 10:32:06 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 03:32:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: On May 8, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Heartland wrote: > > Heartland: >>> Death/Nonexistence - Subjective experience of nothingness. Absence >>> of that part of >>> mind process which is responsible for producing subjective >>> experience. (A type of >>> subjective experience one would have if one did not exist at all). > > Samantha: >> Death is a subjective experience? Really? I thought you agreed it >> is a lack of any experience. How can that which does not exist have >> any experience? > > The point of "you would experience nothingness" is to help the > audience imagine > that experience. I'm just using poetic license here to make that > particular point > across. > When you are supposedly attempting to be more rigorous is a poor time to wax poetic. The cessation of consciousness does not allow you to experience anything including that cessation. All cessations of consciousness are not death. > It's absolutely the case that, "subjective experience of > nothingness <=> subjective > experience doesn't exist." Or just "subjective experience doesn't > exist." > No, it isn't. > Heartland: >>> Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is >>> the presence of >>> that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for >>> producing subjective >>> experience. > > Samantha: >> Huh? This is the total of your definition of "life"? > > Remember that this argument deals exclusively, as it should, with > the physical > substance of life, not its *content* or meanings of that content. > So, physically, > that's precisely what life is. > No, it isn't. Your definition is subjective, not physical, not objective and is woefully incomplete. > Heartland: >>> Mind object (or just "mind") - An object in time and space >>> consisting of all >>> matter, but only that matter which is presently and actively >>> involved in producing >>> the mind. It is a process consisting of chain of activity of matter >>> and energy in >>> time and space. > > Samantha: >> This is circular and meaningless. A delimited subset of all matter >> "involved in producing the mind" cannot be a definition of "mind". > > You misinterpreted the definition. Mind isn't a "subset of all > matter." It's a > subset of all "activity of matter in time and space," that produces > the mind. > There's a huge difference. I will adjust this definition to better > reflect the true > meaning. Same objection. You are defining "mind" using "mind" as part of the definition. > > Heartland: >>> Brain object (or just "brain") - An object in time and space that >>> consists of all >>> matter that currently does not make up mind object but is necessary >>> to support its >>> existence. > > Samantha: >> What? You have mind as a material object as far as I can tell but >> brain as some other material object not part of "mind object"? This >> is confusing. You need to have mind as a process and not an object >> to make this work I think. > > I hear you loud and clear. There will be no more "objects" in the > next iteration of > this argument. It's just too confusing to people and makes them > miss the whole > point. > > Mind, as any process/activity, requires matter, among other things, > to exist. When > I say "mind object," it gives the audience wrong impression that > mind is *just* > static matter. It's not fair to "other things that allow activity > to exist" to > leave them out of the term. > I did not have this impression. The problem is your tenuous link between brain and mind. The definition you use is a set up for the entire hypothesis you attempt to claim. It is part of a rationalization rather than an attempt to get at truth. > Heartland: >>> Trajectory of an object - Space-time path of matter making up that >>> object. It is a >>> list of all present space-time locations of all matter that >>> currently makes up the >>> object. > > Samantha: >> What is this useful for? There is only one space-time location for >> an object at any moment. Are you speaking of across the entire >> existence of said object? > > Objective observer uses trajectories to distinguish between > instances of matter or > activities of matter in time and space, including instances of the > same type, > across the entire existence of an instance. > Would you like to rephrase? That is still very murky. > Heartland: >>> Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and >>> space. > > Samantha: >> Nope. You can't have identity be the same as the trajectory because >> then you leave the question "trajectory of what" unanswered. > > But that answer is always automatically assumed before the process of > distinguishing between instances can begin. Hence, "identity of an > object," instead > of "identity." We can't distinguish between things if we don't > already know what > these things are in the first place. > Look. You just wrote that identity of an object *is* the trajectory of an object where *an object* already implies/requires *identity of an object*. This be messed up. > Heartland: >>> Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For >>> example, apples and >>> oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. > > Samantha: >> All three are types. Apple and Orange are more specific types of >> Fruit. > > They are, but their instances would require matter to exist. Types are > dimensionless and matterless so they can't store matter. In other > words, types > (information) do not have physical presence in this universe. Only > instances > actually exist. Not so. Concepts and categories are not non-existent, merely not physical. > > Samantha: >> With the above broken definitions you have no basis for an argument. > > I'll just need to slightly adjust few descriptions, not meanings, > that's all. This is a mug's game. Your meanings are confused and twisted to get to a conclusion you are all to invested in. - samantha From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 11:36:28 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:36:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer> <006c01c67328$97f66030$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: >> Which points in the argument are illogical and why? Which are not >> connected to reality? Show, don't tell. > > Just yesterday at his request I posted eleven very specific points in his > theory that were illogical or not connected to reality. Oh, come on. You call them "specific points?" Okay, let me tackle those points. > 1) Mr. Heartland says having someone tomorrow who remembers being you today > is not sufficient to conclude you have survived into tomorrow, he says more > is required but he never explains what or why. I explain everything here: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-May/026758.html > This leads to rather odd > conclusions, like anesthesia is equivalent to death and like you may have > died yesterday and not even know it. Mr. Hartland thinks your subjectivity > is an "illusion" created by a copy of you, Mr. Hartland says he hates this > and thinks it is a great tragedy, but even if true he never explains why > this is supposed to be upsetting. How is that an evidence of me being wrong? Because I hate something or think it is a tragedy? > 2) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but he ignores the > fact that our atoms get recycled every few weeks. The same zombie straw man for the nth time. I never said that or think that. It's someone else's opinion, not mine. You'll have to ask someone else who told you that. > 3) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, No. Same as above. Atoms alone are not what makes us unique. John: > Mr. Heartland points out, quite > correctly, that subjectivity and consciousness are what we should be > concerned about, but then he says particular atoms are what makes our > consciousness unique. Same as above, atoms alone are not what makes our consciousness unique. John: > 4) Mr. Heartland says the history (or if you want to sound scientific brainy > and cool "the space time trajectory") of atoms are what makes atoms unique; > but many atoms have no history and even for those that do it is not > permanent, the entire record of an atom's past exploits can be erased from > the universe and it's not difficult to do. This is not theory, this has been > proven in the lab and any theory that just ignores that fact can not be > called scientific. If I throw a ball from point A at time t1 to point B at time t2 and write down in the notebook "(A,t1) to (B,t2)" and then destroy the ball, will the entry in the notebook erase itself too? Was *that* proven in the lab? > 5) Mr. Heartland insists his theory is consistent and logically rigorous but > he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest questions about it, like is > A the original or B. Instead Mr. Heartland thinks informing us that A=A and > B=B is sufficient. Don't blame me for not understanding the answer. Do you even know what A means in your question? Let me know what that is and I'll be happy to answer. > 6) Several times Mr. Heartland informed us that location is vital in > determining which mind is which, but he never explained why because mind by > itself can never determine it's location. Again, this should explain why: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-May/026758.html > Also Mr. Heartland never explains > the position relative to what as we've known for over a century that > absolute position is meaningless. Easy, a location relative to the other instance under consideration, for example. > 7) Mr. Heartland, wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense > that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or > not" and then he wrote "My copy" is not me". This would seem to belie Mr. > Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. "My copy" meant "a different instance of subjective experience of the same type." > 8) Mr. Heartland wrote "Mind is not a brain" and he was absolutely correct > about that, but then he said mind "is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D > object". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical > consistency. "More like a brick" means that mind requires matter to exist in addition to time and space. I'm not inventing anything when I say this. It's a fact. > 9) As noted above Mr. Heartland thinks mind is a "4-D mind object", but he > is unable on unwilling to give the 4-D coordinates of the vital things the > constitute mind, like fun or red or fast or logic or love or fear > or the number eleven or my memory of yesterday. Abstract concepts are not made of matter. They are not things that "constitute mind." That's just silly. You're confusing abstract concepts with a real processes. > 10) Mr. Heartland wrote "creation of two identical brains, like writing > identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of > the same brain type" but if so he never explained why two calculators the > add 2 +2 would not produce answers that were profoundly different; No, you are missing the whole point of my example. A process that leads to an output on the calculator (whatever it is, "2", "9", "4567") happens at a different location than another process on a different calculator. If I write "1+1" then I have 2 instances of "1", the first to the left side of "+" and the other to the right of "+". Different locations, different instances. Is that really so hard to understand? > 11) Mr. Heartland insists that if two CD's are synchronized and playing the > same symphony then two symphonies are playing, but a CD is just a number > thus there are always profound differences even between the same number, and > 9 is not equal to 9. If true Mr. Heartland is unable to explain how it is > nevertheless possible to do science. Again, you are confusing matterless and dimensionless concepts with the ones that require matter and dimensions. So there you go. I covered it all. S. From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 9 12:01:44 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 08:01:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060509073302.0bd00ea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:07 PM 5/8/2006 -0400, Anna wrote: >I'm trying to understand cryonics a bit better and I had a few questions. >(These questions are on a broad sense.) > >Is mind solely information and is the brain just >matter? Think of the distinction between a computer operating system and the hardware. An OS runs in the hardware in a way fundamentally the same as a mind runs in a brain. As for a brain being "just" matter, it is exquisitely organized matter. It may take 3 to 4 decades for computers to catchup to it and they are now at 40 million active elements. >Will reversal cryonics only be made available when >mind experiences will be able to be transfered >and/or when the matter can be transfered? It may help you to think of computer disk information. A human in cryonic suspension is very much like a disk with damaged power supply. The information is still there, you just can't access it. There are services today that recover information even from badly damaged disks. We can't do that with humans yet because we lack tools fine enough repair damage at that scale. Repairing a cryonic suspension patient's brain is mostly putting the slightly deranged matter back into the proper organization and warming them up. From what we know of cold water drownings, they should just wake up, missing the last 12 hours or so of memory. If you have tools fine enough to repair brains, you could read out all the information and build an atom for atom copy. But why bother? >If I'm not understanding clearly please let me know, it would be appreciated. This is explained to far more depth at www.alcor.org, but I think the computer analogy is a quicker way to understand. Keith Henson >Thanks >Anna > > >All >new Yahoo! Mail > >Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue May 9 12:09:45 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:09:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 5/9/06, John K Clark wrote: > And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. "Confusion" might not be the best term. It ranges from either the best presidential press secretarial "spin" to a Humpty Dumpty [1] approach to reality, i.e. `When *I* use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Robert 1. http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 9 12:37:45 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:37:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John: > And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. Based on my own experience, the belief in resurrection after being frozen and dead is very comforting, but has nothing to do with logic. It's just a modern version of the belief in soul and afterlife and doesn't deserve respect. Everyday experience conditions us into believing in the illusion of continuity that effectively blinds us to the truth. It literally takes months or even years to develop necessary capacity to trust logic over intuition in this case. And when you do, you are no longer confused. Then, and only then, it becomes obvious why there's no such thing as resurrections after death. After Santa Clause, then God, cryonics will be the next thing you lose faith in. S. From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 9 14:07:45 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 07:07:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605091441.k49Ef8Iw002125@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Heartland > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 5:38 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... > > John: > > And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. > > Based on my own experience, the belief in resurrection after being frozen > and dead is very comforting, but has nothing to do with logic... > > S. Heart, it isn't so much resurrection after being frozen as it is being read and simulated. I have no illusions about this particular piece of meat being thawed, but I could imagine nanobots mapping it layer by layer, possibly destructively, then making a holodeck simulation so that I would at least feel like me, even if I really existed only as software. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 9 16:12:25 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:12:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: References: <20060509030711.22470.qmail@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060509051049.GI26713@leitl.org> <00b901c67331$0798bd40$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <22360fa10605090912t7b5e368dg69e819884e9033a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/9/06, Heartland wrote: > > John: > > And Anna, Eugen is right, Heartland is very very confused. > > Based on my own experience, the belief in resurrection after being frozen > and dead > is very comforting, but has nothing to do with logic. It's just a modern > version of > the belief in soul and afterlife and doesn't deserve respect. Everyday > experience > conditions us into believing in the illusion of continuity that > effectively blinds > us to the truth. It literally takes months or even years to develop > necessary > capacity to trust logic over intuition in this case. And when you do, you > are no > longer confused. Then, and only then, it becomes obvious why there's no > such thing > as resurrections after death. After Santa Clause, then God, cryonics will > be the > next thing you lose faith in. It seems to me that at the root of this discussion there is confusion between objective and subjective descriptions of reality/experience-of-reality. This same type of confusion seems to be at the root of most of philosophy, as humans try to make meaning from an ever-increasing context of interaction with physical reality of which they are a part. It is inherently paradoxical for a subsystem to try to model the larger system which contains it, and worse yet when a subsystem adopts a model that assumes privileged observer status. For describing reality, the best we can do is strive for consistency and coherence and recognize that our models are always subject to revision. What is most fascinating to me about these debates is not "proving" right or wrong, but understanding what it takes to update individual models of reality to more closely match shared observations (distinguished from shared interpretations.) My interest is not idle; I think it is vitally important to humanity's continued progress. Slawomir has been arguing for years that there is something unique--and crucially important--about the trajectory of a mind through space and time. It appears that he began with the intuitive certainty that there is something objectively special about any individual's subjective thread of experience, and then he had an "aha moment" when he saw a correspondence between the specialness of the subjective thread of experience and the "indisputable fact" that the physical correlates of that subjective experience can be uniquely specified. He had found a physical explanation for unique physical identity, and no need to invoke the heavily myth-laden concept of "soul"! Then, still harboring the intuitive certainty that there is something objectively special about any individual's subjective thread of experience, in an interesting twist, a further distancing from the usual "soul" concept, he began emphasizing that if that "mind process" ever stops, then something crucial is lost, even if a subjectively equivalent mind process continues with a subjectively equivalent thread later. Very recently, he appears to have seen that objectively, the mind process is in fact stopped and restarted (or a copy of the process restarted) during the course of everyday events. But still harboring the belief that there is something objectively special about the now hypothetical unbroken thread of subjective experience, he laments its demise. I don't know who said it first, but it's important to note that "a difference that makes no difference, is no difference at all." An increasingly accurate map of the territory leads to increasing accurate decision-making for the course ahead. Every belief contributes to the accuracy of the map, either positively or negatively, to some extent. I sure would like to have some better tools for collaborative map-making. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 9 16:51:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <9275E8CE-21B9-43A7-A9B1-0348D4E40D93@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060509165137.28454.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, Samantha wrote: "...adds nothing of value to our knowledge and does not add to the ability to make sense of our world..." With all due respect, this is *your* opinion, not mine, and probably not the opinion of several other people on this list - judging from the level of activity that this thread has produced. I've already listed some direct implications that this conclusion would carry (if true), in a much earlier post, but I've thought of a couple more since then: - It would carry mutual (bi-directional) implications with the Many Worlds QM theory. - It would suggest that people who die in this era (without cryopreservation) will not be "resurrected" by SIs of the future: because it lies outside their abilities or desires, or because we fall to an existential risk before the Singularity occurs. - If proven true, it might encourage some people of the strictly "Thread" view of life to arrange for Cryonics, where otherwise they might not. Samantha: "...has nothing at all compelling to recommend it..." Your opinion again. I respectfully disagree. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 8, 2006, at 11:51 AM, A B wrote: Hi Samantha, It is equally inappropriate to claim that the idea is "nonsense", unless you have relevant evidence or a counter-argument. However, I agree that there are more pressing matters at this time. What do I mean by nonsense? That which is counter to what we already regard as true within the context of our knowledge and which adds nothing of value to our knowledge and does not add to the ability to make sense of our world and which has nothing at all compelling to recommend it is nonsense. Especially when it proclaims at length that it is the most accurate position to hold on the matters under consideration. - samantha Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 8, 2006, at 6:59 AM, A B wrote: > Hi John, > > John wrote: > "Young? The idea that matter uniquely determines what we are is as > old as the > hills, but discoveries in science made about 90 years ago proves > this can > not possibly be true."... > > When I wrote "young", I was referring to this particular (new) > conclusion which is a mere few weeks old, as far as I can tell. I > doubt any philosopher from the past has stood before his peers and > claimed with a straight face: "Though I appear to you to be alive, > I actually died yesterday." > > John, > "...the idea that the you of > yesterday could be dead and you didn't even know it would have been > crazy." > > I've always acknowledged that the idea sounds "crazy". But that > alone is not solid grounds for dismissing it altogether. In absence of a convincing argument, which certainly has not been provided, we have quite sufficient grounds for dismissing these assertions as nonsense. Can we move on to something productive now? - samantha _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 17:34:59 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 13:34:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer><006c01c67328$97f66030$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002201c6738f$170b6c60$0c094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > Oh, come on. You call them "specific points?" I do indeed call them specific points, or at least as specific as it is possible to get with a theory full of fuzzy logic gaping holes and tautologies, like the copy is the copy, and A=A and B=B and G=G and F=F. > I explain everything here: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-May/026758.html You can't imagine the excitement I felt when I read these words, at last I'm going to learn the secrets of the universe. Instead I find you pointed to a tired old post I already read where you inform us with great fanfare that matter exists in *time* and *space* as if nobody had ever thought that before. It is also where you define mind as something that produces mind, and where you insist mind is a 4D object but dodge for the ninetieth time my request to supply the 4D coordinates of various parts of it, and where you say "A new instance of that subjective experience is verifiably different from the old one" but forget to say how it is verified or by who. > Atoms alone are not what makes us unique. That makes perfect sense, provided of course you don't require that theories be consistent. You said "Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and space" but the trouble is objects are made of atoms and atoms are what makes your beloved trajectories. > If I throw a ball from point A at time t1 to point B at time t2 and write > down in the notebook "(A,t1) to (B,t2)" and then destroy the ball, will > the entry in the notebook erase itself too? Was *that* proven in the lab? As I've explained before if I throw that ball into a pile of 6.02 * 10^23 identical balls and it is imposable even in theory to tell which ball is which your written record is absolutely positively 100% useless. > Do you even know what A means in your question? It doesn't matter what A means because I concede you are right. Whatever their faults tautologies do have the virtue of being correct, A is indeed equal to A. Me: > >Mr. Heartland never explains the position relative to what You: > Easy, a location relative to the other instance under consideration Then you could never say an exact copy is or is not you because the truth is a continuum that depends on the observer. You are standing one foot from your exact copy, to a microbe 6 inches away the two of you are a huge distance apart so you must be very different people, to an observer in the Comma Cluster 8 billion light years away the two of you are in virtually identical positions so you must be virtually identical people. And you still haven't explained if position is so damn important to mind why mind by itself can't even figure out where it is. > Abstract concepts are not made of matter. Certainly true, abstract concepts like mind are not made of matter although some of them describe what matter does. > They are not things that "constitute mind." Don't be ridiculous, memory and the emotion of love and logic and the sensation of the color orange are all parts of mind, if mind is a 4D object like you say it's not too much to ask for their coordinates, but you can't supply them. > You're confusing abstract concepts with a real processes. Many abstract concepts, like large and small and few and many are just as real as atoms, and some abstract concepts, like pain and consciousness, seem a lot more real than atoms to us; and the important thing, at least in this discussion, is not what is but what seems to be, because subjectivity always has priority over objectivity. > Different locations, different instances. Is that really so hard to > understand? It's not difficult to understand, it's IMPOSABLE to understand unless the word "instances" means nothing. When two calculators add 2 and 2 the result is the exact same 4, not a different instance, not a different type, not a different anything, it's just 4. > you are confusing matterless and dimensionless concepts Like numbers, symphonies, many adjectives verbs and adverbs, and the human mind. > with the ones that require matter and dimensions. Like bricks and the human brain, and I don't see anything confusing about it. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Tue May 9 17:56:37 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 13:56:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. References: <20060508135940.76418.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com><00dc01c672de$ac42c140$820a4e0c@MyComputer><006c01c67328$97f66030$4a0a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <006501c67391$f1064550$0c094e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > How is that an evidence of me being wrong? Because I hate something or > think it is a tragedy? You remember your childhood, you remember going to the dentist yesterday and having a anesthetic, you remember waking up, you feel fine today but you fear having a anesthetic tomorrow because you're afraid that the terrible and tragic thing that happened to you yesterday will happen again tomorrow. That fear is illogical. > After Santa Clause, then God, cryonics will be the > next thing you lose faith in. And after that anesthesia. And what will we lose after that, flying machines, horseless carriages, Victrolas, vaccinations? John K Clark From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue May 9 22:16:48 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 18:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading Message-ID: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> So the brain has mind instances (information, remembering feelings, experiences, remembered sensations..... in a moment in space and time...) And the brain is the matter that directs all these mind instances. Am I understanding this properly? Cryonic reanimation may occur in the futur by "Waking up the mind" from a frozen state. Does cryonics also consider the posibility of removing the brain matter and transfering to a new body? (Brain transplant). >I understand that technology is no where near this posibility just curious to know >if it's still as feasible as the idea of "waking up the mind". Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering them to a computer. I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing and transfering into a computer. I would assume, in the futur, this would be done very differently. What is the general opinion on how this process will occur? Won't this only just create a super-computer? Again, just want to be sure i'm grasping the basics. Thanks for the replies Anna --------------------------------- Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 9 23:29:23 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:29:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Let's try this again. In-Reply-To: <20060509165137.28454.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509165137.28454.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <52E9EF2A-CDD3-4389-82E6-59D576F4352F@mac.com> On May 9, 2006, at 9:51 AM, A B wrote: > Hi Samantha, > > Samantha wrote: > "...adds nothing of value to our knowledge and does not add to the > ability to make sense of our world..." > > With all due respect, this is *your* opinion, not mine, and > probably not the opinion of several other people on this list - > judging from the level of activity that this thread has produced. The hypothesis explains nothing of known phenomenon better. If you believe it does then please make your case. The level of activity says nothing at all about this question. > > I've already listed some direct implications that this conclusion > would carry (if true), in a much earlier post, but I've thought of > a couple more since then: > That something has implications does not mean it explains existing data better or makes valid and useful predictions or better integrates our relevant knowledge. I can make up notions all day that have tons of interesting implications. But none would be more believable or valid for that. > - It would carry mutual (bi-directional) implications with the > Many Worlds QM theory. > How so and under which of many versions or imagined implications of MWI? > - It would suggest that people who die in this era (without > cryopreservation) will not > be "resurrected" by SIs of the future: because it lies outside > their abilities or > desires, or because we fall to an existential risk before the > Singularity occurs. > I don't see how this follows at all. If it does follow it still says nothing about the hypothesis being of value. > > - If proven true, it might encourage some people of the strictly > "Thread" view of life > to arrange for Cryonics, where otherwise they might not. Does this perhaps laudable possible outcome of believing the hypothesis validate it? No. > > Samantha: > "...has nothing at all compelling to recommend it..." > > Your opinion again. I respectfully disagree. Then show that it does. Your disagreement was already known. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 9 23:35:35 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:35:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 9, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > . > > Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering > them to a computer. > I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing > and transfering into a computer. I would assume, in the > futur, this would be done very differently. > What is the general opinion on how this process > will occur? Does your email message think or feel or learn or do anything else the mind does? No. It is not an example of mind uploading. - samantha From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed May 10 01:36:48 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060510013648.20496.qmail@web35515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 9, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > . > > Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering > them to a computer. > I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing > and transfering into a computer. I would assume, in the > futur, this would be done very differently. > What is the general opinion on how this process > will occur? Does your email message think or feel or learn or do anything else the mind does? No. It is not an example of mind uploading. - samantha I didn't ask about e-mail. I asked about computer transfering. E-mail, list posting, web pages and irc are all forms of communication. They don't think, humans do. I don't see how that refers to my question about mind uploading or maybe i'm still not understanding. 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 10 03:34:09 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:34:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/9/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > So the brain has mind instances (information, remembering feelings, > experiences, remembered sensations..... in a moment in space and time...) > And the brain is the matter that directs all these mind instances. > Am I understanding this properly? > We are getting into fine semantic differences, but I would prefer to think of the "brain" as the foundation upon which the minds (houses) are built. (Obviously one can build many different styles of houses on top of the same foundation). Cryonic reanimation may occur in the futur by "Waking up the mind" from a > frozen state. Does cryonics also consider the posibility of removing the > brain matter and transfering to a new body? (Brain transplant). > Most people of the cryonics persuasion would allow that both possible paths can exist. One evolved largely out of consideration of what biology and perhaps computer technology may be able to accomplish. The other evolved out of determining the impact that microelectronics and computer science may have. Its only been over the last 5-10 years, primarily on this list and perhaps the sci.cryonics list that an understanding of the probable convergence of the two paths has developed. The "brain transplant" approach largely developed out of the realization that one could produce a body "clone" and transplant the brain (mind). Alternatively one could transplant the brain into a completely different body). The only significant barrier to performing brain transplants *today* from say an 80 year old body into a 20 year old body is the current inability to reconnecting neurons from the lower brain to the spinal cord. The recognition that brain transplants into younger or cloned bodies is or will be feasible is a key reason why there has been some shift from freezing entire bodies to freezing only heads when suspending an individual. [This is because the cost of suspending and maintaining a head is ~25% of the whole body cost.] > Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering them to a computer. > I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing and transfering into > a computer. I would assume, in the futur, this would be done very > differently. What is the general opinion on how this process will occur? > As it is little discussed there are only a few suggested approaches. One involves micro-scanning of your brain using NMR or similar technology. Another involves disassembling and reading out the information content of the brain using methods similar to those found in electron microscopy or atomic force microscopy. A third involves using nanorobots to map the complete structure of the brain and provide information taps or complete information status. There are at least 3 general paths, and perhaps more, which would satisfy the information readout for most people. Won't this only just create a super-computer? > Your brain is *already* a supercomputer. It is roughly the equivalent of perhaps a few thousand Playstation 3s (which havent even been produced in large numbers yet). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 10 03:07:42 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 20:07:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <200605091441.k49Ef8Iw002125@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > ... it isn't so much resurrection after being frozen as it is being > read and simulated... imagine nanobots mapping it layer by layer, > possibly destructively, then making a holodeck simulation ... spike Another possibility my custom version of Kurzweil's notion of inloading. A brain is about a couple of kilograms and 12 grams of carbon is 6E23 atoms and a brain is mostly carbon, so 2000 grams of that is about 6E23/12*2000 = 1e26 atoms. Wikipedia says that a human brain has about 100 billion neurons, and each of those has a bunch of synapses. So 1E11 neurons in 1e26 atoms makes 1e15 atoms per neuron, a million billion atoms per neuron if you prefer. The fact that a bunch of these neurons do stuff that I would no longer need if I had no body gives us conservative BOTECs. I have a notion that at some future time, nanobots of perhaps a million atoms each could enter a frozen brain, not at liquid nitrogen temperatures but perhaps a few tens of degrees below zero celcius so that they have a solid medium in which to work. These might tunnel in thru the blood vessels all the way down to the capillaries, perhaps removing the now unnecessary blood cells. They would enter the brain cells and join together to form nanocomputers, perhaps a million nanobots per cell. The million nanobots in the cell would perform a calculation that simulates the workings of that cell. The nanobots would build conductors, perhaps out of nanotubes, to carry signals between the neurons. The nanobot constructed nanocomputers within the brain would stay in place, simulating that brain. If the nanobots were made of carbon and each nanobot has a million atoms and each of the hundred billion neurons had a million nanonbots, that is 1e6(carbon atoms per nanobot)*1E11(neurons)*1E6(nanobots/neuron) = 1E23 carbon atoms, which is about 2 grams of carbon. If each neuron has a thousand synapses and the nanotubes for each synapse requires a billion carbon atoms to make a conductor that does what synapses do, then 1E11(neurons)*1E3(synapses/neuron)*1E9(atoms/synapse)=1e23 carbon atoms, which is another 2 grams of carbon. In this scenario, 4 grams of nanobots could infiltrate a frozen brain and simulate it in place as an inload. Interestingly, this would allow signals to go down the neck to a robot body, as it did back when that head guided and rode about atop a meat body. The head would need to remain frozen below water ice temperatures, but this would allow that head to go places that we cannot go, such as Mars. Granted this describes remarkable technology, but is not our current technology remarkable compared to that which Thomas Jefferson had at his disposal? spike From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 04:21:02 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 00:21:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: Heartland: >> The point of "you would experience nothingness" is to help the >> audience imagine >> that experience. I'm just using poetic license here to make that >> particular point >> across. Samantha: > When you are supposedly attempting to be more rigorous is a poor time > to wax poetic. You've got a point there. Samantha: > The cessation of consciousness does not allow you to > experience anything including that cessation. All cessations of > consciousness are not death. Absence of subjective experience is still an absence regardless of whether your organs still work or when you don't exist at all. Heartland: >> It's absolutely the case that, "subjective experience of >> nothingness <=> subjective >> experience doesn't exist." Or just "subjective experience doesn't >> exist." Samantha: > No, it isn't. I disagree. Heartland: >>>> Life - Subjective experience of being in the present moment. It is >>>> the presence of >>>> that part of mind process/activity which is responsible for >>>> producing subjective >>>> experience. Samantha: >>> Huh? This is the total of your definition of "life"? Heartland: >> Remember that this argument deals exclusively, as it should, with >> the physical >> substance of life, not its *content* or meanings of that content. >> So, physically, >> that's precisely what life is. Samantha: > No, it isn't. Your definition is subjective, not physical, not > objective and is woefully incomplete. The presence of an objectively verifiable, physical process is not objective and physical? It's precisely that. What is your objective and physical definition of life, if you don't mind me asking? Heartland: >> You misinterpreted the definition. Mind isn't a "subset of all >> matter." It's a >> subset of all "activity of matter in time and space," that produces >> the mind. >> There's a huge difference. I will adjust this definition to better >> reflect the true >> meaning. Samantha: > Same objection. You are defining "mind" using "mind" as part of the > definition. Not really, but I see how you would think so. It's an admittedly sloppy definition. Here's a better one. Mind is an activity of matter in time and space. I know this is very general definition (so you can't use it to build artificial minds, for example), but yet necessary and sufficient to make the conclusion valid in the context of this argument. Heartland: >> Mind, as any process/activity, requires matter, among other things, >> to exist. When >> I say "mind object," it gives the audience wrong impression that >> mind is *just* >> static matter. It's not fair to "other things that allow activity >> to exist" to >> leave them out of the term. Samantha: > I did not have this impression. The problem is your tenuous link > between brain and mind. This was done on purpose. There should be no link between the two because mind is not a brain. You are allowed to treat matter of the mind as a subset of all matter of the brain but a distinction between mind and brain must be made. Why? To separate between what is static and not relevant from what is dynamic and relevant. If brain were considered a part of the mind, then an extrapolation of this logic would force us to conclude that the universe must also be a part of the mind, except my car - a part of the universe - wouldn't be mind, proving the assumption wrong. Samantha: > The definition you use is a set up for the > entire hypothesis you attempt to claim. It is part of a > rationalization rather than an attempt to get at truth. It's just seems that way from the layout of "terms and definitions" before "the argument" section. Note, that I'm not even using "mind" in the steps of the argument. My strategic error in the original post was that the list of definitions included ones like "mind" and "brain." I either shouldn't have listed them at all, or should, at least, list them after the argument section. Even if I hadn't included them before the actual argument, that argument would still have worked. Why? Because the argument I made was not really about minds, but about any kind of physical process. And since mind is definitely a physical process, the argument applies to minds and all their subprocesses. Heartland: >> Objective observer uses trajectories to distinguish between >> instances of matter or >> activities of matter in time and space, including instances of the >> same type, >> across the entire existence of an instance. Samantha: > Would you like to rephrase? That is still very murky. Let me give you an example of what I mean instead. Two tennis balls roll slowly toward each other on the surface of the court, and you are not sure if they will collide or not. Pick an arbitrary point x,y,z,t as your origin. 4-D coordinates of each location of each ball during their motion are recorded in the log. You look away as soon as you see the balls rolling toward each other while 4-D coordinates continue to fill the log. When you look back 20 seconds later, two balls are now still. Now, how do you know which ball is which when you have no idea if the balls collided and recoiled from the impact, missed each other, or didn't hit each other at all, while you were not looking? As an objective observer, you go to the log of coordinates and reconstruct logical progression of a trajectory of each motion and find out which is which. The point of trajectories is that it is theoretically possible for an objective observer to distinguish between instances which proves the assertion that even instances of the same type are always different. >> Heartland: >>>> Identity of an object - Unique trajectory of the object in time and >>>> space. >> >> Samantha: >>> Nope. You can't have identity be the same as the trajectory because >>> then you leave the question "trajectory of what" unanswered. Heartland: >> But that answer is always automatically assumed before the process of >> distinguishing between instances can begin. Hence, "identity of an >> object," instead >> of "identity." We can't distinguish between things if we don't >> already know what >> these things are in the first place. Samantha: > Look. You just wrote that identity of an object *is* the trajectory > of an object where *an object* already implies/requires *identity of > an object*. This be messed up. Identity should have nothing to do with what the object is. You can't assume information-based definition of identity (information is matterless) and apply it to the process of distinguishing things that are made of matter. It just doesn't work that way. Any *object* is always made of matter, otherwise it wouldn't be an object. Two identical tennis balls couldn't be distinguished if we assumed the identity of each object to be "tennis ball." It's not cheating when I know what the objects are before I try to distinguish between them. >> Heartland: >>>> Type - A category of things that share some characteristic. For >>>> example, apples and >>>> oranges are types of fruit. In this case "fruit" is the type. >> >> Samantha: >>> All three are types. Apple and Orange are more specific types of >>> Fruit. Heartland: >> They are, but their instances would require matter to exist. Types are >> dimensionless and matterless so they can't store matter. In other >> words, types >> (information) do not have physical presence in this universe. Only >> instances >> actually exist. Samantha: > Not so. Concepts and categories are not non-existent, merely not > physical. Which is exactly my point. Concepts (information) are not physical so they can't store matter, let alone activity of matter. ----- My argument is valid if I can show that two things and only these two things are true: 1. Instances of objects made of matter are distinguishable. (Trajectories show that). 2. Physical activity necessarily requires matter, and that activity *itself* cannot be stored in static information. (Shown in step (2) of the argument). >From here on, the remaining steps are automatic. A combination of the above 2 assertions gives: 3. An instance of physical activity must be distinguishable from all other instances of physical activity, including instances of the same type of activity. (This combination of (1) and (2) is justified by required presence of matter in both (1) and (2)) This, in turn, leads to: 4. Since a mind is a physical activity, all its subprocesses, including subjective experience, must also be instances of physical activity. Therefore, all instances of subjective experience are distinguishable AND impossible to encode in the static information (3),(2). And if so, then an absence of an instance is irreversible and no amount of static information that remains about that instance can bring that instance back from nonexistence. In practice, this means that anytime subjective experience ends, it ends forever. And since subjective experience is the only means by which, we, as sentient beings, can experience reality, any absence of subjective experience means permanent inability to access reality, or, simply death/nonexistence. ---- Good comments, Samantha. Thanks. S. From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Wed May 10 06:14:57 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060510061457.26150.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> --- Heartland wrote: > My argument is valid if I can show that two things > and only these two things are true: Keep in mind that argument validity is a matter of syntactic form irrespective of the semantic truth values of its statements. As such this argument is valid: 1. All cats have five legs. 2. Patches is a cat. 3. Therefore, Patches has five legs. But since cats do not have five legs, the argument, while valid, is not sound. So what you want to show is that your argument is also *sound*. However, the problem I see there is that it's based on how one's chooses to define facts... If I choose to define x as 'death', then... > In practice, this means that anytime subjective > experience ends, it ends forever. And since > subjective experience is the only means by which, > we, as sentient beings, can experience reality, any > absence of subjective experience means permanent > inability to access reality, or, simply > death/nonexistence. But all you seem to show is *your* definition of 'death.' Someone else can have another definition. When I had surgery, sodium pentathol turned me off like a light bulb. Apart from a brief instant of blackness, there was 100% of nothing. Then I awoke. By your definition, I died then. Fine. That seems to support the view John advances about reanimation such that if my mind is uploaded into a computer, 'death' will be nothing more terminal than the surgery I had. Hay, I'll take it, where do I sign up! ~Ian __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 10 08:54:56 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:54:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060510085456.GB26713@leitl.org> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:16:48PM -0400, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > So the brain has mind instances (information, remembering > feelings, experiences, remembered sensations..... in a > moment in space and time...) Object instances in computer lingo typically do not include state, and state change over time. If you instantiate two objects of the same class in two or more location without synchronizing their state, they're different objects. An object could make a decision based on its internal state (which can be changed by an input), and it would be a different decision than an object elsewhere, with a different state did. If you impose the constraint that two or more spatially separated object have to be syncronized this is no longer possible. Notice that this condition does not allow differing inputs to change the inner state. Whether you you disallow different input (including nondeterministic noise in the object itself) or force the state to be the same (either by replicating the state of a master object, or constraining the evolution trajectory of each individual object so that it may not bifurcate) is not relevant. OpenCroquet prevents divergence by two mechanisms: by evolving the state using a deterministic process, which is the same on all remote computers, and by synchronizing differences in input. It can also use a master approach to replicate state elsewhere (e.g. if you use a noisy system or a system which is speedier than any other, so everybody saves work and you don't have to wait until the slowest member catches up before allowing all worlds to move on). In any case two or more objects are incapable of making a different decision. They are all the same object, existing in two or more places. > And the brain is the matter that directs all these > mind instances. The brain makes no sharp distinction between state and structure implementing it. You could run all kinds of objects on an all-purpose computer. You can only run one person on a specific brain. With uploading you use one all-purpose substrate for the computation, so the hardware is the same for all systems. What is different is the state of emulated animal objects. Notice that the hardware has almost no complexity, it is entirely in the object state and the transformation function of the object state over time. > Am I understanding this properly? > > Cryonic reanimation may occur in the futur by > "Waking up the mind" from a frozen state. Theoretically, you could repair the damage (you were dead, after all) and the suspension artifacts in the one object, remove the cryoprotectants and rewarm it so that the CNS activity constituting a person would resume spontaneously. If you make copies of frozen bodies, they start to diverge by the moment they resume activity. They have become two distinct, albeit very similiar persona. This is very similiar to identical twins: they start pretty close (though not as close as an exact copy), and diverge further during life. > Does cryonics also consider the posibility of > removing the brain matter and transfering to a new > body? (Brain transplant). It is one theoretical possibility. > >I understand that technology is no where near this posibility just curious to know > >if it's still as feasible as the idea of "waking up the mind". > > Uploading is taking mind instances and transfering > them to a computer. Uploading is making numerical models of animals, including body and environment. You can think of it as a video game (with game AI controlling non-player characters) on steroids. > I'm assuming this is what i'm doing right now. Typing > and transfering into a computer. I would assume, in the You're not transferring your state into your machine. Well, yes, a little, by serializing some of your inner state, which is being interpreted by a human elsewhere because the coding is sufficiently accurate for it to build a very primitive, abstract model of your inner state. You're using the computer as a communication channel. > futur, this would be done very differently. > What is the general opinion on how this process > will occur? > Won't this only just create a super-computer? It would require a very large (humongous, by current standards) supercomputer. But that supercomputer would contain a person, which subjectively sees something very different (it sees whatever the world and body model are faking). > Again, just want to be sure i'm grasping the basics. It is really not very complicated. > Thanks for the replies -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From scerir at libero.it Wed May 10 09:29:37 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:29:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] test References: <20060427155532.73286.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> <20060428000208.5261.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <000301c67414$42560760$3db91f97@administxl09yj> it is a test, since I did not receive posts in the last weeks But, give a look to this outstanding paper by Ellis http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602280 Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology -George F. R. Ellis To appear in the Handbook in Philosophy of Physics, Ed J Butterfield and J Earman (Elsevier, 2006). After a survey of the present state of cosmological theory and observations, this article discusses a series of major themes underlying the relation of philosophy to cosmology. These are: A: The uniqueness of the universe; B: The large scale of the universe in space and time; C: The unbound energies in the early universe; D: Explaining the universe -- the question of origins; E: The universe as the background for existence; F: The explicit philosophical basis; G: The Anthropic question: fine tuning for life; H: The possible existence of multiverses; I: The natures of existence. Each of these themes is explored and related to a series of Theses that set out the major issues confronting cosmology in relation to philosophy. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 10 12:12:08 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:12:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605091441.k49Ef8Iw002125@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5/9/06, spike wrote: > > Another possibility my custom version of Kurzweil's notion of inloading. Spike, to be fair I think you should credit the people who first created and explored these ideas. E.g. 1) Drexler, in Chapter 9 in EoC [1] (1986); 2) Drexler, Peterson & Pergamit in Chapter 10 of UtF (1991) [2] 2) Merkle, in various papers about Cryonics [3,4] (~1994-present); 3) Freitas, in Nanomedicine Vol. 1. [5] (1999) for providing clearer pictures of how this might work; 4) Numerous discussions on the Extropian list, the sci.cryonics list and other lists for 1-2 decades as people worked out various aspects of the processes; 5) Many other examples of those who work within the cryonics community as well as a large community of neuroscientists who are figuring out how the brain works as well as the computer scientists developing hardware & software showing that parts of it can emulated relatively easily. While Ray is a great integrator and distiller of concepts there is relatively little that he brings to the table to expand on ideas that are 10-20 years old which I would consider to be "novel". In particular Ralph's Cryonics page [4] points to a long list of prior work. Ray simply contributes an update on the progress which anyone following the areas is well aware of. If you are going to wax creative with the ideas (Kurzweil's spin on "inloading" -- perhaps better would be "crossloading") it would be useful if you would cite *precisely* where they are outlined, in this case I suspect TSIN, so that people could clearly identify them and compare and contrast what you are citing and what you are "improving" on [6]. Robert 1. http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_9.html 2. http://www.foresight.org/UTF/Unbound_LBW/chapt_10.html 3. http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html 3. http://www.merkle.com/cryo/ 5. http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI.htm 6. I'll note as an unrelated aside, one reason for including citations of authoritative sources is so that the ExI archives can be searched by the various robots and the sources will receive higher rankings in page searches by novices (Anna, being perhaps a case in point) and the people who try to distill the "world of information" into reviews or summaries that end up in pages like those in Wikipedia will have an easier time of it (and hopefully get it right). I would predict that over the next couple of decades much of the knowledge and "world view" in these areas will be derived from dicussions by ourselves and many people who are within 1-2 levels of relatedness. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.hughes at trincoll.edu Wed May 10 13:13:59 2006 From: james.hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:13:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Re: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI Message-ID: > Bill Hibbard is another obvious choice. Also Gary Marchant: http://www.law.asu.edu/Apps/Faculty/Faculty.aspx?Individual_ID=6 http://www.foresight.org/Conference/AdvNano2004/Abstracts/Marchant/index .html He's a member of CRN's Task Force, and has written about the (in)efficacy of global regulations on genetics and nanotechnology. He also organized the "Forbidding Science" conference at ASU. http://www.law.asu.edu/forbiddingscience And yes, I strongly agree that the regulatory approach has been given too little attention in discussion of emergent super-intelligence. One of the ways to ensure that we are allowed to proceed with technological progress, and can reap its benefits, is to anticipate the calls for complete prohibition and propose moderate regulations that reduce the risks of hostile uses of AI, or runaway AI. ------------------------ 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 mark at permanentend.org Wed May 10 12:30:07 2006 From: mark at permanentend.org (Mark Walker) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 08:30:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI References: Message-ID: <00b301c6742d$79d48900$9a00a8c0@old> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Hibbard" Subject: [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI >I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include > any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent > machines. The purpose of this message is not to convince you > of the need for such regulation, but just to say that the > Summit should include someone speaking in favor of it. Note > that, to be effective, regulation should be linked to a > widespread public movement like the environmental and > consumer safety movements. Intelligent weapons could be > regulated by treaties similar to those for nuclear, chemical > and biological weapons. > > The obvious choice to advocate this position would be James > Hughes, and it is puzzling that he is not included among the > speakers. > > Bill Hibbard is another obvious choice. Cheers, Mark Dr. Mark Walker Department of Philosophy University Hall 310 McMaster University 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1 Canada From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 10 14:27:25 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:27:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] nanotech bones In-Reply-To: <20060510061457.26150.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200605101429.k4AETcSA025467@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194857,00.html Nanotechnology May Help Grow Replacement Bone Wednesday, May 10, 2006 By Scott Fields Scientists have developed a technique that someday may let doctors create customized bones. Such bones could come in handy in circumstances where chunks of bone in the human body go missing. Bones can be lost, for example, in brutal accidents, from in-depth dentistry, or during surgery, especially when certain kinds of tumors are removed. Bone grafts can help span a gap, but current sources of fill-in bone are less than perfect. Bone can be swiped from someplace else on the patient - and home-grown bone is the stuff that the body is least likely to reject - but that means an extra incision, extra pain and an extra risk of complications. Bone from cadavers is sometimes used, but imported bone doesn't grow as well as the domestic model. And artificial bones made from materials such as ceramics aren't good for much more than extending natural bone grafts. Perhaps the ideal solution, says Laura Zanello, an assistant biochemistry professor at the University of California in Riverside, would be a substitute bone fragment that matched the gap and the patient perfectly. Her group has developed a system in which bone cells grow onto scaffolds built of carbon nanotubes, which are extraordinarily strong and stiff structures usually no more than a few nanometers in diameter. Currently the group is using bone cells from lab rats. The idea is that when the technique is refined, the nanotubes could be formed so that when layered with the patient's bone cells, they would fit perfectly into a gap in a damaged bone. Over time, the bone cells would merge with the surrounding bone, just as would a conventional graft. The body would be unlikely to reject such a contraption, she says, because carbon is bio-friendly and the bone would be grown from the patient's own cells. Many other researchers have attempted to combine carbon nanotubes with various types of living cells, Zanello says, but until recently the cells have died quickly, poisoned by the tubes themselves. "What happens," she said, "is during the fabrication of carbon nanotubes, there is deposition of heavy metals into the nanotubes." These metals are toxic to most living cells. But a member of Zanello's group - Bin Zhao, then a graduate student in the university's chemistry department and now a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory - produced nanotubes that are purer than previous models. "Apparently that is the reason our bone cells can grow on these carbon nanotubes," Zanello said. "The most fascinating part was that they will not only grow and proliferate, but they secrete a bone matrix." Such a matrix would allow the cells to fuse with existing bone. The research was detailed in a recent issue of the journal Nano Letters. Although these results are promising, they are just the first step in a long journey toward treating damaged human bones, Zanello cautions. Especially important will be to test how well the body tolerates the nanotube structures, which, although buried in bone, would be permanent. Wednesday, May 10, 2006 By Scott Fields From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 10 14:35:02 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:35:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605101437.k4AEbIQs009588@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Cool, thanks Robert, I didn?t realize this idea was so well documented. spike ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:12 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... On 5/9/06, spike wrote: Another possibility my custom version of Kurzweil's notion of inloading. Spike, to be fair I think you should credit the people who first created and explored these ideas.? E.g. 1) Drexler, in Chapter 9 in EoC [1] (1986); 2) Drexler, Peterson & Pergamit in Chapter 10 of UtF (1991) [2] 2) Merkle, in various papers about Cryonics [3,4] (~1994-present); 3) Freitas, in Nanomedicine Vol. 1. [5] (1999) for providing clearer pictures of how this might work; 4) Numerous discussions on the Extropian list, the sci.cryonics list and other lists for 1-2 decades as people worked out various aspects of the processes; 5) Many other ... From analyticphilosophy at gmail.com Wed May 10 15:04:54 2006 From: analyticphilosophy at gmail.com (Jeff Medina) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:04:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [agi] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605100631s4aa19352g46a1148cfb4b24ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605100631s4aa19352g46a1148cfb4b24ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5844e22f0605100804p6c209c12ubb22a15c22c9eae6@mail.gmail.com> Ben is pretty spot on here. There are many possible approaches and views that will not be covered; there simply isn't enough time. I can't speak for the speakers, nor for the extent to which any one of them will focus his or her time on regulation. But please note that the Summit has an open invitation for questions from the public (sss.stanford.edu, lower left-hand column): What's Your Question? "Would you like to participate as more than an audience member? A selection of questions submitted will be answered at the summit. You can address your question generally or to a specific participant. Let us know what you want answered and whether we may use your name." I encourage anyone with concerns about regulation who would like to increase the chance of this topic being mentioned to submit them in question form to sss-inquiries at lists.stanford.edu. (Questions on other topics are of course also welcome.) Some questions will be answered at the summit, and others may be answered afterwards on the site. And regardless of what side of the various issues you come down on, I thank you for your interest in and concern for the safety and prosperity of our shared future. Best, -- Jeff Medina http://www.painfullyclear.com/ Associate Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ Relationships & Community Fellow Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies http://www.ieet.org/ School of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/ From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 10 15:12:44 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:12:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions... In-Reply-To: <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605091441.k49Ef8Iw002125@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200605100344.k4A3i8TQ009034@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060510151244.GV26713@leitl.org> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 08:07:42PM -0700, spike wrote: > Another possibility my custom version of Kurzweil's notion of inloading. Kurzweil has nothing to do with it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_transfer for some of the references. The idea itself is straightforward, similiar to cryonics. Many people have came up with it independently. > A brain is about a couple of kilograms and 12 grams of carbon is 6E23 atoms > and a brain is mostly carbon, so 2000 grams of that is about 6E23/12*2000 = The brain is mostly water, not carbon. But, it's good enough for a back of the envelope estimate. > 1e26 atoms. Wikipedia says that a human brain has about 100 billion > neurons, and each of those has a bunch of synapses. So 1E11 neurons in 1e26 > atoms makes 1e15 atoms per neuron, a million billion atoms per neuron if you > prefer. The fact that a bunch of these neurons do stuff that I would no > longer need if I had no body gives us conservative BOTECs. But you don't know which processes are relevant, and which are not. For instance, you might think that you don't need a gentic model, nor to simulate the mechanical properties. Unfortunately, both are essential for long-term changes. If you're only tracking ~s range processes you'll wind up with an extreme Korsakoff patient (or 50 first dates). > I have a notion that at some future time, nanobots of perhaps a million > atoms each could enter a frozen brain, not at liquid nitrogen temperatures I 10^9 atoms is a truly primitive machine. You need about a cubic micron to build something interesting. > but perhaps a few tens of degrees below zero celcius so that they have a No, you have to stay below -130..-150 C. I would actually work at -196 or below. > solid medium in which to work. These might tunnel in thru the blood vessels > all the way down to the capillaries, perhaps removing the now unnecessary Why would you want to tunnel? You could just cut up everything in nice manageable slices, and process them. > blood cells. They would enter the brain cells and join together to form > nanocomputers, perhaps a million nanobots per cell. The million nanobots in > the cell would perform a calculation that simulates the workings of that > cell. Wouldn't work. I also don't understand why you're doing an incremental in-situ substitution -- that's something you would do with a live critter. But if a live critter croaks *now*, you're only option is to freeze her. > The nanobots would build conductors, perhaps out of nanotubes, to carry > signals between the neurons. The nanobot constructed nanocomputers within > the brain would stay in place, simulating that brain. If the nanobots were > made of carbon and each nanobot has a million atoms and each of the hundred > billion neurons had a million nanonbots, that is 1e6(carbon atoms per > nanobot)*1E11(neurons)*1E6(nanobots/neuron) = 1E23 carbon atoms, which is > about 2 grams of carbon. If you want to build a hybrid system, you just inflate the volume (straightforward coordinate transformation) and fill in rest with nanoware. You can do the same when invading your brain in vivo with several liters of nanoware. You'd bloat like a superhydrocephalus, but if you do it slowly the cells would adapt. > If each neuron has a thousand synapses and the nanotubes for each synapse > requires a billion carbon atoms to make a conductor that does what synapses > do, then 1E11(neurons)*1E3(synapses/neuron)*1E9(atoms/synapse)=1e23 carbon > atoms, which is another 2 grams of carbon. > > In this scenario, 4 grams of nanobots could infiltrate a frozen brain and > simulate it in place as an inload. Interestingly, this would allow signals No can do, chief. Try with several kg, and none of the volume needs navigation, propulsion, power. Volume wasted -- all you need is computation. > to go down the neck to a robot body, as it did back when that head guided > and rode about atop a meat body. The head would need to remain frozen below > water ice temperatures, but this would allow that head to go places that we > cannot go, such as Mars. Why do you need the head if you've got an isofunctional substitute? > Granted this describes remarkable technology, but is not our current > technology remarkable compared to that which Thomas Jefferson had at his > disposal? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 15:15:40 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:15:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060510085456.GB26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen: "If you make copies of frozen bodies, they start to diverge by the moment they resume activity. They have become two distinct, albeit very similiar persona." They are distinct not because their states have diverged, but because they don't occupy the same space and time. Eugen: "It is really not very complicated." Sure, especially when you're oblivious to the real depth of the problem. Frankly, that was disarmingly naive and simplistic treatment of the issue, typical of one I would expect from someone who has just recently learned about the problem. S. From exi at syzygy.com Wed May 10 15:47:04 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 10 May 2006 15:47:04 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060510154704.20867.qmail@syzygy.com> Heartland: >The point of trajectories is that it is theoretically possible for an objective >observer to distinguish between instances which proves the assertion that even >instances of the same type are always different. One of the main tenants of Quantum Mechanics is that this is impossible for microscopic particles. It's been quite well established experimentally. Taking as an axiom something that has been proven wrong under significant circumstances is not valid. You have to choose other axioms and prove this if you want any credibility. Heartland: >Identity should have nothing to do with what the object is. You can't assume >information-based definition of identity (information is matterless) and apply it >to the process of distinguishing things that are made of matter. But your trajectory log, which you use to establish identity, is nothing but information. Mind is a computational process. Saying that information is irrelevant to identifying mind is a complete non-starter. Heartland: [stating an axiom] >2. Physical activity necessarily requires matter, and that activity *itself* cannot >be stored in static information. (Shown in step (2) of the argument). >[...] >This, in turn, leads to: >[...] >And if so, then an absence of an instance is irreversible and no amount of static >information that remains about that instance can bring that instance back from >nonexistence. But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. -eric From jonkc at att.net Wed May 10 16:04:20 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:04:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> Message-ID: <047701c6744b$74bab480$a90a4e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" > There should be no link between the two [mind and brain] No link? Of course there is a link between mind and brain, mind is what a brain does. > mind is not a brain. Correct, but then why do you keep treating the two as if they were identical, why do you keep babbling about physical objects and pontificating about "trajectories in space time"? > My strategic error in the original post was that the list of definitions > included ones like "mind" and "brain." Your logical error was defining mind as something that produces mind. I'm not saying it's wrong but it's not really very enlightening. >Physical activity necessarily requires matter Wow, what a brilliant revelation, physical activity requires something physical! > that activity *itself* cannot be stored in static information. Information can and does control activity, for example, one day the information in a DNA molecule supervised the activity of some very simple amino acids and produced you. Those original amino acids have left your body long ago as has the original DNA molecule, but you remain. > a mind is a physical activity Everyone who is not a Jesus freak agrees on that. > An instance of physical activity must be distinguishable from all other > instances of physical activity Why? Can you find one tiny shred of experimental to support such a claim? I can't. > Therefore, all instances of subjective experience are distinguishable Distinguishable by who? > Instances of objects made of matter are distinguishable. (Trajectories > show that). Trajectories that are ephemeral and can be easily erased from the universe. > Identity should have nothing to do with what the object is. In a long list of stupid statements you have made that is the stupidest, in fact it may be the stupidest statement ever made on this list, it's certainly in the top ten. John K Clark From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 10 16:46:07 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:46:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] the Singularity Summit and regulation of AI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <446218CF.8000605@pobox.com> Bill Hibbard wrote: > I am concerned that the Singularity Summit will not include > any speaker advocating government regulation of intelligent > machines. The purpose of this message is not to convince you > of the need for such regulation, but just to say that the > Summit should include someone speaking in favor of it. Note > that, to be effective, regulation should be linked to a > widespread public movement like the environmental and > consumer safety movements. Intelligent weapons could be > regulated by treaties similar to those for nuclear, chemical > and biological weapons. We (meaning Ray Kurzweil) tried very hard to get Bill Joy, but he simply wasn't available for May 13. > The obvious choice to advocate this position would be James > Hughes, and it is puzzling that he is not included among the > speakers. Can anyone explain why he is not included? Stanford demanded a known, prominent Singularity skeptic - for their definitions of "prominent" and "Singularity skeptic". When we couldn't get Bill Joy, they gave us a list that included Bill McKibben, and McKibben was the first person we asked who was available. I confess that I didn't think of replacing Bill Joy with James Hughes to speak for the regulatory viewpoint, but the speaker schedule was already full at this point, and we only had one slot (the one that would have gone to Bill Joy) to fill with a Stanford-approved skeptic. It is a fair suggestion, if we could do it all over from scratch. > The Singularity Summit should include all points of > view, including advocates for regulation of intelligent > machines. It will weaken the Summit to exclude this > point of view. The organizers seem extremely Summit-fatigued at this point, but maybe we'll do another one someday... as it is, the speaker schedule is full up and it's too late for any changes. The Summit represents a huge diversity of views. *All points of view* is impossible. But, yes, there were viewpoints we wanted from speakers we couldn't get. Vinge wasn't available on May 13 either. Ben Goertzel wrote: > > As an aside, I certainly would have liked to be invited to speak > regarding the implication of AGI for the Singularity, but I understand > that they simply had a very small number of speaking slots: it's a > one-day conference..... Indeed. Also, bear in mind that SIAI is only one organizer of the Summit; and that the goal was to fit in all the viewpoints, rather than all the people. Ben Goertzel and Eliezer Yudkowsky may seem different if your accustomed environment is the SL4 mailing list, but from the Summit's perspective, we represent viewpoints that are clustered very close together in opinionspace. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 10 17:07:12 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:07:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? Message-ID: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> Is this a bad joke? My laptop is an extension of my mind. I have practiced active listening and exploring with it for many years. Why would this of all conferences ask me to leave part of my mind at home? This really concerns me. - samantha From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 10 18:25:45 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:25:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> References: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> Message-ID: <44623029.2040105@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Is this a bad joke? My laptop is an extension of my mind. I have > practiced active listening and exploring with it for many years. > Why would this of all conferences ask me to leave part of my mind at > home? This really concerns me. Seems a bit odd to me too. Why no laptops? This will greatly reduce note-taking. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Wed May 10 17:20:14 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:20:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading In-Reply-To: References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060510085456.GB26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On May 10, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Heartland wrote: > Eugen: > "It is really not very complicated." > > Sure, especially when you're oblivious to the real depth of the > problem. Frankly, > that was disarmingly naive and simplistic treatment of the issue, > typical of one I > would expect from someone who has just recently learned about the > problem. You have yet to demonstrate that *you* understand the real depth of the problem, nor have you provided a compelling and novel argument. This topic has been discussed and argued ad nauseum for over a decade on this list, from many different perspectives and with far more theoretical rigor than you are bringing to the table. Ignorance of history does not make it any less real for the people that lived it. As far as I can tell, your argument is just a badly worded rehashing of discussions that have already happened here numerous times, and you have been unable to demonstrate otherwise despite the saintly patience of many people. I know for a fact that many of the people you are disagreeing with most certainly did *not* "just recently learn about the problem". Stop trying to explain away your poor reasoning by accusing everyone else of being ignorant n00bs. You may not be aware of it, but to a lot of people on this list you dug a dusty old turd out of the attic that we recognize (because we put it in the attic) and are trying to pass it off as something fresh, new, and wonderful. Do not tell us it is not a dusty old turd, show us; that Jedi mind trick crap won't work here. J. Andrew Rogers From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 20:02:00 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:02:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cryonics questions and uploading References: <20060509221648.66887.qmail@web35513.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060510085456.GB26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: J. Andrew Rogers: > I know for a fact that many of the people > you are disagreeing with most certainly did *not* "just recently > learn about the problem". Quantity of thought doesn't imply quality. You can't store activity itself (and no, that doesn't mean algorithm) in static data. If I were you I wouldn't lecture anyone about what information is again. S. From hal at finney.org Wed May 10 19:52:11 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? Message-ID: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> I hadn't heard about this restriction - where did you hear it? Anyway, I actually see it as a good thing. I gave a talk last year at a semi "hackers" conference and it was pretty shocking to see the inattention of audience members to all the speakers. The whole time someone was talking, most of the audience had their heads down in their laptops, IM'ing away or otherwise passing the time. In my case, I lucked out because the projector lightbulb blew out just before my speech. I had the slides online so I told everyone the URL at the beginning, and asked those with laptops to hold them so their neighbors could see them and follow along with my presentation. This way people were kind of forced to pay attention to what I was saying, otherwise they looked rude by preventing those around them from being able to see my slides. So I got more attention than any of the other speakers that day. But here, we've got people like Hofstadter, like Drexler, Kurzweill, etc, I'd hate to see them being rudely ignored like so many of the speakers were at my conference last year. These guys have travelled a long way, some of them, and it's a real privilege that we'll get to hear what they say. Paying undivided attention is not too much to ask of an audience. This reminds me of a scene in Vinge's new novel Rainbows End. The teachers at the junior high fight a constant battle with the kids trying to keep them focused. All the kids wear HUDs so it's hard to tell who is paying attention and who's off playing a game somewhere. If and when we get to the point where our IMing and net browsing is this unobtrusive, then fine, I don't see a problem with people doing that during talks (although they're largely wasting their own time). But at present there is no way for it to happen without the speaker noticing that he's being ignored. Hal From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 21:00:18 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:00:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> <20060510154704.20867.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: > Heartland: [stating an axiom] >>2. Physical activity necessarily requires matter, and that activity *itself* >>cannot >>be stored in static information. (Shown in step (2) of the argument). >>[...] >>This, in turn, leads to: >>[...] >>And if so, then an absence of an instance is irreversible and no amount of static >>information that remains about that instance can bring that instance back from >>nonexistence. Eric: > But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. The conclusion is that death is irreversible. Do I assume that in (2)? S. From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 10 21:30:55 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:30:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> On May 10, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > I hadn't heard about this restriction - where did you hear it? The receipt/directions/request to release unused seat reservations I received this morning. > > Anyway, I actually see it as a good thing. I gave a talk last year > at a semi "hackers" conference and it was pretty shocking to see the > inattention of audience members to all the speakers. The whole time > someone was talking, most of the audience had their heads down in > their > laptops, IM'ing away or otherwise passing the time. > I am often typing in notes, surfing related material and keeping part of my attention on any IM about the presentation and subject at hand. This makes the experience and the amount of learning richer. This is the primary reason I objected. Many people here are very familiar with much of the work and position of many of the speakers. The speakers will be addressing what they believe is the average background knowledge level of the audience generally. That means that a lot of the presentation is old hat to many people present. Why should they sit attentively and do nothing but feign rapt attention? I do not owe anyone the "respect" of such pretense. Many of us multi-task quite well and are adept at catching the new and paying attention to the new in a presentation while doing other things at other points. Most presentations (with occasional wonderful exceptions) are too low in informational bandwidth to reasonably fully occupy the mind. > > But here, we've got people like Hofstadter, like Drexler, > Kurzweill, etc, > I'd hate to see them being rudely ignored like so many of the speakers > were at my conference last year. These guys have travelled a long > way, > some of them, and it's a real privilege that we'll get to hear what > they > say. Paying undivided attention is not too much to ask of an > audience. Just because I am typing or looking at my screen doesn't mean I am rude at all. I am intimately familiar with the works of most of these folks. Much of the audience may not be as familiar with it. It is too much to ask for undivided attention for anything that does not remotely require undivided attention. > > If and when we get to the point where our IMing and net browsing is > this unobtrusive, then fine, I don't see a problem with people doing > that during talks (although they're largely wasting their own time). > But at present there is no way for it to happen without the speaker > noticing that he's being ignored. > We do the best we can with current technology to listen and think and explore as actively as we can and to maximally use our time. Undivided attention as in not using available tools or simply sitting passively while hearing and seeing what one already knows is no sign of respect. It is a sign of the mere form being held more important than substance. I suggest you rethink your position. - samantha From exi at syzygy.com Wed May 10 22:01:37 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 10 May 2006 22:01:37 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 In-Reply-To: References: <20060507220745.76489.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1C7BA0BC-F5B1-4383-896C-A70D8809C6B1@mac.com> <20060510154704.20867.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <20060510220137.25003.qmail@syzygy.com> >> Heartland: [stating an axiom] >>>2. Physical activity necessarily requires matter, and that activity *itself* >>>cannot >>>be stored in static information. (Shown in step (2) of the argument). >>>[...] >>>This, in turn, leads to: >>>[...] >>>And if so, then an absence of an instance is irreversible and no amount of static >>>information that remains about that instance can bring that instance back from >>>nonexistence. > >Eric: >> But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. > >The conclusion is that death is irreversible. Do I assume that in (2)? You concluded: "no amount of static information [...] can bring that instance [activity] back" based partly on: "activity *itself* cannot be stored in static information." -eric From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 10 22:16:56 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:16:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> On 5/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Many of us multi-task quite well and are adept at catching the new > and paying attention to the new in a presentation while doing other > things at other points. I run roleplaying games over IRC, and I remember some years ago being disconcerted when I became aware that some of the players, particularly among the younger American crowd, were doing things like watching television or chatting on a few message channels simultaneously while playing the game. I quickly realized, though, that I was being irrational. My expectations had been learned in earlier times when we were all sitting face to face around a table and nobody had laptops, but the reality was that these people were capable of fully participating in the game and doing other things simultaneously; and if my expectations didn't match current reality, then it was my expectations that needed to change. Perhaps a similar change is needed in this context? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 10 21:41:48 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:41:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 Message-ID: <380-220065310214148140@M2W015.mail2web.com> From: Heartland velvet977 at hotmail.com Eric: >>But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. >The conclusion is that death is irreversible. Do I assume that in (2)? S. ("Heartland") you have posted over 40 messages since May 1 on the topic of death, and another 30 for part of the month of April on the topic of death. In all due respect, your input is not providing the quality of information to warrant so many posts on this topic on this list. If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know. Thank you, Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 10 21:49:46 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:49:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? Message-ID: <380-220065310214946687@M2W003.mail2web.com> From: hal at finney.org ("Hal Finney") >I hadn't heard about this restriction - where did you hear it? >Anyway, I actually see it as a good thing. Hal, I agree with you. I noticed at a meeting at the University of Arizona last month that many were fidgeting with their computers during the presentations. I started checking my email too and, frankly, I did not like myself for doing so. It was distracting to attendees and speakers. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jrd1415 at yahoo.com Wed May 10 22:03:18 2006 From: jrd1415 at yahoo.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 15:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity summit Message-ID: <20060510220318.42638.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> I was expecting to be in the Bay Area on May 13th, and was looking forward to attending the Singularity Summit at Stanford. Unfortunately, that won't be possible. However, I have been upgaraded from the waiting list to a reserved spot at the Summit. So I have a "ticket" that I won't be able to use. If there is someone from the extro list who can use this "ticket" for self or friend, it's yours. Email me. 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 velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 10 23:30:31 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 19:30:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 References: <380-220065310214148140@M2W015.mail2web.com> Message-ID: > S. ("Heartland") you have posted over 40 messages since May 1 on the topic > of death, and another 30 for part of the month of April on the topic of > death. Yeah, frankly, over the last few days I was getting too tired to even respond to people's questions with more than 2 sentences per point. This posting would have stopped tomorrow anyway. I've really said everything that I wanted to say about this issue. It's the death of this instance of this type of discussion, for sure. S. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed May 10 22:37:08 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? Message-ID: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Richard Loosemore from the sl4 list posted: >For example: suppose we could build minds that simply worked at a >million times the speed of our own (not necessary smarter, just faster). >That would mean that one of these minds could achieve everything that >Einstein did in his entire career in about 10 minutes. A billion times faster machine >could do all of that in half a minute. Even if a super computer mind could remember every last detail, equation, word or scenerio at a million times the speed of our own, how would it be able to come up with Einstein theories? I imagine it would be educated but could it be creative, if the only thing it could do is think faster? If it is not necessary for it to be smarter then wouldn't it be like putting wikipedia in someones mind? Sorry I just don't understand the "not necessary smarter, just faster". Either I don't understand or i'm missing something. Any clarification would be helpful. Thanks Anna --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail --------------------------------- Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Wed May 10 23:24:46 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:24:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <44623029.2040105@pobox.com> References: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> <44623029.2040105@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4462763E.20109@posthuman.com> You should ask Tyler or Carolyn to clarify this, because I thought I read somewhere that there will be free wifi service during the event. Perhaps that only applies to folks outside the building(s) or only for reporters/bloggers? -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 11 00:14:44 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:14:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <4462763E.20109@posthuman.com> References: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> <44623029.2040105@pobox.com> <4462763E.20109@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <3808145A-36D8-434E-8783-12261D5B9FE2@mac.com> I did. Tyler says they wanted to cut down on the number of laptops because they consider it distracting. Also there appears to be no power in the meeting room. There is wifi access in the room. - samantha On May 10, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Brian Atkins wrote: > You should ask Tyler or Carolyn to clarify this, because I thought > I read > somewhere that there will be free wifi service during the event. > Perhaps that > only applies to folks outside the building(s) or only for reporters/ > bloggers? > -- > 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 spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 11 03:15:02 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 20:15:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Death is irreversible v.1.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605110317.k4B3HB4B027710@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... OK guys, Heart and others, this thread became tiresome about a week ago, and I wasn't even following it all that closely. Do let it die a merciful but irreversible death, forthwith, thanks. spike > > Eric: > > But you basically assumed this above! This is a circular argument. > > The conclusion is that death is irreversible. Do I assume that in (2)? > > S. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From brian at posthuman.com Thu May 11 04:17:01 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:17:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Odd confluence of Lost & Kurzweil Message-ID: <4462BABD.6000803@posthuman.com> The tv show Lost has begun what looks like a pretty extensive web-based game to tide us over during the summer reruns I guess. The site below is part of it apparently, and you can notice it has a link to Life Extension that links to Kurzweil's Fantastic Voyage book: http://www.valenzettifoundation.org/ I guess the game designers or Lost folks have noticed Kurzweil. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 11 05:14:14 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 01:14:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotion connected memes and EP Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060511004356.0bcccd10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> [Originally posted to the memetics group] [This is a related to the threads about rational people.] In correspondence with Eugene V Kooin, the author of the comment here: >http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/4/comment/1005 > > My main point, however, is a tribute to meme selection: the fittest will > survive! He commented: snip >. . . it is hard for me to understand how many people, including >biologists, can have such a negative attitude (sometimes, almost >violently expressed) to this entire conceptual development. I suppose >this in itself is a peculiar phenomenon to be understood from the point >of view of evolutionary psychology . . . Let's try. Examples first. I remember with near horror a time when a very senior scientist (not in geology) went off on a disjointed emotional rant that was scary to behold. (He was shaking with rage.) I was reading *his* copy of _Scientific American_ at his house and made some innocent comment about an article on plate tectonics. A story illustrating this effect to a T was posted here [memetics list] by Aaron Lynch back in 2004 and expanded on the Extropian mailing list. (That was where the Libertarians freaked out for over a decade about the whole meme concept seemingly because of an article I wrote for _Reason_.) The K/T extinction event meme is another one that inspired high emotion against it for over a decade. Even 25 years after the 200-mile wide crater was found there are "partisans" who still reject the meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater Drew Westen imaged the effects in brains for political "partisans" but I would bet long odds that the same brain regions were/are active in challenged K/T rejecters. Usually the memes that get tied up with so much emotion are religious or political. Whatever the source, it is clear that a wide variety of memes can obtain this kind of binding to emotional areas of the brain. Are there features of plate tectonics, the "memes about memes" and the K/T event that group them with political or religious memes? What other memes classes have this binding? In some cases, and memetics is one of them, the reaction is almost allergic. People often don't have an expressible meme in competition to the challenge meme; they just emotionally and sometimes violently reject the meme. (That does not mean they don't have a meme or set of memes in competition, just that they can't express them.) This business of emotional freak-outs over memes is so widespread among humans that it must be a species typical psychological trait--though people vary in how much they have it. Evolutionary psychology makes the claim that--without exception--every human psychological trait either evolved (example capture-bonding) or is a side effect (drug addiction) of some trait that *did* contribute to reproductive success back in the EEA (Stone Age.) I have been baffled over this for two decades, I still am, but perhaps the above framing of the problem might give someone an idea about how to solve it. The "rules" of the EP game is that you need to show how the "feature" would have directly improved reproductive success in the EEA for those who had it, *or* how the psychological trait is a side effect of some trait that did improve reproductive success. (Extra points if you can suggest ways to test it.) Dawkins makes the case that being gullible may be a feature of children. You can see why believing adults would contribute to reproductive success (those eaten by bears didn't leave descendents). The possibility exists that some memes get trapped in the partial freezing of the brain's ability to learn language that happens around puberty. (That might have something to do with the 13 year-old boys who read Rand.) Or perhaps there is a later freezing in of memes. In that case, we should be able to detect an age cutoff in those who opposed plate tectonics or the K/T extinction. Perhaps it is some side effect of the drive for status to have strong emotional attachments to memes? (None of these feel right in EP terms.) (Added the next day) Or perhaps these emotional bindings to scientific memes (plus religious and political memes) are a side effect of emotional bindings to xenophobic memes. I recently made the case that the trait to pass around xenophobic memes and go non-rational is an evolved species typical behavior of humans facing bad times. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 It may be active in some people at some level even under low stress conditions. Low level activation of the psychological traits behind capture-bonding (Stockholm Syndrome) seems to account for the rewards people get from BDSM sex practices. Wars and captures were *major* selection factors in the EEA. It should not be a surprise if many of our deepest psychological traits were shaped by such selection. Comments? Keith Henson PS. The theory leads to the prediction that *this* theory will be met with violent rejection by some. :-) From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 11 05:20:08 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 22:20:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] new moderators In-Reply-To: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <200605110601.k4B61Y0B017317@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ExIers, I am pleased to announce that J. Andrew Rogers and Eugene Leitl have volunteered to be the next ExI list temporary benevolent dictators for however long they are willing. I am on the hook until 1 June in accordance with my previous agreement, but I have two business trips coming in the next three weeks, so these gentlemen have graciously agreed to step up early. Since I confer infinite authority upon Eugene and J. Andrew, they must divide this power. Since half of infinity is still infinity, it would be cool to find something upon which they disagree and see what happens. It would be one of those infinity over infinity things, which in differential calculus is given the delightful term "singularity". One of the powers I gave up is taking people out of the penalty box, so if you are in there, talk to Gene or Andrew, tell them how you got there and why it won't happen again. Both are reasonable chaps. Power corrupts. As I relinquish all this power, I feel the corruption flowing out from me with a sense of blessed relief that sharpens the mind, uplifts the spirit and ennobles the soul, like the ethereal serenity that settles over the sincere penitent sinner from seeking atonement in humble supplication before an omnipotent but merciful deity, or from making a really long turd. spike From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 11 08:30:33 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:30:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 06:37:08PM -0400, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Richard Loosemore from the sl4 list posted: > >For example: suppose we could build minds that simply worked at a > >million times the speed of our own (not necessary smarter, just faster). > >That would mean that one of these minds could achieve everything that > >Einstein did in his entire career in about 10 minutes. A billion times faster machine > >could do all of that in half a minute. So if you run a dog on fast-forward long enough you'd get general relativity out if it? Sorry, doesn't work that way. > Even if a super computer mind could remember every last detail, equation, word or > scenerio at a million times the speed of our own, how would it be able to come up > with Einstein theories? Just the same way Einstein did. > I imagine it would be educated but could it be creative, if the only thing it could do is > think faster? What do you think being creative is? Is a computer beating a grandmaster in chess being creative? How can you tell it isn't? Is the tissue in your brain being creative right now? Glia, pieces of dendritic tree? Ion channels? Protein domains? Water vibration modes? Quarks? > If it is not necessary for it to be smarter then wouldn't it be like putting > wikipedia in someones mind? You can compensate a lot by hard work. Up to a point. Vide supra: the eternal canine on fast-forward won't produce much than lots of happy barking, virtually gnawn bones, and tail-chasing. > Sorry I just don't understand the "not > necessary smarter, just faster". > > Either I don't understand or i'm missing something. > Any clarification would be helpful. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu May 11 08:39:29 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 01:39:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity summit In-Reply-To: <20060510220318.42638.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060510220318.42638.qmail@web60013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605110139p1c694ad0l856bbcb4a73ebce7@mail.gmail.com> if you still have the ticket i would be interested. thanks, ilsa ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com 510 847-928 On 5/10/06, Jeff Davis wrote: > I was expecting to be in the Bay Area on May 13th, and > was looking forward to attending the Singularity > Summit at Stanford. Unfortunately, that won't be > possible. > > However, I have been upgaraded from the waiting list > to a reserved spot at the Summit. So I have a > "ticket" that I won't be able to use. > > If there is someone from the extro list who can use > this "ticket" for self or friend, it's yours. > > Email me. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 11 10:54:16 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 05:54:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 5/11/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > You can compensate a lot by hard work. Up to a point. Vide supra: the > eternal canine on fast-forward won't produce much than lots of happy > barking, virtually gnawn bones, and tail-chasing. The problem with the "fast" canine example may be that the canine brain may not have either the (a) the capacity; or (b) the proper internal neural sub-nets to ever perform the function Einstein's brain did (recognition of some rather unusual laws of physics). They might however have the internal subnets to extract information from smell data which humans completely lack. (Say for example the "claimed" ability to be able to identify people who have cancer (or some types of cancer) based on smell.) Running a neural network faster doesn't make it "better" at least for some things... A human brain on fast forward may still have a problem doing what some precisely adapted neural nets (an octopus or squid with highly precise sensory system processing and precision control of multiple arms) are capable of. At the same time I don't believe those neural networks aren't particularly good at algebraic (symbolic) manipulation no matter how fast you run them. Einstein's brain may have had a unique neural structure so that it was able to make connections or recognize patterns that other brains simply could not (at least very easily). Having (a) more memory capacity (human vs. a dog for example) or (b) better spatial manipulation capabilities (e.g. those brains which can solve a Rubik's Cube [1] very quickly) or (c) better language sequencing capabilities (William Falkner comes to mind) may be things where faster does not equal more creative. Though my general take on much "intelligence" right now is that similar brains (with ~ equal capacity and structure) can deal with almost anything given enough information, training and time. Raw "speed" may help in getting from point A to point Z faster. It is interesting to consider whether raw capacity (as compared to raw speed) is essential for solving the Professor's Cube [2]. This brings to mind space vs. speed trade offs in computer systems. It raises the interesting question as to whether Einstein would have been able to deduce a "Theory of Everything" had his brain not been aging (over time brains do lose neurons) and/or had he been given another hundred or two hundred years to work on the problem? Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik%27s_Cube 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor%27s_Cube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 11 13:14:57 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:14:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest Message-ID: It is interesting (at least to me) to note where Google Trends is indicating most of the queries for nanotechnology [1], artificial intelligence [2], molecular biology [3], human genome [4], aging [5], singularity [6] and neural network [7] are coming from. It is also interesting to note when significant variations in the query requests (aging for example) do not seem to correlate well with news items. As an aside I'll also note they are trend tracking the "conversion" requests -- strange to consider that "miles in meters" gives quite different results from "miles in km". Is this "artificial intelligence" or something entirely different? What other trends of extropic interest can be found? Robert 1. http://www.google.com/trends?q=nanotechnology 2. http://www.google.com/trends?q=artificial+intelligence 3. http://www.google.com/trends?q=molecular+biology 4. http://www.google.com/trends?q=human+genome 5. http://www.google.com/trends?q=aging 6. http://www.google.com/trends?q=singularity 7. http://www.google.com/trends?q=neural+network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 11 14:21:19 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 07:21:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200605111423.k4BENV5m026148@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > What do you think being creative is? Is a computer beating a grandmaster > in chess being creative? How can you tell it isn't? ... Eugen* Leitl I would hafta argue that the computer is being creative. If you look over the grandmaster vs machine games, the computer came up with some terrific ideas, plans that would meet all our definitions of the term creative. If you look at the game scores, you cannot tell which side is human play and which is computer, especially with former world champion Kramnik. I see this as a limited version of the Turing test. spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 11 16:19:03 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 17:19:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Memetic data point Message-ID: <8d71341e0605110919t5de41ba4pe9b4296e0e607348@mail.gmail.com> Had this conversation on AIM today, posting it with permission as a data point since I think the concerns the other person raised are likely to be quite representative of the general population. (I'm rw271828 - was a latecomer to AIM, so all possible user names that didn't have strings of digits in them were already taken :P) [16:10] Phadin0: Speaking of AI, a question. [16:10] Phadin0: Do you think it could be concievably possible to copy a person's memories and personality... brain data, in other words, into computer data... basicly download a persons brain into a computer? [16:11] rw271828: "Upload" is the term normally used, and yes indeed, it's one of the main hoped-for applications of advanced nanotechnology when we invent it. [16:12] Phadin0: You think that person would then be able to act and think and BE the computer, or the nanotech, or whatever? [16:12] Phadin0: It seems kinda scary to me, as it seems akin to immortality for whoever is lucky or rich enough to have such a proceedure, and thats the last thing we need. [16:13] rw271828: Yes. And yes, it would be a form of immortality. - What, you want to die? [16:14] Phadin0: I think that such a concept could easily go to people's heads. [16:14] rw271828: Lots of things go to people's heads, not sure how that's an argument for death over continued life? [16:16] Phadin0: Well, I doubt that when it comes out it would be easily accessable to general public, so who gets it first? the rich? the leaders of the nations? Why? And what would they do while they live on and others die around them? Would they let everyone get such immortality, or would they want it for themselves only? [16:17] rw271828: Remember that truly effective medical treatment is cheap. Consider for example the astronomical cost of keeping a polio victim not-dead for a year in an iron lung, with the pocket change cost of polio vaccine. [16:18] rw271828: The cost of uploading would likely quickly come down to considerably _less_ than the cost of spending a couple of years slowly dying in a nursing home, which is the alternative that people use nowadays. [16:21] Phadin0: Perhaps, but again, are they worthy enough to be preserved forever? Who makes such a determination, or can anyone, even those with criminal records, gain this immortality? What about someone who is homeless, and has had no beneficial contribution to society? Whats the cutoff for who's allowed to have this procedure? [16:22] rw271828: Are they worthy enough to get penicillin to save their lives when they have pneumonia? Who makes such a determination, or can anyone, even those with criminal records, gain this life? What about someone who is homeless, and has had no beneficial contribution to society? Whats the cutoff for who's allowed to have this procedure? [16:24] Phadin0: Thats the thing Russ, there are people who would argue no to those questions, adn thats just to presreve life, not give eternal life. You know, the doctor who treated John Wilks Booth after he assassinated President Lincoln, was later brought up on charges of Treason. [16:25] rw271828: Would you conclude from that that it was wrong to invent penicillin? Or would you conclude instead that it's good that we have penicillin, and we need to separately address the question of how to get it to people who need it, even if they don't have a lot of money? [16:26] Phadin0: I don't recall if he was convicted, don't think he was, but the fact is the argument was there, that the man should not have gotten medical treatment. [16:27] Phadin0: I just think the impact of eternal life as a medical proceedure could be far more reaching then pennicilian. [16:27] Phadin0: There is a saying that there are only two sure things in life, death and taxes. [16:28] Phadin0: The fact that you could conquor death would have enormous consequences. [16:29] rw271828: Yes, like not dying! :) Would you not agree that's a good consequence? [16:30] Phadin0: Hmm... how about this scenario... Fidel Castro. One of the things US forieng policy regarding Cuba is depending on is that he WILL die.... eventually... though he's been lasting a really really long time, it will happen. [16:31] Phadin0: It's something the last... 8 presidents or so.... have been depending on, hoping would happen some time. [16:31] Phadin0: It hasn't yet... but what if never could... what if he gained your immortality? [16:31] Phadin0: He could rule Cuba indeffinately. [16:32] rw271828: Right now, more than fifty million people are dying per year. That's a Holocaust every couple of months. _Every_ couple of months. Are you suggesting we should want that to continue just for the sake of getting rid of some guy in Cuba? [16:33] Phadin0: Do you think he gives a damn about the 50 million dying every few months? He wouldn't care.. heck, he'd probably want his people not maintain their mortality so no one could gather up enough support over the years to challenge him. [16:33] Phadin0: And being in charge, he'd make sure they didn't have access to this proceedure. [16:34] rw271828: That's a good argument against dictatorship as a form of government, yes! [16:34] Phadin0: Yes... and an immortal dictator would be even worse. [16:34] rw271828: Look, are you saying you think uploading should be banned? [16:36] Phadin0: I think the world is not in a state where it's ready for it at this time. Sure, in countries like America, and much of Europe, we are... but many other countries are still in a state of morality where the power of immortality would be corrupted by those in charge. I think that it would be nice, one day, to be able to release such an ability... but I don't forsee it as being possible within my lifetime wihtout seeing it also corrupted by those in power in some areas of the world. [16:37] rw271828: So you'd ideally like it to be available, but only in democracies, so the likes of Castro and wotsisname in North Korea don't get to use it to hold onto power indefinitely? [16:39] Phadin0: Even in democracies and other more advanced forms of government, there might still be complications... and there are those outside the government. I shudder to think what would happen if Osama Bin Laden became immortal... on the other hand, that might be a good thing. Hard to martyr yourself when you can't die. [16:39] rw271828: Yep. - Well, it won't be available for a long time yet; one can hope the trend of replacing dictatorship with democracy of recent decades will have spread further by then... [16:40] Phadin0: Indeed, and hopefully the hatred of peoples will also subside. When it does come, there will likely be quite a storm of debate around it, but in the end, reality shifts. It can happen. [16:40] rw271828: One very important thing to bear in mind, though: Nanotechnology, the prerequisite for uploading, is also the prerequisite for space colonization. The real problem with oppressive governments is when there's nowhere to go. It doesn't matter so much if a tyrant wants to continue ruling one little corner of one little planet indefinitely, if people can just leave him to it and go somewhere else. [16:41] Phadin0: Thats part of the problem though, countries like Cuba forbid their citizens from leaving. Cubans are always trying to make illegal crossings over to America to escape from that country, and not all of them make it. [16:42] Phadin0: They have a place to go, America would take them if they make it over to our land... but that doesn't mean they can. [16:43] Phadin0: It's actually by law that if they get found by the coast guard while still on the water, they must be returned to cuba, but if they make it onto american soil, they can stay in our country. [16:43] Phadin0: Anyway, lunch time.... that was a fun little debate, but I want food, so I'll be back in a while. [16:43] rw271828: wait... [16:44] rw271828: One question before you go... [16:44] rw271828: I'm on a couple of mailing lists where technophiles discuss this sort of topic, I think this'd be a useful example of the concerns people have about the use of such technology... would it be okay if I CC this exchange to the mailing list as a data point? [17:05] Phadin0: Sure, go ahead. [17:15] rw271828: Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 11 16:42:48 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:42:48 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Memetic data point In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605110919t5de41ba4pe9b4296e0e607348@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605110919t5de41ba4pe9b4296e0e607348@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060511164248.GI26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:19:03PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Had this conversation on AIM today, posting it with permission as a data > point since I think the concerns the other person raised are likely to be > quite representative of the general population. (I'm rw271828 - was a They *are* representative. This is what drives me up the wall: the first thing they all do is to look for a fly in the ointment. Look hard. Keep looking. Never thinking about how many more options would be there to explore. To keep people dying because of Cuba? Fidelsticks! Completely insane. People have been dying for a long time, so it must be good. Any change to this outrageously intolerable condition must be bad. All the fairy-tales are full of it: let go of the good thing, because it is actually evil. You're a human, you have to stay a human. Human good, magic bad. This is what really made me mad as a kid: they all voluntarily relinquished the toys, having hardly tasted them. We will have to make early adopters demonstrate it's safe and worthwhile, so the alpha humans will make it fashionable, so the rest of them will follow. > latecomer to AIM, so all possible user names that didn't have strings of IRC is similiar or worse to IM. > digits in them were already taken :P) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Thu May 11 17:17:58 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:17:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> I can't make sense of it. Iran as the first nation where searches for "neural network" are originating, and second for "nanotechnology"? Pakistan at the top spot for "artificial intelligence"? Just how many people have Internet access in those countries? Either I am interpreting the graphs wrong, or their IP-location algorithms need some tuning. Alfio On 5/11/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > It is interesting (at least to me) to note where Google Trends is indicating > most of the queries for nanotechnology [1], artificial intelligence [2], > molecular biology [3], human genome [4], aging [5], singularity [6] and > neural network [7] are coming from. It is also interesting to note when > significant variations in the query requests (aging for example) do not seem > to correlate well with news items. > > As an aside I'll also note they are trend tracking the "conversion" requests > -- strange to consider that "miles in meters" gives quite different results > from "miles in km". > > Is this "artificial intelligence" or something entirely different? > What other trends of extropic interest can be found? > > Robert > > 1. http://www.google.com/trends?q=nanotechnology > 2. http://www.google.com/trends?q=artificial+intelligence > 3. http://www.google.com/trends?q=molecular+biology > 4. http://www.google.com/trends?q=human+genome > 5. http://www.google.com/trends?q=aging > 6. http://www.google.com/trends?q=singularity > 7. http://www.google.com/trends?q=neural+network > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 11 17:44:36 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:44:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> References: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44637804.20109@pobox.com> >>As an aside I'll also note they are trend tracking the "conversion" requests >>-- strange to consider that "miles in meters" gives quite different results >>from "miles in km". And "Bayes" gives wholly different results from "Bayesian". I suspect the data. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 11 17:55:20 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:55:20 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> References: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060511175520.GM26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Alfio Puglisi wrote: > I can't make sense of it. Iran as the first nation where searches for > "neural network" are originating, and second for "nanotechnology"? > Pakistan at the top spot for "artificial intelligence"? Just how many > people have Internet access in those countries? Either I am Actually, the data makes perfect sense. It's the newcomers that are looking into new technologies. It's their only chance to succeed. Demographics also plays a role: e.g. Iran has lots of idle, frustrated young people, some of them have Internet access. > interpreting the graphs wrong, or their IP-location algorithms need > some tuning. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 11 18:03:37 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:03:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Google Trends and technology interest In-Reply-To: <44637804.20109@pobox.com> References: <4902d9990605111017p16de83c7s502b194d991bcace@mail.gmail.com> <44637804.20109@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 5/11/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > And "Bayes" gives wholly different results from "Bayesian". I suspect > the data. > There is discussion about this on the google forum. The reason is that there are a really small volume of searches for these tech terms. Much smaller and the system would refuse to draw a graph. As Google doesn't provide a scale or volume numbers, one user suggested doing a comparison to get an idea of the volume. Quote: The following search terms range from the most popular to quite low. They are also terms that are relatively constant over time. Use any of these along with yoru own term to get a relative idea of the scale. 5 Sex 4 Madonna 3 Hastings 2 Tarzan 1 Pentecostal End quote. If you compare nanotechnology with sex, the nano graph disappears! :) But nanotechnology is slightly more popular than pentecostal. :) BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 11 18:11:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:11:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> These points seem to be missing something. A human level brain running at, say, 140 IQ but a million times faster can accomplish 1 million man years of work per year and do so without the tremendous management hassles and interpersonal friction of running a million person team. That is huge. Many problems are quite tractable to a large scale effort of that kind. It also seems very likely that the neocortex would optimize many problems faster and more fully when run at vastly higher speeds with equivalently speeded up inputs. Such a brain would be smarter over time and in much shorter time than otherwise. There were no unique neural structures found in Einstein's brain AFAIK. - samantha On May 11, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 5/11/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > You can compensate a lot by hard work. Up to a point. Vide supra: > the eternal canine on fast-forward won't produce much than lots of > happy barking, virtually gnawn bones, and tail-chasing. > > The problem with the "fast" canine example may be that the canine > brain may not have either the (a) the capacity; or (b) the proper > internal neural sub-nets to ever perform the function Einstein's > brain did (recognition of some rather unusual laws of physics). > They might however have the internal subnets to extract information > from smell data which humans completely lack. (Say for example the > "claimed" ability to be able to identify people who have cancer (or > some types of cancer) based on smell.) > > Running a neural network faster doesn't make it "better" at least > for some things... A human brain on fast forward may still have a > problem doing what some precisely adapted neural nets (an octopus > or squid with highly precise sensory system processing and > precision control of multiple arms) are capable of. At the same > time I don't believe those neural networks aren't particularly good > at algebraic (symbolic) manipulation no matter how fast you run them. > > Einstein's brain may have had a unique neural structure so that it > was able to make connections or recognize patterns that other > brains simply could not (at least very easily). Having (a) more > memory capacity (human vs. a dog for example) or (b) better spatial > manipulation capabilities ( e.g. those brains which can solve a > Rubik's Cube [1] very quickly) or (c) better language sequencing > capabilities (William Falkner comes to mind) may be things where > faster does not equal more creative. Though my general take on > much "intelligence" right now is that similar brains (with ~ equal > capacity and structure) can deal with almost anything given enough > information, training and time. Raw "speed" may help in getting > from point A to point Z faster. It is interesting to consider > whether raw capacity (as compared to raw speed) is essential for > solving the Professor's Cube [2]. This brings to mind space vs. > speed trade offs in computer systems. > > It raises the interesting question as to whether Einstein would > have been able to deduce a "Theory of Everything" had his brain not > been aging (over time brains do lose neurons) and/or had he been > given another hundred or two hundred years to work on the problem? > > Robert > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik%27s_Cube > 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor%27s_Cube > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 sentience at pobox.com Thu May 11 18:42:31 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:42:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> Message-ID: <44638597.10100@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > It also seems very likely that the neocortex would optimize many > problems faster and more fully when run at vastly higher speeds with > equivalently speeded up inputs. Such a brain would be smarter over time > and in much shorter time than otherwise. 1) Didn't you mean to say vastly higher speeds *without* equivalently speeded up inputs? Otherwise you have a simple isomorphism that wouldn't optimize any faster or more fully. 2) If you try any hack that *isn't* a simple isomorphism, the neocortex will probably break down unless you use an extremely tricky engineering hack to keep it running sanely. The human brain is not end-user-modifiable and its parts are not individually overclockable. If the neocortex has any inputs that depend on spiking frequency or spike timing (d'you think?) then speeding up the inputs breaks the API. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 11 19:54:48 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:54:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <44638597.10100@pobox.com> References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> <44638597.10100@pobox.com> Message-ID: <2076E122-C690-4A0D-8F1C-C28A183B3645@mac.com> On May 11, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> It also seems very likely that the neocortex would optimize many >> problems faster and more fully when run at vastly higher speeds with >> equivalently speeded up inputs. Such a brain would be smarter >> over time >> and in much shorter time than otherwise. > > 1) Didn't you mean to say vastly higher speeds *without* equivalently > speeded up inputs? Otherwise you have a simple isomorphism that > wouldn't optimize any faster or more fully. How would you optimize such a network faster with no more inputs than before? I see that the internal chewing over the inputs would happen much faster and potentially be more extensive. But that internal processing may terminate with not much better results unless more relevant external input is available. > > 2) If you try any hack that *isn't* a simple isomorphism, the > neocortex > will probably break down unless you use an extremely tricky > engineering > hack to keep it running sanely. The human brain is not > end-user-modifiable and its parts are not individually overclockable. > If the neocortex has any inputs that depend on spiking frequency or > spike timing (d'you think?) then speeding up the inputs breaks the > API. > Since we are positing a human brain equivalent that runs a million times faster it seems to me this question is challenging what was posited to start with. Somehow we have a brain running one million times faster. Now what can it likely do and not do? - samantha From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu May 11 18:58:36 2006 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:58:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? References: <20060510223708.23587.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060511083033.GT26713@leitl.org> <71D20B1D-4C38-4376-8FC7-48E5FF0E3D3D@mac.com> Message-ID: <02c401c6752c$e9273730$640fa8c0@kevin> One problem. You would have to have an equally large 1 million fold increase in the speed of the person's actions. Working the brain a million times faster does not help if the eyes can't move and refocus fast enough to keep up, if they can;t communicate faster, and can;t get the actual physical part of the "work" done a million times faster. Wouldn't you just have a brain endlessly cycling while waiting for work to be completed. ----- Original Message ----- From: Samantha Atkins To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? These points seem to be missing something. A human level brain running at, say, 140 IQ but a million times faster can accomplish 1 million man years of work per year and do so without the tremendous management hassles and interpersonal friction of running a million person team. That is huge. Many problems are quite tractable to a large scale effort of that kind. It also seems very likely that the neocortex would optimize many problems faster and more fully when run at vastly higher speeds with equivalently speeded up inputs. Such a brain would be smarter over time and in much shorter time than otherwise. There were no unique neural structures found in Einstein's brain AFAIK. - samantha On May 11, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: On 5/11/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: You can compensate a lot by hard work. Up to a point. Vide supra: the eternal canine on fast-forward won't produce much than lots of happy barking, virtually gnawn bones, and tail-chasing. The problem with the "fast" canine example may be that the canine brain may not have either the (a) the capacity; or (b) the proper internal neural sub-nets to ever perform the function Einstein's brain did (recognition of some rather unusual laws of physics). They might however have the internal subnets to extract information from smell data which humans completely lack. (Say for example the "claimed" ability to be able to identify people who have cancer (or some types of cancer) based on smell.) Running a neural network faster doesn't make it "better" at least for some things... A human brain on fast forward may still have a problem doing what some precisely adapted neural nets (an octopus or squid with highly precise sensory system processing and precision control of multiple arms) are capable of. At the same time I don't believe those neural networks aren't particularly good at algebraic (symbolic) manipulation no matter how fast you run them. Einstein's brain may have had a unique neural structure so that it was able to make connections or recognize patterns that other brains simply could not (at least very easily). Having (a) more memory capacity (human vs. a dog for example) or (b) better spatial manipulation capabilities ( e.g. those brains which can solve a Rubik's Cube [1] very quickly) or (c) better language sequencing capabilities (William Falkner comes to mind) may be things where faster does not equal more creative. Though my general take on much "intelligence" right now is that similar brains (with ~ equal capacity and structure) can deal with almost anything given enough information, training and time. Raw "speed" may help in getting from point A to point Z faster. It is interesting to consider whether raw capacity (as compared to raw speed) is essential for solving the Professor's Cube [2]. This brings to mind space vs. speed trade offs in computer systems. It raises the interesting question as to whether Einstein would have been able to deduce a "Theory of Everything" had his brain not been aging (over time brains do lose neurons) and/or had he been given another hundred or two hundred years to work on the problem? Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik%27s_Cube 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor%27s_Cube _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Thu May 11 21:33:03 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? Message-ID: <20060511213303.BB3B157FD1@finney.org> Here's an article from USA Today about the issue of people laptopping during lectures: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-03-unwired-grad-school_x.htm > Professors want their classes 'unwired' > By Maia Ridberg, The Christian Science Monitor > NEW YORK - When Don Herzog, a law professor at the University of Michigan, > asked his students questions last year, he was greeted with five seconds > of silence and blank stares. > > He knew something was wrong and suspected he knew why. So he went to > observe his colleagues' classes - and was shocked at what he found. > > "At any given moment in a law school class, literally 85 to 90% of the > students were online," Professor Herzog says. "And what were they doing > online? They were reading The New York Times; they were shopping for > clothes at Eddie Bauer; they were looking for an apartment to rent in > San Francisco when their new job started.... And I was just stunned." > > Wireless Internet access at universities was once thought to be > a clear-cut asset to education. But now a growing number of graduate > schools - after investing a fortune in the technology - are blocking > Web access to students in class because of complaints from professors. > > Herzog first went on the offensive in his own law classes, banning > laptops for a day as an experiment. The result, he says, was a "dream" > discussion with students that led him to advocate more sweeping changes. > > This school year, the University of Michigan Law School became the latest > graduate school to block wireless Internet access to students in class, > joining law schools at UCLA and the University of Virginia. > > The problem professors face is "continuous partial attention," an > expression coined by Linda Stone, a former Microsoft executive, to > describe how people check e-mail and try to listen to someone at the > same time. > > "As a teacher, you can tell when someone is there, but it's just their > body that is there," says Douglas Haneline, a professor of English > literature at Ferris State University in Grand Rapids, Mich. "Their face > is on 'screensaver,' so to speak, because what they are really doing is > checking their e-mail." > ... I understand that to people accustomed to multitasking, sitting and listening to a single information source may seem excruciatingly boring. I can suggest as an alternative, critical thinking about what is being presented. Instead of distracting yourself, use the ideas from the speaker to trigger your own associations and extrapolations. This will often lead to an overwhelming desire to ask questions. A good idea is to write those down and then perhaps ask the best one or two at the end of the talk. Or, if you're so sure that you know everything the speaker has to say that you won't get anything new out of the talk, maybe you shouldn't be there taking up room, especially at a conference with 1700 full seats and 250 in the overflow lounge. Hal From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 11 22:38:42 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:38:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: Ronald Baily on Extropy Institute Message-ID: <380-220065411223842790@M2W010.mail2web.com> May 09, 2006 "Extropy Institute Closes" http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/05/extropy_institu.shtml Good crisp article by Ron Bailey. (Some poster's comments lack character though.) Natasha Natasha Vita-More Extropy Institute, President -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu May 11 22:21:51 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? Message-ID: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna wrote: Even if a super computer mind could remember every last detail, equation, word or scenerio at a million times the speed of our own, how would it be able to come up with Einstein theories? Eugen Leitl replied: >Just the same way Einstein did. >>I still don't understand? Does this mean Einstein could remember every last detail, equation, >>word or scenerio at a million times the speed of our own and that's why he could come up >>with his theories? >>Or am I missing something? Eugen Leitl wrote: What do you think being creative is? >>I think being creative is having the ability or power to create. Is a computer beating a grandmaster in chess being creative? >>No, I don't think so. How can you tell it isn't? >>I thought the game of chess was stratigec? >>I thought there was only so many moves you can make based on the games rules and >>stratigec plan? >>Wouldn't a computer beating a grandmaster only mean that the programmer had >>as much knowledge as the grandmaster? >>That's why I don't understand. >>If all I could do is retain memories and not be able to associate them (like Einstein). >> "not necessary smarter, just faster" >>doesn't make any sense to me. >>I'm just not understanding but thanks for the replies. Is the tissue in your brain being creative right now? Glia, pieces of dendritic tree? Ion channels? Protein domains? Water vibration modes? Quarks? >>I'm an average proll, this is way over my head. 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 sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 11 23:27:12 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:27:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <20060511213303.BB3B157FD1@finney.org> References: <20060511213303.BB3B157FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <30CD893E-3A97-4A53-9E07-58B9B19A776A@mac.com> On May 11, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Hal Finney wrote: > > I understand that to people accustomed to multitasking, sitting and > listening to a single information source may seem excruciatingly > boring. > I can suggest as an alternative, critical thinking about what is being > presented. Instead of distracting yourself, use the ideas from the > speaker to trigger your own associations and extrapolations. This > will > often lead to an overwhelming desire to ask questions. A good idea is > to write those down and then perhaps ask the best one or two at the > end > of the talk. > Do not confuse critical thinking with the absence of apparent other activity. I am not "distracting myself" by actively listening with a computer. I note my ideas and associations and follow them nearly immediately by using a computer. Is this so difficult for you to understand or accept? > Or, if you're so sure that you know everything the speaker has to say > that you won't get anything new out of the talk, maybe you > shouldn't be > there taking up room, especially at a conference with 1700 full seats > and 250 in the overflow lounge. Why not attempt to understand what I am really saying instead of acting like I said something else? - samantha From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu May 11 23:47:30 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 18:47:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/11/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: Anna, Eugen, I think is just trying to make the point that the physical processes in your brain aren't particularly "creative" -- what they are doing is dictated by the laws of physics. Spike was pointing out that a chess playing computer (which is following preprogrammed strategies) can exhibit "behaviors" that seem to be "creative". The problem tends to revolve around what people do or do not consider to be creative.. Think of it in terms of Art or Literature -- were impressionism or cubism or any of the other "-isms" creative? Was Falkner who could craft really complex sentences or Hemingway who could write really simple (but meaningful) ones more creative? In many cases creativity involves something which is novel -- a new way of looking at the same things or a new way of seeing something. I.e. it is "outside" of the classical box (patterns) that people are used to thinking with. Einstein's work tends to be so amazing because much of it was so far ahead of where everyone else was that it stretched from the outside of the left side of the box to the outside of the right side (it literally redefined the box). So creativity involves a couple of things -- being willing to think along unconventional lines and being able to recognize some of those lines as being particularly interesting or useful. (Think of all of the art which people have created which is very unusual and interesting to them but nobody else happens to see it the way they see it -- then one is viewed as creative leaning towards "wierd" rather than creative leaning towards brilliance.) If one can entertain outside of the box thoughts faster and discard the uninteresting and/or non-useful thoughts faster then one would probably be perceived as being more creative. I suspect most people who are labeled creative are those who first manage to see or understand something and tend to leave the audience wondering "Why didn't I think of that?" Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 12 01:07:31 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:07:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] DESIGN: Cooper-Hewitt National Design Awards Message-ID: <380-2200655121731859@M2W012.mail2web.com> This site isn't as effective as it could be but if you are interested, take a look at candidates in the categories of architecture design, communications design, fashion design, interior design, landscape design, and product design. http://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=2030700 8&message_id=179627&user_id=Cooper This is a very tasty topic for anyone who loves design like I do and can imagine how it fits into possibilities for our future. Also, there is a discussion going on right now on the CTF list on design. Philippe Van Nedervelde came up with some fun ideas. Perfect timely, as at the very same time I am working on a paper on design and transhumanism. Create! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri May 12 01:42:54 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:42:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060512014254.86408.qmail@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: I suspect most people who are labeled creative are those who first manage to see or understand something and tend to leave the audience wondering "Why didn't I think of that?" >Thank you, this is a really good definition of creative. >Anna --------------------------------- Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 12 04:46:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:46:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] trouble in serendip In-Reply-To: <200605110601.k4B61Y0B017317@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200605120526.k4C5QaHn028981@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Damien or anyone else, is AC Clarke is OK? What if anything can be done? spike http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/11/srilanka.violence.ap/index.html From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 12 04:55:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:55:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] backwards light In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605120526.k4C5QaHo028981@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I don't know what to think of this. spike http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/lights-most-exotic-trick-yet-so-fast-it-goes- backwards-10590.html In the past few years, scientists have found ways to make light go both faster and slower than its usual speed limit, but now researchers at the University of Rochester have published a paper today in Science on how they've gone one step further: pushing light into reverse. As if to defy common sense, the backward-moving pulse of light travels faster than light. Confused? You're not alone. "I've had some of the world's experts scratching their heads over this one," says Robert Boyd, the M. Parker Givens Professor of Optics at the University of Rochester. "Theory predicted that we could send light backwards, but nobody knew if the theory would hold up or even if it could be observed in laboratory conditions." Boyd recently showed how he can slow down a pulse of light to slower than an airplane, or speed it up faster than its breakneck pace, using exotic techniques and materials. But he's now taken what was once just a mathematical oddity-negative speed-and shown it working in the real world. "It's weird stuff," says Boyd. "We sent a pulse through an optical fiber, and before its peak even entered the fiber, it was exiting the other end. Through experiments we were able to see that the pulse inside the fiber was actually moving backward, linking the input and output pulses." So, wouldn't Einstein shake a finger at all these strange goings-on? After all, this seems to violate Einstein's sacred tenet that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. "Einstein said information can't travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light," says Boyd. "The pulse of light is shaped like a hump with a peak and long leading and trailing edges. The leading edge carries with it all the information about the pulse and enters the fiber first. By the time the peak enters the fiber, the leading edge is already well ahead, exiting. >From the information in that leading edge, the fiber essentially 'reconstructs' the pulse at the far end, sending one version out the fiber, and another backward toward the beginning of the fiber." Boyd is already working on ways to see what will happen if he can design a pulse without a leading edge. Einstein says the entire faster-than-light and reverse-light phenomena will disappear. Boyd is eager to put Einstein to the test. So How Does Light Go Backwards? Boyd, along with Rochester graduate students George M. Gehring and Aaron Schweinsberg, and undergraduates Christopher Barsi of Manhattan College and Natalie Kostinski of the University of Michigan, sent a burst of laser light through an optical fiber that had been laced with the element erbium. As the pulse exited the laser, it was split into two. One pulse went into the erbium fiber and the second traveled along undisturbed as a reference. The peak of the pulse emerged from the other end of the fiber before the peak entered the front of the fiber, and well ahead of the peak of the reference pulse. But to find out if the pulse was truly traveling backward within the fiber, Boyd and his students had to cut back the fiber every few inches and re-measure the pulse peaks when they exited each pared-back section of the fiber. By arranging that data and playing it back in a time sequence, Boyd was able to depict, for the first time, that the pulse of light was moving backward within the fiber. To understand how light's speed can be manipulated, think of a funhouse mirror that makes you look fatter. As you first walk by the mirror, you look normal, but as you pass the curved portion in the center, your reflection stretches, with the far edge seeming to leap ahead of you (the reference walker) for a moment. In the same way, a pulse of light fired through special materials moves at normal speed until it hits the substance, where it is stretched out to reach and exit the material's other side [See "fast light" animation]. Conversely, if the funhouse mirror were the kind that made you look skinny, your reflection would appear to suddenly squish together, with the leading edge of your reflection slowing as you passed the curved section. Similarly, a light pulse can be made to contract and slow inside a material, exiting the other side much later than it naturally would [See "slow light" animation]. To visualize Boyd's reverse-traveling light pulse, replace the mirror with a big-screen TV and video camera. As you may have noticed when passing such a display in an electronics store window, as you walk past the camera, your on-screen image appears on the far side of the TV. It walks toward you, passes you in the middle, and continues moving in the opposite direction until it exits the other side of the screen. A negative-speed pulse of light acts much the same way. As the pulse enters the material, a second pulse appears on the far end of the fiber and flows backward. The reversed pulse not only propagates backward, but it releases a forward pulse out the far end of the fiber. In this way, the pulse that enters the front of the fiber appears out the end almost instantly, apparently traveling faster than the regular speed of light. To use the TV analogy again-it's as if you walked by the shop window, saw your image stepping toward you from the opposite edge of the TV screen, and that TV image of you created a clone at that far edge, walking in the same direction as you, several paces ahead [See "backward light" animation]. "I know this all sounds weird, but this is the way the world works," says Boyd. About the University of Rochester The University of Rochester (www.rochester.edu) is one of the nation's leading private universities. Located in Rochester, N.Y., the University's environment gives students exceptional opportunities for interdisciplinary study and close collaboration with faculty. Its College of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering is complemented by the Eastman School of Music, Simon School of Business, Warner School of Education, Laboratory for Laser Energetics, and Schools of Medicine and Nursing. >From University of Rochester From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 12 12:27:24 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:27:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Not necessary smarter, just faster? In-Reply-To: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060511222151.43124.qmail@web35506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060512122724.GW26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 06:21:51PM -0400, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > Anna wrote: Anna, your quoting style is highly unusual. Maybe you should read http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html If you're using Outlook or Outlook Express there are tools to help you with that, e.g. http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/ > Even if a super computer mind could remember every last detail, equation, word or > scenerio at a million times the speed of our own, how would it be able to come up > with Einstein theories? You're looking at the hardware. Instead, you should be looking at a person implemented in the hardware. If you would upload Einstein, he would not be able remember every laste detail, equation, etc. He would be just as limited as Einstein, albeit running a million times faster. E.g. mathematicians (some notable exceptions excluded) are only highly productive in an early part of their career. Einstein also had his annum mirabilis. I think a million of such miracle years would be truly impressive to behold. And, of course, unlike dogs, we can actually build systems which think better than we do, or optimize the processes making us tick, so there would be no such built-in limits as a dog on his virtual porch. > Eugen Leitl replied: > >Just the same way Einstein did. > > >>I still don't understand? Does this mean Einstein could remember every last detail, equation, > >>word or scenerio at a million times the speed of our own and that's why he could come up > >>with his theories? > >>Or am I missing something? Einstein was a highly exceptional person. Some people are dramatically more productive than others. With molecular-scale diffs you can figure out where six-sigma outliers differ from us, or where chimps differ from us, for that matter. That should give you a pointer to where we should go. > Eugen Leitl wrote: > What do you think being creative is? > > >>I think being creative is having the ability or power to create. Ok. > Is a computer beating a grandmaster in chess being creative? > > >>No, I don't think so. I would think that within its domains a modern chess system is being highly creative. The differences between human play and machine play are increasingly going away. > How can you tell it isn't? > > >>I thought the game of chess was stratigec? Strategy, as in building and executing a plan? > >>I thought there was only so many moves you can make based on the games rules and > >>stratigec plan? Of course the canvass is limited. But the number of all possible moves is large enough to be untreatable by brute-force. > >>Wouldn't a computer beating a grandmaster only mean that the programmer had > >>as much knowledge as the grandmaster? Absolutely not. I could easily write a program which would beat me in chess. You don't have to be a chess grandmaster to build a system which blows away anyone on two legs. > >>That's why I don't understand. > >>If all I could do is retain memories and not be able to associate them (like Einstein). > >> "not necessary smarter, just faster" > >>doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense to me, either. It's probably because you're erecting a straw man. Something which only memorizes but can't access is a video recorder. > >>I'm just not understanding but thanks for the replies. > > Is the tissue in your brain being creative right now? Glia, pieces of dendritic tree? > Ion channels? Protein domains? Water vibration modes? Quarks? > > >>I'm an average proll, this is way over my head. I was trying to illustrate that intelligence and creativity is an emergent (a high-level property emerging from interaction of low-level parts) of a particular physical system between our ears. If you pull it apart/look at low-level processes you don't see anything particularly magical. The individual cells in an information-processing tissue are not doing something particularly interesting. The farther down you look, the less special it gets. Whether a smart being is built from animal cells, transistors or spin valves, it doesn't matter as they're organized by the same principles at a higher level. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri May 12 16:10:03 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:10:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] MEDIA: R.U. Sirius on NANO Showing - Transhumanist Art Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060512110337.05056308@pop-server.austin.rr.com> NeoFiles Show #38: Transhumanist Art http://mondoglobo.net/ The second part of our conversation with Natasha-Vita More, President of the Extropy Institute and Founder and Director of Transhumanist Arts & Culture. Sponsor: Life Enhancement Products | Producer: Jeff Diehl | Host: RU Sirius | Co-hosts: Sherry Miller and Steve Robles | Intro & Outro: Scrappi DuChamp From zero.powers at gmail.com Fri May 12 18:37:20 2006 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:37:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> Message-ID: <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> Hello all It's been a while since I've posted to the list, although I have continually monitored it for several years now. I'm surprised and disheartened to hear that ExI is no more, but I know that the Board must know what's best for the institute and that gives me some comfort. In terms of memorable discussions, a few years back there were a number of very thought provoking discussions/debates concerning the inevitability and benefits of societal transparency. Although the discussions eventually tended toward ad hominem attacks, I believe that there was much of value in the ideas expressed in them. I also believe that with the continual evolution, use and acceptance of surveillance technology (think cell phone cameras, traffic light cameras, explosion of CCTV On 5/5/06, Max More wrote: > > Thank you for your words, Hal. > > As Natasha and Mitch have said, plans are afoot to preserve all the > public material -- in fact to make it more available than ever before. > As we work on this project, it would be very helpful to hear from List > subscribers (especially you long-timers): which do you think are the > best and most memorable discussions that have appeared on the List? > Which discussions or individual posts should be included in any selection? > > Once the bulk of the existing material is online and searchable, we > would like to go further, using more advanced tools and perhaps making > the Extropy Library a repository that continues to build. > > Onward! > > Max > > > Hal Finney wrote: > > I want to congratulate Natasha, Max, and the rest of the Extropy > > Institute board for taking this difficult but proactive step rather than > > letting ExI and its related concepts just fade away as happens with > > so many institutions. When the time has come to move on, recognizing > > and accepting that fact is always difficult. But the world has changed > > enormously since the 1980s when Max and Tom invented the idea of > Extropy, > > and even since the early 1990s when this mailing list was born in its > > earlier incarnation. Ideas which at that time were considered too > > outlandish even for science fiction are now debated regularly in the > > corridors of power and on the front pages of major newspapers and other > > opinion leaders. > > > > My main concern during this time of transition is that the history > > of Extropy be preserved and not forgotten. Because of the extreme > > unacceptability of transhumanist ideas in the early days (hard to > remember > > today), the original extropians mailing list had a policy of > quasi-secrecy > > with regard to list archives. As a result, much of that free-wheeling > > discussion has been lost, an information exchange which many of us > > remember as among the most dynamic and engaging we have ever > encountered. > > > > It may never be possible to reconstruct and restore those lost archives, > > but eventually the list policy changed, and we should make sure that > > what remains is not lost. Not only list archives, but the working > > papers and other documents produced by ExI over the years, should all > > be preserved for future study and reference. It's possible that someday > > this material will be seen as representing the birth of ideas which turn > > out to be key to the further development of humanity. > > > > Making data available for an indefinite period into the future will > > not happen automatically. It will take time and effort to make the > > preparations, and funds will be needed as well. If there are things I > > could do to help, I hope Natasha will feel free to ask, and I am sure > > that most of the rest of us in the community feel the same way. > > > > Hal Finney > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Fri May 12 18:46:42 2006 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:46:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7a3217050605121146l6302804bva23cc75cd4ce5eda@mail.gmail.com> It's been a while since I've posted to the list, although I have continually monitored it for several years now. I'm surprised and disheartened to hear that ExI is no more, but I'm sure the Board must know what's best for the institute and that gives me comfort. In terms of memorable discussions, a few years back Mike Lorrey, I and others engaged in a number of very thought provoking discussions/debates concerning the inevitability and benefits of societal transparency. Although the discussions eventually devolved to ad hominem attacks, I believe that there was much of value in the ideas expressed in them. I also believe that with the continual evolution, use and acceptance of surveillance technology (think cell phone cameras, traffic light cameras, explosion of CCTV cameras, www.zabasearch.com, Google and its various information gathering and sharing technologies, etc.) it is an issue which will come to a head very soon. So I'd like to see those threads which, together with early books on the subject like David Brin's, largely framed the issues and trade-offs that society will soon be forced to address, one way or another. I'm very happy to hear that this list will remain in tact. Health and prosperity to you all. Zero (P.S. Sorry about the imcompete message sent earlier. Typing too fast and accidently hit the "send" button mid-stream.) On 5/5/06, Max More wrote: > > > > Thank you for your words, Hal. > > > > As Natasha and Mitch have said, plans are afoot to preserve all the > > public material -- in fact to make it more available than ever before. > > As we work on this project, it would be very helpful to hear from List > > subscribers (especially you long-timers): which do you think are the > > best and most memorable discussions that have appeared on the List? > > Which discussions or individual posts should be included in any > > selection? > > > > Once the bulk of the existing material is online and searchable, we > > would like to go further, using more advanced tools and perhaps making > > the Extropy Library a repository that continues to build. > > > > Onward! > > > > Max > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 12 18:51:41 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 20:51:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060512185141.GJ26713@leitl.org> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:37:20AM -0700, Zero Powers wrote: Hi Zero, welcome back. > In terms of memorable discussions, a few years back there were a number of > very thought provoking discussions/debates concerning the inevitability and > benefits of societal transparency. Although the discussions eventually Funny you should bring Brinworld to our attention right now, given the recent spook snoopery hullaballoo: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=NSA&btnG=Search+News > tended toward ad hominem attacks, I believe that there was much of value in > the ideas expressed in them. I also believe that with the continual I'm all for sousveillance and reversing the panopticon. However, what we are getting so far is the exact opposite. And for straightforward reasons: intelligence favors centralism, and protects the governors against the governed. Because of this I'm for the legislation protecting privacy and outlawing surveillance -- with the exception of private individuals gathering data on corporate and government functionaries. This should be actively encouraged and protected. For some reason, I do not expect such legislation to become quite popular, nevermind to be passed at all. > evolution, use and acceptance of surveillance technology (think cell phone > cameras, traffic light cameras, explosion of CCTV I hope the Heimatland Geheimpolizei hasn't cut you off right now. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From scerir at libero.it Fri May 12 19:24:38 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 21:24:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] backwards light References: <20060427155532.73286.qmail@web52602.mail.yahoo.com> <20060428000208.5261.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <000c01c675f9$b99ae340$81901f97@administxl09yj> I don't know what to think of this. [...] spike [Not sure this post will arrive there, for reasons still obscure - to me, and the postmaster - I do not receive extropic posts anymore] The 'ratio' should be that quantish effects love a very strange kind of causality, which is 'timeless'. In philosophy there is, at least, another kind of timeless causality, the 'statistical causality'. Note that strange effects, such as backwards 'influences', could solve the ontological problem of quantum entanglement (and of quantum teleportation) [1]. The other way to solve it, at present time, is a complete renunciation: 'correlations without correlata'. Here below interesting papers (from authorities) Chiao http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9811019 http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/qo02/chiao/ Pegg http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506141 Greenberger, Svozil http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027 Suarez http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0311004 Susskind http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503097 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504039 [1] Ontology, EPR-Bohm-Bell apparatus. When the entangled particle-1 goes through the analyzer-1, informations (or Fourier transforms, or whatever) are sent, from there, to the source of the entangled pairs, backward in time, about the parameter of the analyzer-1 (if not also about the outcome of measurement). So the source would 'know' these informations (at t=0), and the source could also 'attach' these information to particle-2, going the other side. When the entangled particle-2 goes through the analyzer-2, informations (or Fourier transforms, or whatever) are sent, from there, to the source of the entangled pairs, backward in time, about the parameter of the analyzer-2 (if not also about the outcome of measurement). So the source would 'know' these informations (at t=0), and the source could also 'attach' these information to particle-1, going the other side. This way each particle, while traveling, knows everything about the story of its entangled partner. So, both particles might be correlated. From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 12 23:30:00 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:30:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future In-Reply-To: <7a3217050605121146l6302804bva23cc75cd4ce5eda@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060504032053.DE72E57FD1@finney.org> <445C0DD3.9060600@maxmore.com> <7a3217050605121137j26713290u7b85362fd7fb788e@mail.gmail.com> <7a3217050605121146l6302804bva23cc75cd4ce5eda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6913D258-0BD1-49B8-834B-F4D5CA86F644@mac.com> On May 12, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Zero Powers wrote: > > I'm very happy to hear that this list will remain in tact. Health > and prosperity to you all. > "In tact"?? Oh man, are you sure you are thinking of this list? We aren't exactly known for tact. :-) From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 13 02:19:08 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 19:19:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <7a3217050605121146l6302804bva23cc75cd4ce5eda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605130258.k4D2w0L2020426@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Zero Powers Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ANNOUNCE: Extropy Institute's Future ...It's been a while since I've posted to the list, although I have continually monitored it for several years now... Zero Powers! Cool man, welcome back! We missed you bud. It's great to see old friends drop in again. {8-] Hey I still owe you a sushi dinner. Don't remember why, but it doesn't matter, so long as there are raw squiggly beasts to be devoured in absurdly self-indulgent quantities. ? I'm surprised and disheartened to hear that ExI is no more, but I'm sure the Board must know what's best for the institute and that gives me comfort. ... I and others engaged in a number of very thought provoking discussions/debates concerning the inevitability and benefits of societal transparency...Zero Do restart this thread if you wish, Zero. Someone will hafta sign up to take Mike's place on the privacy rights extreme, and I will be the openness advocate again, altho I am far less extreme on that issue than I once was. Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat May 13 03:07:59 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 20:07:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights References: <200605130258.k4D2w0L2020426@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "spike" ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. How, Spike? Olga From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 13 05:38:03 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 22:38:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 8:08 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] privacy rights > > From: "spike" > ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. > > How, Spike? > > Olga I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: I have nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. {8^D) Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an openness advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can think of a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I may sign up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his privacy. I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. This next generation thing has me thinking bigtime: I have pondered abandoning the nickname spike, which I have carried for over 20 years now, and carried through my entire professional career. Reasoning: I could leave behind all traces of everything I have ever posted on the internet. For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any religion that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the common domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. The internet never forgets. Unthinkable scenario: if Iran and Israel go at it with nukes in the next few years, we could end up with a million Tarheel jehadists like Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. I could see the wisdom in becoming invisible, or having no memetic past. Everyone should have that option. spike From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Sat May 13 06:15:08 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 23:15:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605122315s6268662fh237150709894a32@mail.gmail.com> hey spike, join the Unitarian jihad! that act will was your worries away. googled it and got my jihad Unitarian style name. smile, ilsa > > > > From: "spike" > > ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. > > > > How, Spike? > > > > Olga > > I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: I have > nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. {8^D) > Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an openness > advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can think > of > a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I may > sign > up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his > privacy. > I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. > > This next generation thing has me thinking bigtime: I have pondered > abandoning the nickname spike, which I have carried for over 20 years now, > and carried through my entire professional career. Reasoning: I could > leave > behind all traces of everything I have ever posted on the internet. > > For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any religion > that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any > future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the common > domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. The > internet > never forgets. Unthinkable scenario: if Iran and Israel go at it with > nukes > in the next few years, we could end up with a million Tarheel jehadists > like > Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. I could see the wisdom in becoming invisible, > or > having no memetic past. Everyone should have that option. > > spike > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Sat May 13 06:15:36 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 23:15:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80605122315s6268662fh237150709894a32@mail.gmail.com> References: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <9b9887c80605122315s6268662fh237150709894a32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605122315j25f53387m823a85304fead37e@mail.gmail.com> will wash. On 5/12/06, ilsa wrote: > > hey spike, join the Unitarian jihad! that act will was your worries > away. googled it and got my jihad Unitarian style name. smile, ilsa > > > > > > From: "spike" > > > ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on > > openness. > > > > > > How, Spike? > > > > > > Olga > > > > I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: I > > have > > nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. {8^D) > > > > Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an > > openness > > advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can > > think of > > a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I may > > sign > > up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his > > privacy. > > I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. > > > > This next generation thing has me thinking bigtime: I have pondered > > abandoning the nickname spike, which I have carried for over 20 years > > now, > > and carried through my entire professional career. Reasoning: I could > > leave > > behind all traces of everything I have ever posted on the internet. > > > > For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any > > religion > > that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any > > future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the > > common > > domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. The > > internet > > never forgets. Unthinkable scenario: if Iran and Israel go at it with > > nukes > > in the next few years, we could end up with a million Tarheel jehadists > > like > > Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. I could see the wisdom in becoming > > invisible, or > > having no memetic past. Everyone should have that option. > > > > spike > > > > -- 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 pharos at gmail.com Sat May 13 08:51:03 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:51:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5/13/06, spike wrote: > > I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: I have > nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. {8^D) > Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an openness > advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can think of > a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I may sign > up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his privacy. > I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. > (Sorry to hear you've got nothing to hide, spike. You'll have to try harder). :) Technology is obviously making privacy more and more difficult. The problem is getting the balance right to stop government victimisation and subjugation of the population. Are you ok with the NSA trolling through every phone call in the USA? Their computers will be scanning for keywords initially. But what if everyone who comes to the attention of officials for a minor incident has all their calls examined just in case there is any else to investigate? In the UK any minor charge means you have a DNA sample taken to see if you can be linked to any other past or future crime. The UK is the cctv world leader. What is happening now is that 'hoodies' have become standard wear for teenagers / troublemakers to hide their faces from cameras. Wearing hoods have now been banned in many shops and effectively if adults see youngsters wearing hoods they assume they are looking for trouble. Crime has also tended to move away from the cctv in city centres, so that formerly quiet country villages are being forced to install cctv to protect from increasing crime levels and to video every car that comes into the village. There are some hopeful signs. The ?12m Digital Bridge television service, launched in one of London's most deprived boroughs on Monday, pledges to "put every member of the community in the front row of the fight against crime". The system is being rolled out to 22,000 residents across Shoreditch this summer who will be able to monitor 11 CCTV cameras from the comfort of their living rooms. In autumn, it will be extended to 70,000 households across the borough of Hackney before extending across London and some local authorities in the Midlands and the North West next year. -------------------- BillK From amara at amara.com Sat May 13 07:59:59 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:59:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Another anti-evolutionist in the White House Message-ID: Bush's new spokesperson: press secretary Tony Snow, about evolution: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/05/11/who-speaks-for-bush/ -- ******************************************************************** 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/ ******************************************************************** "Stupidity got us into this mess, so why can't it get us out?" -- Will Rogers From benboc at lineone.net Sat May 13 08:23:09 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:23:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4465976D.7070900@lineone.net> OK, it's been almost a month now, and no-one's bitten. I'm curious to know the answer to this. Obviously it involves calculus, and that's beyond my current capability to get my head around, but here's my naive take on the problem. Spike riddled: > 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? Ben squeezed hard on his tiny brain, and came up with: W = dist round the world r = range of 1 tank of fuel Maximum amount of fuel that can be transferred = r/3 (If it was any other amount, then either the plane won't make it back, or will be back with fuel to spare, so fuel transferred must be r/3 for max. effect). So if plane 2 can make it round the world with 1 and 1/3 tanks of fuel, W = r + r/3 Er, my algebra is still a bit dodgy, but i think that's 0.75W. So the planes have a range of 3/4 the distance round the world. > 2. What is the necessary minimum range capability if one had three > such planes? The same logic applies to each individual plane, i.e., maximum fuel donation will be r/3, so with 2 donor planes, we have 2r/3 fuel available at point r/3. But the single plane that continues can't accept more fuel than it has used so far (r/3), so one of the planes has to donate 1/6 it's fuel to each of the two other planes, which would add 1/12r to their journey. But then one would later transfer 1/3 of it's extra fuel to the remaining plane, so that it had enough to get back, which would add another r/18. The final plane would use r + r/3 + r/18 to get round the world. r = 0.72W > 3. What is the necessary range capability if one has N planes? (This > one is cool). With two planes, r = 0.75W, with 3 planes, r = 0.72W, and every extra plane will remove a smaller distance from the total - transfer r/3 to N-1 planes, and each one in turn transfers 1/3 of that, etc. They all have to get back, from further and further away, which needs more and more fuel, so a smaller and smaller proportion of the original fuel is avaliable for the final plane. I don't know enough maths to cope with this, it's obviously calculus or something, but it's going to be an asymptote. I think. So N planes will each have a range of somewhere between 0.75W and 0. I have a feeling that an infinite number of planes would need a range of 0? Unless i've got myself horribly confused (not difficult). But i don't know how to tell the range with N planes. Do tell, uncle Spike, please? (It's odd that problems involving statistics have people feverishly pounding their keyboards, but this one hasn't drawn a single post. Unless it's because aeroplanes are boring, whereas zorfs and envelopes are fascinating). ben From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat May 13 16:34:52 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 17:34:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro In-Reply-To: <20060508210718.89077.qmail@web26406.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060508210718.89077.qmail@web26406.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605130934l7e7419f7tc1e7f18f81f7e71b@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/06, Pes Udoname wrote: > > I would like to do somthing that would help towards transhumanism/ > singulartarianism in the future. > > Options I have: > > Pure maths like group theory, Galois theory etc > > Pure maths like Riemann intergration etc, all of which seems too rigorous > to me > > Applied maths > > Physics- quantum mechanics, thermodynamics > > Computing - formal logic, computer algebra > > Computing - actually coding stuff (very annoying) > There's a glut of programmers at this stage, so there's no need to go into that area unless you particularly like it (which it seems you don't :)). The big areas where progress can be made over the next few decades, it seems to me, are biotech and nanotech. Nanotech is arguably primarily a branch of chemistry, but quantum mechanics and thermodynamics are certainly very relevant to it, so that would suggest physics as your best option from the above list; but you might want to talk with one of your professors, perhaps, to figure out a longer-term plan if you want to get into that area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Sat May 13 16:03:43 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:03:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: <4465976D.7070900@lineone.net> References: <4465976D.7070900@lineone.net> Message-ID: <1147536265.3AC8658A@fc9.dngr.org> Ben - Typing on my wireless, so I'll be concise. I can improve yr 3 plane soln. Let the 1st plane transfer r/3 its fuel to the 2nd plane. Then the 2 planes fly an additional r/9. The 2nd plane transfers 4r/9 to the final plane. This fills the final plane & leaves the 2nd plane w/ 4r/9 in its tanks so it can fly home. This gives a range of 13r/9. But for a globe we can do better. Let the 2nd helper plane fly the opposite direction. The 1st helper transfers r/3 as usual. This gives the main plane a range of 4r/3. The 2nd plane flies r/3, meets the 1st as it is running out, xfers r/3, and both fly back. This gives a range of 5r/3, so r = 0.6 of the circumference. I was not sure how to generalize to N planes for the circular case, although for a straight line I think the increment goes down by a factor of 3 for each added plane. Hal On Sat, 13 May 2006 3:19, ben wrote: > OK, it's been almost a month now, and no-one's bitten. > > I'm curious to know the answer to this. Obviously it involves calculus, > and that's beyond my current capability to get my head around, but > here's my naive take on the problem. > > > Spike riddled: > >> 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? > > > Ben squeezed hard on his tiny brain, and came up with: > > W = dist round the world > r = range of 1 tank of fuel > Maximum amount of fuel that can be transferred = r/3 > (If it was any other amount, then either the plane won't make it back, > or will be back with fuel to spare, so fuel transferred must be r/3 for > max. effect). > > So if plane 2 can make it round the world with 1 and 1/3 tanks of fuel, > W = r + r/3 > Er, my algebra is still a bit dodgy, but i think that's 0.75W. So the > planes have a range of 3/4 the distance round the world. > >> 2. What is the necessary minimum range capability if one had three >> such planes? > > The same logic applies to each individual plane, i.e., maximum fuel > donation will be r/3, so with 2 donor planes, we have 2r/3 fuel > available at point r/3. > But the single plane that continues can't accept more fuel than it has > used so far (r/3), so one of the planes has to donate 1/6 it's fuel to > each of the two other planes, which would add 1/12r to their journey. > But then one would later transfer 1/3 of it's extra fuel to the > remaining plane, so that it had enough to get back, which would add > another r/18. The final plane would use r + r/3 + r/18 to get round the > world. r = 0.72W > > > >> 3. What is the necessary range capability if one has N planes? (This >> one is cool). > > > With two planes, r = 0.75W, with 3 planes, r = 0.72W, and every extra > plane will remove a smaller distance from the total - transfer r/3 to > N-1 planes, and each one in turn transfers 1/3 of that, etc. They all > have to get back, from further and further away, which needs more and > more fuel, so a smaller and smaller proportion of the original fuel is > avaliable for the final plane. > > I don't know enough maths to cope with this, it's obviously calculus or > something, but it's going to be an asymptote. I think. > > So N planes will each have a range of somewhere between 0.75W and 0. I > have a feeling that an infinite number of planes would need a range of > 0? > > Unless i've got myself horribly confused (not difficult). > > But i don't know how to tell the range with N planes. > > Do tell, uncle Spike, please? > > (It's odd that problems involving statistics have people feverishly > pounding their keyboards, but this one hasn't drawn a single post. > Unless it's because aeroplanes are boring, whereas zorfs and envelopes > are fascinating). > > ben > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 13 19:20:27 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 12:20:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130258.k4D2w0L2020426@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605130258.k4D2w0L2020426@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5952081B-891A-45DB-A00F-2B573E0D77B6@mac.com> On May 12, 2006, at 7:19 PM, spike wrote: > > Do restart this thread if you wish, Zero. Someone will hafta sign > up to > take Mike's place on the privacy rights extreme, and I will be the > openness > advocate again, altho I am far less extreme on that issue than I > once was. > Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on openness. > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment to US Constitution How can people be secure against intrusions on their persons, papers and effects at any arbitrary whim of the government if the government presumes authority to spy upon the people in any matter it chooses? Bush has declared that the "War on Terror" justifies his ordering the NSA to spy on Americans if they make calls overseas. This is in clear defiance to not only the above but in defiance of the much weaker FISA restrictions and all relevant checks and balances. Last week it came to light that the NSA has requested and obtained data on who calls whom among most American citizens since 9/11. Again with no procedure against misuse or abuse by government or others and against the intent of our Constitution and with no public debate the government presumes that it can gather any data it wants any way it wants outside the law on the grounds that maybe it can be used to prevent a horrendous crime. On Thursday the government denied the program. On Friday it claimed there was nothing wrong with the program it had just denied the day before. The Patriot Act includes provisions allowing government agents to come into our homes with little or no judicial oversight or approval process whatsoever and without even informing us and search our premises and property. The government has passed legislation allowing it to send a so-called "National Security Letter" to most any business or organization demanding any and all information about any of their clients. If anyone in the organization even admits to being served with such a letter on an individual they are guilty of a felony. The list is MUCH longer than this short sample. "Privacy rights extreme"? The extremes are largely on the other side it seems to me. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 13 19:31:12 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 12:31:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> On May 12, 2006, at 10:38 PM, spike wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin >> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 8:08 PM >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] privacy rights >> >> From: "spike" >> ... Having a baby on the way does change one's perspective on >> openness. >> >> How, Spike? >> >> Olga > > I am an openness advocate because I am in some ways a special case: > I have > nothing in my past I want to hide. (Except perhaps my ExI posts. > {8^D) > Likewise my wife has nothing that requires privacy, but while an > openness > advocate, I do not wish to peer into other people's privacy. I can > think of > a zillion perfectly legitimate reasons for not being open. While I > may sign > up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness compromises his > privacy. > I don't yet know if he will be a privacy fanatic; he isn't born yet. Nothing to hide? Are you sure you have never violated any of the many tens of thousands of laws on the books? Are you sure you have never called or associated with anyone that may be now or ever under federal suspicion? No? Then you had best think much more deeply if your basis for being for being watched and surveilled increasingly continuously is that you "have nothing to hide". If our government goes ever more draconian, paranoid and power mad than it arguably already is then I would suspect that all of us would have more and more things we would not like to have it aware of. Things like our thoughts, our opinions, our associations, our business dealings, our banking records. Yes, many of these things we lost control of already but it can certainly get worse and will if enough of the people say "well, I have nothing to hide". That isn't the point and never was the point. > For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any > religion > that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any > future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the > common > domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. You would do better to fear your government. It is far more likely to do you serious harm. However, one of things privacy is important for is precisely to keep any busybodies from taking objection to and seriously threatening your life and security. So the underlying point is well taken. - samantha From transcend at extropica.com Sat May 13 20:31:07 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:31:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Iron Man Kurzweil Reference Message-ID: <200605132103.k4DL3XUp020658@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I was reading issue #86 of The Invincible Iron Man in which Tony Stark (the Iron Man) is reading a copy of the "Age of Spiritual Machines." As a billionaire industrialist and weapons developer leading research into AI and nanotech, Tony is deeply disturbed by implications of the book and the Singularity. He contemplates putting down the armor once and for all, but ultimately decides that would do nothing to stop a singularity. Instead, he works to develop a new technology that would allow him to push a kill-switch on anything he invents (therefore aborting any out of control.something. Obviously his plan is flawed, but.) This was an issue from some time in '04 I believe, just after the breakup of the Avengers. I thought it was interesting to see a Kurzweil reference in the comic and to see Tony Stark refer to Kurzweil by name. Just shows a broadening of transhumanist influence. Also, over 2005-2006, it has become common for Tony Stark to refer to technologically enhanced Marvel superheros as "posthumans" -- another demonstration of the broadening influence of the terminology of transhumanism. Brandon Reinhart transcend at extropica.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Sat May 13 23:02:27 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 01:02:27 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> References: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> Message-ID: <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> [Hi, by the way!] I'm going to do a lecture on RFID tags in Sweden May 23, debating with the Swedish privacy right debater P?r Str?m (http://www.atomerochbitar.se/english/), so this discussion is gefundenes fressen. P?r is pretty much against electronic traces and allowing big brother all his powers. I think unfortunately he has a bit simplistic views on how technology and law work. His position is very much to promote laws protecting privacy and making it more or less mandatory for new tech to avoid leaving personal information traces for others to find and exploit. Even if such laws were enacted on the grand scale (witness the ambitious EU database protection acts) they can often be circumvented when convenient (US demands personal info on air passengers, the EU complies; the police want more information to Protect The Children, everybody scrambles to give them it). But more importantly, much of the best technology development is in the informal creative zone. This is where Web 2.0 stuff is made, and it often is based on peoples electronic traces. Regulations for software privacy are unlikely to stop me from making a new program ignoring them that I distribute to my friends, who in turn spread it further and allow it to become another Napster, Flickr or Wiki. Effective enforcement of privacy would stop this creativity. So, what can we do? First, giving lots of power to the police isn't a problem if we can trust the police to serve us. Hence each new power should be coupled with an increase in citizen control over the agency. Accountability and transparency in exchange for more power. This is not an impossible political goal, although at present it is rare and implementing it will always be uphill. To get the maximum creativity and innovativenes, we should encourage tinkering and playing with new technology. Low thresholds to entrance, no limitations on who gets to connect what to what. This is my main message to the RFID business, which is still caught in thinking about supply chains (because that is where the big money is right now) and considering consumer products to be smart kitchens, washing machines and other top-down designed systems *for* the consumer. Not that the consumer might want to use RFID tags on her own in her own ways - to mark up toys, enable objects to act as remote controls or just for fun. This kind of home experimentation is both likely to eventually lead to the true killer apps of RFID - whatever they are - and consumer acceptance. Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back externalities of privacy loss. The second group is much trickier, because no law can protect you from the scorn of your sister or a disapproving mother. And I think most of the privacy debate has been so obsessed with one's favorite power concentration that we have missed the very real chilling effects of creating a transparent village. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 14 00:56:37 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:56:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.s e> References: <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513203831.0b45b188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:02 AM 5/14/2006 +0200, Anders Sandberg, wrote: >[Hi, by the way!] Hi Anders, appreciate the work you have done. Say hi to Nick and Julian for me. >I'm going to do a lecture on RFID tags in Sweden May 23, debating with the >Swedish privacy right debater P?r Str?m >(http://www.atomerochbitar.se/english/), so this discussion is gefundenes >fressen. snip >Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. >Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our >close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, >enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back externalities >of privacy loss. The second group is much trickier, because no law can >protect you from the scorn of your sister or a disapproving mother. And I >think most of the privacy debate has been so obsessed with one's favorite >power concentration that we have missed the very real chilling effects of >creating a transparent village. I think it is worth considering the evolutionary reasons humans value privacy and why taking it away as in prisons is such a punishment. The usual EP rules discussed in my recent post "Emotion connected memes and EP" apply. Any thoughts? Keith Henson PS "My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is the only approach in the social and behavioral sciences that deals with why, in an ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks the universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving notions about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human nature." (Silverman 2003) From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 14 01:00:39 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:00:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] EP/memetics story in the Register In-Reply-To: <200605110601.k4B61Y0B017317@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/ Crusading veggies steamroll university into web censorship 'Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard' By Chris Williams Published Friday 12th May 2006 07:02 GMT A provocative essay has been pulled from servers by Newcastle University authorities following complaints from vegetarians. Nikolas Lloyd, who was granted IT services as a visiting fellow in evolutionary psychology, has had all his pages taken down and his email access rescinded. The guy is very funny. Keith Henson From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sun May 14 01:27:10 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:27:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights Message-ID: Anders Sandberg wrote: "Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back externalities of privacy loss. The second group is much trickier, because no law can protect you from the scorn of your sister or a disapproving mother. " This is very true. Power, in all forms, corrupts. People are acutely aware of how power is being abused by groups of *other people* but always fail to realize their own abuses. Online debates are a good example of this. The very same people who are extremely sensitive to, say, government abuses that stem from a desire to control other people, see nothing wrong with crucifying others for their unpopular opinions, especially if they see others have been doing that as well. The group gives them license to abuse and they are more than happy to pull the trigger. Abuse of power is inversely proportional to the amount of accountability for the abuse. In other words, if you give people an opportunity to abuse they won't have to pay for, the abuse will happen. Human psychology doesn't seem to contain a mechanism that would be able to recognize and stop itself from inflicting abuse in the absence of consequences. I'm afraid that the only way to prevent abuse of power is to learn to recognize those situations that promote abuse. Generally, I think that learning social psychology seems essential in an effort to debug one's own psychology full of evil evolutionary baggage. S. From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 14 01:34:46 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 18:34:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <882487F8-E485-4B8D-892D-1369AA88545C@mac.com> On May 13, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > [Hi, by the way!] > Hey! Long time no post. > So, what can we do? First, giving lots of power to the police isn't a > problem if we can trust the police to serve us. Hence each new power > should be coupled with an increase in citizen control over the agency. > Accountability and transparency in exchange for more power. This is > not an > impossible political goal, although at present it is rare and > implementing > it will always be uphill. > If the State has more or less complete awareness of everything everyone does then the State is also fully aware of any actions by anyone or any group of people that may thwart its desires. If citizens do no also have an equal level of view of everything the State does then the State will always be able to outmaneuver the citizens. Also, the State as maker of laws, can always find and use or even create new laws to punish or stop persons and groups that are too troublesome to its desires. Full surveillance makes this much easier. The police are the enforcement arm of the State. The police cannot be trusted to serve us because the serve the State and the State is not perfectly in our control and likely never can be. > > Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. > Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our > close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, > enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back > externalities > of privacy loss. The second group is much trickier, because no law can > protect you from the scorn of your sister or a disapproving mother. > And I > think most of the privacy debate has been so obsessed with one's > favorite > power concentration that we have missed the very real chilling > effects of > creating a transparent village. I am unsure what you are advocating on the first. Transparency of the state to the people? The state will never agree to this. Laws can much more easily protect us from actual harm from our fellow citizens. Their mere disapproval is another matter that I doubt we need laws against. But it is not everyone's business what I do. I see no reason to make it my neighbor or the state's business. I also don't believe the perhaps implicit assumption that privacy cannot be guarded by technology as well as taken away. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 14 01:40:28 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 18:40:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] EP/memetics story in the Register In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: It is a ridiculously rude title. But that doesn't justify censorship. People can read or not read and heap scorn on the writer if they are offended. Why is more needed than that? But I don't find the guy funny really, mainly stupid on the purported subject. Typical tempest in a tea pot on all sides. - samantha On May 13, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/12/newcastle_veggie_site/ > > Crusading veggies steamroll university into web censorship > 'Why vegetarians should be force fed with lard' > By Chris Williams > Published Friday 12th May 2006 07:02 GMT > > A provocative essay has been pulled from servers by Newcastle > University > authorities following complaints from vegetarians. > > Nikolas Lloyd, who was granted IT services as a visiting fellow in > evolutionary psychology, has had all his pages taken down and his > email > access rescinded. > > The guy is very funny. > > Keith Henson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 14 02:48:07 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:48:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605140257.k4E2vjhU018052@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Heartland ... > > ...Power, in all forms, corrupts. People are acutely aware > of how power is being abused by groups of *other people* but always fail to realize their own abuses... Not me, I was acutely aware of my own abuses when I had power. I so deplored my own abusiveness, that I abused myself for being so abusive. This in turn required still further punishment for being abusive, which was further self abuse. This cycle soon spiraled to the point of being dangerous. > ... The very same > people who are > extremely sensitive to, say, government abuses that stem from a desire to > control other people... My non-distrust of government stems from a desire to control myself. {8^D Silliness aside, Heart, I can think of an ExI poster who isn't going to like your comment one bit. Stand by for a scorching. spike From kevin.t.armstrong at gmail.com Sun May 14 03:49:49 2006 From: kevin.t.armstrong at gmail.com (Kevin Armstrong) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 23:49:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: <1147536265.3AC8658A@fc9.dngr.org> References: <4465976D.7070900@lineone.net> <1147536265.3AC8658A@fc9.dngr.org> Message-ID: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> Hal, you have the right idea for the linear solution, though make sure you conclude by saying 13r/9 = W, so that r = 9/13 W. In general, for n planes, I believe we need r + 1/3 r + 1/9 r + ... + (1/3)^(n-1) * r = W. If memory of geometric series serves me, for n approaching infinity, we get the left hand side equal to 1/(1 - 1/3) r = 3/2 r, so infinitely many planes would require r = 2/3 W. Not exactly an overwhelming improvement over the two plane solution, or even over the one plane solution. -Kevin On 5/13/06, Hal Finney wrote: > > Ben - > > Typing on my wireless, so I'll be concise. > > I can improve yr 3 plane soln. Let the 1st plane transfer r/3 its fuel > to the 2nd plane. Then the 2 planes fly an additional r/9. The 2nd plane > transfers 4r/9 to the final plane. This fills the final plane & leaves > the 2nd plane w/ 4r/9 in its tanks so it can fly home. This gives a > range of 13r/9. > > But for a globe we can do better. Let the 2nd helper plane fly the > opposite direction. The 1st helper transfers r/3 as usual. This gives > the main plane a range of 4r/3. The 2nd plane flies r/3, meets the 1st > as it is running out, xfers r/3, and both fly back. This gives a range > of 5r/3, so r = 0.6 of the circumference. > > I was not sure how to generalize to N planes for the circular case, > although for a straight line I think the increment goes down by a factor > of 3 for each added plane. > > Hal > > On Sat, 13 May 2006 3:19, ben wrote: > > OK, it's been almost a month now, and no-one's bitten. > > > > I'm curious to know the answer to this. Obviously it involves calculus, > > and that's beyond my current capability to get my head around, but > > here's my naive take on the problem. > > > > > > Spike riddled: > > > >> 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? > > > > > > Ben squeezed hard on his tiny brain, and came up with: > > > > W = dist round the world > > r = range of 1 tank of fuel > > Maximum amount of fuel that can be transferred = r/3 > > (If it was any other amount, then either the plane won't make it back, > > or will be back with fuel to spare, so fuel transferred must be r/3 for > > max. effect). > > > > So if plane 2 can make it round the world with 1 and 1/3 tanks of fuel, > > W = r + r/3 > > Er, my algebra is still a bit dodgy, but i think that's 0.75W. So the > > planes have a range of 3/4 the distance round the world. > > > >> 2. What is the necessary minimum range capability if one had three > >> such planes? > > > > The same logic applies to each individual plane, i.e., maximum fuel > > donation will be r/3, so with 2 donor planes, we have 2r/3 fuel > > available at point r/3. > > But the single plane that continues can't accept more fuel than it has > > used so far (r/3), so one of the planes has to donate 1/6 it's fuel to > > each of the two other planes, which would add 1/12r to their journey. > > But then one would later transfer 1/3 of it's extra fuel to the > > remaining plane, so that it had enough to get back, which would add > > another r/18. The final plane would use r + r/3 + r/18 to get round the > > world. r = 0.72W > > > > > > > >> 3. What is the necessary range capability if one has N planes? (This > >> one is cool). > > > > > > With two planes, r = 0.75W, with 3 planes, r = 0.72W, and every extra > > plane will remove a smaller distance from the total - transfer r/3 to > > N-1 planes, and each one in turn transfers 1/3 of that, etc. They all > > have to get back, from further and further away, which needs more and > > more fuel, so a smaller and smaller proportion of the original fuel is > > avaliable for the final plane. > > > > I don't know enough maths to cope with this, it's obviously calculus or > > something, but it's going to be an asymptote. I think. > > > > So N planes will each have a range of somewhere between 0.75W and 0. I > > have a feeling that an infinite number of planes would need a range of > > 0? > > > > Unless i've got myself horribly confused (not difficult). > > > > But i don't know how to tell the range with N planes. > > > > Do tell, uncle Spike, please? > > > > (It's odd that problems involving statistics have people feverishly > > pounding their keyboards, but this one hasn't drawn a single post. > > Unless it's because aeroplanes are boring, whereas zorfs and envelopes > > are fascinating). > > > > ben > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 14 04:09:16 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:09:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <5952081B-891A-45DB-A00F-2B573E0D77B6@mac.com> Message-ID: <200605140411.k4E4BNKj023745@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:20 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] privacy rights > > > On May 12, 2006, at 7:19 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > Do restart this thread if you wish, Zero... > > > > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, > papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, > shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable > cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing > the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." > - Fourth Amendment to US Constitution > > How can people be secure against intrusions on their persons, papers > and effects at any arbitrary whim of the government if the government > presumes authority to spy upon the people in any matter it chooses?... > - samantha I do confess I am conflicted on this one. What if they use that NSA technique to find and stop a terrorist act? What if they already have? They wouldn't be able to report it without giving away their hand. So by opposing vocally the NSA actions, we would be putting lives in danger. But it does seem they could track only the calls that are going to known terrorist connections or certain countries. Or certain area codes known to harbor bad guys. I dunno. I'm withholding judgment on this one for now. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 14 04:24:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 21:24:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605140431.k4E4Vc97025942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Guys, keep working. I don't see the right answer yet, or rather I found a general solution that works. Then I realized I did not account for planes going around the other direction. {8-] spike ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Armstrong Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 8:50 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle Hal, you have the right idea for the linear solution, though make sure you conclude by saying 13r/9 = W, so that r = 9/13 W.? ... I was not sure how to generalize to N planes for the circular case, although for a straight line I think the increment goes down by a factor of 3 for each added plane. Hal From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 14 05:43:58 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 22:43:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> That was a terrific conference at Stanford today, ja? I was cheered to see many old friends there. Mind-expanding as always, better this time than last; the 1 April 2000 conference at Stanford was dominated by Bill Joy's dark musings. Max had a terrific pitch, very thought provoking, something I have wondered about. We all know smart people who make appalling decisions, stunning examples of bad judgment based on emotion or human frailty. Perhaps we ourselves are poster children for this tragic human trait. As we approach the singularity, enhance human intelligence and the inherent power that comes with increased intelligence, will we become wiser? Max urged evidence-based futurism with the proactionary principle. Bill McKibben made a pitch that was sincere and well spoken, but I disagreed by about pi radians with nearly everything he said. To his question, is not this existence good enough? I answer with a sincere nooooooooooooooo! Sebastian Thrun gave a fun pitch on his winning entry to the DARPA challenge. Hofstadter gave a good singularity pitch, as did Nick Bostrom, Eliezer and the others. My sincere thanks to the Singularity Institute for putting this together. You guys have expanded my mind to the very limits of its bony protective structure. spike From velvet977 at hotmail.com Sun May 14 11:44:26 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 07:44:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights References: <200605140257.k4E2vjhU018052@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Heartland >> ...Power, in all forms, corrupts. People are acutely aware >> of how power is being abused by groups of *other people* but always fail > to realize their own abuses... > > > Not me, I was acutely aware of my own abuses when I had power. I so > deplored my own abusiveness, that I abused myself for being so abusive. > This in turn required still further punishment for being abusive, which was > further self abuse. This cycle soon spiraled to the point of being > dangerous. This cycle can easily be broken at any time by stopping further abuse. Obviously, the original comment did not apply to you as I'm well aware that you know what power can do to people. > Silliness aside, Heart, I can think of an ExI poster who isn't going to like > your comment one bit. Stand by for a scorching. I'm not sure who you have in mind but there's always some self-appointed thought police officer out there anxious to score another kill (plus extra village status points) as part of an ongoing campaign to ensure compatibility with current group beliefs. It's really true, and I wish I had known this 6 years ago, that it's a bad idea to blaspheme publicly without a nick name. It's not safe and probably never will be. Poor Nikolas Lloyd. Let's hope that was his nick name. :) H. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 14 14:17:10 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 10:17:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] EP/memetics story in the Register In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20060513205649.0b1fa718@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060514100549.026419e0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:40 PM 5/13/2006 -0700, samantha wrote: >It is a ridiculously rude title. But that doesn't justify >censorship. People can read or not read and heap scorn on the writer >if they are offended. Why is more needed than that? > >But I don't find the guy funny really, mainly stupid on the purported >subject. Typical tempest in a tea pot on all sides. The difference between funny and stupid can be a fine line, but try this line from an essay on why guys find it scary to ask women out. "In short, the cost of putting a woman off with a clumsy approach would have been, in the environment of our ancestors, very high. This would lead to a selective pressure on men to take the task of propositioning very seriously indeed. Making a bad mistake would be almost as deleterious to the potential for reproduction as forgetting to bring a dagger to a knife fight." It is gone from the University's server of course, but you can still find it in the Google cache. Keith Henson PS EP would make the case that there is a difference between guy humor and gal humor. Humor, according to Dr. Minsky, is a way to break up thoughts leading in a "wrong" direction. From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 14 16:19:11 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 11:19:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060514111452.04e17690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:43 AM 5/14/2006, Spike wrote: >That was a terrific conference at Stanford today, ja? I was cheered to see >many old friends there. Glad to hear this and I wish I could have been there. Natasha From hal at finney.org Sun May 14 16:16:51 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 09:16:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spike's Aeroplanes Puzzle In-Reply-To: <200605140431.k4E4Vc97025942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605140431.k4E4Vc97025942@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1147623413.303E6658@fb7.dngr.org> On Sat, 13 May 2006 21:42, spike wrote: > Guys, keep working. I don't see the right answer yet, or rather I > found a > general solution that works. Then I realized I did not account for > planes > going around the other direction. {8-] spike Okay, I tool another look @ this, for the 3 plane case. What I realized is that it's best to transfer fuel as early as possible. Ideally with 2 planes the 1st plane would xfer all its fuel immediately. We can't do that because the 2nd plane can't hold it, but if we could it would double the range. So what we should do with 3 planes is to transfer as soon as the other planes can hold it. This is after r/4. We can transfer 1/4 tank to each of the other 2 planes, filling them up, and still make it back. Then they fly another r/4 and the 2nd plane transfers 1/4 tank to the final one. The 3rd plane has had a net addition of 1/2 tank and can fly 3r/2, better than my 13r/9 solution (but not as good as my 5r/3 for going around the world). The N plane solution will use the same idea, each plane turns back as soon as the others can hold its transfered fuel. Just as with N=3 we were able to transfer 1/4 tank twice, for N it turns out we can transfer 1/(N+1) tank, (N-1) times. This gives a total range of r * (1 + (N-1)/(N+1)). I guess the real question is whether there is a proof of optimality! Hal From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun May 14 16:16:11 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 12:16:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <000c01c6763a$7118cfb0$6600a8c0@brainiac> <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060514115729.078943b0@unreasonable.com> Spike wrote: >For instance, I cannot be certain I never blammisphied online any religion >that could have adherents who may akbar a knife between my ribs at any >future date. I think all my blammisphy has been restricted to the common >domestic varieties of religion, but I honestly cannot recall. As some one raised Jewish, I wondered what the appropriate answer would be were I in Northern Ireland, stopped by armed men of unclear allegiance, and asked if I was Protestant or Catholic. The best answer I came up with was, "Religion wasn't really a part of my life growing up, but I'd like to get closer to God now. Do you have any suggestions for a church I could attend?" >This next generation thing has me thinking bigtime: I have pondered >abandoning the nickname spike, which I have carried for over 20 years now, >and carried through my entire professional career. Reasoning: I could leave >behind all traces of everything I have ever posted on the internet. After 27 years on the Internet, I've left a lot of spoor. Disappearing would be tough. I recently joined a new organization, and someone posted a welcoming email to their list which included a link to a bio I'd written years ago. Someone else responded with an echoic welcome that embedded a photo of me. >While I may sign up for openness, young Isaac may not. My openness >compromises his privacy. I was in young Isaac's position. When considering whether to work at Livermore, I had to decide whether I wanted to undergo the scrutiny and dossier acquisition inherent in obtaining a "Q" clearance. But I realized that, with my father's much higher clearance, I was certainly in a file somewhere. Now I have about a dozen close relatives with clearance, so my daughter, nieces, and nephews have even less choice in the matter. -- David. From ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk Sun May 14 19:17:00 2006 From: ps_udoname at yahoo.co.uk (Pes Udoname) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 20:17:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060514191700.67044.qmail@web26415.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> There's a glut of programmers at this stage, so there's no need to go into that area unless you particularly like it (which it seems you don't :)). The big areas where progress can be made over the next few decades, it seems to me, are biotech and nanotech. Nanotech is arguably primarily a branch of chemistry, but quantum mechanics and thermodynamics are certainly very relevant to it, so that would suggest physics as your best option from the above list; but you might want to talk with one of your professors, perhaps, to figure out a longer-term plan if you want to get into that area. I like programming, I hate debugging. Which is what takes most of the time. But thanks for the advice, and I assume applied maths to do with vectors helps too? Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 14 22:15:35 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:15:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <200605140411.k4E4BNKj023745@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605140411.k4E4BNKj023745@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7C31A4AA-A8E2-4BC9-ABFD-225EA591B91B@mac.com> On May 13, 2006, at 9:09 PM, spike wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins >> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:20 PM >> To: ExI chat list >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] privacy rights >> >> >> On May 12, 2006, at 7:19 PM, spike wrote: >> >>> >>> Do restart this thread if you wish, Zero... >>> >> >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, >> shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable >> cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing >> the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." >> - Fourth Amendment to US Constitution >> >> How can people be secure against intrusions on their persons, papers >> and effects at any arbitrary whim of the government if the government >> presumes authority to spy upon the people in any matter it >> chooses?... >> - samantha > > > I do confess I am conflicted on this one. What if they use that NSA > technique to find and stop a terrorist act? Those who would assume power over everyone and everything always attempt to make it about stopping something everyone is against. Terrorism is the latest excuse. But I think we have seen about enough by now of stuff to "fight terrorism" to be a mite skeptical of this excuse. Stuff found out by these "anti-terrorism means" is then part of the knowledge of the government. The government has a LOT of other agendas besides fighting terrorism. Once the means are widely in place to monitor all of us it becomes near impossible to fight back ever again or escape the tightening noose. > What if they already have? So what? Stopping terrorism dead, which they certainly haven't and can't, is no good to me if I lose or stand to lose all freedom and security from governmental abuse in the process. Having some freedom and privacy left merely by government generosity is not good enough. > They wouldn't be able to report it without giving away their hand. > So by > opposing vocally the NSA actions, we would be putting lives in danger. What? Our lives are being put in danger by our government employing such means. We don't need to aid this oppression by not even bleating a protest on the way to full state control. > But > it does seem they could track only the calls that are going to known > terrorist connections or certain countries. Or certain area codes > known to > harbor bad guys. I dunno. I'm withholding judgment on this one > for now. > Withholding judgement may be the same in effect as approving. - samantha From metavalent at gmail.com Sun May 14 22:38:48 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:38:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060514111452.04e17690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060514111452.04e17690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605141538qfd234b3qc3adb16945e783c5@mail.gmail.com> What a great day. The singularity is much nearER the day after the summit than it was the day before. Or maybe, just maybe, IT HAPPENED, yesterday. Who can really tell and how would we really know, after all? Odds are that we won't ever "see" it anyway, but in hindsight. People from all over the country were there and in comparison to the 120 or so from the earliest Accelerating Change conference (according to my new buddy Dennis, in line before the event), the Singularity Summit was more than 2000 strong! The meme is spreading and the more it is scrutinized, deconstructed, and smelted under the blistering heat of the public spotlight, the more refined and effective it becomes. Eliezer Yudkowski: Many extra credit points for focusing on the Intelligence Explosion and refusing to be held hostage to our limited vocabulary. GREAT pace and tenor of delivery. "Singularity" is certainly a compelling term and idea, but as you rightly explained, it has nowhere near the organizing potential of "ecology." We need "the" word to vitally mobilize these efforts and actively embed them into the global cultural fabric. Thank for for defending the perimeter from fruitless and innane religious debate. That does not mean the topic itself is unimportant, it was just not the right venue for it. Assignment from Eliezer: Solve reflectivity, and you get a gold star on your paper! Max: Seemed like a bit of a ProP infomercial, but if I hadn't already been familiar with ProP, I probably would have felt otherwise. I have say that in order to somewhat restrain my otherwise dopey, starstruck admiration for your work. One should grow out of that, at some point. Of course, the burden of providing that ultimate meta-context for the tribe is heavy, heavy, heavy, man, and you bear it well. Cory Doctorow: How did I go this long without knowing this name? I must have had some seriously faulty circuits somewhere, selective ADD, or some out-of-phase, de-tuned info-filter in my brain, but I'm glad that the summit corrected for that gross oversight on my part. Brilliant orator and apologist for all things singularitarian and digitally millennial. Everyone: Support the DRCMA!!! John Smart: we KNOW you are a brilliant and illumined brother, but 90 slides in 20 minutes? Perhaps it was a sense of urgency to get all that information out when the opportunity presented itself, but we can get the information any time, thanks to your fantastic writing and web site. At a conference, we want to get to know YOU a little more. I convey only a deep respect when I suggest to try and relax and know that your station is assured, your seat at the table perpetually reserved. We all know that we can't keep up with you, but if you want us to FOLLOW, we need a trail guide that glances back over the shoulder to make sure the peloton is in tow. Study Ray's PACE of delivery ... he's hit a sweet spot for sheer volume of intellectual content throughput. And THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to both Doug Hofstadter and (live by the most bitchin' gadget of the conference, Teleportec) Bill McKibben for their much needed cross-examination. If not for their ever loyal incisive contributions, the Singularity would rapidly implode under the weight of it's own self-centered gravity. Doug: It might be time for "A Coffeehouse Conversation" update on this 25th anniversary of the May 1981 Scientific American essay. :) Nick Bostrom: That which "seems 2% likely" to occur, ACTUALLY OCCURS 42.6% of the time. Everyone: adjust your Expectation Meters accordingly! WE NEED TO HELP DR. CARLOS FEDER! Finally, and perhaps most importantly: I sat next to Dr. Carlos Feder, of Stanford Medical Center. His focus is on AI in Medical Diagnosis. Dr. Feder's draft book may be a crucial foundation for this specific application of AI. There is no way that today's physicians can keep up with the amount of information published daily and we are missing out on many healing opportunities. Incorrect and under-informed diagnoses are escalating due to the Human Brain Bandwidth Constraint. There is a kind of AI that can solve this. We need to reach into "mind-space" and pull out an AI that will fill this vital need. It's a very palpable and attainable goal for short-to-mid term artificial intelligence. The problem is focused, increasingly well-defined, and an essetial step down the extropian road. When Max was pressed for predictions I interpreted his response as, "Predictions are for amatuers or astrologers. Let's set TIMELINES and GOALS and get to work. It will happen when we PLAN it and MAKE it happen." So what are we waiting for? Let's get to work helping Dr. Carlos Feder and make Medical Diagnostic AI a fully funded priority. Jurvetson, Thiel, get out the checkbook and let's "git 'er done!" On 5/14/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 12:43 AM 5/14/2006, Spike wrote: > > >That was a terrific conference at Stanford today, ja? I was cheered to see > >many old friends there. > > Glad to hear this and I wish I could have been there. > > Natasha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Digital Signature metavalent at gmail.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.50 Comment: Open Source Encryption for Everyone iD8DBQFEEiuWYAcVeu6D610RAoabAJwI3uZf8vtlJVwGg1m/Ty1AUtPbXwCeLlMY lm0+qZKzfIcIt5H63tqhsp0= =2Ad+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From metavalent at gmail.com Sun May 14 22:51:05 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:51:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> References: <55516AB4-B453-472E-82DF-6FBA10EE8D5F@mac.com> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605141551j3e0b0388l1c7ca4ee3ff7c6ec@mail.gmail.com> I too was surprised by that, but left my Tablet PC at home, anyway. Turns out, many people just ignored that instruction (or never even read it) and brought cameras, laptops, and I even heard a phone ring during the closing Q & A. I have two years worth of written notes in my old, beat-up, and very reliable acer c-111 tablet pc, so it seemed absurd to not bring it; but being a Good Do Bee, I took my notes on paper and expanded and transcribed them when I got home. That turned out to be somewhat of an advantage in this particular case, as it prompted me to review and expand upon my observations in the process. Perhaps there is a benefit to doing things "less" efficiently for a meat-computer (brain) that only operates as a serial processor at 100Hz. :) On 5/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Is this a bad joke? My laptop is an extension of my mind. I have > practiced active listening and exploring with it for many years. > Why would this of all conferences ask me to leave part of my mind at > home? This really concerns me. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Digital Signature metavalent at gmail.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.50 Comment: Open Source Encryption for Everyone iD8DBQFEEiuWYAcVeu6D610RAoabAJwI3uZf8vtlJVwGg1m/Ty1AUtPbXwCeLlMY lm0+qZKzfIcIt5H63tqhsp0= =2Ad+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hal at finney.org Mon May 15 06:00:49 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford Message-ID: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> I enjoyed the conference as well, and it was great to have a chance to meet and chat with several list members afterwards. Here are some sites which liveblogged the conference and give a good summary of the various presentations: http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/activity_updates/index.html http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3029 http://www.downtheavenue.com/conference_highlights/index.html I was especially impressed with Eliezer's talk. I'd never seen him speak before, and he did a great job. His writing tends to be dense and somewhat opaque to me, but as a speaker he was terrific. He also had an excellent balance between his slides and what he was saying; not merely reading the slides, but not ignoring them either - emphasizing the main points, stating things in slightly different language, so that both senses were bringing in complementary information. There were a lot of issues raised worth discussing, but I want to make a somewhat "meta" comment regarding our methodologies for predicting the future. Surpisingly but encouragingly, a topic that popped up a few times in the talks was our human tendency to be over-confident in our predictions. Nick Bostrom quoted a study which asked people to guess at factual answers by giving a range of possibilities; a range that was supposed to represent a 98% confidence interval. Their range should be wide enough that they'd expect the answer to be outside that range only 2% of the time. In fact, the answers were outside the range more like 40% of the time. We've discussed this general phenomenon of overconfidence on the list before. It's reasonable and appropriate to draw a lesson from this and to try to recalibrate our estimations, to recognize that we are probably being too narrow in our thinking and that we need to expand our estimates of what is possible and likely. Nick mentioned this, and then Max did as well, and I think Eliezer may have touched on it. That's fine, but then they asked a question of the panelists, when do you think human-level AI will be achieved? Kurzweil gave his answer, 2029, John Smart said 2070, and a few others answered as well, but Nick and Max demurred on the grounds of this result on overconfidence. There are two problems with this reasoning. The first is that it is technically incorrect: when you recalibrate because of human overconfidence, you should expand your range, the confidence interval, but not your mean, the center of the range. And the mean is what the panelists were being asked to provide. But more fundamentally, according to a book I've read recently, The Wisdom of Crowds (a phrase Kurzweil used quite a bit) by James Surowiecki, there is something of a paradox in human estimation ability. Individually we tend to be highly overconfident. But, collectively, our estimates are often extremely good. Surowiecki describes classic examples like guessing the weight of a pig, or the number of jelly beans in a jar. Collecting guesses from a crowd and averaging them, the result is usually right to within a few percent. Often the crowd's result is closer than any individual guess. Surowiecki sees this phenomenon as being behind the success of such institutions as futures markets, including idea futures. The reason these institutions work is because they are successful at aggregating information from a diverse set of participants. Surowiecki emphasizes the importance of diversity of viewpoints and describes a number of studies showing that, for example, ethnically diverse juries do a better job. He also describes several traps that can arise, such as a copycat effect where people are polled publicly and sequentially for their guesses, causing later participants to amend their mental estimates to fall into line with the emerging consensus. Markets are sometimes vulnerable to this but at least the financial incentive is always there to encourage honesty. The bottom line is that the wisdom of crowds is one of the best guides we have to the future, and so when people refuse to make guesses because they have recalibrated themselves into a mental fog, they are no longer contributing to the social welfare. It's much better, when being polled like this, for people to try to cut through the uncertainty and find that "50%" point where they feel they are as likely to be too low as too high. If they can do that, and avoid being influenced by the guesses of those who speak before them, and if the group is reasonably diverse, you can get about as good an estimate as you're going to get. I would have liked to have received that estimate, and would have found it one of the most valuable pieces of information I took away that day. Of course, the speakers were not exactly a model of diversity, and probably an even better estimate could have come from the audience. I wish they had been polled as well. You could have everybody stand up, then say to remain standing if you think human-level AI will occur before 2100, then before 2070, 2050, 2030, and so on. At some point it will be roughly clear when half the audience sits down, and that's your estimate. The larger community would provide far more diversity and a correspondingly improved estimate. I would love to see a student project ask 100 people walking into a supermarket, what year do you think computers will be as smart as people, so that you could have a conversation on the internet with a computer and you wouldn't be able to tell if it was a person or a machine? Averaging those results would produce some interesting data, especially if we were also able to compare with similar results from various communities with different levels of expertise. I think the crowd would be surprisingly accurate on a question like that. Everyone interacts with computers, to some degree, and people probably have some idea of how quickly they are changing. The lesson I take from reading a variety of sources about the strengths and weaknesses of human reasoning abilities is this. You somewhat have to be of two minds in dealing with uncertainty. Your private estimations should be as accurate as possible, taking into consideration known biases and attempting to compensate for them. That's what Nick and Max were doing. But, at the same time, your public communications should perhaps be more traditional and should not necessarily reflect all these internal mental adjustments and calibrations. A classic example is argumentation. We've debated at length the surprising economic result that rational people should not disagree. But it may be that, even though they don't disagree about the facts, they should still argue as if they did disagree. Argumentation brings out issues and directions of analysis that might not appear if they just exchanged the minimal amount of data necessary to reach agreement. It is a rich form of communication which can produce higher quality agreement than would occur otherwise. And the same thing applies to guesses. Even if you have recalibrated your mental confidence interval to the point where you expect almost anything to happen, it still may make sense to make a prediction based on the best guess that you can come up with. You don't necessarily want to say, oh, well, humans are so overconfident, our guesses are much less likely to be true than we think. It may be correct, but it's unhelpful. Even though humans are individually overconfident, collectively their guesses are, and will remain until we get AI, the best guide we have to the future. People should not be afraid to guess just because they fear being overconfident. Acting as if we don't know that we are overconfident may actually be a socially more responsible way to behave. Hal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 15 08:35:36 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:35:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605141538qfd234b3qc3adb16945e783c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060514111452.04e17690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <4e674fa00605141538qfd234b3qc3adb16945e783c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605150135v2aa85746kcc7a92c5849d2356@mail.gmail.com> On 5/14/06, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: > > What a great day. The singularity is much nearER the day after the > summit than it was the day before. Or maybe, just maybe, IT HAPPENED, > yesterday. Who can really tell and how would we really know, after > all? Odds are that we won't ever "see" it anyway, but in hindsight. > > And THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to both Doug Hofstadter and (live > by the most bitchin' gadget of the conference, Teleportec) Bill > McKibben for their much needed cross-examination. If not for their > ever loyal incisive contributions, the Singularity would rapidly > implode under the weight of it's own self-centered gravity. Doug: It > might be time for "A Coffeehouse Conversation" update on this 25th > anniversary of the May 1981 Scientific American essay. :) > I never thought I'd wish for the day when the "need a fantasy to latch onto" crowd just waited for the mothership to beam them up. Being a pessimist only means _most_ of your surprises are pleasant ones. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 15 08:52:05 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:52:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wisdom of Crowds Message-ID: On 5/15/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > But more fundamentally, according to a book I've read recently, The Wisdom > of Crowds (a phrase Kurzweil used quite a bit) by James Surowiecki, there > is something of a paradox in human estimation ability. Individually we > tend to be highly overconfident. But, collectively, our estimates > are often extremely good. Surowiecki describes classic examples like > guessing the weight of a pig, or the number of jelly beans in a jar. > Collecting guesses from a crowd and averaging them, the result is usually > right to within a few percent. Often the crowd's result is closer than > any individual guess. > > Surowiecki sees this phenomenon as being behind the success of such > institutions as futures markets, including idea futures. The reason > these institutions work is because they are successful at aggregating > information from a diverse set of participants. Surowiecki emphasizes the > importance of diversity of viewpoints and describes a number of studies > showing that, for example, ethnically diverse juries do a better job. > He also describes several traps that can arise, such as a copycat effect > where people are polled publicly and sequentially for their guesses, > causing later participants to amend their mental estimates to fall into > line with the emerging consensus. Markets are sometimes vulnerable to > this but at least the financial incentive is always there to encourage > honesty. > > The bottom line is that the wisdom of crowds is one of the best guides > we have to the future, and so when people refuse to make guesses because > they have recalibrated themselves into a mental fog, they are no longer > contributing to the social welfare. It's much better, when being polled > like this, for people to try to cut through the uncertainty and find that > "50%" point where they feel they are as likely to be too low as too high. > If they can do that, and avoid being influenced by the guesses of those > who speak before them, and if the group is reasonably diverse, you can > get about as good an estimate as you're going to get. I would have liked > to have received that estimate, and would have found it one of the most > valuable pieces of information I took away that day. > This very popular book may be exaggerating the benefits of popular opinion. It is correct to claim that the crowd *sometimes* can be a useful predictor. But to get a good result you have to be very careful about the selection of the crowd, the selection of the possible results, and control of the crowd behaviour. Michael Shermer reviewed this book in Dec 2004 Everybody can think of cases that disprove the wisdom of crowds. Surowiecki mentions some of them in his book. Earlier books have put the opposite case. Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' include the well known tulipmania phenomenon. Canetti wrote 'Crowds and Power' with the shouts of Hitler's Nuremberg rally figuratively ringing in his ears. Also sociologists such as Gustave Le Bon, in his classic work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind: "In crowds it is stupidity and not mother wit that is accumulated." Lynch mobs are another example. Surowiecki makes a major point of the stock market's reaction on January 28, 1986, the day the space shuttle Challenger exploded. Of the four major shuttle contractors--Lockheed, Rockwell International, Martin Marietta and Morton Thiokol--the last (the builder of the defective solid-rocket booster) was hit hardest, with a 12 percent loss, compared with only 3 percent for the others. Given four possibilities, the masses voted correctly. But the next shuttle disaster supported the opposite conclusion. "Herding" can be a problem when the members of a group think uniformly in the wrong direction. The stock market erred after the space shuttle Columbia disaster on February 1, 2003, dumping stock in the booster's manufacturer even though the boosters were not involved. The crowd tossed a coin and came up right once and wrong once. As Shermer says: For a group to be smart, it should be autonomous, decentralized and cognitively diverse, which the committee that rejected the foam-impact theory of the space shuttle Columbia while it was still in flight was not. In comparison, Google is brilliant because it uses an algorithm that ranks Web pages by the number of links to them, with those links themselves valued by the number of links to their page of origin. This system works because the Internet is the largest autonomous, decentralized and diverse crowd in history, IMHO. ------------------ So, just ask Google, they know the answer to everything! :) (assuming they fix their recent search problems). BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon May 15 12:54:45 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 07:54:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro In-Reply-To: <20060514191700.67044.qmail@web26415.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060514191700.67044.qmail@web26415.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It is worth noting that one of the biggest blocks to manifesting a nano-santa world (other than the synthesis and assembly problems) is the simple lack of nanopart designs. Anything one could do on the math+programming side of the equation to speed up their development would have really large downstream impacts. Just to get a feel for the size of the problem... I believe scientists at TIGR have reported that for every new genome (typically bacterial) that they do they discover 5-10 "novel" genes. Now there are probably tens of millions of geneomes which can be sequenced (right now the methods exist to do a single bacterial genome using a single machine in an afternoon). So that gives one a phase space of perhaps order of 10^5-10^6 nanoparts in nature (the number is likely to be on the low end since the number of "novel" reactions nature requires to support life is limited so the discovery of novel genes should diminish as more genomes are sequenced). In contrast, as Drexler points out in Nanosystems (Ch. 9 Sec. 5), the number of possible nanopart designs is a much much larger (he uses numbers like 10^75 to 10^148 structures in volumes much smaller than that consumed by most proteins). So there is a very large gap between the phase space of molecular structures that Nature has explored and those which can eventually be explored. Anything which can be done using algorithmic, heuristic, or brute force approaches to increase the rate of improving the existing designs (protein design) or developing novel designs is likely to be highly useful in the future. Mind you -- *most* people (even many well informed scientists) have very little awarenes of the minute fraction of the phase space of molecular structures currently explored by the material currently "organized" in our solar system (be they those generated by physical processes, natural evolution or human directed manufacture). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 15 13:22:16 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:22:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intro In-Reply-To: References: <20060514191700.67044.qmail@web26415.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060515132215.GF26713@leitl.org> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 07:54:45AM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > It is worth noting that one of the biggest blocks to manifesting a > nano-santa world (other than the synthesis and assembly problems) is the > simple lack of nanopart designs. Anything one could do on the It's both. We don't have tools like http://www.nanoengineer-1.com/mambo/ to produce parts, but we also don't have a bootstrap route. I might have a 10^10 atom system running perfectly in the simulation, but it doesn't help me one bit how to bootstrap it. Of course, with a reality simulator one can also look into bootstrap route. But the knowledge is arcane. It's would look like a really boring video game. Don't see much motivation for the artifex wannabees. > math+programming side of the equation to speed up their development would > have really large downstream impacts. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Mon May 15 13:36:48 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:36:48 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] privacy rights In-Reply-To: <882487F8-E485-4B8D-892D-1369AA88545C@mac.com> References: <200605130540.k4D5eNqK017617@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <3E9400F2-AC77-452D-9498-2D50441B2AD5@mac.com> <40362.81.152.102.238.1147561347.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <882487F8-E485-4B8D-892D-1369AA88545C@mac.com> Message-ID: <1900.163.1.72.81.1147700208.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Samantha Atkins wrote: > On May 13, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> [Hi, by the way!] > > Hey! Long time no post. Yup. Been busy settling in into the transhumanist hotbed of Oxford. >> So, what can we do? First, giving lots of power to the police isn't a >> problem if we can trust the police to serve us. Hence each new power >> should be coupled with an increase in citizen control over the agency. >> Accountability and transparency in exchange for more power. ... > > If the State has more or less complete awareness of everything > everyone does then the State is also fully aware of any actions by > anyone or any group of people that may thwart its desires. I think you are making the State too much into a person here. States do not have opinions and desires in the same sense as humans do; trying to apply such terms leads to conclusions like that the EU is wildly pro *and* anti-privacy at the same time. Let's try to apply a more sociological approach: states are composed of people and groups with various interests, incentives and ideas. They are not perfectly collaborating or in synch, they are seldom 100% good or evil and so on. Try to thwart the State and you might often find fierce resistance from some parts (based by everything from self-interest to a belief that it is actually for the best), indifference from most parts and sometimes active support from other parts (again, based on what the issue is). > The > police cannot be trusted to serve us because the serve the State and > the State is not perfectly in our control and likely never can be. Maybe that is true in the apparently perfect police state USA, but it is strangely far from the true in commie centralist Sweden. Very odd. :-) The State is a dangerous tool that must be kept under tight control (and most states aren't these days) but one doesn't need total control. Maybe I'm just a blue-eyed Swede who naively trusts his government, but so far the evidence has been that when it is found to do nasty or stupid stuff that the citizens dislike it is actually forced to change direction (too bad about the nasty stupid stuff most of the citizens like). >> Most of the privacy abuses we worry about come from two directions. >> Concentrations of power like corporations and state, and people in our >> close social network. We can use laws and politics against the first, >> enforcing transparency, accountability and maybe paying back >> externalities of privacy loss. ... > I am unsure what you are advocating on the first. Transparency of > the state to the people? The state will never agree to this. Hmm, is that why freedom of information acts have been banned worldwide? Look at the EU Public Sector Information Directive - far weaker than the Swedish version, but still clearly moving in the more transparent direction. And this isn't one state agreeing to a bit more transparency, this is 25. Sure, state employees and organisations often dislike this, sneak around transparency and try to hinder it. But it is clearly something that is politically possible to implement and get a public opinion to support. > Laws > can much more easily protect us from actual harm from our fellow > citizens. Their mere disapproval is another matter that I doubt we > need laws against. Suppose sexual preferences or religion was a matter of public record (maybe compiled ad hoc using eye saccade measurement or statistical analysis of net traces). It could be easy for bigots to use an AR wearable to mark "sinners" to publicly shun (to signal socially to others that these are bad people) or try to save (i.e. harass). What laws could deal with this? And without laws, what is a good social counterstrategy to promote tolerance? The problem with laws is that the legal system is a slow, blunt and expensive instrument only suitable for the very extreme, rare or expensive cases, not the myriad of human-to-human bothers that happen all the time. That is why they work better IMHO when dealing with aggregates like companies and institutions than with individual humans unless the latter do some sufficiently significant crime. > But it is not everyone's business what I do. I > see no reason to make it my neighbor or the state's business. I also > don't believe the perhaps implicit assumption that privacy cannot be > guarded by technology as well as taken away. Hmm, what would be a good privacy shield? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From metavalent at gmail.com Mon May 15 14:53:06 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 07:53:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> On 5/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I was especially impressed with Eliezer's talk. Agreed. Great summary, Hal. > Nick Bostrom quoted a study which asked people to guess at factual > answers by giving a range of possibilities ... Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I may have completely misinterpreted this. I had a bit of a hard time following Dr. Bostrom and understood his summary comment to mean the opposite of what you describe quite well and in great detail. I understood his final comment to mean that we greatly *under* estimate the chances of particular outcomes; that his study subjects essentially said, "i'm 98% certain that such-and-such will *not* happen" and yet 42.6% of the time, the event *did* happen. Implicitly, in that case, they had given the event a 2% chance of happening and they had greatly underestimated those chances. I could be completely wrong, but that's the way my scribbled notes read. As the owner of an unaugemented brain, these days I tend to trust what I wrote down more than what I think I recall. :) Can anyone mediate this one and help us get closer to truth? I looked for Dr. Bostrom's slides, but they don't seem readily available. > Of course, the speakers were not exactly a model of diversity, and > probably an even better estimate could have come from the audience. > I wish they had been polled as well. You could have everybody stand up, > then say to remain standing if you think human-level AI will occur before > 2100, then before 2070, 2050, 2030, and so on. At some point it will be > roughly clear when half the audience sits down, and that's your estimate. Great idea. I too would have loved to have seen this and agree that it may have been the most valuable bit of data gained from the entire day. > But it may be that, even though they don't disagree about the facts, > they should still argue as if they did disagree. Argumentation brings > out issues and directions of analysis that might not appear if they > just exchanged the minimal amount of data necessary to reach agreement. > It is a rich form of communication which can produce higher quality > agreement than would occur otherwise. Couldn't agree more. On 5/15/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > I never thought I'd wish for the day when the "need a fantasy to latch > onto" crowd just waited for the mothership to beam them up. Being a > pessimist only means _most_ of your surprises are pleasant ones. I don't quite follow your comment, Russel. If you are saying that increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the continual improvement of AI is a fantasy, I'd be interested to learn what data or personal observations you use to form those particular characterizations. Not saying you're wrong, just interested in how you got there. I'd never thought of this before, but as Hal suggested, I probably do tend to contribute a somewhat more hopeful public vote while retaining a more conservative internal estimate of future progress. Perhaps as our personalities develop, we somehow gain a subconscious sense of "what kind of vote is needed from me" in order to better hone the crowd's wisdom. Over time, it seems that I've most often found myself weighing in on the enthusiastic side, at least outwardly, in order to balance the perceived negativity of the crowd? My internal philosophy is something akin to "hope and work toward the best while expecting and preparing for the worst." Although a gross oversimplification, it is a fairly effective hedge against both unbridled optimism (hypomanic fantasy?) and demoralizing pessimism (general dysthymia?). From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 15 15:34:54 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:34:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 07:53:06AM -0700, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: > I don't quite follow your comment, Russel. If you are saying that > increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the Where do you see an impressive life extension, in people? What we see is that CR appears to work, and that someday (not necessarily this decade) there might be a drug to mimick the effects of CR with tolerable side effects. Might. We don't know for sure yet. Okay, assume I have another 60 years in front of me, instead of 40-50. I've been waiting for 25 years for things to arrive I assumed were highly probable, if not granted. Why should AI and nano land by 2050-2070? It's not that there's a train schedule, or even a roadmap with milestones to check off. (If there is, I must have missed my copy). > continual improvement of AI is a fantasy, I'd be interested to learn I see no continual improvement in AI which will lead to robust, natural intelligence. A quantitative discontinuity is needed. Just adding more patchwork to the quilt won't be enough. The bad thing about discontinuities is that they're so hard to predict. > what data or personal observations you use to form those particular > characterizations. Not saying you're wrong, just interested in how > you got there. Don't get me wrong, I like optimism. But you can get hurt by being too optimistic, this is why I wonder how you got at your assessment. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 15 16:28:54 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:28:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <22360fa10605150928l6bc7b833m6f99d08176b7df20@mail.gmail.com> On 5/14/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I was especially impressed with Eliezer's talk. I'd never seen him > speak before, and he did a great job. I too thought Eliezer gave an excellent presentation. He showed good knowledge of his audience, he talked to the points rather than reading them, and the logical structure of his talk was clear. The conference provided little new information to anyone who frequents the transhumanist lists, but for me the biggest benefit was increased understanding of the people (including the audience) and their activities. I was glad to see that the panel had diversity and balance. I greatly appreciated Bill McKibben's thoughtful and respectful presentation of views counter to the prevailing techno-optimism, even though I disagree with his conclusions. I was a bit dismayed by Douglas Hofstadter's presentation, because while he made a good point about the value of skepticism, he appeared to be somewhat smugly detached and lacking detailed awareness of the thinking he was attempting to criticize. It was a bit of a letdown for me since I have held a bit of hero-worship for him since reading GEB back in 1979. Probably the biggest take-away for me from this conference was that we have several individuals driving leading edge thought, and despite knowing each other quite well, their thinking and efforts are very much lacking in coordination and collaboration. I see huge inefficiencies with regard to common understanding of terms and concepts and clarity of goals. Of course, that is one of the reasons for these gatherings, but wouldn't it be great if it could be continuous and online? - Jef From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 15 16:57:28 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:57:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 5/15/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Where do you see an impressive life extension, in people? > What we see is that CR appears to work, and that someday > (not necessarily this decade) there might be a drug to > mimick the effects of CR with tolerable side effects. > Might. We don't know for sure yet. Caveat: CR works in very simple systems. We don't know how well it scales up yet. I certainly doubt it's linear. Experiments are currently underway in dogs and gorillas, among other species, and of course the many uncontrolled self-experiments in humans. Martin From hal at finney.org Mon May 15 17:57:19 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Wisdom of Crowds Message-ID: <20060515175719.128D157FD1@finney.org> Thanks for changing the subject line, Bill, I was guilty of topic drift there. BillK writes: > It is correct to claim that the crowd *sometimes* can be a useful > predictor. But to get a good result you have to be very careful about > the selection of the crowd, the selection of the possible results, and > control of the crowd behaviour. > > Michael Shermer reviewed this book in Dec 2004 > Yes, that's a good review, although short. Shermer basically reiterates a few of the points Surowiecki makes. > Everybody can think of cases that disprove the wisdom of crowds. > Surowiecki mentions some of them in his book. Earlier books have put > the opposite case. Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the > Madness of Crowds' include the well known tulipmania phenomenon. > Canetti wrote 'Crowds and Power' with the shouts of Hitler's Nuremberg > rally figuratively ringing in his ears. Also sociologists such as > Gustave Le Bon, in his classic work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular > Mind: "In crowds it is stupidity and not mother wit that is > accumulated." > Lynch mobs are another example. I posted a couple of months ago some thoughts about the book and how it applies to famous cases of crowd hysteria: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-March/025620.html The basic problem is the one I mentioned yesterday, a sort of paradox of rationality. On the one hand, crowds frequently do very well, and a rational person will believe the consensus. But on the other hand, if too many people follow this prescription, the crowd falls into self-perpetuating and ungrounded beliefs. These cases above that Bill mentions, plus well known market bubbles and crashes, can be seen as this kind of failure. I heard a simple example of this recently (can't remember where, maybe Kurzweil's book). Imagine someone who goes to the race track eager to bet on a particular horse he's been reading about. But when he gets there, he looks up at the board and sees that it is running at odds of 100 to 1 against! That mere fact in itself, without any more information, is likely to make him less desirous of betting on the horse. The market consensus influences his private opinion. Economics teaches us that, modulo certain assumptions, this should happen to a much greater degree, to the point where it is basically impossible to disagree with the market consensus. There is something of an unrecognized public goods problem here. Bets that disagree with the market are harmful to the bettors but helpful to society. Luckily, people haven't yet figured out this effect, so markets generally work well. The display of caution at the Singularity conference was an example of what would happen if everyone started behaving rationally, and it was a disaster! (In the sense that we didn't get a meaningful picture of the consensus judgement of the presenters on an important issue.) If that starts to happen we'll need public service announcements saying, Think for yourself! Don't follow the crowd! And actually, in a way, we do have that. Not as PSAs as such, but it is an important cultural lesson in the West. Probably everyone has heard advice such as this, growing up. "If everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you?" Well, frankly, if everyone was doing that, maybe it's because it is the best of a bad situation, and in fact it's the right thing to do. But if everyone thinks that way and follows the crowd, we see the kinds of bad phenomena that Bill describes above. Hal From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 15 20:01:47 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:01:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) Message-ID: <4D4CBBCB-050C-4D5C-9783-FA86C8846731@mac.com> On 5/14/06, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: What a great day. The singularity is much nearER the day after the summit than it was the day before. Or maybe, just maybe, IT HAPPENED, yesterday. Who can really tell and how would we really know, after all? Odds are that we won't ever "see" it anyway, but in hindsight. And THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to both Doug Hofstadter and (live by the most bitchin' gadget of the conference, Teleportec) Bill McKibben for their much needed cross-examination. If not for their ever loyal incisive contributions, the Singularity would rapidly implode under the weight of it's own self-centered gravity. Doug: It might be time for "A Coffeehouse Conversation" update on this 25th anniversary of the May 1981 Scientific American essay. :) me: I thought Hofstadter's talk was an utter waste of time. Yeah, he made the good point that Singularity deserved more attention by a broad range of scientists pro and con. But the rest of the time he used silly cartoons and criticized Kurzweil's work in a most unscientific and unprofessional manner. Oh, and he wrung his hands over whether his children or grandchildren would remain human a bit. McKibben spouted mostly gibberish and sound bites. i see no reason to praise the performance of either of them. McKibben is not in the least "loyal" to any form of transhumanism much less Singularity. He believes we all should happily die. Neither of these presentations were remotely "incisive". - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon May 15 20:03:15 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:03:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> "Eugen Leitl" > I see no continual improvement in AI which will lead to robust, natural > intelligence. Years ago I remember being amazed that a home computer could search through a very long document for a particular word or phrase, it seemed like magic; if at that time you'd told me what Google could do with the sum total of human knowledge (or nearly so) I'd have said it was imposable unless Google had real intelligence. And I seem to remember that Hofstader once said that a computer could never beat a chess grandmaster unless the machine was intelligent and had a profound understanding of the game. However Hofstader has changed his mind about that and that's the problem, true AI seems to be whatever computers can't do yet, and by that definition we will never have true AI. > The bad thing about discontinuities is that they're so hard to predict. That's true but I don't think you'd need a discontinuity, like a quantum computer (although that would be very nice to have) to make a AI, just keep getting twice as good every 18 months and you'll get there. If I were a singularity skeptic (and I'm not) I wouldn't concentrate on computers but on medicine. It's astonishing and discouraging how an enormous increase in biological knowledge hasn't translated into cures. There was a discontinuous improvement in medicine in about the year 1900 with the invention of anesthesia and sanitation, for the first time in history medicine did more good than harm. There was another discontinuous improvement in medicine in about 1950 with antibiotics, but after that nothing dramatic, it's just been busy work. A very few people with rare diseases are a lot better off then they would have been in 1950, but most people with common diseases just take a few extra painful weeks to die. And Eugen, you write some good stuff, so I sure wish you'd get a better mail program, it's a pain to open a attachment every time I want to read what you say. John K Clark From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon May 15 19:58:56 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:58:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605150928l6bc7b833m6f99d08176b7df20@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <22360fa10605150928l6bc7b833m6f99d08176b7df20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5BE85F55-9AA7-4218-9447-23F697CFC5EF@ceruleansystems.com> On May 15, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > I was a bit dismayed by Douglas > Hofstadter's presentation, because while he made a good point about > the value of skepticism, he appeared to be somewhat smugly detached > and lacking detailed awareness of the thinking he was attempting to > criticize. It was a bit of a letdown for me since I have held a bit > of hero-worship for him since reading GEB back in 1979. Having seen him give presentations before, I would make the observation that this was a noticeably sub-par performance. If that was your only experience with him, I would recommend seeing him give a presentation somewhere else. He has his own odd style, but he can be far more engaging speaker than he was at the Singularity Summit. J. Andrew Rogers From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Mon May 15 21:17:33 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 23:17:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, John K Clark wrote: > > And Eugen, you write some good stuff, so I sure wish you'd get a better mail > program, it's a pain to open a attachment every time I want to read what you > say. Eugen's mail program sends perfectly standard-compliant multipart messages. If Outlook Express can't handle them, that's microsoft fault, as usual. Personally I never had problems reading those messages (on windows, linux and google webmail, but never tried outlook express). We sure wish you'd get a better mail program :-) Alfio From metavalent at gmail.com Mon May 15 21:21:34 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:21:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605151421h72f3a5d4k19d1273cda396396@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I don't quite follow your comment, Russell. If you are saying that > > increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the > > Where do you see an impressive life extension, in people? > What we see is that CR appears to work, and that someday > (not necessarily this decade) there might be a drug to > mimick the effects of CR with tolerable side effects. > Might. We don't know for sure yet. CR works well in mice and humans are very close genetic cousins. That said, you are right that it's still an unknown. I try not to rely too much upon such things in my own forecasting; although they certainly do influence thinking. I don't recall which speaker showed the slide, but it was along the lines that in 1900 the average life expectancy was something like 48 years and in 2000, closer to 78. Other sources vary from 45 in 1900 to 73 in 2000. I interpret anything even close to that range as a well established trajectory of impressive life extension. > Why should AI and nano land by 2050-2070? It's not that there's > a train schedule, or even a roadmap with milestones to > check off. (If there is, I must have missed my copy). Again, Eliezer hit the nail on the head, here. AI is not a monolithic entity that will arrive at the train station on time; or at *any* time, for that matter. There are many possible AI's in the larger "mind space" as he put it. Some AI's will emerge before others; the less capable will of necessity precede the more capable, one would expect. That said, I'm also a believer that a certain amount of hand waving and guesstimating, for better or worse, are valid parts of the scientific method; however disparaged the general use in service of digging at a debate opponent. Any hypothesis is just that, an educated Guess. A hypothesis *is* a highly refined form of hand waving, but hopefully it's smart hand waving. Personally, I think that we witnessed some fairly well-educated people making some fairly well-educated guesses. But then, I tend to give the panelists a good deal of slack. It's not at all easy to sit up there and be put upon a pedestal; particularly for the mature and responsible guru who knows the extent to which the pedestal is a grand illusion. :) > > continual improvement of AI is a fantasy, I'd be interested to learn > > I see no continual improvement in AI which will lead to > robust, natural intelligence. A quantitative discontinuity > is needed. Just adding more patchwork to the quilt won't be > enough. Agreed, and you make a super important point. For my part, I came away with the sense of a Eliezer's many minds AI model, if you will. There will not be one "AI" mind that solves everything all at once. Rather, one *kind* of AI mind could focus on Medical Diagnosis, such as Carlos Feder has worked on for many years. Just because one or more of us have not yet directly observed the continual improvement, does not mean that it isn't out there, undiscovered or unpublished. > The bad thing about discontinuities is that they're so hard to predict. True. On the other hand, "suddenly," an advance will appear and many will mistakenly label it a discontinuity. However, like so many scientific advances, it will only be a discontinuity in terms of publicity and general awareness. Long periods of unacknowledged toil are almost a central clich? of breakthrough innovation. > > what data or personal observations you use to form those particular > > characterizations. Not saying you're wrong, just interested in how > > you got there. > > Don't get me wrong, I like optimism. But you can get hurt by being > too optimistic, this is why I wonder how you got at your assessment. Nice lexical parry and reversal. :) My assessment algorithm is definitely not a pure science! In many areas of life and business, I tend to gravitate toward difficult, but solvable problems (in my own subjective estimation); the kind of problems that are A.) clearly discernible as a desirable problem to solve (in my own subjective estimation) and B.) accompanied by well-defined desired outcomes (in my own subjective estimation). From there, my own interests and forecasts generally narrow through a two-stage process of roughly sorting by the delta between A and B (in perceived time, effort, and available resources), followed by filtering through a mishmash of acquired intuition and putative insight. It's not all that pretty in pseudo code, but I don't think that it's really all that unique as an iterative discovery process: WTFDWK ( ); { Real Life Forecasts = Objective Data + Subjective Understanding + Intuitive Insights + Mistakes; Mistakes++; Objective Data++; Mistakes++; Subjective Understanding++; Mistakes++; Intuitive Insights++; Mistakes++; Read ( ); Reason ( ); Return ( ); } WTFDWK is a double-entendre reference to the foregoing process and "What the #$*! Do We Know?" the whimsical film by the same name [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/] which some group members might find an entertaining diversion. This deep whimsical respect for conventional thinking and processes drives some friends and colleagues crazy, because I just can't seem to land squarely in the purely-data-driven camp. I trust the data, I try to start with as much data as possible, and certainly ultimately rely upon the data as the best objective measure of outcomes. Yet, the real world isn't even close to a purely data-dependent domain; however much we might like it to be so. That's what makes *simulating* and *anticipating* the real world so difficult! In sum, technology and trend forecasting reminds me somewhat of flying. When I get behind that flight yoke, I set out with a solid understanding of the physical *laws* of flight and once aloft, I place a firm reliance upon visual and instrument sources of reliable flight *data*. For instance, I need to keep a very close eye on engine power, air speed, flight attitude, and follow all air traffic controller instructions, etc. Yet, very often, I ultimately trust my seat-of-the-pants sense of reality in many of the most crucial situations; especially take-offs and landings. I can't even begin to count the number of cases in which strict data dependence and logic would have landed me straight in the ditch! General aviation pilots must know what the laws of aerodynamics tell us about how the plane is *supposed* to behave, but we must react in real time to what it *actually* does; particularly when in ground effect during take-off and landing, which is different and inspirational every single time. I've come to suspect that one reason that some very, very smart people just don't pick up flying is because they can't let go of what the laws and the data say are *supposed* to happen or what should *logically* happen and so they freeze up and don't respond to what is *really* happening. One might suggest that all human progress is an inherently risky, yet invigorating flight of fancy, constrained by a set of highly deterministic physical laws, and kept aloft by an abiding sense of wonder and curiosity of what *might* be possible just beyond the next discernible horizon. From metavalent at gmail.com Mon May 15 21:41:52 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:41:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <4D4CBBCB-050C-4D5C-9783-FA86C8846731@mac.com> References: <4D4CBBCB-050C-4D5C-9783-FA86C8846731@mac.com> Message-ID: <4e674fa00605151441x49a09aa7j10fd513b3906a6fe@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I thought Hofstadter's talk was an utter waste of time. Yeah, he made the > good point that Singularity deserved more attention by a broad range of > scientists pro and con. But the rest of the time he used silly cartoons and > criticized Kurzweil's work in a most unscientific and unprofessional manner. > Oh, and he wrung his hands over whether his children or grandchildren would > remain human a bit. Hi Samantha. I'd expect that you're not alone in that assessment and I surely don't claim any monopoly on the truth. Unfortunately, unlike many other attendees, I respected the email that asked us to leave active electronics at home. I'd have given just about anything for a camera when Hofstadter sat back down right next to Kurzweil. They both turned their backs to one another, as much as chairs would allow. It was sooo funny, like feuding fourth graders. I carefully watched the body language, and it was actually Hofstadter who "opened back up" first and five minutes later, Kurzweil was able to sit facing forward again. Of course, Doug was the one who launched the "attack," so if I were in Ray's shoes, I certainly would have felt more defensive and taken longer to relax. In any case, that picture would have been worth a billion words. :) > McKibben spouted mostly gibberish and sound bites. i see no reason to > praise the performance of either of them. McKibben is not in the least > "loyal" to any form of transhumanism much less Singularity. He believes we > all should happily die. Neither of these presentations were remotely > "incisive". I didn't mean to imply loyalty or disloyalty to the singularity -- as if the singularity were a religious leader that demanded loyalty at all -- but rather loyalty to the spirit of DEBATE and a forum open to all voices; especially those who disagree with our own point of view. Eliezer did a great job of defending the perimeter against religious incursion and I hope we can keep our own internal machinations focused on the future of human beings. Personally, I would hope that the Singularity is much, much, more than a "Rapture for the Geeks" that requires a specific loyalty to any specific doctrine. From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 15 22:14:46 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:14:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605151421h72f3a5d4k19d1273cda396396@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <4e674fa00605151421h72f3a5d4k19d1273cda396396@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/15/06, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: > On 5/15/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > I don't quite follow your comment, Russell. If you are saying that > > > increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the > > > > Where do you see an impressive life extension, in people? > > What we see is that CR appears to work, and that someday > > (not necessarily this decade) there might be a drug to > > mimick the effects of CR with tolerable side effects. > > Might. We don't know for sure yet. > > CR works well in mice and humans are very close genetic cousins. That > said, you are right that it's still an unknown. I try not to rely too > much upon such things in my own forecasting; although they certainly > do influence thinking. The problem, again, is the scale up. CR can increase the life span of nematode worms by 300%, from one to three weeks, and mice by 50%, from two to three years. Suppose that it increases the life span of dogs from 10 to 11 years, and so on up, so that the most you can extract from it is one or two years, even for human life spans. The longer you live, the more oppoturnity for other kinds of damage to accrue. That's de Grey's criticism anyway. We'll get a better understanding of the potential of CR when we get the data for dogs. If you can get a breed with a mean life expectancy of 12 years to live 18 or 20, then I'd say you have something. > I don't recall which speaker showed the slide, but it was along the > lines that in 1900 the average life expectancy was something like 48 > years and in 2000, closer to 78. Other sources vary from 45 in 1900 > to 73 in 2000. I interpret anything even close to that range as a > well established trajectory of impressive life extension. A trajectory approaching a natural asymptote created by genetics... > Personally, I think that > we witnessed some fairly well-educated people making some fairly > well-educated guesses. Nick Bostrom gave the best answer. Martin From hal at finney.org Mon May 15 21:49:49 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford Message-ID: <20060515214949.1E9CB57FD1@finney.org> Metavalent Stigmergy writes: > I understood his final comment to mean that we greatly *under* > estimate the chances of particular outcomes; that his study subjects > essentially said, "i'm 98% certain that such-and-such will *not* > happen" and yet 42.6% of the time, the event *did* happen. > Implicitly, in that case, they had given the event a 2% chance of > happening and they had greatly underestimated those chances. That sounds right to me. I was emphasizing that people overestimate things they think will happen, and you're saying that people underestimate things they think will not happen. It amounts to the same thing. I have to confess, when I hear about irrationalities like this, I always have the same reaction. It's not, "how could I help people overcome these limitations?" Rather, it's "how could I get rich from this?" :-) In principle, if people are being irrational in their beliefs, you should be able to set up some kind of arrangement in which they will systematically give money away. Not only do you get rich, you also provide negative feedback to false beliefs and help people to gradually improve their rationality. At least, that's the rationalization. In practice, either I can't find a way to do it, or else it turns out there is already a thriving industry built around the practice, such as insurance. And in many cases it seems like exploiting these weaknesses is unsavory and destructive, like loan sharking. Interestingly, insurance exploits an opposite fallacy to what we are talking about here. Insurance basically relies on people overestimating the chances of rare events. People are willing to pay to avoid risky events, out of proportion to the true level of danger. (Partially this is because people are risk averse, but the effect is the same as if they were risk neutral and overestimated risk.) Here we have the opposite irrationality, people underestimating the chance of rare events. One place you might hope to make money would be in the commodities markets, where you can use options to bet that the price will change by some large amount. For example, right now, oil is about $70/barrel. Options prices imply that the market consensus of the odds that oil will fall below $45/barrel by the end of the year is about 1%. Maybe you could say, people are overconfident and have too narrow confidence intervals, so the odds are actually probably much greater than that, and take a "long-shot" position on such options. Unfortunately, that doesn't work. I'm not sure why, but when money is on the line like this, people are not idiots. Statistically, option prices do not show systematic biases in terms of underestimating unlikely events. If they did, people would have discovered it a long time ago and made all kinds of money, until the very actions of these traders put the prices back to where they should be. There is a sense though in which markets do provide an opportunity to profit from overconfidence, which is the profit acquired by the market-maker himself. Most markets charge commissions on trading, and trading relies on differences of opinion, which are themselves strengthened (and perhaps actually caused) by overconfidence. So ultimately the market maker is profiting from the error of rationality we are talking about here. The same thing happens with bookmakers who take bets on sports events. The bookie acts as an intermediary and balances the bets on both sides of the outcome, profiting from overconfident differences in opinion. Anyway, in this case as in others I can't see an available niche for exploiting this particular form of irrationality, one that has not already been filled. An interesting dichotomy arises in that some of the institutions, like sports gambling, arguably are harmful to people and exploit their irrationality to their detriment. Others, like markets, are arguably helpful, provide socially useful information, and to at least some extent encourage greater rationality among participants. Hal From kurt at metatechnica.com Mon May 15 22:25:17 2006 From: kurt at metatechnica.com (Kurt Schoedel) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:25:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bureaucracy of Medicine (singularity conference at stanford) Message-ID: You are correct, John Clark, in that there has been a noticable delay in translating research into cures by the medical meliu. The reason is very simple: The medical industry is an intensely gay bureaucracy, just like NASA and the Tokamak fusion program. And just like NASA and the fusion program, no progress will occur untill the system is eliminated or reformed. Just like how progress in Soviet Communism was measured in ever larger and larger factories, progress in our medical industry is measured in ever more enormous hospitals and complex surguries. Very few MDs understand molecular biology as well as many posters here in extropy. Most of them have liberal arts degrees. The FDA and AMA makes sure that this situation never changes. The fact that medicine and health care cost rise exponentially without any increase in lifespan or youthspan is as indicative that the current approach does not work as the fact that each generation of tokamaks is more expensive than the previous one and, yet, fusion remains 50 years in the future. Or how NASA keeps making space transportation more and more expensive. Cost effective therapies that work do not get developed and dessiminated to the marketplace (you and I). Rather, expensive surguries that do nothing to cure the underlying condition (such as pypass surgury, which results in brain damage in the majority of cases) become the preferred methods of the medical industry. This is the reason why political action to maintain our access to nutritional supplements must be pursued at all costs. This is currently the only way to "end-run" around the system for many medical conditions. The other is medical tourism. Many countries, such as India and China, do not have intrenched medical bureaucracies like those in the U.S. and Europe. Hence, no pre-existing system that must be fought in order to bring out new therapies (such as gene therapy and stem cells and the like). The current medical bureaucracy will continue to grow and grow in the U.S. until it finally collapses (like Soviet Communism), probably under the financial weight of the baby boomers. My guess is this will be in the next 10-15 years, maybe sooner. When the current system collapses, medical innovation in the U.S. will once again become possible. Kurt Schoedel MetaTechnica From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon May 15 22:08:29 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <33508.72.236.102.104.1147730909.squirrel@main.nc.us> Alfio writes: > > Eugen's mail program sends perfectly standard-compliant multipart > messages. If Outlook Express can't handle them, that's microsoft > fault, as usual. Personally I never had problems reading those > messages (on windows, linux and google webmail, but never tried > outlook express). We sure wish you'd get a better mail program :-) > I'm having no problem with his mails, either with my windows machine or my linux box. PC-Pine and Squirrel both like what he writes. :) Regards, MB From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 15 23:39:56 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 00:39:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605151639gd48ffb0v693d611378b00ef0@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: > > On 5/15/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > I never thought I'd wish for the day when the "need a fantasy to latch > > onto" crowd just waited for the mothership to beam them up. Being a > > pessimist only means _most_ of your surprises are pleasant ones. > > I don't quite follow your comment, Russel. If you are saying that > increasingly impressive life extension is a fantasy, or that the > continual improvement of AI is a fantasy, I'd be interested to learn > what data or personal observations you use to form those particular > characterizations. Not saying you're wrong, just interested in how > you got there. Your not following is more my fault than yours, since it wasn't terribly clear (spare time to write posts when I'm _not_ exhausted isn't amazingly thick on the ground, alas), but I'll try and expand on it and explain my reasoning under a separate subject line. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Mon May 15 22:43:32 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford Message-ID: <20060515224332.221DE57FD1@finney.org> One more post while this is all fresh in my mind... I enjoyed Douglas Hofstadter's talk. BTW, they mentioned that he has a new book coming out next year, "I am a Strange Loop". I bumped into him after the conference and he confirmed that it will be a philosophy oriented book rather than the more computer-science one he came out with most recently. OK, I see it is available for pre-order from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465030785/sr=8-1/qid=1147735260/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7711137-4698517?%5Fencoding=UTF8 They imply that it will be out this summer but he said it would not be until early next year. As far as the talk, I liked three things particularly. The first was that he took issue with a number of things in Kurzweil's book that bothered me, too. Some were trivial, like Kurzweil's reference to the "knee" of an exponential curve. But others were more important, like the "law" of accelerating returns. Hofstadter pointed out that it was not really a law, but a trend, and there was no guarantee it would continue. I would say it has similar status to Moore's Law, which is also a misnomer IMO. One thing that bothered me about the conference was the status given to Kurzweil. He was not only the keynote speaker, he also got time at the end for rebuttal (and went over his time limits for both). It was like he was the king of the conference, the Father of the Singularity. Since when did he achieve this status? I don't want to take anything away from his many lifetime accomplishments and well-deserved acclaim in general, but we've been talking about the Singularity here for a long time and I've never gotten the sense that Ray Kurzweil was one of the foremost thinkers on the topic. We've probably mentioned Moravec more than Kurzweil on this list. Anyway, I was glad to see someone of Hofstadter's stature who was willing to stand up and directly criticize Kurzweil's books and presentation. I didn't notice the amusing body language byplay that Metavalent mentioned but I can certainly believe it! Second, I liked Hofstadter's cartoons. They used clever word play that reminded me of the playfulness in his writing that made GEB such a pleasure to read. I hope the new book maintains the same spirit. And third, I liked the fact that he had gone around and queried a bunch of people about the Singularity to see what they thought of the concept. That's very much in the spirit of what I was talking about this morning. The upshot was that some people were skeptical, many simply had no idea about what would happen in the future, and some were supportive and agreed that this was what would happen. He didn't make it clear what the percentages were, although I had the impression that skepticism dominated. Now, these were people who had not read Kurzweil's book, but in some ways that makes them a better sample, more likely to be thinking independently about the topic. Hofstadter also mentioned that these subjects are not being discussed among the scientific community in general, such as physicists. However I don't find this all that significant as it doesn't much impact the day to day work of a scientist. I remember back when Hofstadter was doing his column for Scientific American, in the 1980s. He had gotten fixated on the idea of super-rationality. This is the principle that you should make your decisions on the basis of what would happen if everyone reasoned like you. In this way you would cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma, and behave "nicely" in a variety of social conflict situations. It's supposed to be superior to rationality, and Hofstadter was convinced that it was how everyone should be. He had tried to get various friends and colleagues interested, presenting them with various thought experiments and such, but without much luck. Everyone was rational rather than super-rational. And he was really getting pretty frustrated, you could tell! He finally posed a PD-related thought experiment for the readership of SA, people sending in their responses on postcards, and the same thing happened, everyone was rational and messed up his contest. He seemed really upset and announced he was quitting. That was his last column! I see a connection between this event and his comments on the Singularity. In each case he was asking a variety of people for their opinions. The problem with the earlier case is that he just didn't listen to their answer. But he should have. Super-rationality is not rational, by definition, and he had really gotten himself into a confused place, IMO. He would have been a lot better off to listen. And then, the same lesson should be drawn with regard to the Singularity. He (and we) should listen to the results of his little poll, and ideally expand it beyond super-smart college professors and business leaders. But I give him lots of credit for doing the poll at all; nobody else mentioned any such experiment. Hal From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 16 00:59:58 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:59:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515224332.221DE57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060515224332.221DE57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <22360fa10605151759j64656605g78192956288c74a7@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > I remember back when Hofstadter was doing his column for Scientific > American, in the 1980s. He had gotten fixated on the idea of > super-rationality. This is the principle that you should make your > decisions on the basis of what would happen if everyone reasoned like you. > In this way you would cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma, and behave > "nicely" in a variety of social conflict situations. It's supposed to > be superior to rationality, and Hofstadter was convinced that it was > how everyone should be. Hal - I've admired and respected your rationality for many years, and this is the most intriguing statement from you I've ever seen. When I first learned about Prisoners' Dilemma -- and it was from that same Scientific American article -- it illustrated clearly for me that there was something more to real-world rationality than what was being dealt with in standard game theory. This sensitivity to more encompassing context which is always a factor in the real world needed accounting for, and Hofstadter's superrationality, along with Buckminster Fullers statements about synergy, and other thinking on positive sum interactions seemed (to me) to make sense of this important question. I am extremely interested in knowing why you see Hofstadter's superrationality as wrong. - Jef From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 01:15:52 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 02:15:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award Message-ID: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Some years ago there was an incident in which a gang of robbers held up a bank, using fake guns carefully made to look like the real thing. It worked. It worked so well that while trying to escape, the robbers were shot dead by armed police officers. The moral of this story is that, puffer fish notwithstanding, making yourself appear more dangerous than you are is not always a wise strategy. The Singularity is a lovely idea. (Bad word for it, mind you - misuse of the mathematical terminology - but unfortunately we seem to be stuck with it now.) In the works of E.E. Smith and Olaf Stapledon, Asimov and Clarke, it provided inspiring visions of possible futures; and while any particular vision is unrealistic, the general concept that our remote descendants may be greater than we are, is a good and reasonable one. Somewhere along the way it mutated into the meme of _imminent_ Singularity. This version is pure fantasy, but like astrology and spiritual healing, it has memetic survival advantage because it resonates with strong predispositions in the human brain. In this case, the predisposition is to believe in apocalypse or nirvana in our lifetimes; no matter how many times this is falsified, each new generation's faith is diminished not one iota. Of course there's nothing wrong with make-believe if it's kept under control, like children playing with realistic-looking fake guns in their own back garden. But it's another thing when it spills out of the pages of science fiction books and unnoticed geek mailing lists, and into the mainstream media and conferences hosted by major universities. When calls are made to base real life public policy on fantasy - made and listened to. I'm not a big fan of government regulation at the best of times - I think it's a blunt instrument that often does a lot more harm than good - but if molecular manufacturing, human-level AI, neurohacking or any of the usual list of buzzwords actually existed, it would at least make sense to call for a public debate on whether they should be regulated. In reality, they're nowhere near being on the horizon, and if they ever are invented they are unlikely to resemble our present visions any more than real life space exploration involves rescuing Martian princesses from bug-eyed monsters; in our current state of ignorance as to what they might eventually look like, any regulations we might invent now would ultimately prove about as useful as Roger Bacon trying to draw up restrictions on the manufacture of nerve gas. That is not to say, unfortunately, that regulation would have no effect. Substantial advance in technology is going to require generations of hard work - basic research that's hard to get funding for at the best of times. If you have to spend $10 on lawyers to get permission for $1 of lab work, it's not going to happen. Nor do we have an infinitely long window of opportunity; the conditions that support free inquiry and rapid technological progress are, on the scale of history, a rare and short-lived aberration. There is a threshold we need to reach; it is not the badly-named "Singularity", but Diaspora - the technology to live sustainably off Earth. With a quarter trillion stars in our galaxy alone, there'll be room to find a way forward come what may; but we need to attain that level of technology first, and the truth, as many a driver with children in the back seat has had to point out, is that we are not nearly there yet. The Earth isn't going to be demolished to make room for a hyperspace bypass, or eaten by grey goo, or blown up by Skynet, but we - humanity - may die nonetheless, looking up at the unattainable stars as our vision fades and goes out, not a mark on us from any outside force, merely strangled by our own illusions. Lest this be taken as another libertarian "government = evil" rant, I'll emphasize that if we fail for the above reason it won't be the politicians' fault. They have their jobs to do; are they wrong to trust us to do ours? If we scientists and technologists come along babbling about people wireheading themselves into vegetables or turning themselves into monster cyborg killing machines or eating the planet, _how are politicians and the public supposed to know we were just deluding ourselves with paranoid fantasy_? If we must ultimately drink a lethal draught, it will be because we ourselves poisoned the well. So I am proposing that at last we leave childhood behind and accept the difference between fantasy and real life, and if we choose to entertain ourselves by gathering to tell each other stories, title the gathering "Science fiction convention" not "Singularity summit". Granted that everyone needs something to believe, if you find "Singularity in my lifetime" is what you personally need, then believe in life extension or cryonics that'll let you stick around to see it, and let go of the illusion that it's just around the corner. And the correct response to "Gray goo is going to eat the planet" isn't "Let's draw up a list of safeguards" but "You need to lay off the bad science fiction". Let us cease poisoning the well, grow up and face reality. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 01:23:55 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 02:23:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605151759j64656605g78192956288c74a7@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060515224332.221DE57FD1@finney.org> <22360fa10605151759j64656605g78192956288c74a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605151823w65452afbm3566a6ae62b785ed@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > When I first learned about Prisoners' Dilemma -- and it was from that > same Scientific American article -- it illustrated clearly for me that > there was something more to real-world rationality than what was being > dealt with in standard game theory. This sensitivity to more > encompassing context which is always a factor in the real world needed > accounting for, and Hofstadter's superrationality, along with > Buckminster Fullers statements about synergy, and other thinking on > positive sum interactions seemed (to me) to make sense of this > important question. > I agree with your premise, but not with your conclusion. Yes, the rational strategy in one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma does not capture real-world rationality, but I think that is adequately captured by the following: 1) Truly one-shot interactions are rare in the real world. (Screw someone over badly enough, and he may go out of his way to create a second interaction.) 2) Even if you never interact with that particular partner again, word gets around; other people are more likely to want to deal with you if you have a reputation for being willing to cooperate. 3) We are not mathematically perfect beings with infinite computing power, but finite mortals. When you defect on someone who has not defected on you, your action does not only affect him; it also changes you by a small increment in the direction of being the sort of person who is first to defect; and, leaving aside ethical considerations and just considering self-interest, that is by and large not a good way to live, for reasons dealt with by standard game theory. There's no need to invoke Hofstadter's "superrationality" at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 02:07:09 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:07:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605160207.k4G27aST007353@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Martin Striz > ...Suppose that it increases the life span of dogs > from 10 to 11 years... > Martin My veterinarian friend estimated that doing CR on the dogs to where they maintained a svelte waist their entire lives added about a quarter again to their average lifespans. He would go as hish as about a third again if compared to overfed and under-exercised dogs, which he saw on a regular basis in his practice. This caught my attention because we humans are overfed and under-exercised, very much including my vet friend. I didn't ask him why he wasn't doing CR himself. {8-] spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 01:51:14 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:51:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605160226.k4G2QXVA024465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Martin Striz > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford > > On 5/15/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > What we see is that CR appears to work... > > ... Experiments are > currently underway in dogs and gorillas, among other species, and of > course the many uncontrolled self-experiments in humans. > > Martin Dogs? Surely you jest Martin. The beneficial effects of CR in dogs has been well known and well documented longer than perhaps any other species. A dog breeder and veterinarian of my acquaintance had over 40 years of direct experience from owning from a dozen to twenty dogs at a time. He pointed out the effect to me when I was a teen, which had a profound impact on my thinking at the time. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 02:45:08 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:45:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605151759j64656605g78192956288c74a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605160245.k4G2jt5m027677@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford > > On 5/15/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > I remember back when Hofstadter was doing his column for Scientific > > American, in the 1980s... Yes I was in college then, and part of the crowd that hung on pretty much any word that Hofstatder wrote or uttered. I remember that so well because I was coming up on graduation when the June 83 SciAm came out with the following entertaining game. Scientific American was offering a million dollar prize in a lottery wherein the entries were free, just send in a postcard with your name. (This was before email was common. We computer geeks had it, but most did not.) You could enter as many times as you wished, in fact there was no need to send a bunch of cards, a waste of paper and postage, just write the number of entries on your card. Of course your chances of winning would be proportional to your number of entries, as in any lottery. The catch was that the million dollar prize was divided by the total number of all entries. Hofstadter reasoned that his super-rational readers would perform some kind of super-rational calculus, with the result that in most cases the reader would not enter at all. A handful of defectors would bring down the prize to an affordable level. What he did not count on is that among the super-rational are the super-defectors. A super-defector not only wants win at all costs, he has as a second goal to keep others from winning. He received cards with a 1 followed by the rest of the card filled with zeros. He received cards with things like 9^9^9, far more than the number of atoms in the universe, which of course made the prize zero, even if it were somehow possible to determine a winner. This must have been discouraging to him, for the million dollar lottery game demonstrated the long term futility of the policy of mutual assured destruction as a means of maintaining nuclear peace over the long run. This experiment suggests that as more governments get nuclear weapons, eventually we get a nuclear-armed leader whose actual goal is not just to protect his own country, but to destroy other countries. I think of this nearly every day, as I read of the comments made by a certain middle-eastern president. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 03:02:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 20:02:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605151441x49a09aa7j10fd513b3906a6fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605160307.k4G37Y1Y018096@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > On 5/15/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > I thought Hofstadter's talk was an utter waste of time. Yeah, he made > the > > good point that Singularity deserved more attention by a broad range of > > scientists pro and con. But the rest of the time he used silly cartoons > and > > criticized Kurzweil's work in a most unscientific and unprofessional > manner... I thought the cartoons were very creative, classic Hofstadter. But I agree that he hammered Ray way too hard. Hofstadter wasted far too much time picking on minor details of an otherwise fine work. I too noticed the icy posture between the two after Doug's talk. What bothered me far more was Bill McKibben's talk. Since I haven't the exact quote, I will need to approximate or paraphrase. McKibben thought we need to cut the libertarian notions and acknowledge the propriety of subjugating our wildest transhuman ambitions to the greater human community. Did I get that about right, summiters? Immediately the question came to my mind: what then is the human community? Is it the two thousand humans in Standford Memorial Hall at that moment? OK, I am willing to listen to that crowd. Is it the community of the US? Possibly I would take that under consideration. Is the human community to include the Muslim dominated world? Or a future Muslim dominated Europe? Do we need to subjugate our aspirations to their notions of justice? I think not. We must have free-spirited pioneers, for intrepid explorers tackle the tough problems, they discover things, they open the way for the rest of humanity. We cannot and must not hold back the pioneers, for in doing so we all perish in tragic stagnation, just when humanity stands on the threshold of a dream. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 16 03:02:48 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 20:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060516030248.61513.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > There is a threshold we need to reach; > it is not the badly-named > "Singularity", but Diaspora - the technology to live > sustainably off Earth. > With a quarter trillion stars in our galaxy alone, > there'll be room to find > a way forward come what may; but we need to attain > that level of technology > first, and the truth, as many a driver with children > in the back seat has > had to point out, is that we are not nearly there > yet. Amen, Brother. Thank you for this beautiful post. > The Earth isn't going to be demolished to make room > for a hyperspace bypass, > or eaten by grey goo, or blown up by Skynet, but we > - humanity - may die > nonetheless, looking up at the unattainable stars as > our vision fades and > goes out, not a mark on us from any outside force, > merely strangled by our > own illusions. Or pummeled by an asteroid we saw coming for 30 years because we wasted so much money defending against bogey-men like Iraqi WMD, the "war on terror", and grey-goo. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9871982/ Relevant details: He worried that the funding might not be available to make high-quality radar readings of Apophis by 2013 ? particularly readings from the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, the world's largest single radio dish. "It's no secret that Arecibo is fairly precarious right now, and especially the radar function, because that is not needed for the bulk of radio astronomy," Schweickart said. The B612 Foundation said the National Science Foundation should make sure there is reliable radar capability "to support early warning of pending NEO [near-Earth object] impacts and rational deflection mission planning." Schweickart said NASA should also boost research into advanced propulsion methods that might come into play for deflecting near-Earth objects ? such as Project Prometheus, the nuclear propulsion program that was recently pared back." 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 metavalent at gmail.com Tue May 16 04:26:19 2006 From: metavalent at gmail.com (Metavalent Stigmergy) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:26:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria Message-ID: <4e674fa00605152126n2888da57n7df3c863aacc7663@mail.gmail.com> Hope this is an appropriate branching of this particular thread. On 5/15/06, spike wrote: > What bothered me far more was Bill McKibben's talk. Since I haven't the > exact quote, I will need to approximate or paraphrase. McKibben thought we > need to cut the libertarian notions and acknowledge the propriety of > subjugating our wildest transhuman ambitions to the greater human community. > Did I get that about right, summiters? I don't think that's too far off the mark. Although I do have to admit, it's a pretty messy proposition to begin thinking about guidelines for the Admission Board to the Immortal Class of 2029. What are the criteria for admittance into the emergent class of immortals? Just money? There are lots of rich idiots out there and I don't know if conventional market economics -- which have worked GREAT for the most recent centuries of advancing and distributing Good Stuff in general -- are the right way to let the market decide in this case. I'm right with Hal in terms of finding ways to make a profit off of observed tendencies and I think that *some* kind of market should decide, but I wonder if the same market that moves everything from eye bolts to iPods is the right kind of market for the Immortality Commodity. Perhaps college and university admissions are an interesting model. Most are needs-blind, not based (solely) on economics; rather based upon the aptitudes, interests, and general direction of the applicants life. Not every psychology will adaptive to greatly extended life spans. Returning to the rich idiot scenario, perhaps idiots an important part of a diverse, posthuman or extropian society. In any case, who defines "idiot"? What if I'm a relatively harmless, fairly well-read, and happy hermit? Do I lose points for lack of face-to-face interaction? Who do I have to impress and what norms do I have to comply with? Is it enough to contribute the occassional provocative thought, demonstrate authentic respect and interest in the provocative thoughts of others, and periodically prompt interesting, original, or compelling discussion? Or do I need to exhibit the advanced bureaucratic organizational skills of a PhD, and nothing less? What are the Guidelines for Admission and who is on the draft commitee to create them? Whoever it is, it's probably time to get rockin' ... that is, if work is not already well underway. RFC: Guidelines for Admission to the First Posthuman, Potentially Immortal Extropian Class. Welcome, Class of 2029. From jonkc at att.net Tue May 16 06:42:31 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 02:42:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Russell Wallace Wrote: >any regulations [on Nanotechnology] we might invent now would ultimately >prove about as useful as Roger Bacon trying to draw up restrictions on the >manufacture of nerve gas. That is a good line, that is a damn good line, it's so good I intend to steal it. Unfortunately the rest of your post was not as good. Your argument seems to be that the Singularity idea can't be true because if it were then someday things would be odd; well, as far as I know there is no law of physics that says things can't be odd. And you're right, the Singularity idea does resonates with strong predispositions in the human brain, and yes that doesn't make it true, but it doesn't make it false either. John K Clark From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 07:01:39 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:01:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516030248.61513.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <20060516030248.61513.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605160001ke43db8ej7a532c7674dd3d1e@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Amen, Brother. Thank you for this beautiful post. Glad you like it! I'd been bracing myself for a napalm shower :) (and you make some good points in addition.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 07:06:11 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:06:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. In-Reply-To: <00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605160006v5f19e9a7w550ea326bdb3d6f7@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, John K Clark wrote: > > Russell Wallace Wrote: > > >any regulations [on Nanotechnology] we might invent now would ultimately > >prove about as useful as Roger Bacon trying to draw up restrictions on > the > >manufacture of nerve gas. > > That is a good line, that is a damn good line, it's so good I intend to > steal it. Thanks! Sure, go ahead. Unfortunately the rest of your post was not as good. Your argument > seems to be that the Singularity idea can't be true because if it were > then > someday things would be odd; well, as far as I know there is no law of > physics that says things can't be odd. > Not quite. I criticize only the idea of the Singularity being around the corner. I said the idea of it coming to pass sometime in the distant future is a fine one - there's certainly nothing to say things won't someday become odd. My point is that if it does, it will have to be sufficiently far off and in a world sufficiently odd to begin with, that we can't predict it with any sort of accuracy, so any attempt to draw up Singularity policy in 2006 will be worse than useless. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Tue May 16 07:15:03 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 00:15:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605150135v2aa85746kcc7a92c5849d2356@mail.gmail.com> References: <26315ffd0605132049x5e7636dbna105a06662a777e0@mail.gmail.com> <200605140546.k4E5k5FJ020672@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20060514111452.04e17690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <4e674fa00605141538qfd234b3qc3adb16945e783c5@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605150135v2aa85746kcc7a92c5849d2356@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1147763703.5649.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> My take on the event was that I had heard most of the speakers before and while there were some good presentations I did not see anything that was overwhelming. I had hoped to see some rigorous critical analysis but what appeared was McKibben. I had hoped for an insightful critique and instead we could some platitudes about death giving meaning to life. He did some sort of hand waving about democratic processes and control yet never seemed to address the issue that in this country a significant number of voting age believe in angels and creationism and other ideas. Exactly how are these same people are going to understand the concepts well enough to cast any kind of meaningful vote on issues related to AI, robotics, nanotech, bio tech, etc was not explained. I found a lot of what he said almost unintelligible perhaps that could be partially explained because he was not physically present. It is important for there to be a critical examination of all of the ideas surrounding transhumanism, singularity, etc. Unfortunately we did not get it from McKibben. One bright spot that I really enjoyed was seeing so many people there. Some of whom I had not seen recently. Fred From jonkc at att.net Tue May 16 07:38:18 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:38:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com><00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0605160006v5f19e9a7w550ea326bdb3d6f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <015201c678bb$bc02b7b0$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Russell Wallace > My point is that if it does [the singularity], it will have to be > sufficiently far off and in a world sufficiently odd to begin with, that > we can't predict it with any sort of accuracy, so any attempt to draw up > Singularity policy in 2006 will be worse than useless. Maybe the singularity is close, maybe it is distant, I just don't know, but even if it happens a thousand years from now in 999 years the singularity will still seem very distant, but more things will happen in that final year than the 999 that preceded it. So whenever the singularity happens it will be a big surprise to everybody. I agree, making elaborate plans for the singularity is not very useful, and making plans for the post singularity is downright ridiculous. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Tue May 16 07:13:28 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:13:28 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference at stanford) References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> "Alfio Puglisi" > Eugen's mail program sends perfectly standard-compliant multipart > messages. If Outlook Express can't handle them, that's Microsoft fault, as > usual. Like it or not Outlook Express is the most used mail program on planet Earth, and as the entire point of mail programs is communication I tend to think the problem is with Eugen and not with me. As for the Microsoft bashing, well, Muggles love to bad mouth success, but I thought Extropians were beyond that. John K Clark From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 08:28:13 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 01:28:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 15, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > Some years ago there was an incident in which a gang of robbers > held up a bank, using fake guns carefully made to look like the > real thing. It worked. It worked so well that while trying to > escape, the robbers were shot dead by armed police officers. > > The moral of this story is that, puffer fish notwithstanding, > making yourself appear more dangerous than you are is not always a > wise strategy. > > The Singularity is a lovely idea. (Bad word for it, mind you - > misuse of the mathematical terminology - but unfortunately we seem > to be stuck with it now.) In the works of E.E. Smith and Olaf > Stapledon, Asimov and Clarke, it provided inspiring visions of > possible futures; and while any particular vision is unrealistic, > the general concept that our remote descendants may be greater than > we are, is a good and reasonable one. Personally I was greatly inspired by Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker" at a young age. I don't think his scenario is unrealistic, at least not in the long run. > > Somewhere along the way it mutated into the meme of _imminent_ > Singularity. This version is pure fantasy, but like astrology and > spiritual healing, it has memetic survival advantage because it > resonates with strong predispositions in the human brain. In this > case, the predisposition is to believe in apocalypse or nirvana in our > lifetimes; no matter how many times this is falsified, each new > generation's faith is diminished not one iota. > I have no idea what you are talking about. Singularity as defined by Vinge, though without a lot of other baggage, is imminently likely in this century. All the other overlays are something else again. But the advent of greater than human intelligence on this planet in that time frame is substantial. I suggest we not ignore it. > Of course there's nothing wrong with make-believe if it's kept > under control, like children playing with realistic-looking fake > guns in their own back garden. But it's another thing when it > spills out of the pages of science fiction books and unnoticed geek > mailing lists, and into the mainstream media and conferences hosted > by major universities. What precisely are you calling make-believe? You yourself are into the creation of strong AI. It is a bit strange to devote your life to something you consider make-believe. > > When calls are made to base real life public policy on fantasy - > made and listened to. > What is fantasy and what is forward vision? > I'm not a big fan of government regulation at the best of times - I > think it's a blunt instrument that often does a lot more harm than > good - but if molecular manufacturing, human-level AI, neurohacking > or any of the usual list of buzzwords actually existed, it would at > least make sense to call for a public debate on whether they should > be regulated. In reality, they're nowhere near being on the > horizon, and if they ever are invented they are unlikely to > resemble our present visions any more than real life space > exploration involves rescuing Martian princesses from bug-eyed > monsters; in our current state of ignorance as to what they might > eventually look like, any regulations we might invent now would > ultimately prove about as useful as Roger Bacon trying to draw up > restrictions on the manufacture of nerve gas. There are many very good reasons not to let emotional irrational monkeys seriously restrict that which the brightest of them only begin to have a glimmer of. It is not necessary to claim that it is all make-believe and thus unregulatable. That strategy becomes more of a lie at every major advance. It may have governments feel blindsided and act even more reactionary when the "make-believe" starts to look all too real. > > That is not to say, unfortunately, that regulation would have no > effect. Substantial advance in technology is going to require > generations of hard work - basic research that's hard to get > funding for at the best of times. If you have to spend $10 on > lawyers to get permission for $1 of lab work, it's not going to > happen. I agree with this of course. > Nor do we have an infinitely long window of opportunity; the > conditions that support free inquiry and rapid technological > progress are, on the scale of history, a rare and short-lived > aberration. There is a threshold we need to reach; it is not the > badly-named "Singularity", but Diaspora - the technology to live > sustainably off Earth. I very much disagree. It would take very serious tech including nanotechnology to get a substantial amount of humanity far enough off planet to provide much safety of the kind you seem to be advocating. > With a quarter trillion stars in our galaxy alone, there'll be room > to find a way forward come what may; but we need to attain that > level of technology first, and the truth, as many a driver with > children in the back seat has had to point out, is that we are not > nearly there yet. > Only the nearest stars are reachable to biological creatures such as ourselves in a timeframe that will have us arrive before the post- biological offspring pass us and get there first. > The Earth isn't going to be demolished to make room for a > hyperspace bypass, or eaten by grey goo, or blown up by Skynet, but > we - humanity - may die nonetheless, looking up at the unattainable > stars as our vision fades and goes out, not a mark on us from any > outside force, merely strangled by our own illusions. If we do not develop substantially greater effective intelligence and rationality then the likeliest scenario is that we do ourselves in. > > Lest this be taken as another libertarian "government = evil" rant, > I'll emphasize that if we fail for the above reason it won't be the > politicians' fault. They have their jobs to do; are they wrong to > trust us to do ours? If we scientists and technologists come along > babbling about people wireheading themselves into vegetables or > turning themselves into monster cyborg killing machines or eating > the planet, _how are politicians and the public supposed to know we > were just deluding ourselves with paranoid fantasy_? If we must > ultimately drink a lethal draught, it will be because we ourselves > poisoned the well. > Wireheading is not that far away. Neither are various kinds of cyborg by some definitions though the certainly need not be killers and will not be all-powerful. It is possible although unlikely that something can be cooked up to eat the biosphere. At some point breaking up planets will become possible. Should we pretend this is not possible? Why? Is your advice to not scare those who cannot see for themselves? I am all for not scaring people unnecessarily but not for silencing ourselves just because there are scary implications. > So I am proposing that at last we leave childhood behind and accept > the difference between fantasy and real life, and if we choose to > entertain ourselves by gathering to tell each other stories, title > the gathering "Science fiction convention" not "Singularity summit". I really do not think this is called for. As a "Singularity Summit" this was very tame and not very scary at all. > Granted that everyone needs something to believe, if you find > "Singularity in my lifetime" is what you personally need, then > believe in life extension or cryonics that'll let you stick around > to see it, and let go of the illusion that it's just around the > corner. It is either within this century or likely not at all for this species imho. > And the correct response to "Gray goo is going to eat the planet" > isn't "Let's draw up a list of safeguards" but "You need to lay off > the bad science fiction". It turns out that is a relatively unlikely scenario. That doesn't mean there is nothing at all that can go wrong. It also doesn't mean in the least that Singularity is impossible in relatively short order. If you believe it is then argue that carefully. Don't just announce that it is all make-believe. > Let us cease poisoning the well, grow up and face reality. Stopping consideration of what is possible and speaking about it and its implication as more than utter fantasy is not facing reality. It is putting our collective heads in the sand until something we chose to ignore chews our butts off. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 08:44:59 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 01:44:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605152126n2888da57n7df3c863aacc7663@mail.gmail.com> References: <4e674fa00605152126n2888da57n7df3c863aacc7663@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 15, 2006, at 9:26 PM, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: > Hope this is an appropriate branching of this particular thread. > > On 5/15/06, spike wrote: >> What bothered me far more was Bill McKibben's talk. Since I >> haven't the >> exact quote, I will need to approximate or paraphrase. McKibben >> thought we >> need to cut the libertarian notions and acknowledge the propriety of >> subjugating our wildest transhuman ambitions to the greater human >> community. >> Did I get that about right, summiters? > > I don't think that's too far off the mark. Although I do have to > admit, it's a pretty messy proposition to begin thinking about > guidelines for the Admission Board to the Immortal Class of 2029. What is "greater" about the mass common opinion that there is no choice but to begin to fall about time we get much sense and to die a few decades (if we are lucky) after that? The world is not the world we souped-up chimps evolved to handle. It moves faster and is more complex. There is no turning back. We take control of our own subsequent development in a variety of ways or we perish. Immortal? Why is increased longevity thought of as immortality? What is wrong with wishing to live as long and in as good health as possible given our science and technology? How can it be right to ration life itself? > > What are the criteria for admittance into the emergent class of > immortals? Just money? There are lots of rich idiots out there and I > don't know if conventional market economics -- which have worked GREAT > for the most recent centuries of advancing and distributing Good Stuff > in general -- are the right way to let the market decide in this case. This is a ridiculous objection. The likely technology will only be expensive in its very early and experimental stage. if it is largely based in medical nanotech then it is likely the technology will be easy to mass produce cheaply. Even if it was and remained expensive then why is it more objectionable that a relatively rich person bought better health and longer life than if they bought anything else which the masses of humanity cannot afford? What business would it be of yours if a person who could afford the means paid a person who could provide the means to have a longer and healthier life? By what right would you interfere? Isn't the right to life and to pursue a more full life as basic as it gets? > I'm right with Hal in terms of finding ways to make a profit off of > observed tendencies and I think that *some* kind of market should > decide, but I wonder if the same market that moves everything from eye > bolts to iPods is the right kind of market for the Immortality > Commodity. > What else do you have in mind that would not introduce physical force into the situation? > Perhaps college and university admissions are an interesting model. > Most are needs-blind, not based (solely) on economics; rather based > upon the aptitudes, interests, and general direction of the applicants > life. Not every psychology will adaptive to greatly extended life > spans. How on earth would we be able to model this before people actually did experience longer lives? > > Returning to the rich idiot scenario, perhaps idiots an important part > of a diverse, posthuman or extropian society. In any case, who > defines "idiot"? > Being rich and staying rich is not as easy as you may presume. > What if I'm a relatively harmless, fairly well-read, and happy hermit? > Do I lose points for lack of face-to-face interaction? Who do I have > to impress and what norms do I have to comply with? Is it enough to > contribute the occassional provocative thought, demonstrate authentic > respect and interest in the provocative thoughts of others, and > periodically prompt interesting, original, or compelling discussion? > Or do I need to exhibit the advanced bureaucratic organizational > skills of a PhD, and nothing less? It is enough to be able to afford the means that someone else is able to provide. Nothing less preserves the rights of the people concerned without a tyrannical interference by the politicized opinions of others. > > What are the Guidelines for Admission and who is on the draft commitee > to create them? Whoever it is, it's probably time to get rockin' ... > that is, if work is not already well underway. > There is no such committee and while there is breath in me I will work that there never will be. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 08:55:58 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 01:55:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference at stanford) In-Reply-To: <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 12:13 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Alfio Puglisi" > >> Eugen's mail program sends perfectly standard-compliant multipart >> messages. If Outlook Express can't handle them, that's Microsoft >> fault, as >> usual. > > Like it or not Outlook Express is the most used mail program on planet > Earth, and as the entire point of mail programs is communication I > tend to > think the problem is with Eugen and not with me. Lots of things are widely used that have serious flaws that occasionally cause problems. The problem seem to be not with Eugen or you but with a disconnect between relevant standards and what Outlook in some configuration and circumstances actually does. Outlook is not itself the standard just because it is widely used. I also doubt it is the most used. Outlook costs money. Many people on Microsoft platforms can afford it only at work. They use other things quite often at home. > > As for the Microsoft bashing, well, Muggles love to bad mouth > success, but I > thought Extropians were beyond that. Success? Many things are widely done that are not something that is actually good. Outlook as a mail system has some serious flaws. That is merely factual. If Outlook is screwing up on perfectly reasonable standards compliant mail then Outlook is at fault. I don't know enough about the particulars of this case to be sure this is the case in this instance. But it will not do to accuse people of Microsoft bashing just for stating the problem may be with Outlook. - samantha From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 16 09:53:16 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:53:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference at stanford) In-Reply-To: <86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> <86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com> Message-ID: On 5/16/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Success? Many things are widely done that are not something that is > actually good. Outlook as a mail system has some serious flaws. > That is merely factual. If Outlook is screwing up on perfectly > reasonable standards compliant mail then Outlook is at fault. I > don't know enough about the particulars of this case to be sure this > is the case in this instance. But it will not do to accuse people of > Microsoft bashing just for stating the problem may be with Outlook. > (Outlook Express mail system is free, the full Outlook Organiser system is the one that businesses pay money for). I've moved all my higher volume mail lists to Gmail. Gmail via Firefox reads Eugene's mails fine in Linux and windows. Even though I only keep about one month's mails, gmail is still storing around 50MB for me that would otherwise be cluttering up my hard drive. Webmail also means that I can check my emails from any internet pc. John, any gmail user can send you an account invite if you want to try it out. (You can also upload existing OE emails to gmail to free up disk space). BillK From aiguy at comcast.net Tue May 16 09:49:43 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 05:49:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference atstanford) In-Reply-To: <86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com> Message-ID: <004b01c678ce$122ca670$74550318@ZANDRA2> > Samantha said: Outlook is not itself the standard just because it is widely used. > >I also doubt it is the most used. Outlook costs money. Many people on Microsoft platforms can afford it only at work. >They use other things quite often at home. Because Microsoft bundles Outlook Express into the Windows XP operating system. And the XP operating comes installed on 99.9 of the PCs used in the US whether you like it or not, it has become the defacto standard. High speed carriers such as Comcast and Verizon only have installation and helpdesk support for Outlook. Try asking them for help configuring another mail program and you'll find out you're on your own. I know there are a lot of power users out there who enjoy trying new software and a lot of the Open Source software out there has been made a lot easier for newbies to download/install but the truth is I work with the average PC consumer on a daily basis and the vast majority of them don't make it any further than Outlook and Interent Explorer. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:56 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference atstanford) On May 16, 2006, at 12:13 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Alfio Puglisi" > >> Eugen's mail program sends perfectly standard-compliant multipart >> messages. If Outlook Express can't handle them, that's Microsoft >> fault, as usual. > > Like it or not Outlook Express is the most used mail program on planet > Earth, and as the entire point of mail programs is communication I > tend to think the problem is with Eugen and not with me. Lots of things are widely used that have serious flaws that occasionally cause problems. The problem seem to be not with Eugen or you but with a disconnect between relevant standards and what Outlook in some configuration and circumstances actually does. Outlook is not itself the standard just because it is widely used. I also doubt it is the most used. Outlook costs money. Many people on Microsoft platforms can afford it only at work. They use other things quite often at home. > > As for the Microsoft bashing, well, Muggles love to bad mouth success, > but I thought Extropians were beyond that. Success? Many things are widely done that are not something that is actually good. Outlook as a mail system has some serious flaws. That is merely factual. If Outlook is screwing up on perfectly reasonable standards compliant mail then Outlook is at fault. I don't know enough about the particulars of this case to be sure this is the case in this instance. But it will not do to accuse people of Microsoft bashing just for stating the problem may be with Outlook. - samantha _______________________________________________ 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 Tue May 16 10:32:59 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 05:32:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <4e674fa00605152126n2888da57n7df3c863aacc7663@mail.gmail.com> References: <4e674fa00605152126n2888da57n7df3c863aacc7663@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/15/06, Metavalent Stigmergy wrote: On 5/15/06, spike wrote: > > What bothered me far more was Bill McKibben's talk. Since I haven't the > > exact quote, I will need to approximate or paraphrase. McKibben thought > we > > need to cut the libertarian notions and acknowledge the propriety of > > subjugating our wildest transhuman ambitions to the greater human > community. The *only* "ambition" [1] which is problematic (IMO) is one where a single entity ends up with a significant fraction, or all, of the marbles [2] . I'm right with Hal in terms of finding ways to make a profit off of > observed tendencies and I think that *some* kind of market should > decide, but I wonder if the same market that moves everything from eye > bolts to iPods is the right kind of market for the Immortality Commodity. Traditional markets are irrelevent because they are about "stuff", where "stuff" is usually related to either (a) survival; or (b) perceived quality of life. Since we have enough matter and energy to allow extremely extended survival (trillions of years for an order of at least a trillion copies per individual currently alive). There is *no* need to make a "profit" in such an environment as individuals / organizations can survive indefinitely. If anything there is an inversion of current market dynamics (where available resources limits consumption of ones "product") to one that is similar to that starting to develop now in the media environment where the abundance of "channels" (TV, Radio, Blogs, etc.) leads to an increasing fragmentation of markets. It is a limit on the availability of near term "attention" or "focus" (as one can always pay attention in a few million years or someday get around to creating an additional copy to pay attention) which becomes the "critical"(?) currency. It leads to an interesting situation with respect to *what* do people do if all that they produce is destined for an audience of one -- themselves? Now the next 10-100 years is interesting/tricky because there are still choices to be made that determine how quickly we get to Neverland and how many existing humans are brought along (and perhaps whether they should be dragged there in spite of their beliefs in false gods) [3]. Robert 1. It should be noted that this is *not* a "transhuman" ambition. It is an instinct or drive which is an aspect of the fundamental need to survive (and reproduce). Having more marbles increases ones chances of survival and fecundity. The problem is that few people are successful in flipping from "optimal marble accumulation mode" to "optimal marble sharing mode". It requires a conscious decision to transcend a fundamental instinct. 2. "Single" in this case could be a "class" which seeks to collect and retain all the marbles -- where "marbles" are most of the energy & matter in the solar system.) 3. Lord, please forgive them. They know not what they do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue May 16 10:37:32 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 05:37:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference atstanford) In-Reply-To: <004b01c678ce$122ca670$74550318@ZANDRA2> References: <86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com> <004b01c678ce$122ca670$74550318@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On 5/16/06, Gary Miller wrote: > I know there are a lot of power users out there who enjoy trying new > software and a lot of the Open Source software out there has been made a > lot > easier for newbies to download/install but the truth is I work with the > average PC consumer on a daily basis and the vast majority of them don't > make it any further than Outlook and Interent Explorer. Hmmm... I can use the same quote twice in an hour on two completely different topics... :-;? "Lord, forgive them. They know not what they do." R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 11:02:15 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:02:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Personally I was greatly inspired by Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker" at > a young age. Me too! I don't think his scenario is unrealistic, at least not > in the long run. Me neither. What precisely are you calling make-believe? You yourself are into > the creation of strong AI. It is a bit strange to devote your life > to something you consider make-believe. I work on it in the spirit in which Goddard early in the 20th century worked on rocketry with the intent that it be used for space travel - he didn't have to believe starships were just around the corner. It's not technological progress I'm calling make-believe, but the imminent apocalypse/nirvana meme. What is fantasy and what is forward vision? Given that we can't (and never have been able to) make actual predictions past the near future, forward vision more than a couple of decades forward _is_ necessarily fantasy. There are many very good reasons not to let emotional irrational > monkeys seriously restrict that which the brightest of them only > begin to have a glimmer of. It is not necessary to claim that it is > all make-believe and thus unregulatable. Do you think we today can foresee the Singularity or whatever well enough to have a reasonable chance of making good, detailed policy decisions and passing appropriate, well-tuned regulations on it? I would guess from your words above that you agree with me that we can't. That is the substance of my claim. I'm not calling make-believe the idea that the Singularity may someday happen. What I'm calling make-believe is any specific prediction regarding it. Because we are not close enough to do as well as random chance in making specific predictions, any attempt to discuss Singularity policy right now is worse than useless folly - it encourages the passing of regulations that reduce our chances of ever making it at all. If it's a topic for policy discussion, then it's a political problem, and that means laws and regulations. What I advocate is acknowledging that relevant policy discussion is not yet possible, and that it should be considered not a political problem but a purely technical one, until the technology actually delivers something of substance, thereby providing information that can feed a _meaningful_ policy discussion. If regulations are to be proposed, then let them be proposed at that later date when there's some prayer of them being based at least partly on fact rather than fantasy. I very much disagree. It would take very serious tech including > nanotechnology to get a substantial amount of humanity far enough off > planet to provide much safety of the kind you seem to be advocating. Of course it will take such tech - that's exactly my point! What do you disagree with? Hmm, from your choice of words above perhaps you're thinking I want Diaspora in the sense of "the world's about to blow up, I want a lifeboat so I can get out of blast radius"? My vision is a different one. I want it so life can stop being about squabbling over who gets to control which corner of this one little ball of rock. So we can have room to breathe. Only the nearest stars are reachable to biological creatures such as > ourselves in a timeframe that will have us arrive before the post- > biological offspring pass us and get there first. *shrug* Maybe. Honestly, I think the actual future, if we make it, will end up being stranger and more wonderful than either of us could have predicted. But that's something for our descendants to figure out; maybe ourselves in person if progress in life extension is fast enough; but at any rate, people in the future. What we need to worry about right now is getting that far in the first place. If we do not develop substantially greater effective intelligence and > rationality then the likeliest scenario is that we do ourselves in. Consider this my little attempt at improving our effective intelligence and rationality :) Wireheading is not that far away. Neither are various kinds of > cyborg by some definitions though the certainly need not be killers > and will not be all-powerful. It is possible although unlikely that > something can be cooked up to eat the biosphere. At some point > breaking up planets will become possible. Should we pretend this is > not possible? No, I make no claims regarding ultimate impossibility of anything that doesn't involve logical self-contradiction. But neither should we pretend any of it is close enough for meaningful policy discussion. I really do not think this is called for. As a "Singularity Summit" > this was very tame and not very scary at all. It provided a platform for Bill McKibben to speak. Bill McKibben, who advocates an end to progress, the snuffing out of the entire future of sentient life - _and is respected and taken seriously_. If that doesn't scare you, what would? > Granted that everyone needs something to believe, if you find > > "Singularity in my lifetime" is what you personally need, then > > believe in life extension or cryonics that'll let you stick around > > to see it, and let go of the illusion that it's just around the > > corner. > > It is either within this century or likely not at all for this > species imho. You may well be right. That's why I think it's so important to keep working flat out on the technology, and not get snared in politics. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 16 11:09:46 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:09:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516030248.61513.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <20060516030248.61513.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/16/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > Or pummeled by an asteroid we saw coming for 30 years > because we wasted so much money defending against > bogey-men like Iraqi WMD, the "war on terror", and > grey-goo. > Please don't turn my response into a political for- against- Iraq war argument. That is not the point. But hasn't war always been a major driver of technological progress? Going right back to the wheel and the war chariot. In peacetime, humans fall back into comfortable bureaucratic structures, lots of meetings, much discussion and arguments, pay rises, conferences, etc. but precious little actual progress. In wartime the economy funds industrialisation to expand weapons research and production to support the war. Satellites and GPS were military developments. World War II produced: (plus many smaller inventions) radar, electronics (which led to computers), jet aircraft, aircraft carriers, rockets (ballistic missiles) and atomic research (the Bomb). The Iraq war is driving: remote-control aircraft, self-guided vehicles, language translation technology, medical treatment advances, bionic limbs, see-through buildings radar, computer networking for command-and-control, database technology and data mining (for the war against terrorism), fuel cell tech (to remove dependency on batteries and oil), non-lethal weapons (where terrorists mix with civilians), advanced detectors, sensors and scanners, advanced materials for armour and monitoring, and probably everything DARPA is working on. So it may take a war effort to develop AI. That seems to be happening already with DARPA's self guided vehicles. BillK From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 16 11:11:03 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:11:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference atstanford) References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer><4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com><011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> <86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com> Message-ID: > On May 16, 2006, at 12:13 AM, John K Clark wrote: > >> "Alfio Puglisi" >> >>> Eugen's mail program sends perfectly standard-compliant multipart >>> messages. If Outlook Express can't handle them, that's Microsoft >>> fault, as >>> usual. >> >> Like it or not Outlook Express is the most used mail program on planet >> Earth, and as the entire point of mail programs is communication I >> tend to >> think the problem is with Eugen and not with me. > > Lots of things are widely used that have serious flaws that > occasionally cause problems. The problem seem to be not with Eugen > or you but with a disconnect between relevant standards and what > Outlook in some configuration and circumstances actually does. It's very simple. Either Leitl wants to have his messages read by Outlook Express users by using a different mail program or not. It's his personal decision. After all, it is always the audience that does the author the favor by reading his/her stuff, not the other way around. It's not the audience that should change. I certainly almost never had the patience for opening these attachments. H. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 11:23:06 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:23:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <20060516030248.61513.qmail@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605160423j54f457c3u60cb1ece599efd85@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, BillK wrote: > > The Iraq war is driving: > remote-control aircraft, self-guided vehicles, language translation > technology, medical treatment advances, bionic limbs, see-through > buildings radar, computer networking for command-and-control, database > technology and data mining (for the war against terrorism), fuel cell > tech (to remove dependency on batteries and oil), non-lethal weapons > (where terrorists mix with civilians), advanced detectors, sensors and > scanners, advanced materials for armour and monitoring, and probably > everything DARPA is working on. That's true, but it's also true that if you're going to lobby for more funding for technological progress (which is a good thing to do), there's more leverage in lobbying for direct funding of research, than in advocating more war so as to pick up spinoffs. (Leaving aside obvious ethical issues with the latter course!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 16 12:02:34 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:02:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russel: "What I advocate is acknowledging that relevant policy discussion is not yet possible, and that it should be considered not a political problem but a purely technical one, until the technology actually delivers something of substance, thereby providing information that can feed a _meaningful_ policy discussion. If regulations are to be proposed, then let them be proposed at that later date when there's some prayer of them being based at least partly on fact rather than fantasy." It sounds to me like you don't have much faith in hard take-off. Is this correct? But if you do, then don't you think that by the time recursively self-improving AI is born, it will be too late for any discussion about policy? H. From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue May 16 11:12:01 2006 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:12:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060516111201.44837.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> There must be no admission rules for immortality Immortality must be for all, independently of wealth, origin, race or religion. Any sort of limitation could only generate a class revolution, the non immortals will target and kill the immortaals, there is no way that humanity will accept rules or limitations to immortality Giorgio --- Samantha Atkins ha scritto: > > On May 15, 2006, at 9:26 PM, Metavalent Stigmergy > wrote: > > > Hope this is an appropriate branching of this > particular thread. > > > > On 5/15/06, spike wrote: > >> What bothered me far more was Bill McKibben's > talk. Since I > >> haven't the > >> exact quote, I will need to approximate or > paraphrase. McKibben > >> thought we > >> need to cut the libertarian notions and > acknowledge the propriety of > >> subjugating our wildest transhuman ambitions to > the greater human > >> community. > >> Did I get that about right, summiters? > > > > I don't think that's too far off the mark. > Although I do have to > > admit, it's a pretty messy proposition to begin > thinking about > > guidelines for the Admission Board to the Immortal > Class of 2029. > > What is "greater" about the mass common opinion that > there is no > choice but to begin to fall about time we get much > sense and to die a > few decades (if we are lucky) after that? The > world is not the > world we souped-up chimps evolved to handle. It > moves faster and is > more complex. There is no turning back. We take > control of our own > subsequent development in a variety of ways or we > perish. > > Immortal? Why is increased longevity thought of as > immortality? > What is wrong with wishing to live as long and in as > good health as > possible given our science and technology? How can > it be right to > ration life itself? > > > > > What are the criteria for admittance into the > emergent class of > > immortals? Just money? There are lots of rich > idiots out there and I > > don't know if conventional market economics -- > which have worked GREAT > > for the most recent centuries of advancing and > distributing Good Stuff > > in general -- are the right way to let the market > decide in this case. > > This is a ridiculous objection. The likely > technology will only be > expensive in its very early and experimental stage. > if it is largely > based in medical nanotech then it is likely the > technology will be > easy to mass produce cheaply. Even if it was and > remained expensive > then why is it more objectionable that a relatively > rich person > bought better health and longer life than if they > bought anything > else which the masses of humanity cannot afford? > What business > would it be of yours if a person who could afford > the means paid a > person who could provide the means to have a longer > and healthier > life? By what right would you interfere? Isn't > the right to life > and to pursue a more full life as basic as it gets? > > > I'm right with Hal in terms of finding ways to > make a profit off of > > observed tendencies and I think that *some* kind > of market should > > decide, but I wonder if the same market that moves > everything from eye > > bolts to iPods is the right kind of market for the > Immortality > > Commodity. > > > > What else do you have in mind that would not > introduce physical force > into the situation? > > > Perhaps college and university admissions are an > interesting model. > > Most are needs-blind, not based (solely) on > economics; rather based > > upon the aptitudes, interests, and general > direction of the applicants > > life. Not every psychology will adaptive to > greatly extended life > > spans. > > How on earth would we be able to model this before > people actually > did experience longer lives? > > > > > Returning to the rich idiot scenario, perhaps > idiots an important part > > of a diverse, posthuman or extropian society. In > any case, who > > defines "idiot"? > > > > Being rich and staying rich is not as easy as you > may presume. > > > What if I'm a relatively harmless, fairly > well-read, and happy hermit? > > Do I lose points for lack of face-to-face > interaction? Who do I have > > to impress and what norms do I have to comply > with? Is it enough to > > contribute the occassional provocative thought, > demonstrate authentic > > respect and interest in the provocative thoughts > of others, and > > periodically prompt interesting, original, or > compelling discussion? > > Or do I need to exhibit the advanced bureaucratic > organizational > > skills of a PhD, and nothing less? > > It is enough to be able to afford the means that > someone else is able > to provide. Nothing less preserves the rights of > the people > concerned without a tyrannical interference by the > politicized > opinions of others. > > > > > What are the Guidelines for Admission and who is > on the draft commitee > > to create them? Whoever it is, it's probably time > to get rockin' ... > > that is, if work is not already well underway. > > > > There is no such committee and while there is breath > in me I will > work that there never will be. > > - samantha > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 12:36:38 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:36:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605160536i492241cegdff085a59851663a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Heartland wrote: > > It sounds to me like you don't have much faith in hard take-off. Is this > correct? In the same way that I don't have much faith in dowsing, perpetual motion machines and God needing a lot of money sent to a certain box number, yes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Tue May 16 12:41:57 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:41:57 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <20060516111201.44837.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060516111201.44837.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62602.81.152.102.156.1147783317.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > There must be no admission rules for immortality > Immortality must be for all, independently of wealth, > origin, race or religion. > Any sort of limitation could only generate a class > revolution, the non immortals will target and kill the > immortaals, there is no way that humanity will accept > rules or limitations to immortality This is a very common claim, but I regard it just as unfounded as George Annas claim that the emergence of posthumans would inevitably cause genocidal war (and hence we mustn't create them). Maybe we could call it a Frinkian argument (after professor Frink: "Elementary chaos theory tells us that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and the kicking and the biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving.") If we don't do X, then we get class revolution! The problem here isn't that it might be true, but that people seem to accept just the statement of the argument as a good reason to do whatever suggested. But the rational thing to do is to evaluate the likeliehood of the risk and then try to act accordingly. I'm very annoyed by Frinkian arguments, so much that one of my main academic projects right now is to do a more careful analysis of them (in cognition enhancement). We'll see how it turns out. In the case of immortality, I guess one approach would be to look at likely scenarios of cost, how quickly the technology diffuses and becomes cheaper, and the impact of regulations and interventions. Add to this the desire for immortality in the population. Based on this we can make a start at looking at whether resentment is likely to become a major problem, whether social divisions are likely to increase and whether the moral problems are large enough to justify particular interventions. For example, access to computers is limited by their cost. But I think few would claim that it is likely to produce class warfare, not even the people most worried about digital divides and the enormous importance of being computer literate in the digital society. It seems that the price and ubiqity is developing enough both within societies and worldwide to not be a huge problem (sure, we might wish to speed it anyway). Similarly, the gatekeeping control over much of medicine is also not assumed to be a major cause of resentment, although a lot of politics of course deals with health care issues - possibly health care altruism in industrialised societies is actually defusing resentment, although Robin's evolutionary theory for it also likely plays in IMHO. How strongly would people want immortality? WE want it. But the impressively bad track record of cryonics recruiting and the popular deathist memes suggest the opposite. On the other hand, lots of people eat lots of alternative medicine to live longer (not to mention pray for it etc.) - when real treatments become available the interest is going to be far larger than in current theoretical discussions, no matter what they say today. But I think people are more likely to storm pharmacies for Tamiflu than for life extension drugs, simply because they consider a bird flu threat more direct and serious than ageing. It might very well be that people want immortality but are willing to wait a few years (if they are not too old). Especially if they have reason to believe the treatment will become cheaper and better. That is likely to soften the impact of a sudden development of an "immortality serum". And if life extension treatments instead evolve over a long time, giving one extra year here and there, then the effect is likely softened even more. Just a first tentative attack on the Frinkian argument. I'm certain it can be done better by the other minds on this list. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From velvet977 at hotmail.com Tue May 16 13:20:40 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:20:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com><8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160536i492241cegdff085a59851663a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Heartland: > It sounds to me like you don't have much faith in hard take-off. Is this > correct? Russell: "In the same way that I don't have much faith in dowsing, perpetual motion machines and God needing a lot of money sent to a certain box number, yes." Okay, then what about faith in the evidence suggesting that intelligence is powerful over time and that more intelligence can accomplish much more in less time (e.g., humans accomplish more in less time than less intelligent animals)? H. From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 13:49:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 06:49:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. In-Reply-To: <00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200605161349.k4GDnbsX000016@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > Russell Wallace Wrote: > > >any regulations [on Nanotechnology] we might invent now would ultimately > >prove about as useful as Roger Bacon trying to draw up restrictions on > the manufacture of nerve gas. If we outlaw AI programming, only outlaws will program AI. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 13:53:59 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 06:53:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <1147763703.5649.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200605161354.k4GDsAQD006531@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton ... > > One bright spot that I really enjoyed was seeing so many people there. > Some of whom I had not seen recently. > > Fred Likewise Fred! I saw you were with Russell Whittaker. The usual suspects were there, but missed several old friends, who I later found out were present, such as Samantha and Hal. I had to run out afterwards for family obligations. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 16 14:11:48 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:11:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605161412.k4GEC1V5024560@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: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:02 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award ... As a "Singularity Summit" this was very tame and not very scary at all. It provided a platform for Bill McKibben to speak. Bill McKibben, who advocates an end to progress, the snuffing out of the entire future of sentient life - _and is respected and taken seriously_. If that doesn't scare you, what would? On the contrary, I found McKibben's talk in a way reassuring. We have an intelligent, sincere and articulate singularity opponent who demonstrates that there is little substance to the position of AI opposition. His thrust seems to be asking: why should we want to pursue the singularity? My answer is simple: Don't worry Bill, we want to. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 15:43:51 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:43:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference atstanford) In-Reply-To: <004b01c678ce$122ca670$74550318@ZANDRA2> References: <004b01c678ce$122ca670$74550318@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On May 16, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Gary Miller wrote: >> Samantha said: Outlook is not itself the standard just because it is > widely used. >> >> I also doubt it is the most used. Outlook costs money. Many >> people on > Microsoft platforms can afford it only at work. >They use other > things > quite often at home. > > Because Microsoft bundles Outlook Express into the Windows XP > operating > system. And the XP operating comes installed on 99.9 of the PCs > used in the > US whether you like it or not, it has become the defacto standard. > > High speed carriers such as Comcast and Verizon only have > installation and > helpdesk support for Outlook. Try asking them for help configuring > another > mail program and you'll find out you're on your own. > I doubt very much that anyone here is at the mercy of ISP preference as to what email program to use. But I take your point that much of the unwashed masses may have no idea they have a choice or that it is easy to choose differently. > I know there are a lot of power users out there who enjoy trying new > software and a lot of the Open Source software out there has been > made a lot > easier for newbies to download/install but the truth is I work with > the > average PC consumer on a daily basis and the vast majority of them > don't > make it any further than Outlook and Interent Explorer. > OK. So perhaps the majority is stuck with whatever quality Microsoft did on did not provide for "free". Sad really. I have a brilliant friend, very gifted mechanical engineer, who still uses IE although I personally loaded Firefox on her home machine and walked her through using it. She actually sees that it is better and more secure, yadda, yadda. But thinking to choose it instead seems to be one too many things to think about or something. She uses web mail but uses Yahoo's offering, ads and all. - samantha From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue May 16 14:58:17 2006 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:58:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <62602.81.152.102.156.1147783317.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060516145817.35399.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I understand your comments and agree on main issues but we are talking of a high irrational component. Nobody would have imagined only ten years ago, suicidal attacks by moslem extremists to prove a point and keep a political pressure on certain countries or societies. But such warfare tactic have become a mainstay of the actual way of life and have caused extreme terrorism prevention measures and other factors that have deeply affect our everyday life. To go to the USA today has become a nightmare just because we need a digital passport while the US diplomatic authorities are overburden with visa requests by people who were used to travel without any restriction. With the same rationale, an immortality possibility, which by technological, economical or other conditions will initially have effect in a limited amount of population, will not only create resentment but will be the fuel for more serious class revolutions that can affect all of us, and the entire society, jeopardizing the whole project and creating long term negative effects. And i am not mentioning the immediate ban by such religious groups as the Roman Catholic Church or others, which will still hopefully remain in a reasonable cultural environment. For that reason immortality, as a possibility, must be, since the beginning a democratic choice, not limited to any country, group or association. The negative impact of a rejection by the majority of the excluded population can cause a long term class warfare and have negative consequences for decades, if not for centuries. The day that immortaity, a potential immortality possibility, will be available, it must be accessible to everybody. That is the most important and essential condition for its acceptance. --- Anders Sandberg ha scritto: > > giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > > There must be no admission rules for immortality > > Immortality must be for all, independently of > wealth, > > origin, race or religion. > > Any sort of limitation could only generate a class > > revolution, the non immortals will target and kill > the > > immortaals, there is no way that humanity will > accept > > rules or limitations to immortality > > This is a very common claim, but I regard it just as > unfounded as George > Annas claim that the emergence of posthumans would > inevitably cause > genocidal war (and hence we mustn't create them). > Maybe we could call it a > Frinkian argument (after professor Frink: > "Elementary chaos theory tells > us that all robots will eventually turn against > their masters and run amok > in an orgy of blood and the kicking and the biting > with the metal teeth > and the hurting and shoving.") If we don't do X, > then we get class > revolution! > > The problem here isn't that it might be true, but > that people seem to > accept just the statement of the argument as a good > reason to do whatever > suggested. But the rational thing to do is to > evaluate the likeliehood of > the risk and then try to act accordingly. I'm very > annoyed by Frinkian > arguments, so much that one of my main academic > projects right now is to > do a more careful analysis of them (in cognition > enhancement). We'll see > how it turns out. > > > In the case of immortality, I guess one approach > would be to look at > likely scenarios of cost, how quickly the technology > diffuses and becomes > cheaper, and the impact of regulations and > interventions. Add to this the > desire for immortality in the population. Based on > this we can make a > start at looking at whether resentment is likely to > become a major > problem, whether social divisions are likely to > increase and whether the > moral problems are large enough to justify > particular interventions. > > For example, access to computers is limited by their > cost. But I think few > would claim that it is likely to produce class > warfare, not even the > people most worried about digital divides and the > enormous importance of > being computer literate in the digital society. It > seems that the price > and ubiqity is developing enough both within > societies and worldwide to > not be a huge problem (sure, we might wish to speed > it anyway). Similarly, > the gatekeeping control over much of medicine is > also not assumed to be a > major cause of resentment, although a lot of > politics of course deals with > health care issues - possibly health care altruism > in industrialised > societies is actually defusing resentment, although > Robin's evolutionary > theory for it also likely plays in IMHO. > > How strongly would people want immortality? WE want > it. But the > impressively bad track record of cryonics recruiting > and the popular > deathist memes suggest the opposite. On the other > hand, lots of people eat > lots of alternative medicine to live longer (not to > mention pray for it > etc.) - when real treatments become available the > interest is going to be > far larger than in current theoretical discussions, > no matter what they > say today. But I think people are more likely to > storm pharmacies for > Tamiflu than for life extension drugs, simply > because they consider a bird > flu threat more direct and serious than ageing. It > might very well be that > people want immortality but are willing to wait a > few years (if they are > not too old). Especially if they have reason to > believe the treatment will > become cheaper and better. That is likely to soften > the impact of a sudden > development of an "immortality serum". And if life > extension treatments > instead evolve over a long time, giving one extra > year here and there, > then the effect is likely softened even more. > > Just a first tentative attack on the Frinkian > argument. I'm certain it can > be done better by the other minds on this list. > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Tue May 16 16:08:29 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <20060516145817.35399.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060516160829.6340.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You wouldn't expect moslem moderates to carry out suicidal attacks, would you? :-) Nobody would have imagined only ten years ago, suicidal attacks by moslem extremists to prove a point and keep a political pressure on certain countries or societies. "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- 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 sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 17:35:33 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:35:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <136A4DAF-8073-482B-B2F6-02235D672CEF@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 4:02 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > > What is fantasy and what is forward vision? > > Given that we can't (and never have been able to) make actual > predictions past the near future, forward vision more than a couple > of decades forward _is_ necessarily fantasy. > The point of forward vision is not accuracy but projection of likely scenarios and preparing for them as best we can. Doing this is not fairly described as engaging in fantasy. Many are also dedicated to bringing the best of these future scenarios closer by more actively pursuing them. Some of the scenarios will not happen in two decades or more if their importance is reduced to fantasy now. > There are many very good reasons not to let emotional irrational > monkeys seriously restrict that which the brightest of them only > begin to have a glimmer of. It is not necessary to claim that it is > all make-believe and thus unregulatable. > > Do you think we today can foresee the Singularity or whatever well > enough to have a reasonable chance of making good, detailed policy > decisions and passing appropriate, well-tuned regulations on it? I > would guess from your words above that you agree with me that we > can't. > No. I am against such regulation today. But we don't need to claim these things are fantasy to argue against such regulation. > That is the substance of my claim. I'm not calling make-believe the > idea that the Singularity may someday happen. Unless we seriously screw up or get hit with something nasty the Singularity in the Vinge sense is a certainty. That is not the full apocalyptic vision though. > What I'm calling make-believe is any specific prediction regarding > it. Because we are not close enough to do as well as random chance > in making specific predictions, any attempt to discuss Singularity > policy right now is worse than useless folly - it encourages the > passing of regulations that reduce our chances of ever making it at > all. If it's a topic for policy discussion, then it's a political > problem, and that means laws and regulations. I got all that but there is no need to toss out the baby with the bath water. > > What I advocate is acknowledging that relevant policy discussion is > not yet possible, and that it should be considered not a political > problem but a purely technical one, until the technology actually > delivers something of substance, thereby providing information that > can feed a _meaningful_ policy discussion. If regulations are to be > proposed, then let them be proposed at that later date when there's > some prayer of them being based at least partly on fact rather than > fantasy. > > I very much disagree. It would take very serious tech including > nanotechnology to get a substantial amount of humanity far enough off > planet to provide much safety of the kind you seem to be advocating. > > Of course it will take such tech - that's exactly my point! What do > you disagree with? > You seemed to focus more on getting humanity off planet as opposed to the "fantasy" of some of the technology that would be needed to do so. Sorry if I misread. > Hmm, from your choice of words above perhaps you're thinking I want > Diaspora in the sense of "the world's about to blow up, I want a > lifeboat so I can get out of blast radius"? My vision is a > different one. I want it so life can stop being about squabbling > over who gets to control which corner of this one little ball of > rock. So we can have room to breathe. > What is enough "room"? Any space migration is more of a fantasy in the next two decades than >human AI. Such migration in its beginning will be very resource hungry and will likely have much more squabbling for control than down home in the gravity well where we are inundated with resources. Supporting biological humans in great numbers indefinitely in space is a vaster undertaking than AGI or MNT. > Only the nearest stars are reachable to biological creatures such as > ourselves in a timeframe that will have us arrive before the post- > biological offspring pass us and get there first. > > *shrug* Maybe. Honestly, I think the actual future, if we make it, > will end up being stranger and more wonderful than either of us > could have predicted. But that's something for our descendants to > figure out; maybe ourselves in person if progress in life extension > is fast enough; but at any rate, people in the future. What we need > to worry about right now is getting that far in the first place. It is not up to our descendants. It is our watch. If we drop the ball there will not likely be any space-faring descendants and perhaps no AGI in this corner of space-time. > > No, I make no claims regarding ultimate impossibility of anything > that doesn't involve logical self-contradiction. But neither should > we pretend any of it is close enough for meaningful policy discussion. > I think we are in violent agreement on that much. :-) > I really do not think this is called for. As a "Singularity Summit" > this was very tame and not very scary at all. > > It provided a platform for Bill McKibben to speak. Bill McKibben, > who advocates an end to progress, the snuffing out of the entire > future of sentient life - _and is respected and taken seriously_. > If that doesn't scare you, what would? McKibben has many more opportunities to speak than the more positive side. Should we shut up just because the McKibbens will take advantage of the opportunity to provide "balance"? > > > Granted that everyone needs something to believe, if you find > > "Singularity in my lifetime" is what you personally need, then > > believe in life extension or cryonics that'll let you stick around > > to see it, and let go of the illusion that it's just around the > > corner. > > It is either within this century or likely not at all for this > species imho. > > You may well be right. That's why I think it's so important to keep > working flat out on the technology, and not get snared in politics. > Again we are in agreement about avoiding the politics where we can. There are places where we cannot and where some political activity is essential to move forward. Putting the worse fears to rest or showing they are manageable is for instance part of what allowed nanotech funding to increase. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 17:41:54 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:41:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference atstanford) In-Reply-To: References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> <86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com> Message-ID: <22991B07-FC12-4FD2-BDC9-4A6C97415387@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 4:11 AM, Heartland wrote: > > It's very simple. Either Leitl wants to have his messages read by > Outlook Express > users by using a different mail program or not. It's his personal > decision. After > all, it is always the audience that does the author the favor by > reading his/her > stuff, not the other way around. It's not the audience that should > change. I > certainly almost never had the patience for opening these attachments. > If you have read much of Eugen's stuff you would know he does the world a favor with his energy and the quantity and quality of what he puts out. The Outlook Express dweebs are not doing him a favor by reading it much less by insisting that he support their broken software. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 17:46:16 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:46:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <20060516111201.44837.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060516111201.44837.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5D267BD6-122D-444E-BB99-061E8E7455E5@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 4:12 AM, giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > There must be no admission rules for immortality > Immortality must be for all, independently of wealth, > origin, race or religion. > Any sort of limitation could only generate a class > revolution, the non immortals will target and kill the > immortaals, there is no way that humanity will accept > rules or limitations to immortality What if it does cost more than most can afford? Would you advocate making it unavailable to even those who can afford it? The vast majority of humanity claims that they are not remotely interested in physical immortality. The vast majority believes that this is just some illusion of a human life or their practice life. - samantha From sentience at pobox.com Tue May 16 17:47:52 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > > The moral of this story is that, puffer fish notwithstanding, making > yourself appear more dangerous than you are is not always a wise strategy. [...] > The Singularity is a lovely idea. (Bad word for it, mind you - misuse of > the mathematical terminology - but unfortunately we seem to be stuck > with it now.) In the works of E.E. Smith and Olaf Stapledon, Asimov and > Clarke, it provided inspiring visions of possible futures; and while any > particular vision is unrealistic, the general concept that our remote > descendants may be greater than we are, is a good and reasonable one. Since you offer us no reason to believe that a Singularity is ruled out in the particular timeframe 2006-2026 (or whatever it is you believe is ruled out), your entire polemic reduces to the following statement: "Assuming that no hard takeoff occurs between 2006-2026, it would be very wise to believe that no hard takeoff will occur between 2006-2026, and foolish to believe that a hard takeoff will occur between 2006-2026." It is rather reminiscent of someone lecturing me on how, if I don't believe in Christ, Christ will damn me to hell. But Christians have at least the excuse of being around numerous other people who all believe exactly the same thing, so that they are no longer capable of noticing the dependency on their assumptions, or of properly comprehending that another might share their assumptions. What's your excuse? A majority of Extropian readers, while they may not believe in an imminent hard takeoff, don't regard their available information as ruling it out to the extent you believe it is ruled out. You, presumably, know this on some level. So what was the point of your polemic? Dear Christian, you don't need to convince me that if Christ were God, it would be good for me to believe the assertion that Christ is God; you don't even need to threaten me with eternal damnation; it follows directly from a moral principle I have acknowledged, called "rationality". Supposing snow to be white, I want to believe the assertion "snow is white". And you, Russell, need not list any of the negative consequences of believing in a hard takeoff when it doesn't happen, to convince me that it would be well not to believe in it supposing it doesn't happen. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 17:48:16 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:48:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605160536i492241cegdff085a59851663a@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160536i492241cegdff085a59851663a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80E0F094-7DF3-40F6-AE31-8C5C3AA06E88@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 5:36 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/16/06, Heartland wrote: > It sounds to me like you don't have much faith in hard take-off. Is > this correct? > > In the same way that I don't have much faith in dowsing, perpetual > motion machines and God needing a lot of money sent to a certain > box number, yes. Surely you jest. Given a >human AI capable of self-improvement a hard take-off is at least possible. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 18:01:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:01:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <20060516145817.35399.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060516145817.35399.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <294DC749-841B-4F77-830D-B8641BA7AE0A@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 7:58 AM, giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > I understand your comments and agree on main issues > but we are talking of a high irrational component. > Nobody would have imagined only ten years ago, > suicidal attacks by moslem extremists to prove a point > and keep a political pressure on certain countries or > societies. On the contrary, such tactics have been used for centuries including by some countries highly respected today. > But such warfare tactic have become a mainstay of the > actual way of life and have caused extreme terrorism > prevention measures and other factors that have deeply > affect our everyday life. No. We have chosen some extremes that actually make little sense for the real risk or its causes. Much of the "War on Terror" is not in the least about terrorism or preventing it. The actual risk of dying from terrorism is quite small. > > With the same rationale, an immortality possibility, > which by technological, economical or other conditions > will initially have effect in a limited amount of > population, will not only create resentment but will > be the fuel for more serious class revolutions that > can affect all of us, and the entire society, > jeopardizing the whole project and creating long term > negative effects. Do you actually believe in "class revolution"? I thought that sort of mechanism was exposed as of no real validity long ago. > And i am not mentioning the immediate ban by such > religious groups as the Roman Catholic Church or > others, which will still hopefully remain in a > reasonable cultural environment. Not sure what you are saying there. A reasonable culture environment includes the RCC or immediate bans? > For that reason immortality, as a possibility, must > be, since the beginning a democratic choice, not > limited to any country, group or association. Huh? How does this follow? It will be a choice, when it exists, for those who want ti, can afford it and get to the clinics that offer it. > The negative impact of a rejection by the majority of > the excluded population can cause a long term class > warfare and have negative consequences for decades, if > not for centuries. Not likely. It will not be divvied up on class lines at all. > The day that immortaity, a potential immortality > possibility, will be available, it must be accessible > to everybody. Or to no one if it cannot be made available for everyone? Is that what you are saying? > That is the most important and essential condition for > its acceptance. > --- Anders Sandberg ha scritto: > I have no idea what if any of this was said by Anders. Please clean up your post. - samantha From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 16 17:08:07 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060516170807.12802.qmail@web81615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Granted that everyone needs something to believe, if you find > > "Singularity in my lifetime" is what you personally need, then > > believe in life extension or cryonics that'll let you stick around > > to see it, and let go of the illusion that it's just around the > > corner. > > It is either within this century or likely not at all for this > species imho. What would be the problem with a - very - slow warmup to Singularity, taking until 2150 or so? Say, if it takes 100 years to develop fully human-equivalent AI software after we have human-equivalent AI hardware, which happens in 2050. (Granted, I don't think it's likely to take 100 years. But neither do I see it as impossible.) From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 16 17:11:24 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <1147763703.5649.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060516171124.83832.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Apologies for the cynicism, but... --- "Fred C. Moulton" wrote: > It is important for there to be a critical examination of all of the > ideas surrounding transhumanism, singularity, etc. Unfortunately we > did > not get it from McKibben. ...this is about what I was expecting, from reading the conference's description, which is why I did not attend. From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 16 18:37:14 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:37:14 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516170807.12802.qmail@web81615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060516170807.12802.qmail@web81615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060516183714.GA26713@leitl.org> On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:08:07AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > What would be the problem with a - very - slow warmup to Singularity, > taking until 2150 or so? Say, if it takes 100 years to develop fully Do you think we can continue for the next 150 years, basically as before? Most of what we're doing is unsustainable, so we better get our asses in gear to develop some really dramatic technology, pronto. Orelse we could really pull one of the usual ones, straight from Collapse -- only on a larger scale. > human-equivalent AI software after we have human-equivalent AI > hardware, which happens in 2050. Using which metric? Why should we have molecular circuitry in 45 years? Sure, it's possible. But I can't put a probability on it. > (Granted, I don't think it's likely to take 100 years. But neither do > I see it as impossible.) The past is full of wrong predictions nobody remembers, so why should this one be different? Not to rain upon your parade; I sure would like to see some action. But so far, the delivery is distinctly lacking -- both in style, and in substance. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Tue May 16 17:51:24 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <136A4DAF-8073-482B-B2F6-02235D672CEF@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060516175124.61585.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Your watch, not 'our watch'. When a libertarian says 'our' rather than 'my' then a red light goes on. It is not up to our descendants. It is our watch. If we drop the ball there will not likely be any space-faring descendants and perhaps no AGI in this corner of space-time. - samantha "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." __________________________________________________ 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 giogavir at yahoo.it Tue May 16 18:57:48 2006 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:57:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <5D267BD6-122D-444E-BB99-061E8E7455E5@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060516185748.31538.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The vast majority of humanity claims that they are not remotely interested in immortality because as of today, is considered non feasible. The moment that immortality would be feasible everybody will expect it. But don't forget that the French revolution first, the russian later, have been provoked by the underdogs and the have nots. The result :those who had, have been exterminated unless they escaped in due time. These are the rules of society, especially for demands of such importance. Furthermore , at least in most europeans countries, the biggest criticism to transhumanism is not if it is feasible or not , but that it will create a class o f immortals and a class of underdogs who will not be able to afford immortality. That is the main issue against the entire movement. Let's not give them the right ammunitions against us. --- Samantha Atkins ha scritto: > > On May 16, 2006, at 4:12 AM, giorgio gaviraghi > wrote: > > > There must be no admission rules for immortality > > Immortality must be for all, independently of > wealth, > > origin, race or religion. > > Any sort of limitation could only generate a class > > revolution, the non immortals will target and kill > the > > immortaals, there is no way that humanity will > accept > > rules or limitations to immortality > > What if it does cost more than most can afford? > Would you advocate > making it unavailable to even those who can afford > it? The vast > majority of humanity claims that they are not > remotely interested in > physical immortality. The vast majority believes > that this is just > some illusion of a human life or their practice > life. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive http://it.messenger.yahoo.com From wingcat at pacbell.net Tue May 16 19:06:40 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516183714.GA26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060516190640.25709.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:08:07AM -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > What would be the problem with a - very - slow warmup to > Singularity, > > taking until 2150 or so? Say, if it takes 100 years to develop > fully > > Do you think we can continue for the next 150 years, basically > as before? Yep. Not completely, of course. Oil alternatives will be developed if (as seems very likely, either in the near future or in a few decades when cheap oil supplies dry up) oil prices reach sustained highs - it's mostly a matter of economics. The geopolitical landscape will change, as it routinely has. Biotech will inexorably advance - at a faster or slower rate depending in part on social attitudes, but coming up with more and better ways of feeding the masses (including replacing current ways once - if not before - their unsustainability means said current ways stop working: mass famine doesn't hit overnight, and if it hits industrial areas then a lot of other resources get diverted into food production by public demand). And so on, and so forth. But none of this absolutely requires Singularity-grade AI. > > human-equivalent AI software after we have human-equivalent AI > > hardware, which happens in 2050. > > Using which metric? Why should we have molecular circuitry in 45 > years? > Sure, it's possible. But I can't put a probability on it. In that part of my letter, I was tossing it out as a possibility, not a probability. ;) > Not to rain upon your parade; I sure would like to see some action. > But so far, the delivery is distinctly lacking -- both in style, > and in substance. I think you misunderstood. The proposition given was that the Singularity must happen this century or the human race is doomed; I was suggesting that, however desirable a nearer-term Singularity might be, humanity could well survive if the Singularity did not occur this side of 2100. This says nothing about current efforts to implement the Singularity (although it might help if we take the, "The human race - including any posthumans and other desendant sapience - will become extinct if we don't go Singularity ASAP," angle off the table since that does not in fact appear to be the case). Besides, some of us are going beyond the prognosticating, and trying to get to work on actually building tomorrow. ;) From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Tue May 16 19:32:56 2006 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:32:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference at stanford) In-Reply-To: <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <4902d9990605161232t6e1bb65cqd620db061fdec71@mail.gmail.com> > As for the Microsoft bashing, well, Muggles love to bad mouth success, but I > thought Extropians were beyond that. Why do you jump to these kind of conclusions. I'm bad mouthing designed-in technical limitations. After all, it's you who suffer because of them, not me :-) and it already had the effect that you try to blame something else. If that's the road to success in the current human psychology, it's something that we need to optimize away. Alfio From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 20:00:01 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:00:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <80E0F094-7DF3-40F6-AE31-8C5C3AA06E88@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160536i492241cegdff085a59851663a@mail.gmail.com> <80E0F094-7DF3-40F6-AE31-8C5C3AA06E88@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161300n2bd16599nc7101f3989959a3a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Surely you jest. Given a >human AI capable of self-improvement a hard > take-off is at least possible. > "Hard takeoff" as the term has been previously used typically denotes a process in which superintelligent AI is supposed to come about, not something that is supposed to happen after such AI is achieved by other means - what do you understand the term to mean? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 20:03:21 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:03:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516190640.25709.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060516183714.GA26713@leitl.org> <20060516190640.25709.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161303j139c901fxa1f101dd1b0a799f@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > I think you misunderstood. The proposition given was that the > Singularity must happen this century or the human race is doomed; My own position, in case it isn't clear, isn't that humanity _will_ be doomed if we don't achieve sufficiently advanced technology by the end of this century (I don't think it's possible to predict dates with confidence that far ahead), only that such _may_ be the case (and given that, the safest course is to get our heads down and proceed as quickly as possible, at least until the technology on which to base policy discussions actually exists). Besides, some of us are going beyond the prognosticating, and trying to > get to work on actually building tomorrow. ;) > Good, that's exactly what I'm advocating ^.^ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 16 20:10:31 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:10:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605160006v5f19e9a7w550ea326bdb3d6f7@mail.gmail.co m> References: <00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c678b3$edcfb750$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060516154311.0287fc68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:06 AM 5/16/2006 +0100, Russell Walla wrote: >On 5/16/06, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote: snip >>Unfortunately the rest of your post was not as good. Your argument >>seems to be that the Singularity idea can't be true because if it were then >>someday things would be odd; well, as far as I know there is no law of >>physics that says things can't be odd. > >Not quite. I criticize only the idea of the Singularity being around the >corner. I said the idea of it coming to pass sometime in the distant >future is a fine one - Once you have said that the AI/nanotech singularity will happen at all, I don't see you being in a significantly different class than those who say it will happen "soon." >there's certainly nothing to say things won't someday become odd. My point >is that if it does, it will have to be sufficiently far off and in a world >sufficiently odd to begin with, that we can't predict it with any sort of >accuracy, so any attempt to draw up Singularity policy in 2006 will be >worse than useless. I agree it is hopeless to draw up a *government enforced* policy. Consider the Web/Internet. That simply happened faster than the government could formulate policy. There are reasons to expect that the last stages of the run up are going to be much faster. But there were/are all sorts of technical policies set up that became the standard for the Net and Web. Some of them perhaps not as good as they could have been, but there are times when some standard is better than none. In really broad brush now is the time to think about the relations we would like the AI "gods" and human uploads to have with whatever is left of the physical world and the people in it. Incidentally, the consequences of the singularity not being "soon" are rather dire, the death of a large part of the world's population in wars and other events driven by too many people and too few resources. Keith Henson From giogavir at yahoo.it Tue May 16 19:09:56 2006 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:09:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <294DC749-841B-4F77-830D-B8641BA7AE0A@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060516190956.10199.qmail@web26201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Samantha while I appreciate your comments I want to remind you that class revolutions or class \religious or political\economical disputes. leading to terrorism , warfare, and other forms of hostility, are amosng us in every moment of our life. The entire anti western movement that is actually alive in the Moslem world is just a form of class war, in this case fueled by economical\political and cultural issues upheaval. How else would you define the antiamerican attitude of Castro first, now Chaves, Morales and the new presidents of many latin amereican countries ? Is a class upheaval. History has teach us that when there are too big gaps between populations, while the minority owns the majority of the wealth and the majority remains the underdog, there is only one result, a revolution to change things. The poor take away from the rich with force waht they feel is the right of everybody. For this examples immortality, if feasible , should be a right for everybody. Who want it can get it , who don't does not. Everybody is happy and immortality will not become a political or class issue. --- Samantha Atkins ha scritto: > > On May 16, 2006, at 7:58 AM, giorgio gaviraghi > wrote: > > > I understand your comments and agree on main > issues > > but we are talking of a high irrational component. > > Nobody would have imagined only ten years ago, > > suicidal attacks by moslem extremists to prove a > point > > and keep a political pressure on certain countries > or > > societies. > > On the contrary, such tactics have been used for > centuries including > by some countries highly respected today. > > > But such warfare tactic have become a mainstay of > the > > actual way of life and have caused extreme > terrorism > > prevention measures and other factors that have > deeply > > affect our everyday life. > > No. We have chosen some extremes that actually make > little sense for > the real risk or its causes. Much of the "War on > Terror" is not in > the least about terrorism or preventing it. The > actual risk of > dying from terrorism is quite small. > > > > > > With the same rationale, an immortality > possibility, > > which by technological, economical or other > conditions > > will initially have effect in a limited amount of > > population, will not only create resentment but > will > > be the fuel for more serious class revolutions > that > > can affect all of us, and the entire society, > > jeopardizing the whole project and creating long > term > > negative effects. > > Do you actually believe in "class revolution"? I > thought that sort > of mechanism was exposed as of no real validity long > ago. > > > And i am not mentioning the immediate ban by such > > religious groups as the Roman Catholic Church or > > others, which will still hopefully remain in a > > reasonable cultural environment. > > Not sure what you are saying there. A reasonable > culture environment > includes the RCC or immediate bans? > > > For that reason immortality, as a possibility, > must > > be, since the beginning a democratic choice, not > > limited to any country, group or association. > > Huh? How does this follow? It will be a choice, > when it exists, for > those who want ti, can afford it and get to the > clinics that offer it. > > > The negative impact of a rejection by the majority > of > > the excluded population can cause a long term > class > > warfare and have negative consequences for > decades, if > > not for centuries. > > Not likely. It will not be divvied up on class > lines at all. > > > The day that immortaity, a potential immortality > > possibility, will be available, it must be > accessible > > to everybody. > > Or to no one if it cannot be made available for > everyone? Is that > what you are saying? > > > > > That is the most important and essential condition > for > > its acceptance. > > --- Anders Sandberg ha scritto: > > > > I have no idea what if any of this was said by > Anders. Please clean > up your post. > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive http://it.messenger.yahoo.com From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 16 20:29:19 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:29:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060516161523.027b2108@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:28 AM 5/16/2006 -0700, Samantha wrote: >On May 15, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > > Nor do we have an infinitely long window of opportunity; the > > conditions that support free inquiry and rapid technological > > progress are, on the scale of history, a rare and short-lived > > aberration. There is a threshold we need to reach; it is not the > > badly-named "Singularity", but Diaspora - the technology to live > > sustainably off Earth. > >I very much disagree. It would take very serious tech including >nanotechnology to get a substantial amount of humanity far enough off >planet to provide much safety of the kind you seem to be advocating. Samantha is (in my opinion) right. If you know my background, I am probably as qualified as any to have an opinion about this. It is also a view I don't like, I was forced into it by physical reality (and Freeman Dyson). For what are basically economic reasons it will take nanotech level technology to get us into space. I don't see any way to avoid strong AI. If wishes were light sails and laser cannon, I would be many light years from the solar system. Keith Henson From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue May 16 20:22:39 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:22:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference at stanford) In-Reply-To: <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <90696FAD-92CD-44C1-BD08-E21BB5C84DD8@ceruleansystems.com> On May 16, 2006, at 12:13 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Alfio Puglisi" >> Eugen's mail program sends perfectly standard-compliant multipart >> messages. If Outlook Express can't handle them, that's Microsoft >> fault, as >> usual. > > Like it or not Outlook Express is the most used mail program on planet > Earth, and as the entire point of mail programs is communication I > tend to > think the problem is with Eugen and not with me. Outlook Express is showing up decades late to the game with a defective implementation of old standards. No one can require any software to interoperate with any other software, but let's be clear about where the defect lies that does not let Outlook Express handle email that virtually every other client has handled correctly since before OE was a gleam in Bill Gates' eye. And do not be too impressed with its popularity -- the vast majority of the market does not use OE, and all Microsoft email clients in aggregate still only gets you something like half of email users. Since when did you start making arguments from popularity, particularly the modest popularity of something unambiguously defective? Are you a devout Christian yet? No one is going to make you switch email clients, but it is asinine to suggest that the rest of the world should accommodate your trivially fixable defect. How this is plausibly Eugen's problem is beyond me. J. Andrew Rogers From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 20:39:53 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:39:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > It is rather reminiscent of someone lecturing me on how, if I don't > believe in Christ, Christ will damn me to hell. But Christians have at > least the excuse of being around numerous other people who all believe > exactly the same thing, so that they are no longer capable of noticing > the dependency on their assumptions, or of properly comprehending that > another might share their assumptions. *ahem* Given that in both cases I'm the one _failing_ to believe in the imminent manifestation of deity on Earth via never-observed processes, I think your analogy has one of those "minus sign switched with plus sign" bugs ;) And you, Russell, need not list any of the negative consequences of > believing in a hard takeoff when it doesn't happen, to convince me that > it would be well not to believe in it supposing it doesn't happen. > Then perhaps what I need to do is explain why it won't happen? Okay, to make sure we're on the same page, a definition: Hard takeoff = a process by which seed AI (of complexity buildable by a team of very smart humans in a basement) undertakes self-improvement to increase its intelligence, without needing mole quantities of computronium, _without needing to interact with the real world outside its basement_, and without needing a long time; subsequently emerging in a form that is already superintelligent. 1) I've underlined the most important condition, because it exposes the critical flaw: the concept of hard takeoff assumes "intelligence" is a formal property of a collection of bits. It isn't. It's an informal comment on the relationship between a collection of bits and its environment. Suppose your AI comes up with a new, supposedly more intelligent version of itself and is trying to decide whether to replace the current version with the new version. What algorithm does it use to tell it whether the new version is really more intelligent? Well it could apply some sort of mathematical criterion, see whether the new version is faster at proving a list of theorems, say. But the most you will ever get out of that process is an AI that's intelligent at proving mathematical theorems - not because you didn't apply it well enough, but because that's all the process was ever trying to give you in the first place. To create an AI that's intelligent at solving real world problems - one that can cure cancer or design a fusion reactor that'll actually work when it's turned on - requires that the criterion for checking whether a new version is really more intelligent than the old one, involves testing its effectiveness at solving real world problems. Which means the process of AI development must involve interaction with the real world, and must be limited in speed by real world events even if you have a building full of nanocomputers to run the software. There are other problems, mind you: 2) Recursive self-improvement mightn't be a valid concept in the first place. If you think about it, our reason for confidence in the possibility of AI and nanotechnology is that we have - we are - existence proofs. There is no existence proof for full RSI. On the contrary, all the data goes the other way: every successful complex system we see, from molecular biology to psychology, law and politics, computers and the Internet etc, are designed as a stack of layers where the upper layers are easy to change, but they rest on more fundamental lower ones that typically are changed only by action of some still more fundamental environment. And this makes sense from a theoretical viewpoint. Suppose you're thinking about replacing the current version of yourself with a new version. How do you know the new version doesn't have a fatal flaw that'll manifest itself a year from now? Even if not one that makes you drop dead, one that might slightly degrade long-term performance; adopting a long string of such changes could be slow suicide. There's no way to mathematically prove this won't happen. Godel, Turing, Rice et al show that in general you can't prove properties of a computer program even in vacuum, let alone in the case where it must deal with a real world for which we have no probability distribution. The layered approach is a pragmatic way out of this, a way to experiment at the upper levels while safeguarding the fundamental stuff; and that's what complex systems in real life do. The matter has been put to the test: Eurisko was a full RSI AI. Result: it needed constant human guidance or it'd just wedge itself. 3) On to the most trivial matter, computing power: there's been a lot of discussion about how much it might take to run a fully developed and optimized AI, and the consensus is that ultimate silicon technology might suffice... but that line of argument ignores the fact that it takes much more computing power to develop an algorithm than it does to run it once developed. Consider how long it takes you to solve a quadratic equation, compared to the millennia required for all of human civilization to discover algebra. Or consider how long it takes to boot up Windows or Linux versus how long it took to write them (let alone develop the concept of operating systems)... and now remember that the writing of those operating systems involved large distributed systems of molecular nanocomputers vastly more powerful than the trivial silicon on which they run. Bottom line, I think we'll need molecular computers to develop AI - and not small prototype ones either. So that's one reason why the concept is definitely incoherent, an independent reason why there's good reason to believe it's incoherent, and a third again independent reason why it wouldn't be practical in the foreseeable future even if it were coherent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 20:55:50 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:55:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516175124.61585.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <136A4DAF-8073-482B-B2F6-02235D672CEF@mac.com> <20060516175124.61585.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161355j4a1d9f73s42e2b30313c600bf@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Ned Late wrote: > > Your watch, not 'our watch'. When a libertarian says 'our' rather than > 'my' then a red light goes on. > *blink* As a libertarian, I've never seen any problem with saying "our" rather than "my" - given that Samantha and I aren't talking about coercing anyone, but about voluntary action, why does it turn on a red light for you? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Tue May 16 20:03:07 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516190640.25709.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060516200307.9729.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Adrian Tymes To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:06:40 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award > Not completely, of course. Oil alternatives will be developed if (as > seems very likely, either in the near future or in a few decades when > cheap oil supplies dry up) oil prices reach sustained highs - it's > mostly a matter of economics. The geopolitical landscape will change, Actually, it's likely that cheap sources of oil will not dry up because technology will continue to advance. Remember, three decades ago the prediction was that we'd be out of oil by 1990. We've gone twice that long, and even now there's no shortage of cheap oil -- remember that forty dollars of the price of oil today is a result of Bush's warmongering (twenty for Iran, twenty for Iraq and the terror war in general), and some of the rest is the result of it being /illegal/ to extract cheap oil, as with ANWR and the coast of florida. -- Words of the Sentient: Nobody can give more power than he has himself...no man can by agreement pass over to another that which he hath not in himself ...--John Locke E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 21:06:49 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:06:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <136A4DAF-8073-482B-B2F6-02235D672CEF@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> <136A4DAF-8073-482B-B2F6-02235D672CEF@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161406r7165180ma98116e7af68aa7f@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > No. I am against such regulation today. But we don't need to claim > these things are fantasy to argue against such regulation. If we're relying on winning arguments at this stage, then: 1) We've got to win every time for the indefinite future, our opponents only need to win once (since regulations are a one-way ratchet, once enacted they don't go away). 2) We've got to win in the eyes of the voters and legislature, not only in the eyes of us geeks. 3) We've got to win in an environment where there's no actual data, only imagination - the perfect environment for emotion to trump reason. 4) We've got to win in the eyes of people who are being fed crap like "oh yes all life as we know it will be exterminated, but that's okay because I personally will become a god, and I subscribe to a moral philosophy where my personal well-being is the only thing that matters". Sure, that's the lunatic fringe of transhumanism, you personally don't subscribe to it nor do most of the people on this list - but who do you think the newspapers are going to quote? I think we'd be much better off _not having_ those sort of arguments until we get to the point where there's actual data. It is not up to our descendants. It is our watch. If we drop the > ball there will not likely be any space-faring descendants and > perhaps no AGI in this corner of space-time. And I think we've been dropping the ball on memetics. McKibben has many more opportunities to speak than the more positive > side. Should we shut up just because the McKibbens will take > advantage of the opportunity to provide "balance"? No, but I think we should refrain from wild, unsubstantiated speculation of the sort that provides them with ammunition, and try to stick closer to the realm in which we have some sort of data. Again we are in agreement about avoiding the politics where we can. > There are places where we cannot and where some political activity is > essential to move forward. Putting the worse fears to rest or > showing they are manageable is for instance part of what allowed > nanotech funding to increase. > That sounds like you have historical data to at least partly refute my idea that we've been dropping the ball on memetics. Do you have any details or references on this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 21:08:52 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:08:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <200605161412.k4GEC1V5024560@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> <200605161412.k4GEC1V5024560@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161408l6a0758c4sb9d366b19e1b9f62@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, spike wrote: > > On the contrary, I found McKibben's talk in a way reassuring. We have an > intelligent, sincere and articulate singularity opponent who demonstrates > that there is little substance to the position of AI opposition. Remember, though, that we're only the counsel for the defense, not the judge and jury. Do you think McKibben's talk will so demonstrate in the eyes of the voters and legislature? (Not a rhetorical question - I wasn't there, and am curious about the answer.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 21:11:19 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:11:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060516161523.027b2108@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060516161523.027b2108@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161411k4f58bee8h7b470e1aa19cf143@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > Samantha is (in my opinion) right. If you know my background, I am > probably as qualified as any to have an opinion about this. It is also a > view I don't like, I was forced into it by physical reality (and Freeman > Dyson). > > For what are basically economic reasons it will take nanotech level > technology to get us into space. I don't see any way to avoid strong AI. Well, I see human-level AI as following rather than preceding nanotech, though I'm hoping intermediate levels of AI can be useful as engineering assistants. But yes, basically Samantha and you are entirely correct: space colonization will indeed require nanotechnology. That's why it's so important we push ahead with nanotech as fast as possible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Tue May 16 20:48:32 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060516154311.0287fc68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060516204832.18050.qmail@web50202.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Keith Henson To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:10:31 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. > In really broad brush now is the time to think about the relations we would > like the AI "gods" and human uploads to have with whatever is left of the > physical world and the people in it. Isn't it likely that the AIs and others will have no more interest in messing with humanity than we have of messing with particularly harmless strains of bacteria? Technology, in effect, "creates" resources where none existed before, by changing what is useful and how it's desirable to use it, as well as by exponentially increasing efficiency. The technologies centering around oil "created" a substitute for wood, coal, stone, and steel out of "nothing" (something which was regarded as an unfortunate blight upon any land which had it). We have "created" trillions of new barrels of oil in the last few decades, by improving our location and extraction techniques...therefore it seems likely that AI could advance so quickly, technologically, as to not really see us as a threat to what THEY consider precious resources, much as you and I aren't worried about people building log cabins in Montana. > Incidentally, the consequences of the singularity not being "soon" are > rather dire, the death of a large part of the world's population in wars > and other events driven by too many people and too few resources. This has been the fear since the days of Thomas Maltus, and I've never seen any evidence that it's more than the fallacy of static analysis. In reality, resources keep expanding /faster/ than humanity, thanks to technology, and despite all the warfare the world keeps becoming more populated (yet not truly overpopulated, aside from inefficient resource distribution thanks to socialism) and prosperous, not falling into the disaster that Mathusians predicted by 1800, then by 1850, then by 1900, et cetera. -- Words of the Sentient: He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. --J.S. Mill E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Tue May 16 20:29:13 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <20060516190956.10199.qmail@web26201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060516202913.23165.qmail@web37508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There are other ways of looking at it, as well. P. R. Sarkar postulated not only class conflict but also a primary four-way conflict between laborers; businesspeople ('acquisitors'); those in the military; and intellectuals. We examine class struggle in terms of Western economics, but there exist other constructs. This my third post of the day, so shall cease & desist-- will be good. Dear Samantha while I appreciate your comments I want to remind you that class revolutions or class \religious or political\economical disputes. leading to terrorism , warfare, and other forms of hostility, are amosng us in every moment of our life. The entire anti western movement that is actually alive in the Moslem world is just a form of class war, in this case fueled by economical\political and cultural issues upheaval. How else would you define the antiamerican attitude of Castro first, now Chaves, Morales and the new presidents of many latin amereican countries ? Is a class upheaval. History has teach us that when there are too big gaps between populations, while the minority owns the majority of the wealth and the majority remains the underdog, there is only one result, a revolution to change things. The poor take away from the rich with force waht they feel is the right of everybody. For this examples immortality, if feasible , should be a right for everybody. Who want it can get it , who don't does not. Everybody is happy and immortality will not become a political or class issue. "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." __________________________________________________ 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Tue May 16 21:30:53 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060516161523.027b2108@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20060516213053.47261.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Keith Henson To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:29:19 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award At 01:28 AM 5/16/2006 -0700, Samantha wrote: > For what are basically economic reasons it will take nanotech level > technology to get us into space. I don't see any way to avoid strong AI. I encountered this myth regularly when I was working as a consultant for NASA, and it just doesn't hold water. It is true that if you're a massive government agency, wasting billions of dollars under a system which rewards failure instead of success, getting into space costs an enormous amount in resources and (therefore) money. If government had enough sense, in the seventies and eighties, to anticipate personal computers being terribly valuable, and they'd set up a massive NASA-like organization to ensure good computer technology and universal accessibility, PCs today would cost tens of thousands, be 16 bits, have a meg or two of RAM, and be as slow as a 286. Oh, and inaccessible to all but the wealthiest. That's what happens when you have a government monopoly. But it doesn't take Virgin Galactic to prove that NASA's way of doing things is a huge, needless waste. This has long been clear to anyone /not/ needing to justify the budget of their latest failed Mars probe. -- Words of the Sentient: I pass the test that says a man who isn't a socialist at 20 has no heart, and a man who is a socialist at 40 has no head. -- William Casey E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Tue May 16 20:38:07 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605161303j139c901fxa1f101dd1b0a799f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060516203807.13951.qmail@web50202.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Russell Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:03:21 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award > My own position, in case it isn't clear, isn't that humanity _will_ > be doomed if we don't achieve sufficiently advanced technology by > the end of this century (I don't think it's possible to predict dates > with confidence that far ahead), only that such _may_ be the case > (and given that, the safest course is to get our heads down and proceed > as quickly as possible, at least until the technology on which to base > policy discussions actually exists). I'm relatively new to the list; what are your own specific reasons for believing we are in danger of doom if we don't advance in technology at a specific rate? -- Words of the Sentient: Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca, AD 65 E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 21:51:50 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:51:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516170807.12802.qmail@web81615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060516170807.12802.qmail@web81615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 16, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >>> Granted that everyone needs something to believe, if you find >>> "Singularity in my lifetime" is what you personally need, then >>> believe in life extension or cryonics that'll let you stick around >>> to see it, and let go of the illusion that it's just around the >>> corner. >> >> It is either within this century or likely not at all for this >> species imho. > > What would be the problem with a - very - slow warmup to Singularity, > taking until 2150 or so? I don't believe that merely human level intelligence is adequate to survive our current untenable and unsustainable circumstances much less the vastly more complex circumstances likely over a century and a half more. Without an infusion of greater intelligence I expect some fatally critical breakdown long before 2150. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 21:55:16 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:55:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516175124.61585.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060516175124.61585.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9BD967CF-272D-43D1-9828-995EBDD3D5D5@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Ned Late wrote: > Your watch, not 'our watch'. When a libertarian says 'our' rather > than 'my' then a red light goes on. Are you a human being on the planet at this time? Then "our" in this instance applies to you. My politics and your opinion of same has zip to do with the truth of that. - samantha > > It is not up to our descendants. It is our watch. If we drop the > ball there will not likely be any space-faring descendants and > perhaps no AGI in this corner of space-time. > > - samantha > > > "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is > not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." > __________________________________________________ > 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 sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 16 21:58:32 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:58:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605161300n2bd16599nc7101f3989959a3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160536i492241cegdff085a59851663a@mail.gmail.com> <80E0F094-7DF3-40F6-AE31-8C5C3AA06E88@mac.com> <8d71341e0605161300n2bd16599nc7101f3989959a3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36A82582-F540-4C63-B5AC-B912236FA517@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 1:00 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/16/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Surely you jest. Given a >human AI capable of self-improvement a > hard take-off is at least possible. > > "Hard takeoff" as the term has been previously used typically > denotes a process in which superintelligent AI is supposed to come > about, not something that is supposed to happen after such AI is > achieved by other means - what do you understand the term to mean? I understand it to be what happens after such greater than human intelligence come about. I don't see any way to hard takeoff without this. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 22:01:03 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 23:01:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516203807.13951.qmail@web50202.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605161303j139c901fxa1f101dd1b0a799f@mail.gmail.com> <20060516203807.13951.qmail@web50202.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161501w66b9311eo2d444d6756baf108@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, KAZ wrote: > > I'm relatively new to the list; what are your own specific reasons for > believing we are in danger of doom if we don't advance in technology at a > specific rate? > On general principles, there is necessarily some deadline, simply because nothing lasts forever; men are mortal, and so are nations, civilizations, species and worlds. As far as specifics go, if you look at history, the conditions supporting free inquiry and rapid scientific and technological progress are a strange aberration, occurring in only a very small minority of times and places; there is no reason to expect them to persist for long, and indeed we see today that with each passing year the web of laws and regulations chokes a little tighter, the idea that an individual's life is society's to control becomes a little more entrenched. None of which, of course, establishes that the deadline must fall on any specific, predicted date; we can't foretell the future, trends can change; the fall of the Soviet Union, for example, was a very large reprieve. But it does at the least suggest that we would be very unwise to assume the deadline is so far in the future we needn't hurry. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 22:07:14 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 23:07:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <36A82582-F540-4C63-B5AC-B912236FA517@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160402qcd21dc5y7f2dbdbf9dfcb1bf@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605160536i492241cegdff085a59851663a@mail.gmail.com> <80E0F094-7DF3-40F6-AE31-8C5C3AA06E88@mac.com> <8d71341e0605161300n2bd16599nc7101f3989959a3a@mail.gmail.com> <36A82582-F540-4C63-B5AC-B912236FA517@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161507x55fea654md82180b9f963e733@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I understand it to be what happens after such greater than human > intelligence come about. I don't see any way to hard takeoff without this. > Oh, okay - well, I don't think I can predict in any detail what will happen after superintelligence comes about. I don't subscribe to the idea that there's something specially unpredictable about superintelligence, but there are too many variables between now and then. I think it's a question worth revisiting in a few decades when we might have a clearer idea of the pathways towards superintelligence in the first place. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Tue May 16 21:23:32 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference at stanford) In-Reply-To: <90696FAD-92CD-44C1-BD08-E21BB5C84DD8@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <20060516212332.31862.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > Outlook Express is showing up decades late to the game with a > defective implementation of old standards. No one can require any [...] > Since when did you start making arguments from popularity, > particularly the modest popularity of something unambiguously > defective? Are you a devout Christian yet? The "it shouldn't be popular because it's technologically inferior" myth is something people should have outgrown after the well-deserved failure of Beta. What is best is rarely what is most cutting-edge, or most satisfying to we who are tech-savvy. This is an example of why the free market works so much better than socialism and ivory-tower planning. Sure, Beta had slightly higher audio and video reproduction quality versus VHS, but even VHS was better than broadcast TV, and most people used their VCRs to record TV, not buy massive catalogues of commercially printed movies. So when Beta was 30 minutes long and VHS was two hours AND cost half as much, the superior product was VHS. Back when OS/2 was trying to compete with Windows and DOS, it required 8 to 16 megs or RAM and most computers came with 2 to 4 megs. This alone was sufficient to make Windows the superior product, preemptive multithreading and object-oriented OS not holding a candle to being accessible to the common computer owner. Outlook clearly contains features, including "comes with the machine and works well enough", which make it superior to whatever you wish people used instead. Just as they did not feel the great need to have preemptive multitasking, microscopically better video, et cetera, they don't care about...what is it you're complaining that Outlook doesn't do? Some kind of object embedding? Personally, I prefer to use pine on my linux box...I've been using Linux since 1993...but I end up mostly using Yahoo Mail beta, because it's more universally accessible. But Outlook works just fine for most people, most of the time. > No one is going to make you switch email clients, but it is asinine > to suggest that the rest of the world should accommodate your > trivially fixable defect. How this is plausibly Eugen's problem is > beyond me. It is reasonable for him to suggest...not demand...that people accomodate Outlook, because by your own admission it's as used as all other mail clients combined. If someone on this list starts spouting German or Latin, /I/ can read it, but the majority of Internet users cannot, so it would be reasonable to suggest using English, though German has been "rationalized", with a perfectly consistent spelling and grammar and English is such a hodge-podge, disdained by the ivory tower language theorists. This would be true even if the guy was writing in Esperanto or Loglang, or some other language thought to be technologically "superior" to all natural languages. Any time the "experts" find that the masses aren't adopting their "smarter" standards, there's probably a good reason. -- Words of the Sentient: That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. -- Thomas Jefferson E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Tue May 16 21:36:55 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060516213655.38243.qmail@web50207.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Russell Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:39:53 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award > But the most you will ever get out of that process is an AI that's intelligent > at proving mathematical theorems - not because you didn't apply it well > enough, but because that's all the process was ever trying to give you > in the first place. To create an AI that's intelligent at solving real world > problems - one that can cure cancer or design a fusion reactor that'll > actually work when it's turned on - requires that the criterion for checking > whether a new version is really more intelligent than the old one, involves > testing its effectiveness at solving real world problems. Which means the > process of AI development must involve interaction with the real world, and > must be limited in speed by real world events even if you have a building > full of nanocomputers to run the software. OR, perhaps, that's simply a limitation of your own (and my) imagination and knowledge. Perhaps...in fact, I'd say it's pretty likely...there are ways to develop technology and measure intelligence which you have I simply haven't anticipated, yet. Or heck, perhaps it simply runs simulated universe models. Any time someone says "even technology can't do that", about something other than the most extreme cases (speed of light, leaving this n-brane to explore a 11 dimensional containing universe), what they're really saying is "I lack the imagination to suppose that there's a way to do that which hasn't been invented yet". -- Words of the Sentient: When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P. J. O'Rourke E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 22:55:43 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 23:55:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516213655.38243.qmail@web50207.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <20060516213655.38243.qmail@web50207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161555nef917a0tf5c08106898045e3@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, KAZ wrote: > > OR, perhaps, that's simply a limitation of your own (and my) imagination > and knowledge. > > Perhaps...in fact, I'd say it's pretty likely...there are ways to develop > technology and measure intelligence which you have I simply haven't > anticipated, yet. > > Or heck, perhaps it simply runs simulated universe models. A computer the size of the galaxy wouldn't be powerful enough to simulate a single protein molecule, much less a single living cell, in the absence of feedback from real world laboratory experiments. (The required computing power is exponential in the number of electrons and nuclei involved. That doesn't mean simulations aren't useful, but it does mean they are only complements, not replacements, for laboratory work.) Any time someone says "even technology can't do that", about something other > than the most extreme cases (speed of light, leaving this n-brane to explore > a 11 dimensional containing universe), what they're really saying is "I lack > the imagination to suppose that there's a way to do that which hasn't been > invented yet". > Actually it doesn't stop at the extreme cases. You can say "maybe there are ways to do X which you and I simply haven't anticipated yet" for absolutely any value of X. Here, I'll prove it: What if there are ways to travel faster than light or explore the 11 dimensional universe which you and I simply haven't anticipated yet? See how easy that was? Heck, what if there are ways to talk to ghosts or build a perpetual motion machine or cast a magic spell to fly on a broomstick which you and I simply haven't anticipated yet? It is precisely because "what if there are ways which you and I simply haven't anticipated yet" can be used in absolutely all cases, that its information content in any particular case is zero. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Tue May 16 22:25:29 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <9BD967CF-272D-43D1-9828-995EBDD3D5D5@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060516222529.36698.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Was going to stop at three posts, but had to reply to this, Samantha. World government may be turn out to be the only way to secure a survivable peace; now I am not personally saying it is the only way-- but some do rationally make such a case. As I wrote to Russell in a private message, if someone wrote, "world government is our only hope", you might not like the 'our' included in this statement at all. Every time I have mentioned world government to libertarians, they have grimaced and raised their voices. They made it clear 'our' does not apply to them in any way concerning government, yet they are as you say humans living on this planet and who knows what it will take to secure a peace that will protect our survival as a species. I don't know and neither do you. >Are you a human being on the planet at this time? Then "our" in this instance applies >to you. My politics and your opinion of same has zip to do with the truth of that. >samantha "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- 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 mfj.eav at gmail.com Tue May 16 23:26:56 2006 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:26:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award Message-ID: <61c8738e0605161626r5f9d887sfe4cb8bfdeec2bf2@mail.gmail.com> From: Keith Henson To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:29:19 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award At 01:28 AM 5/16/2006 -0700, Samantha wrote: > For what are basically economic reasons it will take nanotech level > technology to get us into space. I don't see any way to avoid strong AI. I encountered this myth regularly when I was working as a consultant for NASA, and it just doesn't hold water. It is true that if you're a massive government agency, wasting billions of dollars under a system which rewards failure instead of success, getting into space costs an enormous amount in resources and (therefore) money. If government had enough sense, in the seventies and eighties, to anticipate personal computers being terribly valuable, and they'd set up a massive NASA-like organization to ensure good computer technology and universal accessibility, PCs today would cost tens of thousands, be 16 bits, have a meg or two of RAM, and be as slow as a 286. Oh, and inaccessible to all but the wealthiest. That's what happens when you have a government monopoly. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& You are saying that the healthcare system is collapsing on its weight in the areas it has the most control over, and the least regulated areas are the most likely to be successful? Just another thought of interest. Back in 1970 Canada almost did have what you describe. It was called "information Canada". You would phone or write and a nest full of hired consultants and such and they would search for answers to any question you posed. In such an environment a government body and its union might have said "who needs an internet....look how many jobs we will loose as a result" Quite a scary thought when you look back on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue May 16 23:30:56 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:30:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The direction in which one is headed [was: ... several threads ...] Message-ID: Before replying to this please note [1]. Given comments by Keith, Samantha, Russell & others, I thought I would point this out... "If one does not change the direction in which one is headed one is likely to end up where one is going." -- (perhaps an old Chinese proverb) The last estimate I heard with respect to U.S. spending on the war in Iraq over the last 3 years was of the order of $500 billion. That is equal to 1000 space shuttle missions at an undiscounted price of $500 million each and is significantly more than the costs I estimated several years ago for the design of the enzymes required to construct a functional Drexlerian type programmable nanoassembler [2] without taking into account cost reductions that I outlined. Whether or not that same amount of money would get you an artificial general intelligence (AGI), I do not not know. What is lacking is vision and the commitment to "make it so". I might suggest that a few individuals setting themselves on fire in front of the White House or the Capitol (with proper media coverage of course) [3] as a way to move us from the relatively slow lane of having conferences about when it will happen and what form it will take, adopting "principles" to be proactive rather than reactive, engaging in never ending email discussions, etc. might be a reasonable approach to consider to speed things up a bit [5]. Robert 1. Please do *not* morph this into a political discussion. I intended this observation primarily to point out that *both* access to and/or use of "space" *and* the development of robust nanotechnology and are well within our current capabilities and financial resources. 2. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Papers/PBAoNP.html In particular note that 174,000 person-years @ $100,000 each would be $174 billion. 3. It would be more dramatic (and perhaps wake people up more) if the individuals willed their bodies to "science" and had the Alcor technicians standing by to freeze them as soon as they were pronounced dead. Designing methods for self-immolation [4] such that "death" results quickly without significant brain damage shouldn't be too difficult. 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation 5. I say this in large part because it is costing us 60+ million lives a year to continue the rather slow approach we currently appear to be following. Almost all of those lives will be lost forever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 16 23:35:03 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 00:35:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516222529.36698.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <9BD967CF-272D-43D1-9828-995EBDD3D5D5@mac.com> <20060516222529.36698.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605161635w714c68c7s4afa865aa6f43074@mail.gmail.com> On 5/16/06, Ned Late wrote: > As I wrote to Russell in a private message, if someone wrote, "world > government is our only hope", you might not like the 'our' included in this > statement at all. > Every time I have mentioned world government to libertarians, they > have grimaced and raised their voices. They made it clear 'our' does not > apply to them in any way concerning government, > And as I mentioned in the reply to said message, it's not the "our" part of the above proposal at all that I've had a problem with when it's been suggested, but (for reasons I've discussed at some length on wta-talk when it came up) the "world government" part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue May 16 23:41:26 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:41:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularity conference at stanford) In-Reply-To: <20060516212332.31862.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060516212332.31862.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <215BB017-1540-47D6-AF0A-4172CD30DBAE@ceruleansystems.com> On May 16, 2006, at 2:23 PM, KAZ wrote: > The "it shouldn't be popular because it's technologically inferior" > myth is something people should have outgrown after the well- > deserved failure of Beta. Who said anything about technologically inferior? I said Outlook Express is a defective implementation of standards that far more has been invested in supporting in other software. It does not seem fair to ask everyone else to change their software because OE cannot implement a standard correctly that is older than it is. What quantity of defects is the rest of the software world supposed to accommodate because 40-something percent of the population uses defective software? A defect with no redeeming value in a single popular implementation of a standard is no basis upon which to rewrite the standard by default. If we always did that, there would be no standards. > Just as they did not feel the great need to have preemptive > multitasking, microscopically better video, et cetera, they don't > care about...what is it you're complaining that Outlook doesn't do? > Some kind of object embedding? Outlook has numerous software bugs in its mail parser. It isn't missing some shiny, blinky feature, it is just broken. You used to be able to crash Outlook with simple properly formed emails the bugs were so bad, though now it mostly just hoses the display. Last I knew, Eugen was using Mutt as his email client, so I find it highly unlikely that his emails are malformed due to some deviation from the standard. Every other email client seems to handle them just fine, and I highly doubt they have all implemented mutt bug workarounds. > Any time the "experts" find that the masses aren't adopting their > "smarter" standards, there's probably a good reason. What the hell are you talking about? Outlook has a broken implementation for parsing standard mail bodies. There is no "smarter" standard, just THE standard and an unjustifiably buggy implementation in one particular piece of software. What, you want every other mail client to add parser bugs that mirror those in Outlook? I would much rather Microsoft fix their parser. I do find it rather stunning that Outlook still cannot parse basic email correctly. This is not a difficult software design task, and it has been done well many times in numerous other email clients. J. Andrew Rogers From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Tue May 16 23:54:42 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605161635w714c68c7s4afa865aa6f43074@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060516235442.45922.qmail@web37515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> [reply to this privately if you wish to reply; five posts is quite enough regarding a non-science topic] World government is strongly implied in any reference to "our" -- otherwise you have nations continually using force or the threat of force. However there is no reason to think world government will be constructed for many years, if ever. This was all only to say it makes me as nervous to read libertarians saying 'we' as it does to read Communists saying 'individual rights'. >And as I mentioned in the reply to said message, it's not the "our" part of the above >proposal at all that I've had a problem with when it's been suggested, but (for reasons >I've discussed at some length on wta-talk when it came up) the "world government" part. >Russell "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 17 01:10:08 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:10:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. In-Reply-To: <20060516204832.18050.qmail@web50202.mail.yahoo.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060516154311.0287fc68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060516203702.0b27e448@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:48 PM 5/16/2006 -0700, you wrote: >----- Original Message ---- >From: Keith Henson >To: ExI chat list >Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:10:31 PM >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award. > > > > In really broad brush now is the time to think about the relations we > would > > like the AI "gods" and human uploads to have with whatever is left of the > > physical world and the people in it. > >Isn't it likely that the AIs and others will have no more interest in >messing with humanity than we have of messing with particularly harmless >strains of bacteria? Wouldn't you prefer that human scale and below intelligences be treated with respect rather than being casually wiped out by "cleaning products"? >Technology, in effect, "creates" resources where none existed before, by >changing what is useful and how it's desirable to use it, as well as by >exponentially increasing efficiency. The technologies centering around oil >"created" a substitute for wood, coal, stone, and steel out of "nothing" >(something which was regarded as an unfortunate blight upon any land which >had it). We have "created" trillions of new barrels of oil in the last few >decades, by improving our location and extraction techniques...therefore >it seems likely that AI could advance so quickly, technologically, as to >not really see us as a threat to what THEY consider precious resources, >much as you and I aren't worried about people building log cabins in Montana. > > > Incidentally, the consequences of the singularity not being "soon" are > > rather dire, the death of a large part of the world's population in wars > > and other events driven by too many people and too few resources. > >This has been the fear since the days of Thomas Maltus, and I've never >seen any evidence that it's more than the fallacy of static analysis. > >In reality, resources keep expanding /faster/ than humanity, thanks to >technology, and despite all the warfare the world keeps becoming more >populated (yet not truly overpopulated, aside from inefficient resource >distribution thanks to socialism) and prosperous, not falling into the >disaster that Mathusians predicted by 1800, then by 1850, then by 1900, et >cetera. The technology of or leading up to the singularity *is* what will save our collective bacon--if anything does. Keith Henson From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 17 02:04:00 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:04:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0605161626r5f9d887sfe4cb8bfdeec2bf2@mail.gmail.com> References: <61c8738e0605161626r5f9d887sfe4cb8bfdeec2bf2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0F870CEB-8193-421E-AB12-9305EAF6FF87@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Morris Johnson wrote: > From: Keith Henson > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:29:19 PM > Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award > > > At 01:28 AM 5/16/2006 -0700, Samantha wrote: > > For what are basically economic reasons it will take nanotech level > > technology to get us into space. I don't see any way to avoid > strong AI. > > I encountered this myth regularly when I was working as a > consultant for NASA, and it just doesn't hold water. Depends on what you mean I suspect. The context of these remarks is getting enough of humanity into space and far enough away to end up with self-sustaining colonies/outposts that give humanity a much better chance of survival. To satisfy all of these constraints we are talking self-sustaining groups of on the order of thousands of humans (genetic diversity) preferably relocated outside the Solar System or at least in the outer system. Please tell me what you are going to use pre-nanotech to make this a reality. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 17 02:09:39 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:09:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516222529.36698.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060516222529.36698.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 16, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Ned Late wrote: > Was going to stop at three posts, but had to reply to this, > Samantha. World government may be turn out to be the only way to > secure a survivable peace; now I am not personally saying it is the > only way-- but some do rationally make such a case. > As I wrote to Russell in a private message, if someone wrote, > "world government is our only hope", you might not like the 'our' > included in this statement at all. It is not the "our" that bothers me there. I am not sure I cotton to governments at all but I could support a world government that was very minimal and strongly supported individual rights. Otherwise I don't care if it is tiny or worldwide it would still be a danger. > Every time I have mentioned world government to libertarians, they > have grimaced and raised their voices. They made it clear 'our' > does not apply to them in any way concerning government, yet they > are as you say humans living on this planet and who knows what it > will take to secure a peace that will protect our survival as a > species. I don't know and neither do you. > All I was saying, if you remember in the thick of your rhetoric, was that this is our watch, it is we who are here not some descendants. Thus whatever can be done to the good will be done by us. We can't put it off on someone else. I am still at a loss how that gave you an opening to get all politically prickly. > >Are you a human being on the planet at this time? Then "our" in > this instance applies >to you. My politics and your opinion of same > has zip to do with the truth of that. > >samantha > > - samantha From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Wed May 17 02:09:37 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605161501w66b9311eo2d444d6756baf108@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060517020937.47814.qmail@web50208.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Russell Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 5:01:03 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award On 5/16/06, KAZ wrote: > On general principles, there is necessarily some deadline, simply > because nothing lasts forever; men are mortal, and so are nations, > civilizations, species and worlds. On the surface, this seems like extremely flawed inductive reasoning, though I may very well be misunderstanding you. It reminds me of people who insist that human beings have souls because "energy can't be destroyed". I usually point out that the mental state of a computer does not persist if you turn it off, though energy cannot be destroyed, and there's even less reason to believe that a much more subtle human mind would persist /unchanged/ without a physical framework, rather than submitting to entropy. In this case, I'd point out that "species" sometimes last millions of years, while we've only been around between 80 and 100 thousand. Imagine what we'd do with just another thousand. And, of course, since we're sapient all bets are off...you might as well say "no species ever mastered fire" and therefore none ever will; we can't be offhandedly measured by the species-longevity of squid and parrots. Same with all of your other "things don't last forever" examples. Everything has a first, and anyway we've been around at least 80,000 years, so it's not like another millenium would break the bank. > As far as specifics go, if you look at history, the conditions supporting free > inquiry and rapid scientific and technological progress are a strange aberration, > occurring in only a very small minority of times and places; there is no reason > to expect them to persist for long, Yes, but it's not quite that simple and mystical...one can examine history and see precisely what causes those bursts of change. In each case, there is some kind of information revolution: The invention of writing, then the spread of literacy in the classical era, then the return of literacy in the renaissance, then the printing press for the Enlightenment, and of course the online revolution now. If we're going to say "this is the pattern", we have to do so rationally, examining the whys and wherefores, not just say "it happened, therefore it will". Each one happened for a reason, and declined for a reason. This one could actually work out differently, because the reasons for decline are less readily available now. > and indeed we see today that with each passing year the web of laws > and regulations chokes a little tighter, the idea that an individual's life > is society's to control becomes a little more entrenched. This is true...but it's also nothing new. People were, correctly, pointing out exactly those factors thirty years ago, sixty years ago, ninety years ago, 150 years ago, and 185 years ago...just to mention a few I know of specifically. Things went to hell in a handbasket with the Civil War, with Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, et cetera. But the downtime between the Enlightenment and the Information Revolution was both short and mild, in the US. Who knows, it might even be better this time. > None of which, of course, establishes that the deadline must fall on any specific, > predicted date; we can't foretell the future, trends can change; the fall of the Soviet > Union, for example, was a very large reprieve. The fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable, because socialism is laughably incompetent. It was only the Cold War which had propped up their empire, giving them a common enemy, once Reagan wound things down their attention turned inward and everything fell apart. If only we'd leave Cuba alone, the same thing would happen there. > But it does at the least suggest that we would be very unwise to > assume the deadline is so far in the future we needn't hurry. For almost all of recorded history, every big civilization fell because skin-wearing, hand-weapon wielding barbarian hordes invaded and wiped them out. Should we therefore worry that America is going to be invaded by the next wave of Indo-European tribesmen? This doesn't really suggest anything but that we should examine the actual reasons and see how they...and everything else we know about reality...apply to the current situation. You can't just say "this kind of event happened a lot, therefore it could happen again any time". It happened for a reason then, and IF it happens next time, it'll be for a reason. In fact, you CAN "foretell the future" to that extent. -- Words of the Sentient: Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. -- Pitt the Elder E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 17 03:27:20 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 04:27:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060517020937.47814.qmail@web50208.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605161501w66b9311eo2d444d6756baf108@mail.gmail.com> <20060517020937.47814.qmail@web50208.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605162027k2fcf4498re4f4063b05b04e24@mail.gmail.com> On 5/17/06, KAZ wrote: > > This is true...but it's also nothing new. People were, correctly, pointing > out exactly those factors thirty years ago, sixty years ago, ninety years > ago, 150 years ago, and 185 years ago...just to mention a few I know of > specifically. Things went to hell in a handbasket with the Civil War, with > Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, et cetera. > > But the downtime between the Enlightenment and the Information Revolution > was both short and mild, in the US. Who knows, it might even be better this > time. Unlike me, you are an optimist ^.^ This is not a bad thing in itself; the world needs optimists as well as pessimists. I will suggest proceeding as though I'm right - while at the same time hoping you're right. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Wed May 17 02:41:23 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 19:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605161555nef917a0tf5c08106898045e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060517024123.56074.qmail@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Russell Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 5:55:43 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award > A computer the size of the galaxy wouldn't be powerful enough to simulate a > single protein molecule, much less a single living cell, in the absence of > feedback from real world laboratory experiments. (The required computing power Again this seems like a decidedly not-extropian-stereotypical lack of imagination. Just a century ago, scientists confidently explained that the amount of energy required to launch an object into orbit, much less to the moon, was beyond all hope. More than could even be contained in a vessel built by and to carry human beings. Science and technology constantly turn the "logistically impossible" into the simple and obvious. > is exponential in the number of electrons and nuclei involved. That doesn't mean > simulations aren't useful, but it does mean they are only complements, not > replacements, for laboratory work.) Actually, this is untrue. It is akin to saying "if you're going to count to 100, you need 100 items to do the counting on". No, for a computer to count to 255 it only needs 8 bits. 24 bits, and it's counting into the millions. Likewise, though more subtlely, you can track any level of complexity with less than the actual components therein. And, of course, you're assuming the simulation has to be purely deterministic. But you can also fudge the data. One could write a model in which specific data was only generalized unless used for a specific interaction...much like the hypotheses behind quantum mechanics, where quantum events aren't actually set until measured, and light is nothing but a relatively economical wave, unless it NEEDS to be particular. > Actually it doesn't stop at the extreme cases. You can say > "maybe there are ways to do X which you and I simply haven't > anticipated yet" for absolutely any value of X. Here, I'll prove it: > What if there are ways to travel faster than light or explore the > 11 dimensional universe which you and I simply haven't anticipated yet? > See how easy that was? Heck, what if there are ways to talk to ghosts > or build a perpetual motion machine or cast a magic spell to fly > on a broomstick which you and I simply haven't anticipated yet? Yes, but this reductio ad absurdum is an example of why people try to claim that logical method to be fallaceous. You're setting up a factorless system, ignoring what makes "perhaps we can compress data for calculations" and "perhaps we can get objects into space without throwing them at the atmosphere at escape velocity within a few miles of the planet's surface" different than "perhaps we can make 1+1=3". It's entirely possible that the limit of mass-energy /can/ be overcome, but at the moment it seems impossible in a much more primal sense than figuring out how to get objects into orbit economically. As I noted earlier, at one time it was considered a cold, hard scientific fact that you couldn't get into orbit in ANY fashion, as a human being with human technology. I can present perfectly rational scenarios in which there could be ghosts and perpetual motion within this, our observable universe...but at least the factors against that are of many orders of magnitude stronger than "you can't count particle interactions without having one raw computer cycle dedicated to each and every particle's reaction to every other particle's existence in every cycle". > It is precisely because "what if there are ways which you and I simply > haven't anticipated yet" can be used in absolutely all cases, that its > information content in any particular case is zero. Only if we pretend that there is no information, whatsoever, in ANY particular case, and we're having to guess entirely based upon the aphorism at hand. But, in reality, there is usually some other information, allowing a more rational analysis to be carried out. Even if we didn't already know of plenty of ways to get objects into space economically...and we do...the question is one on the right kind of level where one can easily anticipate technology coming up with a solution, even without some universe-as-we-know-it-shattering revelation. On the other hand, making a 3d object move in 10 dimensions (leaving out time as a dimension for the sake of this scenario) seems utterly impossible on a far more primal level. Just having the "probe" from our universe exist when removed from its 'brane seems unlikely, as its very existence may simply be that of quirks in our flat little universe's surface. It's going to take a lot more to discover THAT to be soluble. But the people who said "our best engineers have determined that heavier-than-air flight could never be practical, because of the energy requirements" 150 years ago, or the same thing about space flight shortly after Jules Verne wrote about it, were failing to anticipate /simple/ improvements in access to energy and information, which is what "space flight can't be economical" and "computers can't run raw physics simulations" do. -- Words of the Sentient: Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth. -- Victoria Woodhull, feminist, first woman presidential candidate E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 17 04:00:25 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 05:00:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060517024123.56074.qmail@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605161555nef917a0tf5c08106898045e3@mail.gmail.com> <20060517024123.56074.qmail@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605162100l1f746788j3754c67f2a176382@mail.gmail.com> On 5/17/06, KAZ wrote: > > Actually, this is untrue. It is akin to saying "if you're going to count > to 100, you need 100 items to do the counting on". No, for a computer to > count to 255 it only needs 8 bits. 24 bits, and it's counting into the > millions. Likewise, though more subtlely, you can track any level of > complexity with less than the actual components therein. As I understand it, this isn't the case with ab initio quantum mechanics calculations - that with QM, the calculation scales not as the number of particles, or even as the number of pairwise interactions, but as the number of possible configurations of the system. (I didn't keep links to any online references, but I remember Drexler explains this in 'Nanosystems'. However, I'm open to correction if there are any physicists in the audience.) And, of course, you're assuming the simulation has to be purely > deterministic. But you can also fudge the data. Absolutely. That in fact is what molecular modeling systems do; they use polynomial-time heuristics - educated guesses - about how atoms typically behave. Sometimes these give the right answer, sometimes they don't. So yes, you can do this - but the result is, as I said, a complement for laboratory work. Not a substitute. But, in reality, there is usually some other information, allowing a more > rational analysis to be carried out. And that's exactly what I've been trying to do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From siproj at gmail.com Wed May 17 04:53:26 2006 From: siproj at gmail.com (_ _) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 23:53:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotion connected memes and EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060511004356.0bcccd10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060511004356.0bcccd10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/11/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > [Originally posted to the memetics group] > > [This is a related to the threads about rational people.] > > In correspondence with Eugene V Kooin, the author of the comment here: > > >http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/4/comment/1005 > > > > My main point, however, is a tribute to meme selection: the fittest > will > > survive! > > He commented: > > snip > > >. . . it is hard for me to understand how many people, including > >biologists, can have such a negative attitude (sometimes, almost > >violently expressed) to this entire conceptual development. I suppose > >this in itself is a peculiar phenomenon to be understood from the point > >of view of evolutionary psychology . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Taxonomy Perhaps we can determine elements through organizational methods to project future memes for personal development? > > Or perhaps these emotional bindings to scientific memes (plus religious > and > political memes) are a side effect of emotional bindings to xenophobic > memes. > > I recently made the case that the trait to pass around xenophobic memes > and > go non-rational is an evolved species typical behavior of humans facing > bad > times. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 -- > > Wars and captures were *major* selection factors in the EEA. It should > not > be a surprise if many of our deepest psychological traits were shaped by > such selection. > > Comments? > > Keith Henson > > PS. The theory leads to the prediction that *this* theory will be met > with > violent rejection by some. :-) > > _______________________________________________ > By acclamation this meme is accepted, ha! Last time we really talked was at Extro 3 Keith, oh meme gravity well. -- siproj at gmail.com Creator of alt.inventors and keeper of the Official alt.inventors FAQ despite what some alt.config sysadmin/waste of time/bandwidth actions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 17 05:33:00 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 01:33:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularityconference atstanford) References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer><4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com><011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer><86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com> <22991B07-FC12-4FD2-BDC9-4A6C97415387@mac.com> Message-ID: > The Outlook Express dweebs are not doing him a favor by > reading it much less by insisting that he support their broken software. > > - samantha People like to use Outlook Express. It's a matter of taste. Learn to accept that other people have different tastes from yours or just simply don't care what they use as long as their tools, more or less, get the job done. If I were you I would cut down on these unjustified demonstrations of superiority to other people. H. From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Wed May 17 04:47:36 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 21:47:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605162027k2fcf4498re4f4063b05b04e24@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060517044736.853.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Russell Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:27:20 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award On 5/17/06, KAZ wrote: > > But the downtime between the Enlightenment and the Information Revolution > > was both short and mild, in the US. Who knows, it might even be better this time. > Unlike me, you are an optimist ^.^ This is not a bad thing in itself; the world > needs optimists as well as pessimists. I will suggest proceeding as though > I'm right - while at the same time hoping you're right. Well, I'm not actually saying it WILL be better this time, only that it might. The factors which have made the gap between each period of knowledge and liberty shorter seem to still be increasing. It's certainly worth note that one big reason things fall apart after each information revolution is authoritarian government finally, in its bumbling way, catching up to the new technology which allowed the burst of enlightenment. Once they do, they use it as a tool to even greater oppression than ever before. And, of course, they also exploit the resources created by the burst of liberty. We managed to avoid the worst of it, here in the US, but in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and lesser places like China and its satellites, the downtime was indeed far more brutal than ever before. But we did manage to avoid that, here in the US. -- Words of the Sentient? If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he next comes to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. -- Thomas De Quincey E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From asa at nada.kth.se Wed May 17 11:32:51 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:32:51 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <20060516185748.31538.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <5D267BD6-122D-444E-BB99-061E8E7455E5@mac.com> <20060516185748.31538.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <32888.81.152.102.156.1147865571.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > Furthermore , at least in most europeans countries, > the biggest criticism to transhumanism is not if it is > feasible or not , but that it will create a class o f > immortals and a class of underdogs who will not be > able to afford immortality. > That is the main issue against the entire movement. > Let's not give them the right ammunitions against us. Guess why I am - as part of an EU project - trying to pick that argument apart? If nothing else I hope the ENHANCE project will help make this issue a bit better understood. It is interesting that this argument is so popular in Europe, since "we" Europeans tend to officially believe in that governments not only should but actually can achieve equitable redistribution. My guess is that most Europeans tend to know deep down that it doesn't work well at all, and this makes the worry big. This is why James Hughes ideas are so wonderfully loaded here - they force people to actually decide a bit beyond being opposed. It is a bit like hearing bioethicists proclaiming the personhood of embryos, but being utterly non-interested in saving the 60% of all people killed by spontaneous abortions (more dead than all other causes taken together). There is a huge discrepancy between beliefs, but they prefer not to think about the problem. Proposing multibillion programs for research into saving these embryos to these bioethicists forces them to take a clearer stand. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Wed May 17 11:53:59 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:53:59 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Immortal Class: Admissions Criteria In-Reply-To: <20060516145817.35399.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <62602.81.152.102.156.1147783317.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060516145817.35399.qmail@web26209.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <32913.81.152.102.156.1147866839.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > With the same rationale, an immortality possibility, > which by technological, economical or other conditions > will initially have effect in a limited amount of > population, will not only create resentment but will > be the fuel for more serious class revolutions that > can affect all of us, and the entire society, > jeopardizing the whole project and creating long term > negative effects. Hmm, your examples (suicide bomber terrorism, US paranoia-inefficiency) are not really good support. The resentment bred by the US visa stupidities is only making researchers go elsewhere and further weakening US cultural status. The emergence of major terrorism waves is closer to a good case: clearly a strong contributing factor is that many regions are impoverished, tyrranized and hopeless, causing intense resentment against a suitable external foe. But immortality access resentment, is that truly likely to cause something similar? We do not see AIDS access terrorism from (or within) Africa, do we? Yet access to AIDS drugs is a matter of life and death. I think one of the main defusing things is that it is not viewed as a totally hopeless situation. From a militant Mid East perspective there is no realistic way out (not that they would like to admit it), while from an African perspective there is always a chance. People tend to accept inequalities far more when they feel they are not permanent. The American Dream means that it is OK that some people are richer than me since I believe that I could become as rich with hard work, luck or help. Belief in progress does the same thing: today only the yuppies can afford it, tomorrow the upper middle class, next week everybody. Hmm, this probably explains why Europe is so sceptical of transhuman technologies. Neither the American Dream or progress are very popular. And as I said in my other post, we know government redistribution doesn't work well enough. > For that reason immortality, as a possibility, must > be, since the beginning a democratic choice, not > limited to any country, group or association. That is not going to work. It is a bit like saying technology X shouldn't be introduced until everybody can afford it. Which means that nobody should have it, since there is always someone who is too poor for it. Attempts to limit access have the effect of making the technology both even more elitistic (since those with enough money can usually evade the access limitation), increasing prices and reducing the speed of development. A better approach would be to state the goal of making technology X as widely accessible as possible, and use the democratically available funds to speed its spread. Sure, at first only the richest will use it (after the tens of thousands of volunteers in medical studies, of course - the testing of life extension technologies is going to be a logistical nightmare), but that will pay for a lot of development. During this time the best thing to do is to speed up development and spread, for example by distributing scarce treatments by a age-weighted lottery (why weighted? Because older people cannot wait as long as younger). This defuses quite a bit of the resentment problem. Sure, some people buy immortality and others are given it, but the people who buy it are also contributing to its development. Unfortunately I don't think this approach will work across national borders because health care altruism is so tribalistic. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From riel at surriel.com Wed May 17 12:41:34 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] peer 2 peer finance Message-ID: Fun project for the minarchists among us. It seems to promote individual accountability and maybe reduce the temptation to "take something from the commons"... The companies are http://www.prosper.com/ and http://www.zopa.com/ Peer-To-Peer Finance Connects Borrowers And Lenders Peer-to-peer finance sounds like a concept born to be ridiculed. Finance demands oversight and networking through peers rather than a central authority, suggests a fundamental rejection of institutional scrutiny. Call it a cautious rebellion. In February, Prosper opened what it calls "America's first people-to-people lending marketplace." It's a site that helps users borrow and lend money among themselves without the involvement of banks. Though the company says it hasn't been around long enough to disclose its user base, it claims to host over 1,000 active loan listings and 800 active groups. ... http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187203312 -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From riel at surriel.com Wed May 17 12:45:40 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060516213053.47261.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060516213053.47261.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 May 2006, KAZ wrote: > But it doesn't take Virgin Galactic to prove that NASA's way of doing > things is a huge, needless waste. This has long been clear to anyone > /not/ needing to justify the budget of their latest failed Mars probe. Congress critters wanting their district to benefit from NASA's budget means the shuttle and other NASA projects are so full of pork it almost looks like NASA's main goal is to prove that pigs can fly ;) -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 17 13:03:25 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:03:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: References: <20060516213053.47261.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/17/06, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2006, KAZ wrote: > > > But it doesn't take Virgin Galactic to prove that NASA's way of doing > > things is a huge, needless waste. This has long been clear to anyone > > /not/ needing to justify the budget of their latest failed Mars probe. > > Congress critters wanting their district to benefit from NASA's > budget means the shuttle and other NASA projects are so full of > pork it almost looks like NASA's main goal is to prove that pigs > can fly ;) > The whole 'send men to Moon and Mars' project is just a huge boondoggle. Even NASA and the politicians have realised that the Shuttle and the ISS have been a disaster and a huge waste of money and twenty years effort. They then had to face the problem of, How do we scrap the Shuttle and the ISS but keep the huge NASA pork barrel budget money flowing? So they invented the man in the moon project. And they are now intending to scrap all the real science projects just to keep this corrupt nonsense running. The whole thing is a tragic waste. BillK From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Wed May 17 13:10:31 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 06:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060517131031.80234.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Rik van Riel To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:45:40 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award > Congress critters wanting their district to benefit from NASA's > budget means the shuttle and other NASA projects are so full of > pork it almost looks like NASA's main goal is to prove that pigs > can fly ;) Yes, but it's not just Congress...NASA and its contractors work hard to waste as much of the money as possible. And I mean literally waste, not just "they don't do a good job of spending". For example, I was on a cost-plus contract for the Hubble Space Telescope, and when I was getting my job done ahead of schedule they literally pushed me off onto fake "emergency" projects in order to extend it...not only to put it "back on schedule", but even causing it to run over indefinitely. You may recall that, in 1999, they "installed a computer upgrade" into the Hubble...but what they didn't explain, when bragging about this, was that the "upgrade" was a 486 motherboard. At a time when even my crappiest backup machine at home had a Pentium in it, they considered a 486 to be an improvement worth spending millions to fly up and install. And yet, ironically, one of the NASA employees I was working with had a dual processor PC with the newest, most CPUs in it sitting in a box in the corner of his office. He had ordered it on a whim (on NASA budget), but didn't know how to set it up, so he just left it there, unused. All this waste is aside from the sheer idiocy of how they DO things...like, say, the shuttle replacement, which Congress should just cancel entirely. They are...I kid you not...planning on another VERTICAL LAUNCH craft. They are, over fifty years after we worked out that it's a stupid, inefficient way to get into space, still going to make our main NEW launch technology one which throws the ship straight up into space, racing for orbital velocity immediately. If you broke up NASA's budget and handed it to the top ten X-Prize contestants with no strings whatsoever, we'd end up with more actual progress on space travel. That cheap, simplistic Space Ship One used more advanced technology to get into space than not only the Shuttle, but than the shuttle replacement that won't be ready for another decade. Or, better still, just yank the NASA budget it entirely and used the money to reduce the budget deficit, deregulating space flight so it is no longer effectively illegal for private manned space travel to occur. -- Words of the Sentient: The Second Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", period. There is no mention of magazine sizes, the rate of fire or to what extend these arms may resemble assault rifles. All rifles were assault rifles in those days. -- P.J.O'Rourke E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 13:40:01 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 06:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060517134001.94346.qmail@web37506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Am unambiguously telling you it is your watch. Thus whatever can be done to the good will be done by you. It is called free will. Like when a so-called relative refers to "our family" such is no longer the case, "our family" was way back in time when Xmas was the In thing-- now it is your family, bub. I was an activist for decades but no longer, merely because someone posts on extropy-chat doesn't mean they have to be active in 'our' watch. The reason I brought up prickly politics was to point out some of us mistrust libertarians as much as libertarians mistrust statists. Always in the back of my mind is the fact that everyone has a combination of good and bad intentions which includes you, myself, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. To hell with 'our' watch. Samantha Atkins wrote: All I was saying, if you remember in the thick of your rhetoric, was that this is our watch, it is we who are here not some descendants. Thus whatever can be done to the good will be done by us. We can't put it off on someone else. I am still at a loss how that gave you an opening to get all politically prickly. "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 15:13:41 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 08:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060517134001.94346.qmail@web37506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060517151341.79152.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Samantha, I do hope you understand that not everyone shares your values, your interests. I have signed up for cryonic suspension, such is the extent of the interest & involvement with matters extropian. At one time was more interested and involved but am no longer; one need not maintain the same outlook and activities for one's entire life. Look what happened to Extropy Institute, at one time the impression might have been given that EI was here to stay however its founders decided to fold up the tent-- and why not? No one called them quitters after they announced they would dissolve EI. They have moved on to greener pastures. "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Wed May 17 16:15:13 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060517151341.79152.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Ned Late To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:13:41 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend > I do hope you understand that not everyone shares your values, your interests. > I have signed up for cryonic suspension, such is the extent of the interest & > involvement with matters extropian. One could eschew every and all extropian thought and still choose to sign up for cryonic suspension, because it's a matter of sheer logic that if you're frozen, there is SOME chance of you being revived, while if you're buried in the ground you are absolutely guaranteed to be gone forever, barring something super-natural. -- Words of the Sentient: The issue of race could benefit from a period of benign neglect. --Daniel Patrick Moynihan E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed May 17 15:16:17 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:16:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] NASA budget (was Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award) Message-ID: KAZ kazvorpal at yahoo.com >Or, better still, just yank the NASA budget entirely hmmm http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/solicitations.do?method=past&stack=push Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From siproj at gmail.com Wed May 17 16:19:58 2006 From: siproj at gmail.com (_ _) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:19:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060516161523.027b2108@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060516161523.027b2108@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: > Samantha is (in my opinion) right. If you know my background, I am > probably as qualified as any to have an opinion about this. It is also a > view I don't like, I was forced into it by physical reality (and Freeman > Dyson). > > For what are basically economic reasons it will take nanotech level > technology to get us into space. I don't see any way to avoid strong AI. Right now the soft problems within the transhuman sphere seem to impede progressions into the future: * Economics - an artificial construct societies create to exchange value - The Federal Researve System treats capital privation or confuses it all too easily with economic efficient action proving that gullible America can believe the Great Depression was falsely attributed to the *Smoot*-*Hawley*Tariffversus the tight capitalization, will people start to realize the inflation of today is equally caused by the FOMC and commodities costs cannot be combated by reducing monies when it is foreign resource demand in the BRIC countries driving those prices upward? * Social memes - from abortion, stem cell research and even warface act as divisions to hold back masses of scientists from getting the job done. * Perceived boundaries - Heinlein hard science to fantasy, albeit entertaining but most certainly not the thinking construct of aspiration that a hard science novel has or even a cyberpunk book like Schismatrix or the vulnerable Gibson works Neuromancer, Count Zero and Mona Lisa overdrive theme tied akin to Virtual Light and Idoru * Vested Interests - we can only wish for more financial implosions of Worldcom or Enron style in the largest corporations. This is one of the few ways large scale change gets done within multi-national corporate politics. * Demand destruction - see vested interests - squelch demand on a substantial basis and capital brinksmanship does halt in importance and survival begins. Capital privation or hyper-valuation orientation - now we still do not yet understand post-capitalist western society nor the issues and dangers and hopefully it does not decay into a quasi-totalitarian settlement provided by a neo-fascist league of mind control artists. If wishes were light sails and laser cannon, I would be many light years > from the solar system. > > Keith Henson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- siproj at gmail.com Creator of alt.inventors and keeper of the Official alt.inventors FAQ despite what some alt.config sysadmin/waste of time/bandwidth actions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 17 16:26:21 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:26:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: quoting Message-ID: <20060517162620.GW26713@leitl.org> Folks, I see an increasing number of quoting styles recently, which are frankly difficult to follow. Please use standard quoting styles, e.g. http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html If you have problems with braindead clients like Outlook and Outlook express, there are tools to fix their broken formatting: http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/ -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jonkc at att.net Wed May 17 16:59:44 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:59:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer><4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com><011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> <90696FAD-92CD-44C1-BD08-E21BB5C84DD8@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <019f01c679d4$ae696c10$38094e0c@MyComputer> "J. Andrew Rogers" > Since when did you start making arguments from popularity If you're talking about communication standards, and I mean real standards, I mean what people actually use not what a bunch of Linux snobs say they should use, then I've always thought popularity was very important. If you live in the western world English will tend to be more useful than Serbo-Croatian or Esperanto most of the time. Obviously if you were starting from scratch lots of people could and did make more elegant mail programs than Outlook Express, but Microsoft didn't have that luxury. Everything they made had to be compatible with everything they made before, and they had to do it during a time when computer hardware became thousands of times more powerful. It's in the nature of things that real standards are resistant to change, but that's OK because that is exactly the way a standard should be, changing a standard is difficult and not worth doing unless there is a huge improvement. The market has decided that Outlook Express works pretty well and so it is not worth the time and hassle in changing over to an alternate program if it were only a little bit better, it needs to be enormously better. The market has decided those other programs are not enormously better, it is possible that the market is wrong about that but I think it has a better chance of being right than you do. And in the meantime it would be foolish to pretend that you would never want to communicate with anyone who used the most common mail program on the planet. > How this is plausibly Eugen's problem is beyond me. How is it plausible he is conforming to standards, real standards, if of all the thousands of messages I read on all the lists I'm on Eugen's is the ONLY one I have a problem with, the only one the most common mail program on planet Earth has a problem with? I don't know what program Eugen is using but I'll bet the help menu is in Esperanto. But if Eugen doesn't want me to read his stuff that is certainly his right. > Are you a devout Christian yet? Bless you my child, you've discovered my secret. John K Clark From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 17 16:03:10 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:03:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Future Consciousness through AGI + Neural Macrosensing Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060517104849.02f56048@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Would anyone like to offer insights, add to, object to, agree with, or comment on this 500 word abstract for an upcoming conference on consciousness in the UK? I realize there are some obvious challenges with what I argue: (1) I suggest that "neural macrosensing" (Freitas) to provide sensory information to the AGI (Amara D. Angelica's insight suggests "macrosensing" (Freitas) instead) ; and (2) "elevated acuity" (Vita-More) may not be consciousness (Samantha's insight); and (3) the "oracle" (Peter Voss) may not be the best term to use. (Bty, "human humanity" was inspired by Eliezer.) Abstract: The acquisition of wisdom has been recognized as one of the noblest goals of humanity. (Aristotle, Buddha) People aspire to this state of sapience by relying upon religious, spiritual, and meditative practices separately, or combining them as models for defining moral codes and heightened awareness. In today's era of blending technology with human biology, speculation and exploratory engineering are bringing about alternative methods for helping us understand ourselves and our desire to interconnect with others. Is it possible to combine technologies to assist our brain in acquiring wisdom? One approach is to couple two distinct emerging technologies, that of AGI (artificial general intelligence) and "neural macrosensing." AGI is developing as a reaction to recent trends toward narrowly focused AI, and returning to artificial intelligence's original idea of building machines with human-level and even superhuman intelligence. "Neural macrosensing," a term created by scientist Robert A. Freitas Jr., is the hypothetical "ability to detect individual neural cell electrical discharges non-invasively [and] offers the possibility of indirect neural macrosensing of complex environmental stimuli by eavesdropping on the body's own regular sensory signal traffic." This means that nanorobots would listen to, or eavesdrop on, the body's sensory organs. These two different spheres of technology have yet to be explored as a means for bringing about a wiser, more humane humanity. Both technologies are based on exploratory engineering, much like the imaginative inventions Leonardo da Vinci sketched out long before they could be realized. Yet, the coupling of AGI and neural macrosensing is based on tangible advances in their respective fields. Engineers at Adaptive AI are building AGI for improving human intelligence, and in theory for exploring partial, physically integrated personal silicon "oracles." According to engineer Peter Voss of Adaptive AI, "Once we have human level AGI, we will essentially possess our own personal AGI to integrate with us and advise us." Voss claims that our new silicon partner would develop rationality, wisdom, and knowledge through a relatively loose integration with our brain. This non-invasive approach to augmenting the brain would at first appears as mundane as a black box, and later as streamlined as light-activated ion channels for remote control of neural activity. (Richard H. Kramer) The oracle assistant would also be a new, emotional part of ourselves to bounce ideas off of; similar, but far more advanced than a Remembrance Agent (RA), designed by Bradley Rhodes at MIT Media Lab, computer that watches over a our shoulder and suggests information relevant to what we are reading or writing. But how would we secure a cooperative relationship between the oracle and its human counterpart? The most likely approach would be to build generic oracles with a large skill set and ability to bond quickly with their counterparts. This bonding would require more than technically-driven intellectual motivation; it would require strong sensory capabilities for, essentially, sniffing out the environment. And this is where macrosensing comes in; to "allow us to become exquisitely sensitive, like 'super-senses" to fine details in our environment." (Freitas) Macrosensing could provide the needed sensorial feedback for both assisting the brain and developing elevated acuity. 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Wed May 17 16:12:01 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060517134001.94346.qmail@web37506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060517161201.62477.qmail@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Ned Late To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:40:01 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award > that everyone has a combination of good and bad intentions which > includes you, myself, Mohandas Gandhi & Mother Teresa. Ironically, Ghandi was a disaster for the people of India, the stupid Marxist, so this is more true than you probably meant it to be. Aside from the claims that Mother Teresa was a mean old lady. The good thing about libertarians is that their system would limit their agenda and abuses to what they could honestly acquire, while with authoritarian government the power to coerce is accumulated into one place, and the most abusive and agenda-driven are drawn to it and use it to cause far more damage than private activity ever has. -- Words of the Sentient: I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 17 17:24:34 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:24:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft In-Reply-To: <019f01c679d4$ae696c10$38094e0c@MyComputer> References: <90696FAD-92CD-44C1-BD08-E21BB5C84DD8@ceruleansystems.com> <019f01c679d4$ae696c10$38094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060517172434.GD26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:59:44PM -0400, John K Clark wrote: > > How this is plausibly Eugen's problem is beyond me. > > How is it plausible he is conforming to standards, real standards, if of all I do conform to standards (RFC2015). I'm not using inline signing because it doesn't verify automatically, and because it causes other problems to other users. Basically, if I have to sign, I'm guaranteed to piss off somebody. I'm signing mail for whitelisting, for myself, and others. If it causes you problems, I'm sorry about that, but I'm doing it not to annoy you, and unfortunately I won't change my ways. You can continue ignoring my mail (unless I send admin stuff, which people might or might want to read). > the thousands of messages I read on all the lists I'm on Eugen's is the ONLY > one I have a problem with, the only one the most common mail program on What can I say, it's very different on all my lists. I'm sorry it doesn't work for you. > planet Earth has a problem with? I don't know what program Eugen is using > but I'll bet the help menu is in Esperanto. But if Eugen doesn't want me to There is no help menu. I have no mouse, and I must click. > read his stuff that is certainly his right. This mail manually not signed, in order OE users can read it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 17:45:45 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060517174545.99905.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Unfortunately the conventional wisdom is cryonic suspension is entirely purse-emptying rather than in any way life-extending. Absolutely no one I've talked to outside of immortalists think anyone can ever be reanimated. BTW, don't mean to put Samantha down, it's merely that sometimes people appear to want to be surrogate Mommies in giving advice, advice which can be beneficial to the young but not necessarily to the older-- as when one reaches a certain age one tends to be set in one's ways. >One could eschew every and all extropian thought and still choose to sign up for >cryonic suspension, because it's a matter of sheer logic that if you're frozen, there is >SOME chance of you being revived, while if you're buried in the ground you are >absolutely guaranteed to be gone forever, barring something super-natural. >KAZ "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." __________________________________________________ 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 sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 17 17:53:50 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:53:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> On May 16, 2006, at 1:39 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/16/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > It is rather reminiscent of someone lecturing me on how, if I don't > believe in Christ, Christ will damn me to hell. But Christians > have at > least the excuse of being around numerous other people who all believe > exactly the same thing, so that they are no longer capable of noticing > the dependency on their assumptions, or of properly comprehending that > another might share their assumptions. > > *ahem* Given that in both cases I'm the one _failing_ to believe in > the imminent manifestation of deity on Earth via never-observed > processes, I think your analogy has one of those "minus sign > switched with plus sign" bugs ;) You seem to be confusing Singularity with some particular extremely utopian or dystopian outcomes. I am not using the word in that sense and I don't think many others in this thread are either. I don't expect a deity to manifest on Earth as part and parcel of Singularity. > > And you, Russell, need not list any of the negative consequences of > believing in a hard takeoff when it doesn't happen, to convince me > that > it would be well not to believe in it supposing it doesn't happen. > > Then perhaps what I need to do is explain why it won't happen? > Okay, to make sure we're on the same page, a definition: > > Hard takeoff = a process by which seed AI (of complexity buildable > by a team of very smart humans in a basement) undertakes self- > improvement to increase its intelligence, without needing mole > quantities of computronium, _without needing to interact with the > real world outside its basement_, and without needing a long time; > subsequently emerging in a form that is already superintelligent. > Who says this will happen with no interaction with the rest of the world on the part of the seed AI? As you know much has been written about the difficulty of keeping the AI isolated sufficiently from the world. But I have no reason to consider self-improvement or even really clever hacking utterly insufficient to reach super- intelligence in that "basement" with just the corpus of information reachable in read-only mode from the internet and reasonably good self-improving code. The latter is imho key if in fact humans are incapable of designing the components of a super-intelligence. Why do you think computronium is required? It was not required to get to human intelligence obviously. > 1) I've underlined the most important condition, because it exposes > the critical flaw: the concept of hard takeoff assumes > "intelligence" is a formal property of a collection of bits. It > isn't. It's an informal comment on the relationship between a > collection of bits and its environment. Huh? It is you who posited a completely isolated environment that cannot be breached. An initial environment does not have to include the entire world in order for the intelligence to grow. > > Suppose your AI comes up with a new, supposedly more intelligent > version of itself and is trying to decide whether to replace the > current version with the new version. What algorithm does it use to > tell it whether the new version is really more intelligent? Well it > could apply some sort of mathematical criterion, see whether the > new version is faster at proving a list of theorems, say. > Or however long a list of skills you consider markers of intelligence that you care to name. But all of that would not be the point. If the AI can improve the very basis of intelligence, the very components of its mind, then it will become more intelligent over time. Your argument is not convincing that this is impossible. > But the most you will ever get out of that process is an AI that's > intelligent at proving mathematical theorems - not because you > didn't apply it well enough, but because that's all the process was > ever trying to give you in the first place. To create an AI that's > intelligent at solving real world problems - one that can cure > cancer or design a fusion reactor that'll actually work when it's > turned on - requires that the criterion for checking whether a new > version is really more intelligent than the old one, involves > testing its effectiveness at solving real world problems. Which > means the process of AI development must involve interaction with > the real world, and must be limited in speed by real world events > even if you have a building full of nanocomputers to run the software. > Yes and no. What is the real world constraint on building and testing software? Yes if you want to solve engineering problems you eventually need to get beyond the design tools and simulation but these are still highly critical. Actually building and testing a new solution can be done by human beings from the design the AI came up with. Where is the crucial problem? > There are other problems, mind you: > > 2) Recursive self-improvement mightn't be a valid concept in the > first place. If you think about it, our reason for confidence in > the possibility of AI and nanotechnology is that we have - we are - > existence proofs. There is no existence proof for full RSI. On the > contrary, all the data goes the other way: every successful complex > system we see, from molecular biology to psychology, law and > politics, computers and the Internet etc, are designed as a stack > of layers where the upper layers are easy to change, but they rest > on more fundamental lower ones that typically are changed only by > action of some still more fundamental environment. > I don't see this as valid. Code can be optimized and re-factored by code. Code can write, profile, redesign and rewrite code. If humans can improve code with our obvious lack of specialization for such tasks I have no reason to believe that it is impossible to capture the relevant knowledge and design a software system to do so. > > The matter has been put to the test: Eurisko was a full RSI > AI. Result: it needed constant human guidance or it'd just wedge > itself. > So one early effort has exhausted the entire problem space? > 3) On to the most trivial matter, computing power: there's been a > lot of discussion about how much it might take to run a fully > developed and optimized AI, and the consensus is that ultimate > silicon technology might suffice... but that line of argument > ignores the fact that it takes much more computing power to develop > an algorithm than it does to run it once developed. How is this relevant? Are you including all discovery of the problem space, design efforts, checking the results and so on? So what? Does this mean it is impossible? Not at all. > > Bottom line, I think we'll need molecular computers to develop AI - > and not small prototype ones either. > I don't. > So that's one reason why the concept is definitely incoherent, an > independent reason why there's good reason to believe it's > incoherent, and a third again independent reason why it wouldn't be > practical in the foreseeable future even if it were coherent. That you think a highly contentious thing is true (but you cannot prove it) cannot be used to say "definitely" that something else is the case. Your entire post amounts to you merely saying it can't be done without proving any such thing or imho even making a good case. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 17 17:57:28 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:57:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularityconference atstanford) In-Reply-To: References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> <4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com> <20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org> <003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer> <4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com> <011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer> <86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com> <22991B07-FC12-4FD2-BDC9-4A6C97415387@mac.com> Message-ID: Nice dropping of context, dude. On May 16, 2006, at 10:33 PM, Heartland wrote: > >> The Outlook Express dweebs are not doing him a favor by >> reading it much less by insisting that he support their broken >> software. >> >> - samantha > > People like to use Outlook Express. It's a matter of taste. Learn > to accept that > other people have different tastes from yours or just simply don't > care what they > use as long as their tools, more or less, get the job done. If I > were you I would > cut down on these unjustified demonstrations of superiority to > other people. > > H. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From wingcat at pacbell.net Wed May 17 17:48:29 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Diaspora was Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060517131031.80234.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060517174829.52254.qmail@web81613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I agree with most of what you say, but a couple nits (so you can fine-tune this argument when not preaching to the choir): --- KAZ wrote: > You may recall that, in 1999, they "installed a computer upgrade" > into the Hubble...but what they didn't explain, when bragging about > this, was that the "upgrade" was a 486 motherboard. At a time when > even my crappiest backup machine at home had a Pentium in it, they > considered a 486 to be an improvement worth spending millions to fly > up and install. There is an old line about regular computer vs. "space-rated", hardened computers, intended to be able to run even when exposed to cosmic rays (which even astronauts are usually somewhat shielded from). Development of hardened computers lags development of normal computers by quite a few years, in part due to the much smaller market. A 486 might well have been the best "space-rated" CPU there was available at the time. Now, because of the insular market, it may be hard to tell if that's complete BS, but it sounds like it at least might be true. Your example about being pulled off for fake emergencies carries much more weight. > Or, better still, just yank the NASA budget it entirely and used the > money to reduce the budget deficit, Drop In The Bucket. This exact proposal has been made many times, and found that it would do practically nothing against the deficit. I'd reccomend sticking to proposing that NASA's budget be doled out to the top X-Prize contenders - or maybe that NASA's budget be devoted entirely to their X-Prize-like Centennial Challenges program (thus, the rest of the agency would be scrapped), on the condition that said program remain a prize granting agency and be specifically forbidden from ever entering into any cost-plus contracts. From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 17 18:46:27 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:46:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft (was: singularityconference atstanford) References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer><4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com><011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer><86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com><22991B07-FC12-4FD2-BDC9-4A6C97415387@mac.com> Message-ID: >>> The Outlook Express dweebs are not doing him a favor by >>> reading it much less by insisting that he support their broken >>> software. >>> >>> - samantha >> >> People like to use Outlook Express. It's a matter of taste. Learn >> to accept that >> other people have different tastes from yours or just simply don't >> care what they >> use as long as their tools, more or less, get the job done. If I >> were you I would >> cut down on these unjustified demonstrations of superiority to >> other people. >> >> H. Samantha: > Nice dropping of context, dude. It was more like bringing out the subtext, ma'am. :) H. From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 17:58:45 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060517161201.62477.qmail@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060517175845.68560.qmail@web37514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You're undoubtedly correct, you look at the history of totalitarian governments to see they caused far more destruction and evil than the most authoritarian republics & democracies. It is only 'status-quo' rightwing libertarians who turn me off libertarianism. If for nothing aside from entertainment, I would prefer wild but colorful libertarian radicals to old fashioned conservative libertarians who appear to differ little from republicans. The good thing about libertarians is that their system would limit their agenda and abuses to what they could honestly acquire, while with authoritarian government the power to coerce is accumulated into one place, and the most abusive and agenda-driven are drawn to it and use it to cause far more damage than private activity ever has. -- Words of the Sentient: I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." __________________________________________________ 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 sentience at pobox.com Wed May 17 19:16:20 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:16:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft In-Reply-To: References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer><4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com><011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer><86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com><22991B07-FC12-4FD2-BDC9-4A6C97415387@mac.com> Message-ID: <446B7684.9030509@pobox.com> Microsoft Outlook is a *deliberate effort* to warp accepted standards in order to force people to adopt Microsoft Outlook. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, Eugen should refuse to change his mail client *on principle*. It is rarely wise to reward defection in the Prisoner's Dilemma. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 19:16:55 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] free market? In-Reply-To: <20060517175845.68560.qmail@web37514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060517191655.86663.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This'll be the last post of the day, five posts on this sort of topic are more than enough as you all will agree. Of course the free market is the only real market, economically speaking libertarians are correct; yet politically you free marketeers have got to admit to yourselves authoritarian government is here to stay for a long, long time. Totalitarianism has been largely vanquished however liberal democratic confiscatory capitalist states have proven to be more durable than many thought, because-- for one thing-- you can't get enough economists to arrive at a consensus on how to proceed to a free market economy in the first place. We can't even get policymakers to come to a consensus on how to control the border with Mexico for crying out loud, so how long do you think it will be before this country can agree on moving to a free market? Dream on. >The good thing about libertarians is that their system would limit their agenda and >abuses to what they could honestly acquire, while with authoritarian government the >power to coerce is accumulated into one place, and the most abusive and agenda->driven are drawn to it and use it to cause far more damage than private activity ever has. "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." __________________________________________________ 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Wed May 17 19:51:15 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 12:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060517174545.99905.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060517195115.54283.qmail@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Ned Late To: KAZ ; ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:45:45 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend > Unfortunately the conventional wisdom is cryonic suspension is entirely purse-emptying > rather than in any way life-extending. Absolutely no one I've talked to outside of immortalists > think anyone can ever be reanimated. This is just plain silly. Even if all science says you can't be "brought back", it's still a better shot than being preserved and buried the normal way. There is absolutely no way, now, to eliminate the possibility that technology may, someday, be able to reconstruct a human being even down to the microcellular level, even if the original model is a frozen head with all of its cells shatteredy by ice crystals. But I think we can safely eliminate any chance of reconstructing someone who was buried in a cemetary. -- Words of the Sentient: 'Need' now means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer. -- Joseph Sobran E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alexboko at umich.edu Wed May 17 19:13:23 2006 From: alexboko at umich.edu (alexboko) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:13:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looking for threads on the closure of ExI Message-ID: <446B75D3.6020903@umich.edu> Hello, I was wondering if anybody could point me to discussion threads preceeding the closure announcement of Extropy Institute. Don't repost them, just post the link to the BBS mirror or the date and author, I'll find it. I've been out of the loop, need to catch up! Thanks. From hal at finney.org Wed May 17 18:55:30 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration Message-ID: <20060517185530.BC81C57FD1@finney.org> The Marginal Revolution blog has a posting today offering an open letter which aims (or at least claims) to express the economic consensus on the impact of immigration. I don't think immigration is a particularly extropian subject but I offer this as a case study in methodologies for coming to an understanding of complex issues. http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/05/open_letter_on_.html I have argued in the past that we should generally respect the scientific consensus, when it exists, for several reasons: because the people involved have put so much more time and effort into studying the issues than we can afford to; because science has methodologies to catch and correct errors, which we as individuals generally do not(!); and most importantly, because science has a track record of success in terms of coming to greater understanding of the world. Immigration is a complicated issue and I'm sure we all have a variety of opinions on the subject. The economic impact is not the only thing to consider but it is certainly relevant and important. I see attempts like these economists' letter to be tremendously valuable in terms of passing on accurate information to the public about what the consensus is on hot-button issues. An important question is always whether the consensus is being accurately expressed, or whether this an effort by a small group to manipulate public opinion. The global warming issue suffered controversy along those lines for a number of years, with many letters and counter-letters being circulated opposing or supporting the official consensus. I think this has died down now and there is general recognition that the claimed consensus was right all along, both in terms of being a true and accurate characterization of what beliefs were held among working climatologists, and also of being a good approximation to the reality of climate change. Skeptic Michael Shermer writes in the June issue of Scientific American that he is now abandoning his skepticism on the issue and will henceforth work to mitigate global warming. In the case of this immigration letter, they claim to have support from economists on the left and the right. I recognize the name of Brad DeLong, Berkeley economist who is definitely on the left - his name was being floated as part of the potential Kerry administration. Another person they mention is Vernon Smith, whose Nobel prize was for "having established laboratory experiments as a tool in empirical economic analysis, especially in the study of alternative market mechanisms", which makes him sound generally right-wing, working on market mechanisms like that. It will be interesting to see whether they are successful in attracting a broad range of support. The content of the letter itself is not too dramatic or controversial, I think. It basically says that immigration has had a modestly positive net economic impact; the negatives are pretty small, and the positives are somewhat larger. I was glad to see that it did mention the most obvious positive impact of immigration, something which is often overlooked: > We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United > States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever > devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not > only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of > dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries - a > form of truly effective foreign aid. Indeed, immigration is tremendously valuable to the immigrants themselves, as is obvious from the great risks and costs they undergo to come here. Even if it turned out that immigration was slightly negative on balance for existing Americans (which is not the case), we might still support immigration if we judged the enormous benefits accruing to immigrants to outweigh the slight costs paid by citizens of the United States. Hal From scerir at libero.it Wed May 17 19:16:50 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:16:50 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Backwards light Message-ID: NYT writes about that experiment performed by Dr.Boyd. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/science/16ligh.html Now it seems less impressive and, what is more important, it seems not so different from this (link below) previous, wellknown experiment by NEC http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/9/3/1 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 17 20:34:15 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:34:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> On 5/17/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > You seem to be confusing Singularity with some particular extremely > utopian or dystopian outcomes. I am not using the word in that sense and I > don't think many others in this thread are either. I don't expect a deity > to manifest on Earth as part and parcel of Singularity. > Eliezer effectively does though, and it's his view that I was arguing against here. To recap, my position is: 1) The Singularity is a fine way of thinking about the distant future, a state of affairs we may ultimately reach. 2) However, we are not close enough to be able to make meaningful, specific predictions about questions like what will society be like during and after the Singularity. 3) Therefore it is not good to turn it into a political football at this time, because we lack the data to base a political debate on fact and reason, and such a debate based on conjecture and emotion is likely to be counterproductive. There are various memes floating around for versions of the idea that Singularity can be achieved in a short timescale by currently known processes. I'm arguing that none of these are realistic; the post you're replying to here was the one in which I present my reasons for believing that Eliezer's version involving recursive self-improvement, in particular, is unrealistic. I do this reluctantly, since when I studied the question of hard takeoff it was not with a view to disproving it. But I find the conclusion inescapable nonetheless. Hard takeoff = a process by which seed AI (of complexity buildable by a team > of very smart humans in a basement) undertakes self-improvement to increase > its intelligence, without needing mole quantities of computronium, _without > needing to interact with the real world outside its basement_, and without > needing a long time; subsequently emerging in a form that is already > superintelligent. > > > Who says this will happen with no interaction with the rest of the world > on the part of the seed AI? > Eliezer has said it can so happen, and you yourself support this conjecture in the next few sentences: As you know much has been written about the difficulty of keeping the AI > isolated sufficiently from the world. But I have no reason to consider > self-improvement or even really clever hacking utterly insufficient to reach > super-intelligence in that "basement" with just the corpus of information > reachable in read-only mode from the internet and reasonably good > self-improving code. The latter is imho key if in fact humans are > incapable of designing the components of a super-intelligence. > The concept of "self-improving code" is one of the big pitfalls in reasoning about this area (the other being the concept of "intelligence" as a formal property of a collection of bits). Let's stop to dissect it for a bit. When we think about self-improving code, the image that always comes to our minds (not just mine, this is true of the examples people post when the idea is discussed) is that of tweaking code to produce the _same output_ using fewer CPU cycles or bytes of memory. I emphasize those words because they are the crux of this issue. Improving an AI's performance isn't about producing the same output faster, it's about producing _different output_ from the same input. In other words, it's not just about changing the code, but changing the _specification_, and that's a completely different thing. As you know yourself, changing the specification with a reasonable assurance that the result will be an improvement isn't the sort of thing that can be done by a smart compiler. It's something that requires domain (not just programming) expertise, and real-world testing - which is what I've been saying. Why do you think computronium is required? It was not required to get to > human intelligence obviously. > Yes it was. A single human brain contains more than an exaflop's worth of fault-tolerant self-rewiring nanotech computronium (just looking at the neurons alone, nevermind the as yet unquantified contributions of the glial cells, peripheral nervous system and rest of the body). And getting to human intelligence took a large population of such entities over millions of years of interaction with and live testing in the real world. Not being restricted to blind Darwinian evolution, it shouldn't take us millions of years to create AI; but the requirement for interaction with the real world isn't going to go away. 1) I've underlined the most important condition, because it exposes the > critical flaw: the concept of hard takeoff assumes "intelligence" is a > formal property of a collection of bits. It isn't. It's an informal comment > on the relationship between a collection of bits and its environment. > > > Huh? It is you who posited a completely isolated environment that cannot > be breached. > Actually the concept has been floating around over on SL4 since long before I joined the list; I was just summarizing. An initial environment does not have to include the entire world in order > for the intelligence to grow. > Sure. That doesn't change the fact that the AI will depend on an environment and the rate at which it learns will depend on the rate at which it can do things in that environment. The reason I'm emphasizing this is to refute Eliezer's idea that the AI can learn at the rate at which transistors switch between 0 and 1, independent of the real world. Yes and no. What is the real world constraint on building and testing > software? > The hard part is the specification: knowing what output your program should be producing in the first place. Yes if you want to solve engineering problems you eventually need to get > beyond the design tools and simulation but these are still highly critical. > Actually building and testing a new solution can be done by human beings > from the design the AI came up with. Where is the crucial problem? > Design tools and simulation are critical yes, and actually building and testing solutions by humans is also critical (I don't expect an early-stage AI to be able to effectively control robots). As long as these things are available, there is no crucial problem. Please bear in mind that I'm not saying strong AI isn't possible - on the contrary, I believe it is. I'm just listing the requirements for it. Imagine this is 1906 and there's a debate about whether it's possible to put a man on the moon, and we have three factions: 1) Skeptics: No way! 2) Russell: Yes, ultimately. But it will take many decades of hard work designing successively more powerful rockets, building them and - you can't skip this part - testing them in the real world. There are no easy short cuts. 3) Eliezer and co: You don't know that. There's no reason why someone couldn't just launch a successful moon shot from their basement anytime now. My position is: it can be done, but there are tough practical requirements that need to be met if one wants a real chance at it. There are no easy short cuts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 17 20:00:24 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:00:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] DNA study: Human-chimp split was messy Message-ID: <380-22006531720024508@M2W010.mail2web.com> NEW YORK (AP) "Humans and chimps diverged from a single ancestral population through a complex process that took 4 million years, according to a new study comparing DNA from the two species. "By analyzing about 800 times more DNA than previous studies of the human-chimp split, researchers from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard were able to learn not just when, but a little bit about how the sister species arose." http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/17/human.chimp.split.ap/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 17 20:15:00 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Yeah! Where the hell is Within-Text Highlighting? In-Reply-To: <20060517191655.86663.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060517201500.8353.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This is a question I've wondered about for a while, but I keep getting distracted, and forget to ask. Why is it that Google cannot provide a highlight of some kind for entered keywords (search words) *within* the text of a document itself? I mean, it can extract a single sentence which includes one or more entered keywords and then display in on the "roster" page (index page? - don't know the correct word for this). Why doesn't it provide something like a red box around the keywords as they appear in the text itself? It seems obvious that doing so could dramatically reduce the time required to assemble unfamiliar information. For example, If I were looking for some really obscure information, such as the mating habits of Australian termites, the process is usually unnecessarily tedious. First I would type in the keywords: "Australian termite mating habits", a list of fifty websites would come up, I'd open the first one, and spend 40 minutes skimming over the entire 60 page document, I'd finally find one sentence discussing what I'm searching for, while the rest of the document was summarizing the mating habits of all the other Australian insects, or it would be a well disguised advertisement for Viagra. What's up with this? I'm about as far as one can get from being a computer expert, but from my vantage point, this seems like an exceedingly easy and also worthwhile improvement for Google to make. Am I wrong about this? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Wed May 17 21:20:00 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:20:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com><446A1048.6010407@pobox.com><8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com><476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Samantha: > An initial environment does not have to include the entire world in order >> for the intelligence to grow. >> Russell: > Sure. That doesn't change the fact that the AI will depend on an environment > and the rate at which it learns will depend on the rate at which it can do > things in that environment. The reason I'm emphasizing this is to refute > Eliezer's idea that the AI can learn at the rate at which transistors switch > between 0 and 1, independent of the real world. Hard takeoff, as I understand it, doesn't refer to the growing amount of impact that intelligence growth will have on the outside environment, but to the growth itself. If an AI is capable of making the first improvement to itself, this already means that this AI had enough knowledge about its structure and ways of improving itself to not seek any extra knowledge outside of its immediate environment. And even if such AI were required to go outside of its environment to learn how to improve itself, a smarter AI should be able to minimize that requirement on each iteration. In any case, I don't see how hard takeoff is not inevitable soon after the first iteration. H. From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 17 21:32:05 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:32:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> Russell, your argument also proves that Deep Blue's programmers can't make changes to Deep Blue that improve its playing ability without actually testing it in many games against Kasparov. One game can't possibly be enough to distinguish between potential changes because the win or loss only provides one bit of information. The outside environment is not as complex as you think. It just looks that way to you because you lack the computing power to exploit its regularities. Your argument works nicely for natural selection. Not elsewhere. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 17 20:18:05 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:18:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration Message-ID: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> From: hal at finney.org ("Hal Finney") Is immigration really "the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised?" What about government's double standard on obeying laws. Illegal immigrants are breaking the "law." Should they be rewarded for doing this? Where is the balance? -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 17 21:41:32 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:41:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yeah! Where the hell is Within-Text Highlighting? In-Reply-To: <20060517201500.8353.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060517191655.86663.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060517201500.8353.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/17/06, A B wrote: > > This is a question I've wondered about for a while, but I keep getting > distracted, and forget to ask. Why is it that Google cannot provide a > highlight of some kind for entered keywords (search words) *within* the text > of a document itself? Well, first thing to remember is that when you click on Google search results, most of them link to web sites. Only a few link to word documents or pdf files. When the link is to a web site, if you click on the Google cached page, then your search fields are indeed highlighted. If you go to the actual web page then you have to use the browser feature 'Find on this page' to jump to the term you are interested in. If the link is to a word document or pdf file then this will open in your word processor (e.g. MS Word) or pdf reader (e.g. Adobe Acrobat Reader) and you can use the Find feature in this software. If you use the 'Google 'view as HTML' feature, then Google will highlight the search fields for you. Best wishes, BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 17 21:51:25 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:51:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605171451n4f691c70p6566fe209442d1b4@mail.gmail.com> On 5/17/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Russell, your argument also proves that Deep Blue's programmers can't > make changes to Deep Blue that improve its playing ability without > actually testing it in many games against Kasparov. One game can't > possibly be enough to distinguish between potential changes because the > win or loss only provides one bit of information. Actually, I've seen people who work on grand master level chess software comment that not only do they have to test putative improvements in actual chess games, but that it helps a great deal to have a human expert on hand to point out the strengths and weaknesses in the program's play. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 17 21:53:32 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:53:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yeah! Where the hell is Within-Text Highlighting? In-Reply-To: References: <20060517191655.86663.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060517201500.8353.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605171453w13a3d4adkddf13a36a510662e@mail.gmail.com> On 5/17/06, BillK wrote: > > If the link is to a word document or pdf file then this will open in > your word processor (e.g. MS Word) or pdf reader (e.g. Adobe Acrobat > Reader) and you can use the Find feature in this software. If you use > the 'Google 'view as HTML' feature, then Google will highlight the > search fields for you. > Also, even if you're just viewing an original web page, your browser should have a "find word in this page" feature. (It's ctrl-F in Firefox, for example.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 17 22:32:39 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:32:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605171451n4f691c70p6566fe209442d1b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171451n4f691c70p6566fe209442d1b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <446BA487.1000206@pobox.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/17/06, *Eliezer S. Yudkowsky* > wrote: > > Russell, your argument also proves that Deep Blue's programmers can't > make changes to Deep Blue that improve its playing ability without > actually testing it in many games against Kasparov. One game can't > possibly be enough to distinguish between potential changes because the > win or loss only provides one bit of information. > > Actually, I've seen people who work on grand master level chess software > comment that not only do they have to test putative improvements in > actual chess games, but that it helps a great deal to have a human > expert on hand to point out the strengths and weaknesses in the > program's play. This is why the ability of the world's most powerful chess players has been decreasing slowly over time; you can't learn chess except by playing against a better player and getting advice from better players. Only the environment can teach you; there's no way to learn internally. Thus, over time, more and more of the ancient chess techniques are lost, degraded from signal to noise. Kasparov is probably barely as powerful as the average aristocrat of the seventeenth century. And Deep Blue, which beat Kasparov, was programmed by aliens. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 17 22:42:28 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 23:42:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <446BA487.1000206@pobox.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171451n4f691c70p6566fe209442d1b4@mail.gmail.com> <446BA487.1000206@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605171542k134d2bfara687a2fbab98fc30@mail.gmail.com> On 5/17/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > This is why the ability of the world's most powerful chess players has > been decreasing slowly over time; you can't learn chess except by > playing against a better player and getting advice from better players. > Only the environment can teach you; there's no way to learn > internally. Thus, over time, more and more of the ancient chess > techniques are lost, degraded from signal to noise. Kasparov is > probably barely as powerful as the average aristocrat of the seventeenth > century. And Deep Blue, which beat Kasparov, was programmed by aliens. > Come now Eliezer, I'm trying to discourage silly ideas, not encourage the formulation of more of them! At the end of the day though, your claim boils down to the idea that you can become a grand master at chess _without ever having played a game of chess in your life_; and in the silliness contest between your two ideas (notwithstanding the intended sarcasm in one of them and the greater difficulty of analysis of the other) a mouse could starve on the difference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed May 17 22:45:53 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 00:45:53 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration Message-ID: Also here (with a discussion) http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/17/economists-on-immigration/ Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 17 22:00:41 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Yeah! Where the hell is Within-Text Highlighting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060517220041.36103.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi BillK, Thanks for your reply. It's somewhat embarrassing to learn that this feature is usually available - albeit in an indirect way. [Sigh] Such is the life of an internet-dummy. With that said though, wouldn't it be relatively easy for Google to standardize this feature such that it always highlights the keywords automatically, no matter what the source of info (website, pdf, word document, etc)? This seems like an easy thing to do, and it would still improve the speed and efficiency of collecting info - especially for those like myself. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich BillK wrote: On 5/17/06, A B wrote: > > This is a question I've wondered about for a while, but I keep getting > distracted, and forget to ask. Why is it that Google cannot provide a > highlight of some kind for entered keywords (search words) *within* the text > of a document itself? Well, first thing to remember is that when you click on Google search results, most of them link to web sites. Only a few link to word documents or pdf files. When the link is to a web site, if you click on the Google cached page, then your search fields are indeed highlighted. If you go to the actual web page then you have to use the browser feature 'Find on this page' to jump to the term you are interested in. If the link is to a word document or pdf file then this will open in your word processor (e.g. MS Word) or pdf reader (e.g. Adobe Acrobat Reader) and you can use the Find feature in this software. If you use the 'Google 'view as HTML' feature, then Google will highlight the search fields for you. Best wishes, BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed May 17 22:09:06 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Future Consciousness through AGI + Neural Macrosensing In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060517104849.02f56048@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <20060517220906.91255.qmail@web35510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: Abstract: The acquisition of wisdom has been recognized as one of the noblest goals of humanity. (Aristotle, Buddha) People aspire to this state of sapience by relying upon religious, spiritual, and meditative practices separately, or combining them as models for defining moral codes and heightened awareness. In today's era of blending technology with human biology, speculation and exploratory engineering are bringing about alternative methods for helping us understand ourselves and our desire to interconnect with others. Is it possible to combine technologies to assist our brain in acquiring wisdom? >I'm not a genius but I would have to agree that I feel I have become wiser by >educating myself via the accesible information of the internet and my past >experiences. One approach is to couple two distinct emerging technologies, that of AGI (artificial general intelligence) and "neural macrosensing." AGI is developing as a reaction to recent trends toward narrowly focused AI, and returning to artificial intelligence's original idea of building machines with human-level and even superhuman intelligence. "Neural macrosensing," a term created by scientist Robert A. Freitas Jr., is the hypothetical "ability to detect individual neural cell electrical discharges non-invasively [and] offers the possibility of indirect neural macrosensing of complex environmental stimuli by eavesdropping on the body's own regular sensory signal traffic." This means that nanorobots would listen to, or eavesdrop on, the body's sensory organs. Based on this information: The ability to detect individual neural cell electrical discharges noninvasively in many different ways (Section 4.8.6), coupled with the abilities (A) to recognize and identify specific desired target nerve cells (Section 8.5.2, Chapter 25) and (B) to pool data gathered independently by spatially separated nanodevices in real time (Section 7.3), offers the possibility of indirect neural macrosensing of complex environmental stimuli by eavesdropping on the body's own regular sensory signal traffic. 4.9.5 Neural Macrosensing http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/4.9.5.htm >Just curious but shouldn't that be something that every human should be able to >do? >I was under the impression that when someone senses something they would stop >and try to understand what emotion they feel, what they hear, what they >taste, what they smell and how they feel? >Wouldn't recognizing one's own personal senses be an important part of building >AI or AGI? >How does someone become wise if they don't understand their senses? These two different spheres of technology have yet to be explored as a means for bringing about a wiser, more humane humanity. Both technologies are based on exploratory engineering, much like the imaginative inventions Leonardo da Vinci sketched out long before they could be realized. Yet, the coupling of AGI and neural macrosensing is based on tangible advances in their respective fields. >I don't understand how both can be linked together. Understanding the senses and >being able to compute it, I believe, would take two distinct features. Am I not >understanding properly? Engineers at Adaptive AI are building AGI for improving human intelligence, and in theory for exploring partial, physically integrated personal silicon "oracles." >Just curious, why "oracle"? >Doesn't that sound a little religious/spiritual/deity/divine, definetely under >my impression , not a concurent word on the extropian list unless i'm not again >understanding properly. According to engineer Peter Voss of Adaptive AI, "Once we have human level AGI, we will essentially possess our own personal AGI to integrate with us and advise us." Voss claims that our new silicon partner would develop rationality, wisdom, and knowledge through a relatively loose integration with our brain. This non-invasive approach to augmenting the brain would at first appears as mundane as a black box, and later as streamlined as light-activated ion channels for remote control of neural activity. (Richard H. Kramer) The oracle assistant would also be a new, emotional part of ourselves to bounce ideas off of; similar, but far more advanced than a Remembrance Agent (RA), designed by Bradley Rhodes at MIT Media Lab, computer that watches over a our shoulder and suggests information relevant to what we are reading or writing. Could you refer a link to the studies of Richard Kramer, I would like to learn more about his ideas. Thank you Thanks again Natasha. By the way, I hope you and Max continue with your goal to advance the Proactionary principles. Although I am sad to hear that the Extropy Institute will be closing it's doors (even with my minimal experience), I am aware enough to know that everybody has specific self goal orientations. I wish you both the best and again thank you for creating such an educational tool. Anna:) 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 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hal at finney.org Wed May 17 22:17:49 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality (was: singularity conference at stanford) Message-ID: <20060517221749.2731F57FD1@finney.org> I commented skeptically on Doug Hofstadter's belief in superrationality, and Jef Allbright replied: > When I first learned about Prisoners' Dilemma -- and it was from that > same Scientific American article -- it illustrated clearly for me that > there was something more to real-world rationality than what was being > dealt with in standard game theory. This sensitivity to more > encompassing context which is always a factor in the real world needed > accounting for, and Hofstadter's superrationality, along with > Buckminster Fullers statements about synergy, and other thinking on > positive sum interactions seemed (to me) to make sense of this > important question. > > I am extremely interested in knowing why you see Hofstadter's > superrationality as wrong. Let me first try to make the case for superrationality, and then to say why I don't find it convincing. Unfortunately I can't find my copy of Hofstadter's book right now so I have to work from memory. The argument in favor goes like this: The traditional Prisoner's Dilemma game is symmetric, with both parties facing exactly the same situation. Therefore, if we assume they are both rational, they will come up with the same strategy for playing the game. This means that the only possible rational outcomes are for both to Cooperate or both to Defect. Since the payoff for Cooperate is higher, that is what they both should choose. So, what's wrong with this reasoning? Well, first of all, people don't find it convincing. Much of Hofstadter's column was about his frustration in trying to sell this reasoning to his friends and colleagues. One of the most common responses was for the person to agree with every step up until the last. Then they'd say, "That means the other guy will choose to Cooperate, so obviously I should Defect and really do well!" Then Hofstadter would put his head in his hands. It was sad, but kind of funny in a way. Realistically, if nobody finds your reasoning convincing, you have to consider the possibility - even the likelihood - that you're wrong. Now, granted, you can come up with many examples where people rejected ideas which turned out to be correct, but those are rare compared to the many bad ideas which have been rejected. So that's the first strike against superrationality. The second problem is that economists reject it. By definition, superrationality is irrational. That is, rational behavior has certain mathematical characteristics. One is that, in a game theory matrix, any strategy which is "dominated" is eliminated. A strategy is dominated if there is another strategy which does better in all circumstances. In the PD, Cooperate is dominated by Defect. Hence the rational thing to do is to eliminate Cooperate as a possibility. Defect is the rational thing to do, which is of course where the whole literature on the PD came from. Superrationality has never gotten any traction in the economic community as a principle of reasoning, as far as I know. It would require throwing out much of the foundation of economics and game theory. If you can't do something as fundamental as eliminating dominated strategies, what do you have left? How much confidence can you have in far more subtle analyses such as Nash equilibria? Economists are not willing to rewrite the rulebook like this. I have argued in favor of accepting the academic consensus particularly on complex and difficult issues, and this is such a case. Those people have given a lot more thought to foundational issues than I have, and so I am not going to contradict them just on the basis of my own ideas. Third, I will attempt to offer a logical rebuttal to the reasoning in favor of superrationality. The main thing I will note is that the rational prescription, to Defect, is basically consistent with the pro-superrationality reasoning. We concluded that both parties should do the same thing and sure enough, both parties do the same thing. That part of the reasoning is correct. The problem is that we also assumed implicitly that the two rational parties both had the choice to Cooperate or Defect. However, this is not true, because Cooperate is dominated for rational players. Hence, both parties really only faced a single option, to Defect, and therefore both parties should in fact play that strategy. So, to repeat, the flaw in the argument is that while it put some constraints on what rational people could do, it overlooked other constraints on what rational people could do. By ignoring these other considerations, it reached a false conclusion. Rational players must consider all constraints on what they do, and the superrational reasoning only looks at a single constraint. Now, I have offered this rebuttal last, to emphasize its relative importance. I am not an expert on logic, game theory, or economics. I might be wrong. Maybe someone can point out a flaw, or otherwise find my reasoning unconvincing. That's fine. I put more weight on the first two arguments, the general failure of Hofstadter to find support for superrationality among his friends and colleagues, and the fact that 20 years later no experts use it to explain and analyze game theory and economic problems. If there were really something to it, if the logic were sound, we'd know about it by now. Having said that, I'll tell you a true story. Spike described Hofstadter's contest, which he called the Luring Lottery. (I guess it was supposed to "Lure" people to play a certain way.) You'd put a number on a postcard and send it in, and the person with the largest number would win one million dollars divided by the sum of all the numbers. Well, I worked out that the superrational thing to do was, if there were N participants, to play a 1 with probability 1/N, else to play a 0 (i.e. not enter). I'm not 100% sure this is actually correct, now, but it is at least a plausible superrational strategy, perhaps a Schelling point. So I actually did that! I had a book of random numbers (back in the 70s those were still in use, computer random number generators were not widely available). I estimated N at about 100,000 and made up a 5-digit number; then I opened the book at random, closed my eyes and put my finger on the page. If I had happened to match my 5-digit number, I would have entered a 1. However, as expected, it did not match. So I did not enter. And then, as Spike has described, Hofstadter did get his entries with enormous numbers on them. Whether that was the cause or not, he described the lottery result and then announced that he was closing down his column: "Did I find this amusing? Somewhat, of course. But at the same time, I found it disturbing and disappointing. Not that I hadn't expected it. Indeed, it was precisely what I expected..." And a few paragraphs later "And with this perhaps sobering conclusion, I would like to draw my term as a columnist for Scientific American to a close." I actually think it would be interesting to see if Hofstadter still believes in superrationality. I guess I could have asked him when I had the luck to meet him Saturday, but I didn't think of it. Probably it would have been hard for me to ask without seeming rude, since I would really be asking him whether he still holds to an idea which has been overwhelmingly rejected by almost everyone who has heard of it for over twenty years. Hal From asa at nada.kth.se Wed May 17 23:29:18 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 01:29:18 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Yeah! Where the hell is Within-Text Highlighting? In-Reply-To: <20060517220041.36103.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060517220041.36103.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <37695.81.152.102.156.1147908558.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> A B wrote: > With that said though, wouldn't it be > relatively easy for Google to standardize this feature such that it > always highlights the keywords automatically, no matter what the source > of info (website, pdf, word document, etc)? This seems like an easy > thing to do, and it would still improve the speed and efficiency of > collecting info - especially for those like myself. Yes, it could be done. But I think it would be a bad thing to have as default. In my life as an infovore there is one thing that annoys me more than anything, and that is (usually medical journal) websites that mark the search terms in the document as an unavoidable default. I search for a very general concept (e.g. "memory") to set a domain and disambiguate, and then a few particular words for the real aim of the search. But the result is a text totally littered with distracting highlighted words. It is especially annoying if I want to save the document for later. Better search functions are great intelligence amplifiers. I like the Acrobat search that shows you contexts and can search entire directory trees. But so far nothing has beat the SGML browser I tried many years ago that added marks to the scroll bar for the hits: not only do they show where something is referenced, but also the distribution. I'd love to have that feature in my web browser. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 17 23:35:42 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:35:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605171542k134d2bfara687a2fbab98fc30@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171451n4f691c70p6566fe209442d1b4@mail.gmail.com> <446BA487.1000206@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171542k134d2bfara687a2fbab98fc30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <446BB34E.6010107@pobox.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > > At the end of the day though, your claim boils down to the idea that you > can become a grand master at chess _without ever having played a game of > chess in your life_; This sounds correct. Certainly, without ever having played a game of chess against an external environmental player. Possibly, without ever internally observing a specific chess game played by two algorithms against each other. The latter option strikes me as silly in practice, that is, a suboptimal use of computing power, but doable if some superintelligence wanted to do it. All the *useful* information about how to play chess against a generic opponent, derivable from any chess game ever witnessed and any experience of playing chess, is implicit in the rules of chess. This is the startling point that I think you fail to grasp. By the time a superintelligence is told the rules, before the game starts, in principle it knows everything it needs to know to beat any human player. I don't expect the practice to be any different, not for a superintelligence. I know this because the entire history of chess was generated, from scratch, by humans rather slowly following the rules of chess. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From asa at nada.kth.se Wed May 17 23:42:07 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 01:42:07 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality (was: singularity conference at stanford) In-Reply-To: <20060517221749.2731F57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060517221749.2731F57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <38094.81.152.102.156.1147909327.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> "Hal Finney" wrote: > I put more weight on the first two arguments, the general failure of > Hofstadter to find support for superrationality among his friends and > colleagues, and the fact that 20 years later no experts use it to explain > and analyze game theory and economic problems. If there were really > something to it, if the logic were sound, we'd know about it by now. I think there are some superrationals around. One of my housemates is a Swiss philosopher (Reto Givel) who has been working on criticisms of game theory. His current approach looks very much like superrationality. We spent much of this evening trying to deal with an apparently fatal flaw of his approach, that it seems to break down when there is uncertain information or even deceit. We'll see if he gets out of the trouble, but I think the problem is general: superrationality requires that you have no false beliefs, no uncertainty and indefinite amounts of mindpower, and that is unrealistic. This is also why I distrust a lot of ordinary game theory. People have a hard time doing these "rational" calculations, so they can't be trusted to follow rational strategies. And actions are subject to noise etc. Instead the aim ought to be to look for stable and robust strategies under many kinds of noise, uncertainty and coevolving competitors, and that is in IMHO a far more *fun* problem that finding equilibria. But it lacks all the austere purity of philosophy and classic game theory. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 17 23:56:21 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 00:56:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <446BB34E.6010107@pobox.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171451n4f691c70p6566fe209442d1b4@mail.gmail.com> <446BA487.1000206@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171542k134d2bfara687a2fbab98fc30@mail.gmail.com> <446BB34E.6010107@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605171656p498a3ba0kd3366904e24bf887@mail.gmail.com> On 5/18/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Russell Wallace wrote: > > > > At the end of the day though, your claim boils down to the idea that you > > can become a grand master at chess _without ever having played a game of > > chess in your life_; > > This sounds correct. Certainly, without ever having played a game of > chess against an external environmental player. Possibly, without ever > internally observing a specific chess game played by two algorithms > against each other. The latter option strikes me as silly in practice, > that is, a suboptimal use of computing power, but doable if some > superintelligence wanted to do it. The latter option strikes me as likely to be impossible in principle: it's been proven that complex nonlinear systems in general don't have analytical solutions. I don't remember off the top of my head whether that's been proven for chess in particular, though I vaguely recall someone proving Go is EXPTIME-hard. Certainly the lack of an analytical solution has been proven for real physics in even as simple a case as the Newtonian 3-body problem. The former, you're on firmer ground; one could avoid the need for an external opponent by effectively simulating a population of players. "Silly in practice" would be a good term here - I don't think you could actually beat a good human player first try doing that - but it's not provably impossible. The reason for that, however, is... All the *useful* information about how to play chess against a generic > opponent, derivable from any chess game ever witnessed and any > experience of playing chess, is implicit in the rules of chess. ...the rules, the initial conditions and the fact that fully simulating a chessboard is computationally tractable. (Well, also switch "useful" to "necessary"; and "generic opponent" is a nontrivial caveat.) But in real life, the complete rules and initial conditions aren't available, and full simulation is not computationally tractable, not even with a galaxy-sized nanocomputer. > By the time a superintelligence is told the rules, before the game > starts, in principle it knows everything it needs to know to beat any > human player. The word "superintelligence" just fogs the issue here - a screenful of code suffices to play optimal chess given infinite computing power. The problem is that infinite computing power is not in fact available. More importantly, in chess there is a tractable algorithm that will tell you how a given move will change the state of the board. In the game of real life, there is no such algorithm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 18 00:03:15 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:03:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29E7A16F-42B1-41C3-AC5F-BAD2B3740B27@mac.com> On May 17, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/17/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > You seem to be confusing Singularity with some particular extremely > utopian or dystopian outcomes. I am not using the word in that > sense and I don't think many others in this thread are either. I > don't expect a deity to manifest on Earth as part and parcel of > Singularity. > > Eliezer effectively does though, and it's his view that I was > arguing against here. Actually I think he abandoned his Sysop type positions quite some time ago and even that was no deity. What I was referring to was Singularity as what comes of the emergence of >human intelligence (Vinge singularity) as opposed to a variety of other notions. > > To recap, my position is: > > 1) The Singularity is a fine way of thinking about the distant > future, a state of affairs we may ultimately reach. > >human intelligence is arguably not at all "distant". > 2) However, we are not close enough to be able to make meaningful, > specific predictions about questions like what will society be like > during and after the Singularity. > > 3) Therefore it is not good to turn it into a political football at > this time, because we lack the data to base a political debate on > fact and reason, and such a debate based on conjecture and emotion > is likely to be counterproductive. > Haven't I already agreed a good way back that AGI regulation would be quite wrong at this time? Are you attempting in insist that I agree with your reasoning and means (denial of Singularity) for opposing this? If so you can save yourself from carpal tunnel. It ain't gonna happen. :-) > There are various memes floating around for versions of the idea > that Singularity can be achieved in a short timescale by currently > known processes. I'm arguing that none of these are realistic; the > post you're replying to here was the one in which I present my > reasons for believing that Eliezer's version involving recursive > self-improvement, in particular, is unrealistic. I do this > reluctantly, since when I studied the question of hard takeoff it > was not with a view to disproving it. But I find the conclusion > inescapable nonetheless. > >> Hard takeoff = a process by which seed AI (of complexity buildable >> by a team of very smart humans in a basement) undertakes self- >> improvement to increase its intelligence, without needing mole >> quantities of computronium, _without needing to interact with the >> real world outside its basement_, and without needing a long time; >> subsequently emerging in a form that is already superintelligent. >> > > Who says this will happen with no interaction with the rest of the > world on the part of the seed AI? > > Eliezer has said it can so happen, and you yourself support this > conjecture in the next few sentences: > > As you know much has been written about the difficulty of keeping > the AI isolated sufficiently from the world. But I have no reason > to consider self-improvement or even really clever hacking utterly > insufficient to reach super-intelligence in that "basement" with > just the corpus of information reachable in read-only mode from the > internet and reasonably good self-improving code. The latter is > imho key if in fact humans are incapable of designing the > components of a super-intelligence. > > The concept of "self-improving code" is one of the big pitfalls in > reasoning about this area (the other being the concept of > "intelligence" as a formal property of a collection of bits). Let's > stop to dissect it for a bit. > > When we think about self-improving code, the image that always > comes to our minds (not just mine, this is true of the examples > people post when the idea is discussed) is that of tweaking code to > produce the _same output_ using fewer CPU cycles or bytes of memory. > Not true. Improvement is not limited to just getting the same answer faster but includes getting better answers in some measurable way and also includes other things such as better learning and abstraction from inputs. > I emphasize those words because they are the crux of this issue. > Improving an AI's performance isn't about producing the same output > faster, it's about producing _different output_ from the same > input. In other words, it's not just about changing the code, but > changing the _specification_, and that's a completely different > thing. As you know yourself, changing the specification with a > reasonable assurance that the result will be an improvement isn't > the sort of thing that can be done by a smart compiler. It's > something that requires domain (not just programming) expertise, > and real-world testing - which is what I've been saying. > If it can be done by any intelligence, such as a biological human, then it can be done by other comparatively competent intelligences. I was not talking of your above constrained notion of self-improvement which I believe was obvious from my earlier post. > Why do you think computronium is required? It was not required to > get to human intelligence obviously. > > Yes it was. A single human brain contains more than an exaflop's > worth of fault-tolerant self-rewiring nanotech computronium (just > looking at the neurons alone, nevermind the as yet unquantified > contributions of the glial cells, peripheral nervous system and > rest of the body). And getting to human intelligence took a large > population of such entities over millions of years of interaction > with and live testing in the real world. > There is nowhere to go if you are going to put forth such meaningless arguments as claiming human intelligence depends on computronium. > Not being restricted to blind Darwinian evolution, it shouldn't > take us millions of years to create AI; but the requirement for > interaction with the real world isn't going to go away. Any kind of interaction is sufficient for learning dependent on interaction. It need not be with the "real" world. But that was hardly the point, was it? > >> 1) I've underlined the most important condition, because it >> exposes the critical flaw: the concept of hard takeoff assumes >> "intelligence" is a formal property of a collection of bits. It >> isn't. It's an informal comment on the relationship between a >> collection of bits and its environment. > > Huh? It is you who posited a completely isolated environment that > cannot be breached. > > Actually the concept has been floating around over on SL4 since > long before I joined the list; I was just summarizing. > Actually SL4 has talked a lot about such isolation being impossible to maintain indefinitely and as being a safety measure rather than a design criteria. > An initial environment does not have to include the entire world in > order for the intelligence to grow. > > Sure. That doesn't change the fact that the AI will depend on an > environment and the rate at which it learns will depend on the rate > at which it can do things in that environment. The reason I'm > emphasizing this is to refute Eliezer's idea that the AI can learn > at the rate at which transistors switch between 0 and 1, > independent of the real world. I find your argument on this weak. > > Yes and no. What is the real world constraint on building and > testing software? > > The hard part is the specification: knowing what output your > program should be producing in the first place. > This was not the point of the question. Given a set of desirability criteria and ability to self-modify and test the results it is possible to optimize the system. The desirability criteria can be quite broad and include things like extracting valid information and abstractions from inputs. > Yes if you want to solve engineering problems you eventually need > to get beyond the design tools and simulation but these are still > highly critical. Actually building and testing a new solution can > be done by human beings from the design the AI came up with. Where > is the crucial problem? > > Design tools and simulation are critical yes, and actually building > and testing solutions by humans is also critical (I don't expect an > early-stage AI to be able to effectively control robots). > > As long as these things are available, there is no crucial problem. > Please bear in mind that I'm not saying strong AI isn't possible - > on the contrary, I believe it is. I'm just listing the requirements > for it. > OK. I still don't see these requirements (the ones I agree with) taking more than a decade or two. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 17 23:16:34 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:16:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060517174545.99905.qmail@web37509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060517190616.0b29f5f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:45 AM 5/17/2006 -0700, Ned Late wrote: >Unfortunately the conventional wisdom is cryonic suspension is entirely >purse-emptying rather than in any way life-extending. Absolutely no one >I've talked to outside of immortalists think anyone can ever be reanimated. Ned, I am openly suggesting that the list ghods drop you. You are, of course, entitled to any opinion you want but on this list what you said above is just pure troll bait. In any case, Goodbye. Keith Henson >BTW, don't mean to put Samantha down, it's merely that sometimes people >appear to want to be surrogate Mommies in giving advice, advice which can >be beneficial to the young but not necessarily to the older-- as when one >reaches a certain age one tends to be set in one's ways. > > >One could eschew every and all extropian thought and still choose to > sign up for >cryonic suspension, because it's a matter of sheer logic > that if you're frozen, there is >SOME chance of you being revived, while > if you're buried in the ground you are >absolutely guaranteed to be gone > forever, barring something super-natural. > >KAZ From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu May 18 00:09:12 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:09:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34749.72.236.103.119.1147910952.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Also here (with a discussion) > http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/17/economists-on-immigration/ > Amara, this is so depressing. I read your response to the article. I wish there were some way to help you but I simply have no answers at all. It's just crazy. You'd think they'd be *delighted* to have someone with your qualifications, but no, they just are not interested at all. And you are quite probably right, when you say the US is following in their tracks. :( There's been a tiny bit of dealing with immigration in my family and it is beyond my comprehension. Regards, MB From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 18 00:53:47 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 01:53:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <29E7A16F-42B1-41C3-AC5F-BAD2B3740B27@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> <29E7A16F-42B1-41C3-AC5F-BAD2B3740B27@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605171753s553c1dbbm4ffc624982a11b50@mail.gmail.com> On 5/18/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Haven't I already agreed a good way back that AGI regulation would be > quite wrong at this time? > That you have! Are you attempting in insist that I agree with your reasoning and means > (denial of Singularity) for opposing this? If so you can save yourself from > carpal tunnel. It ain't gonna happen. :-) > *grin* (Dismissal of _near future_ Singularity as unrealistic, remember; not denial that it might be achieved in the more distant future.) But yes, I understand you don't agree with my reasoning. I figured it was a position that needed to be put forward, though, so I've done so. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 17 23:55:32 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Yeah! Where the hell is Within-Text Highlighting? In-Reply-To: <37695.81.152.102.156.1147908558.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060517235532.74753.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Anders, Anders wrote: "But so far nothing has beat the SGML browser I tried many years ago that added marks to the scroll bar for the hits: not only do they show where something is referenced, but also the distribution. I'd love to have that feature in my web browser". Yeah, that does sound pretty good. Someone should make a serious recommendation to Google along these lines; they have an interest in remaining the most user-friendly. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Anders Sandberg wrote: A B wrote: > With that said though, wouldn't it be > relatively easy for Google to standardize this feature such that it > always highlights the keywords automatically, no matter what the source > of info (website, pdf, word document, etc)? This seems like an easy > thing to do, and it would still improve the speed and efficiency of > collecting info - especially for those like myself. Yes, it could be done. But I think it would be a bad thing to have as default. In my life as an infovore there is one thing that annoys me more than anything, and that is (usually medical journal) websites that mark the search terms in the document as an unavoidable default. I search for a very general concept (e.g. "memory") to set a domain and disambiguate, and then a few particular words for the real aim of the search. But the result is a text totally littered with distracting highlighted words. It is especially annoying if I want to save the document for later. Better search functions are great intelligence amplifiers. I like the Acrobat search that shows you contexts and can search entire directory trees. But so far nothing has beat the SGML browser I tried many years ago that added marks to the scroll bar for the hits: not only do they show where something is referenced, but also the distribution. I'd love to have that feature in my web browser. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University _______________________________________________ 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 perry at dccnet.com Thu May 18 00:49:31 2006 From: perry at dccnet.com (Perry Long) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 17:49:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] game theory&rationality Message-ID: <446BC49B.6000203@dccnet.com> Ah, you forget one very important element, "the irreducible element of rascality" or if you prefer, "the imp of the perverse". Myths know about these, and that's why they're couched in non rational terminology. Coyote ? Loki? I do admire your efforts though. I often succumb to rationality myself. This is a serious post. Wolfman From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 18 01:09:40 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 02:09:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yeah! Where the hell is Within-Text Highlighting? In-Reply-To: <20060517235532.74753.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <37695.81.152.102.156.1147908558.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060517235532.74753.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605171809v446ca1e9w8c0235b5638d1b1a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/18/06, A B wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Anders wrote: > > "But so far nothing has beat the SGML browser I tried many years > ago > that added marks to the scroll bar for the hits: not only do they show > where something is referenced, but also the distribution. I'd love to > have > that feature in my web browser". > > Yeah, that does sound pretty good. Someone should make a serious > recommendation to Google along these lines; they have an interest in > remaining the most user-friendly. > This sounds to me more like something that would be implemented in the browser, so the Firefox and Internet Explorer teams might be suitable targets for the suggestion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 18 01:47:48 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:47:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com ... > > What about government's double standard on obeying laws. Illegal > immigrants > are breaking the "law." Should they be rewarded for doing this? Where is > the balance? One aspect of libertarianism that I always choked on was the notion of open borders. To this day I still can't quite see how such a policy could ever work. spike From brian at posthuman.com Thu May 18 01:15:53 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:15:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yeah! Where the hell is Within-Text Highlighting? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605171809v446ca1e9w8c0235b5638d1b1a@mail.gmail.com> References: <37695.81.152.102.156.1147908558.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060517235532.74753.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605171809v446ca1e9w8c0235b5638d1b1a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <446BCAC9.6020501@posthuman.com> The google toolbar already has a feature to highlight search terms: http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/toolbar/index.html -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Thu May 18 01:03:38 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060517195115.54283.qmail@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Agreed, but no one, outside of cryonics enthusiasts, that I personally have talked to has said reanimation is feasible; that's all. No biggie, merely slightly discouraging. Look, only came to this list because I once asked a professional (who has since died) if Extropy consisted of libertarians. He replied "no they are all kinds" and added one shouldn't give up so easily. But Keith Henson loses his temper calling the post 'troll bait'. See this is why I don't want to be at all seriously involved. This is just plain silly. Even if all science says you can't be "brought back", it's still a better shot than being preserved and buried the normal way. There is absolutely no way, now, to eliminate the possibility that technology may, someday, be able to reconstruct a human being even down to the microcellular level, even if the original model is a frozen head with all of its cells shatteredy by ice crystals. But I think we can safely eliminate any chance of reconstructing someone who was buried in a cemetary. -- Words of the Sentient: 'Need' now means wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own. 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer. -- Joseph Sobran E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 18 01:45:10 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:45:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] chess and lizards In-Reply-To: <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200605180218.k4I2IvAD018543@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award > > Russell, your argument also proves that Deep Blue's programmers can't > make changes to Deep Blue that improve its playing ability without > actually testing it in many games against Kasparov. One game can't > possibly be enough to distinguish between potential changes because the > win or loss only provides one bit of information... > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky ... Why against Kasparov? Rather than against the previous version of itself, playing 24/7 and keeping score? Aside, Kasparov may have been the strongest human chess player but was shown repeatedly to not be the strongest human in games against computers, possibly not even in the top 5. Whole nuther unrelated question please Eli. In your summit talk you made a reference to politicians not being lizards. The audience made an unexpected reaction, mirth or surprise. You looked around as if to say whaaaat? This was my reaction too: whaaaat? Hipsters, does the term "lizard" have some new meaning other than the reptile, some political meaning? spike From asa at nada.kth.se Thu May 18 02:33:52 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 04:33:52 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1697.86.130.18.238.1147919632.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > One aspect of libertarianism that I always choked on was the notion of > open > borders. To this day I still can't quite see how such a policy could ever > work. I must admit I have the opposite problem. Why wouldn't it? Of course, I tend to annoy my fellow Swedes by suggesting that it would be a good thing to have a few hundred thousand Russians colonize our northern inland and make it productive. (the usual rejoinder is that they wouldn't want to) Borders are so arbitrary. If they are a good thing, wouldn't it make sense to add a few within current nations? If that is bad, why not remove a few between nations? And if that is bad too, how come all nations have the perfect size? So far the history of the US and EU seems to suggest that borders are fairly useless. They are not very good at keeping undesirables out or desirables in. Mostly they serve as convenient expressions of legitimized xenophobia. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 18 03:20:45 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:20:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060517190616.0b29f5f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200605180321.k4I3Ld6q024553@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend > > At 10:45 AM 5/17/2006 -0700, Ned Late wrote: > >Unfortunately the conventional wisdom is cryonic suspension is entirely > >purse-emptying rather than in any way life-extending. Absolutely no one > >I've talked to outside of immortalists think anyone can ever be > reanimated. > > Ned, I am openly suggesting that the list ghods drop you. You are, of > course, entitled to any opinion you want but on this list what you said > above is just pure troll bait. > > In any case, > > Goodbye. > > Keith Henson Keith I am sure Ned asked several people, many of them adults, so his conclusion could not possibly be wrong. Ned, you will be reassured to learn that the minister down the street agrees with you. He says that that guy whose name I can never remember is the only one who can reanimate us. We must believe in that guy (what's his name, has all those songs about him?) Oh yes, Jesus Christ, I'm pretty sure he was the cat the minister said we must believe in. spike From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu May 18 02:24:02 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:24:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <446BDAC2.7090300@goldenfuture.net> Doesn't that seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy? I mean, of COURSE the people who believe that reanimation is feasible are going to be cryonicists. If you accept that one premise, no matter how slim the odds, it becomes a better bet than the alternative. So I'm unconvinced that it's necessarily a valid argument to say that "nobody who isn't a cryonicist thinks that cryonics is feasible", because by definition once you think that cryonics is feasible, you are a de facto cryonicist (whether or not you pony up the dough). Full disclosure: I am signed up with Alcor. Better a billion-to-one shot than a zero-to-one shot, sez I. Joseph Ned Late wrote: > Agreed, but no one, outside of cryonics enthusiasts, that I personally > have talked to has said reanimation is feasible; that's all. No > biggie, merely slightly discouraging. Look, only came to this list > because I once asked a professional (who has since died) if Extropy > consisted of libertarians. He replied "no they are all kinds" and > added one shouldn't give up so easily. But Keith Henson loses his > temper calling the post 'troll bait'. > See this is why I don't want to be at all seriously involved. > > This is just plain silly. > Even if all science says you can't be "brought back", it's still a > better shot than being preserved and buried the normal way. > > There is absolutely no way, now, to eliminate the possibility that > technology may, someday, be able to reconstruct a human being even > down to the microcellular level, even if the original model is a > frozen head with all of its cells shatteredy by ice crystals. > > But I think we can safely eliminate any chance of reconstructing > someone who was buried in a cemetary. > > -- > Words of the Sentient: > 'Need' now means wanting someone else's money. > 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own. > 'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer. > -- Joseph Sobran > > E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com > Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal > MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com > ICQ: 1912557 > http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not > truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. > > PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu May 18 03:28:09 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <20060517221749.2731F57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: Hal writes > Well, I worked out that the superrational thing to do was, if there were > N participants, to play a 1 with probability 1/N, else to play a 0 (i.e. > not enter). I'm not 100% sure this is actually correct, now, but it is > at least a plausible superrational strategy, perhaps a Schelling point. I also participated in the Luring Lottery in 1983. However instead of 1/N, I calculated that the optimal strategy is one over the square root of N. (The total prize will be divided among the votes received, and, supposing that there are 1,000,000 entrants, if one thousand of us send in approximately one vote, then he gets the mil, and my expectation is $1,000, which I believe to be maximal.) Like Hal, I used a table of random numbers (and didn't "win"). But I went ahead anyway and sent in a postcard: on your entry you were permitted to state the number of votes you were entering, and so I wrote "I am submitting ____ votes.", and then filled in, in red pen, the numeral 0. Hofstadter mentioned in his article that six people had for some mysterious reason sent in "0 votes". I later wrote and ask him who they were (because to me, we were the ones who for sure understood the whole thing). Unfortunately he had not kept the information. As to superrationality, several years later I defected away from the superrational camp. My reasoning: if you know the other person is going to cooperate, then according to the table, you must defect. Likewise, if you know that the person is going to defect, then you must defect. (Failure to do so simply means that you aren't reading the payoff table, or don't know what it means.) Only in the case that you don't know what the person will do---and, most importantly, there is reason to believe that his behavior is correlated with yours---can you logically cooperate. Would you cooperate with a gorilla? How about with a known ruthless gangster? The only person that I'd cooperate with---strict mathematical analysis here only---is a mirror image of myself, my mirror image or my duplicate. Only in those cases, almost surely, is there any chance that his action is positively correlated with mine. > I actually think it would be interesting to see if Hofstadter still > believes in superrationality. I guess I could have asked him when I had > the luck to meet him Saturday, but I didn't think of it. Probably it > would have been hard for me to ask without seeming rude, since I would > really be asking him whether he still holds to an idea which has been > overwhelmingly rejected by almost everyone who has heard of it for > over twenty years. The question you should have asked, rudeness aside, is, if he had a time- machine and could go back to 1983, would he cooperate or defect against the 1983 Doug? Case closed. Lee P.S. Fooey: it needs stating to some people that real-life situations are *far* removed from mathematical theory, and that in fact I'd cooperate with any human being I thought had a heart, and I advise others to do likewise, because the other person's good is a factor too (not shown, of course, in the payoff table). From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu May 18 03:46:18 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:46:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <1697.86.130.18.238.1147919632.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Anders writes > spike wrote: > > One aspect of libertarianism that I always > > choked on was the notion of open borders. > > To this day I still can't quite see how such > > a policy could ever work. > > I must admit I have the opposite problem. Why wouldn't it? It depends on perspective: as a *group* this could be disastrous: What if the Romans had opened their borders in 220 B.C.? They shortly would have ceased to exist as a distinct culture or as a distinct people. Latin would have been swamped. As for *individuals*, it's another matter. One and even all of one's currently living fellows might economically benefit from unrestricted immigration. > Of course, I tend to annoy my fellow Swedes by suggesting that it would be > a good thing to have a few hundred thousand Russians colonize our northern > inland and make it productive. (the usual rejoinder is that they wouldn't > want to) But why Russians? The Swedish government should issue invitations to the most needy and prolific people it can find, e.g. Moslems from several places in the world, or Mexicans. Why shouldn't the Swedish government feel a moral obligation to do what I suggest? After all, *economically* it'll quite possibly help Sweden, but even if not, it will certainly help whatever country the newcomers arrive from. Besides, economic issues aside, *think* of the benefit to the immigrants themselves! > Borders are so arbitrary. If they are a good thing, wouldn't it make sense > to add a few within current nations? If that is bad, why not remove a few > between nations? And if that is bad too, how come all nations have the > perfect size? They got that way because evolutionarily some groups (tribes) in the past wished to preserve their own identities and values as a group. Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 18 04:11:37 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:11:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <1697.86.130.18.238.1147919632.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200605180411.k4I4BjNH028824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration > > > spike wrote: > > One aspect of libertarianism that I always choked on was the notion of > > open > > borders. To this day I still can't quite see how such a policy could > ever > > work. > > I must admit I have the opposite problem. Why wouldn't it? I could imagine Sweden would be a very different place today with no restrictions of any kind on immigration. If any country existed that had no border restrictions, I could imagine the entire world using it as a prison, a dumping ground for welfare cases, a place of exile for the very poor or very sick, anyone the world's governments wanted gone would get a one-way ticket there. Come to think of it, the US and Australia were both used for that purpose before border restrictions were put in place. > Of course, I tend to annoy my fellow Swedes by suggesting that it would be > a good thing to have a few hundred thousand Russians colonize our northern > inland and make it productive... I imagine Russians are looking pretty desirable, in light of some alternatives. > Borders are so arbitrary. If they are a good thing, wouldn't it make sense > to add a few within current nations? If that is bad, why not remove a few > between nations? And if that is bad too, how come all nations have the > perfect size?... I advocate removing the border between the US, Canada, Australia and Britain. Those four guys are similar enough their citizens should be considered interchangeable. I could see that club expanding to include several other European nations as well. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 18 04:27:14 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:27:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605180427.k4I4RMXj022438@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > I wrote "I am submitting ____ votes.", and then filled in, in red > pen, the numeral 0... Woohoo! Good deal, Lee, and I'm glad to see you posting again. Do continue in like fashion. I too thought it over and didn't enter, but didn't really have the super-rationality thing mastered yet. I might not have been able to afford a stamp in those days. ... > As to superrationality, several years later I defected away from > the superrational camp. My reasoning: if you know the other person > is going to cooperate, then according to the table, you must defect...Lee Hofstadter's last SciAm article was (perhaps unintentionally) hilarious. He sent the PD game to 22 of his smartest and most Hofstadter-like acquaintances, with the instructions to think it over carefully, then in about a week he would call and get their responses. Hoping for approximately 90% cooperators, he was terribly discouraged with only one to go, he had 13 defectors and 8 cooperators. The last call was to the one person he was most sure would cooperate. Hofstadter's magnanimous friend said something like "With only the information you have given me, I would have to defect." Hofstadter then told him his defection made it 14 defectors to 8 cooperators. His friend reacted with outraged righteous indignation, ending with "I am really disappointed in your friends, Doug." With that comment I nearly wet my diapers. I put the magazine down and laughed uncontrollably for several minutes. I was in the college library at the time. Word got around. No one would talk to me. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu May 18 03:40:25 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] chess and lizards In-Reply-To: <200605180218.k4I2IvAD018543@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060518034025.71847.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. > Yudkowsky > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin > award > > > > Russell, your argument also proves that Deep > Blue's programmers can't > > make changes to Deep Blue that improve its playing > ability without > > actually testing it in many games against > Kasparov. One game can't > > possibly be enough to distinguish between > potential changes because the > > win or loss only provides one bit of > information... > > -- > > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky ... > > > Why against Kasparov? Rather than against the > previous version of itself, > playing 24/7 and keeping score? Aside, Kasparov may > have been the strongest > human chess player but was shown repeatedly to not > be the strongest human in > games against computers, possibly not even in the > top 5. Spike :) What you refer to is called a genetic algorithm or a variant Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Both are recursive self-improving algorithms based on darwinian selection or more generally the concept of empiricism which Eliezer is contending is unnecessary at least in regards to the very large but finite state-space of chess. He seems to insist that a "superintelligence" would be able to win against a human chess grandmaster by simply "solving" the game analytically. But Eliezer could your imaginary Superintelligence beat Wonder Woman? Russell on the other hand insists that such is not possible due to some not quite rigorously proven corollary of Godel's Theorem which essentially says that creativity cannot be analytically derived. It is a really interesting debate and they are neck to neck in my opinion. > > Whole nuther unrelated question please Eli. In your > summit talk you made a > reference to politicians not being lizards. The > audience made an unexpected > reaction, mirth or surprise. You looked around as > if to say whaaaat? This > was my reaction too: whaaaat? > > Hipsters, does the term "lizard" have some new > meaning other than the > reptile, some political meaning? Yes, Spike, there is a British pseudo-celebrity named David Icke who was once a world famous soccer champion but is now trying his hand at politics on the platform that the world's most powerful politicians are really a conspiracy of reptillian aliens in human disguise. I don't even dignify his theory by keeping up with his antics but amazingly he has sold quite a few books on the subject. Kudos BTW to Eliezer for keeping abreast of fringe-nutter politics. Sorry no one else got your reference. :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu May 18 04:50:03 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:50:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <200605180411.k4I4BjNH028824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605180411.k4I4BjNH028824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On May 17, 2006, at 9:11 PM, spike wrote: > If any country existed that had no > border restrictions, I could imagine the entire world using it as a > prison, > a dumping ground for welfare cases, a place of exile for the very > poor or > very sick, anyone the world's governments wanted gone would get a > one-way > ticket there. Come to think of it, the US and Australia were both > used for > that purpose before border restrictions were put in place. I would point out that at the point in time the US (as well as pre-US colonies) and Australia were used for this purpose, there was very little cost to the average resident (ignoring the usual xenophobic rationalizations) because there was very little government to speak of, and at least in the US, no taxes to speak of either. Immigrants prospered or withered with relatively little negative consequence to those around them, and most prospered in that environment in the way that humans tend to. The argument in modern times for a country like Sweden and even the US is that an immigrant has the ability to extract a significant amount of resources from the residents by default, which increases the risk to residents. The risk has increased, but the benefit has stayed the same. J. Andrew Rogers From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Thu May 18 04:12:51 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Latest advances in antiaging medicine Message-ID: <20060518041251.38681.qmail@web52610.mail.yahoo.com> A forward-looking review (a link to the full paper is found below the abstract): Keio J Med. 2005 Jun;54(2):85-94. Latest advances in antiaging medicine. Grossman T. Frontier Medical Institute, Golden, Colorado, USA. terry at kurzweiltech.com Rapid progress is being made in our ability to modify the aging process. Rather than serving as a period of debility and decreasing health, for many people, the later years of life are becoming a period of continued productivity, independence and good health. Progress is also being made in increasing average lifespan. The leading causes of death (cardiovascular disease, cancer, lung disease, diabetes) are the end result of decades-long processes. With current knowledge, it is possible to delay the onset of these diseases. This can be assisted by lifestyle choices incorporating healthful diet, exercise, stress management, and nutritional supplementation. Emerging genomics technology will allow individuals to establish personalized programs, while early detection of heart disease and cancer will contribute to longevity. Biotechnological therapies involving stem cells, recombinant DNA, proteomics, therapeutic cloning and gene-based therapies are expected to play major roles in promoting successful aging. We are at the threshold of artificial intelligence (AI) and nanotechnology (NT). AI will allow for a merging of our biological thinking with advanced forms of non-biological intelligence to vastly expand our ability to think, create and experience. NT will ultimately allow us to build devices able to build molecules much like our current cellular machinery does, one atom at a time. It is the goal of today's antiaging medicine to forestall disease and aging long enough for people to utilize the powerful biotechnology and nanotechnology therapies that will be developed over the decades ahead. These future therapies have the potential to greatly extend longevity. Full Paper: http://www.kjm.keio.ac.jp/past/54/2/85.pdf Abstract @ PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16077258 http://IanGoddard.net "A proposition is a picture of reality. [...] A picture cannot, however, place itself outside its representational form. [...] 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 Thu May 18 05:52:38 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 22:52:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] chess and lizards In-Reply-To: <20060518034025.71847.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200605180553.k4I5r2Nk019559@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian ... > > > > Hipsters, does the term "lizard" have some new > > meaning other than the reptile, some political meaning? spike > > Yes, Spike, there is a British pseudo-celebrity named > David Icke who was once a world famous soccer champion > but is now trying his hand at politics on the platform > that the world's most powerful politicians are really > a conspiracy of reptillian aliens in human disguise... OK I was thinking it might have something to do with a Douglas Adams' "So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish" line about "Take me to your lizard." Here I will confess that I am not a true techno-wizard, but merely rather only the lower ranking techno-geek wannabe, for I never really did see what was so funny about Douglas Adams. Amusing, but not fall on the floor laughing funny. > Kudos BTW to Eliezer for keeping abreast > of fringe-nutter politics. Sorry no one else got your > reference. :) Stuart LaForge The reference might have been accidental; perhaps Eliezer will comment further. I will not for this is my fifth and last post of the day. Thanks guys, lotta good commentary going on ExI today and yesterday. Lee is back, Anders is back, Ian Goddard, J.Andrew, Eli and Keith are posting, I saw something from our much missed Amara, Gene isn't having to kick anyone's butt, people are not jumping each other's cases, ahh life is gooood. {8-] What were we doing wrong before? spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 18 06:12:26 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 02:12:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration (EP) In-Reply-To: <1697.86.130.18.238.1147919632.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060518012320.0b3097c8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:33 AM 5/18/2006 +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: snip >So far the history of the US and EU seems to suggest that borders are >fairly useless. They are not very good at keeping undesirables out or >desirables in. Mostly they serve as convenient expressions of legitimized >xenophobia. An exact statement Anders. 100 people may have been tops for a hunter gatherer group. So we are talking 10 exp 6 to 10 exp 7 larger groups with weapons far beyond rocks and hunter gatherer psychological traits. Developing technology (and in some places birth control) has kept the hunter gatherer war reflex at bay--with minor exceptions--for the last 60 years. Nanotechnology and related *might* come along in time. But if it does not, we are in for an orgy of wars.. Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 18 05:02:33 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 01:02:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060518004229.027a7070@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:47 PM 5/17/2006 -0700, spike wrote: snip >One aspect of libertarianism that I always choked on was the notion of open >borders. To this day I still can't quite see how such a policy could ever >work. Simple. All you need to do is make all locations equally attractive. The main reason people come to the US is that it is more attractive than where they are. Most of the reason is that there are too many people for the resources of the region. I am working on a novel set in a world where the AIs (and/or uploaded humans) have engineered removing 99 plus percent of the population from the world. Posted the explanatory chapter (in 4 parts) to the sl4 list where it elicited no on list comment whatsoever. Immigration from Mexico will stop when is it equally miserable on both sides of the border. Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 18 05:20:54 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 01:20:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <446BDAC2.7090300@goldenfuture.net> References: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060518010602.0b201170@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:24 PM 5/17/2006 -0400, Joseph wrote: >Doesn't that seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy? > >I mean, of COURSE the people who believe that reanimation is feasible >are going to be cryonicists. If you accept that one premise, no matter >how slim the odds, it becomes a better bet than the alternative. Joseph, appreciate your defense, but wish you and others would take a meta look at his attention seeking behavior and not reward it. snip (person I will not reward by naming him) > >. But Keith Henson loses his > > temper calling the post 'troll bait'. On this list it is. Worked too. I am also annoyed by spam. > > See this is why I don't want to be at all seriously involved. Great. From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 18 06:41:39 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 08:41:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060518064138.GP26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 05:20:00PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > Hard takeoff, as I understand it, doesn't refer to the growing amount of impact > that intelligence growth will have on the outside environment, but to the growth > itself. If an AI is capable of making the first improvement to itself, this already You don't have to understand yourself in order to make improvements, use evolutionary methods. > means that this AI had enough knowledge about its structure and ways of improving > itself to not seek any extra knowledge outside of its immediate environment. If you 0wn the global network, your outside environment is the whole planet. Not much of a handicap, eh? > And even if such AI were required to go outside of its environment to learn how to > improve itself, a smarter AI should be able to minimize that requirement on each > iteration. In any case, I don't see how hard takeoff is not inevitable soon after > the first iteration. Hard takeoff is a direct consequence of hardware overhang (human designers build lousy systems) and a large pool of hardware to 0wn and expand into. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 18 06:49:46 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 08:49:46 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060518064946.GQ26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 02:32:05PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > The outside environment is not as complex as you think. It just looks > that way to you because you lack the computing power to exploit its > regularities. You're comparing chess with navigating reality good enough to kick our collective bottoms? No mean feat, that. > Your argument works nicely for natural selection. Not elsewhere. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From amara at amara.com Thu May 18 07:23:33 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:23:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration Message-ID: MB mbb386 at main.nc.us : >> Also here (with a discussion) >> http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/17/economists-on-immigration/ >Amara, this is so depressing. Don't worry. I have my eyes on another place: sunny, Mediterranean, optimistic people, no working limits for all EU member states, strong economy, science/technology-friendly culture, presently injecting alot of money (and for the last 1/2 dozen years) into the sciences to raise the education level of its citizens. Immigration bureaucracy is a pain wherever you go, but the benefits on the other side should outweigh it. Amara From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 18 09:56:36 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:56:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yeah! Where the hell is Within-Text Highlighting? In-Reply-To: <446BCAC9.6020501@posthuman.com> References: <37695.81.152.102.156.1147908558.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060517235532.74753.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605171809v446ca1e9w8c0235b5638d1b1a@mail.gmail.com> <446BCAC9.6020501@posthuman.com> Message-ID: On 5/18/06, Brian Atkins wrote: > The google toolbar already has a feature to highlight search terms: > > http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/toolbar/index.html > I refuse to install the Google Toolbar on my pcs, but others may value the features provided enough to do so. Google will do autoupdates to the toolbar software without your knowledge or permission. For me this is unacceptable behaviour. Google has promised to do no evil, but in my opinion, the default installation falls under the heading of spyware. Using the default installation, Google will collect information about the URLs you visit and the text on these pages. Google says that if you switch off the 'Advanced' features this will reduce the amount of data they store about you. So you could call it 'optional spyware' if you like. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 18 10:07:18 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:07:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <446BB34E.6010107@pobox.com> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171451n4f691c70p6566fe209442d1b4@mail.gmail.com> <446BA487.1000206@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171542k134d2bfara687a2fbab98fc30@mail.gmail.com> <446BB34E.6010107@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060518100718.GT26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 04:35:42PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > internally observing a specific chess game played by two algorithms > against each other. The latter option strikes me as silly in practice, > that is, a suboptimal use of computing power, but doable if some Do you have a proof that this is a suboptimal use of computing power? > superintelligence wanted to do it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu May 18 11:42:43 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 07:42:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer><4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com><011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer><86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com><22991B07-FC12-4FD2-BDC9-4A6C97415387@mac.com> <446B7684.9030509@pobox.com> Message-ID: Eliezer: > Microsoft Outlook is a *deliberate effort* to warp accepted standards in > order to force people to adopt Microsoft Outlook. > > Under these circumstances, in my opinion, Eugen should refuse to change > his mail client *on principle*. It is rarely wise to reward defection > in the Prisoner's Dilemma. But what if Outlook users don't accept these standards and evaluate the situation using a different standard according to which Mr. Leitl is the defector? But let's leave that specific question alone and focus on this kind of situation in general. Is it ever possible for a person to adopt a principle using set of principles opposed to that principle? H. From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 18 12:11:51 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:11:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: References: <446B7684.9030509@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20060518121151.GK26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:42:43AM -0400, Heartland wrote: > But what if Outlook users don't accept these standards and evaluate the situation > using a different standard according to which Mr. Leitl is the defector? Look, MS Outlook/Express users are completely free to develop their own, alternative set of RFCs, and an alternative Internet, and leave us all in peace. But we built this city of rock'n'roll, and these are our rules. Don't like them -- don't play. End of discussion. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 18 12:22:15 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:22:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060518122215.GN26713@leitl.org> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:47:48PM -0700, spike wrote: > One aspect of libertarianism that I always choked on was the notion of open > borders. To this day I still can't quite see how such a policy could ever > work. In biology, there are no artificial borders. The trend with human territories is coalescing into larger and larger compartments, and once gradients are suficiently equilibrated there's no longer much purpose in compartmentation. Larger nation-states were a novelty post-fiefdom, but now we've got agglomeration on continet scale (North America, EU). I think this trend will continue. Once you go to space, then latency and separation forms natural barriers, where cultures can diverge. This is especially valid for solid-state cultures, which have >10^6 speedup rates. Relativistic lag on planetary scale becomes a real problem. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From velvet977 at hotmail.com Thu May 18 12:57:55 2006 From: velvet977 at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 08:57:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) References: <446B7684.9030509@pobox.com> <20060518121151.GK26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen: > Look, MS Outlook/Express users are completely free to develop their own, > alternative set of RFCs, and an alternative Internet, and leave us all in peace. > But we built this city of rock'n'roll, and these are our rules. > Don't like them -- don't play. End of discussion. Who is "us"? H. From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 18 14:06:38 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:06:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend References: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060518090144.04f7fdf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:20 AM 5/18/2006, Keith wrote: >Joseph, appreciate your defense, but wish you and others would take a meta >look at his attention seeking behavior and not reward it. This message and its subject line ought to have sent to moderators, not expressed on this list. It simply does not set a tone that we want to support. Thanks Keith, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer President, Extropy Institute (not closed yet) 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 mstriz at gmail.com Thu May 18 14:27:30 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:27:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <20060518122215.GN26713@leitl.org> References: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060518122215.GN26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 5/18/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > In biology, there are no artificial borders. Like with deer, wolves and all other territorial animals? Defining territory in order to acquire and protect resources is useful enough that cognitive capacities evolved for it. Don't be surprised if people have a natural tendency to invent national borders or property rights. Martin From natasha at natasha.cc Thu May 18 14:00:00 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:00:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060517195115.54283.qmail@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060518084337.04f0d930@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:03 PM 5/17/2006, Ned Late wrote: >Agreed, but no one, outside of cryonics enthusiasts, that I personally >have talked to has said reanimation is feasible; that's all. No biggie, >merely slightly discouraging. Inside cryonics, many people do not think reanimation is possible at this time. I don't and I am signed up. Your question would have to present a time frame in order to be viable, and that time frame would have to have the rate of progress across many areas (basic STEEP + other areas). The reason I do not rely on personal interviews as a reliable source is because it would take a heck of a long time to first learn what their information sources are. Peoples' knowledge base comes from their information sources. If one person only listens to gossip, then he will not have a balanced, unbiased knowledge about a topic. If another person only reads the New York Times, he will not have a balanced, unbiased knowledge about a topic. Where we obtain our information affects the level of balance we have about any topic. Not very many people have the time or patience to perform environment scanning across domains. Further, not very many people understand science or technology and if they do, a small percentage of them read recent findings and reports on the development curve of same. Lastly, patents that are in the process are highly confidential. So, the people you consult with may not have enough substantial information to even be able to fully understand what is involved with reanimation, let alone developments in the vitrification and protectants. I have two brothers who are surgeons. Both are religious. One agrees that cryonics could be feasible. The other laughs. They have different personalities and influences accumulated through their different medical training and specializations. (Beside, they both also know nothing about nutrition.) >Look, only came to this list because I once asked a professional (who has >since died) if Extropy consisted of libertarians. He replied "no they are >all kinds" and added one shouldn't give up so easily. This is true and sound advice. >But Keith Henson loses his temper calling the post 'troll bait'. What does one person have to do with the list? >See this is why I don't want to be at all seriously involved. I'm sorry to hear this, but it would be advantageous to you to actually branch out and apply critical thinking to your thoughts and ideas. Best wishes, 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Thu May 18 14:04:57 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 07:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <446BDAC2.7090300@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20060518140457.53435.qmail@web50204.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Joseph Bloch To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:24:02 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend > I mean, of COURSE the people who believe that reanimation is feasible > are going to be cryonicists. If you accept that one premise, no matter > how slim the odds, it becomes a better bet than the alternative. I would go further: Assuming one is aware of the option, and does not have mitigating circumstances like sacrificing oneself for their survivors' inheritance or believing that they won't go to heaven if they have themselves frozen, then one who is aware of the option and does not exercise it is behaving in an irrational fashion. It cannot be, as far as I can see, rational to not get frozen simply because "it won't work, anyway". Five thousand years ago, the rational thing to do was mummification; what could you lose? Today, it's cryogenics. -- Words of the Sentient: It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all. --Thomas Jefferson to M. D'Ivernois, 1795. E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 18 15:11:12 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:11:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060518122215.GN26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060518151112.GD26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:27:30AM -0400, Martin Striz wrote: > On 5/18/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > In biology, there are no artificial borders. > > Like with deer, wolves and all other territorial animals? Defining Good point. At individuum level and (related) social group there's territory protection. I wasn't thinking about such small-scale clustering. You wouldn't see Canuck deer erect a fence to separate themselves from Yankee deer. > territory in order to acquire and protect resources is useful enough > that cognitive capacities evolved for it. > > Don't be surprised if people have a natural tendency to invent > national borders or property rights. Absolutely -- and with small tribes it made even sense, from a genome's view. But the bulk of our interactions in urban areas is now among unrelated individuals, so clustering by other markers (language, culture, mobile phone brand) is an atavism. The language boundaries are arguably eroding with multination constructs, such as the EU (and early US). Do similiar things happen in Asia? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu May 18 15:30:32 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 08:30:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer><4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com><011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer><86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com><22991B07-FC12-4FD2-BDC9-4A6C97415387@mac.com> <446B7684.9030509@pobox.com> Message-ID: On May 18, 2006, at 4:42 AM, Heartland wrote: > But what if Outlook users don't accept these standards and evaluate > the situation > using a different standard according to which Mr. Leitl is the > defector? Obviously if they are using a different standard than the email RFCs, they have no desire to interoperate at all. The email RFCs are used to subscribe to this list, so it is pretty clear what the local standard is. In this case, both parties claim to be using email RFCs for their implementation but at least one apparently is not. J. Andrew Rogers From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 18 16:05:26 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:05:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bluff and the Darwin award In-Reply-To: <20060518100718.GT26713@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> <476B3022-6321-4EB0-A6EE-911DEC0E0831@mac.com> <8d71341e0605171334i3dc8d432m13403462392e4880@mail.gmail.com> <446B9655.3090906@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171451n4f691c70p6566fe209442d1b4@mail.gmail.com> <446BA487.1000206@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605171542k134d2bfara687a2fbab98fc30@mail.gmail.com> <446BB34E.6010107@pobox.com> <20060518100718.GT26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <446C9B46.5070103@pobox.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 04:35:42PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >>internally observing a specific chess game played by two algorithms >>against each other. The latter option strikes me as silly in practice, >>that is, a suboptimal use of computing power, but doable if some > > Do you have a proof that this is a suboptimal use of computing power? > >>superintelligence wanted to do it. You misunderstand, I think; I meant that *deliberately avoiding* observing any specific chess game would probably be a suboptimal use of computing power. But you could *probably* write a chess-playing program using only thoughts that were abstracted and not associated with any specific chess positions, but only if you were a superintelligence and wanted to be silly. I cannot prove that this is a suboptimal use of computing power, and in fact I deleted a caveat to that effect from an early draft of the email. Now that I think about in more detail, it's hard to see how an SI would ever be *forced* to think about a specific chess position while writing a chess-playing program, because any specific scenario that ends up being probably relevant to future games must generalize in its key aspects beyond that exact board position. There is therefore, perhaps, no reason to ever consider it as an exact board position, rather than as the category it generalizes to. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jonkc at att.net Thu May 18 16:59:23 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:59:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Microsoft References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org><4e674fa00605150753k63b83bf8pb8f1cc6a07bfdc27@mail.gmail.com><20060515153454.GQ26713@leitl.org><003c01c6785a$a0601900$2b084e0c@MyComputer><4902d9990605151417h1db1c3b8o84abb94759748ede@mail.gmail.com><011e01c678b8$53fc5840$d2084e0c@MyComputer><86762361-4CB6-4E7C-9FDC-28CE7B4A0C76@mac.com><22991B07-FC12-4FD2-BDC9-4A6C97415387@mac.com> <446B7684.9030509@pobox.com> Message-ID: <002001c67a9c$743d7770$250a4e0c@MyComputer> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > Microsoft Outlook is a *deliberate effort* to warp accepted standards The trouble is that the people who have accepted these wonderful "Accepted Standards" are in the MINORITY, most people use a different standard and this is a problem especially for a communication standard. I'm sure Esperanto is a very well made language but as nobody uses it the thing is useless. > in order to force people to adopt Microsoft Outlook Your "accepted standard" people tried to force people to do one thing and Microsoft tried to force people to do something else, like it or not Microsoft won and proved to be the stronger, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. John K Clark From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Thu May 18 16:44:41 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:44:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542961B8212@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> > Lee Corbin wrote: > > My reasoning: if you know the other person > is going to cooperate, then according to the > table, you must defect. Likewise, if you know > that the person is going to defect, then you > must defect. (Failure to do so simply means > that you aren't reading the payoff table, or > don't know what it means.) Only in the case > that you don't know what the person will do- > --and, most importantly, there is reason to > believe that his behavior is correlated with > yours---can you logically cooperate. Lee, Then might we say that superrationality is prescriptive, rather than decisive? In other words, that it doesn't tell you what the rational response is to a fixed scenario, but rather what alterations to that scenario (which may be within your sphere of influence) could modify the results toward some positive-sum outcome? I agree that in the case of iterated PD, with side-channel communications unavailable, it's really a cut-and-dry outcome, but as far as informing us toward real-world decisions it leaves a lot to be desired. Any communications before or during the PD, between agents, could conceivably alter the dynamics (in effect, allow the establishment of a side-channel protocol based on primary-channel patterning). Also, might it be possible for previously-isolated intelligent agents constrained to only their primary-channel in the PD (assuming they possess *any* assumptions in common about the world) to negotiate a side-channel protocol through their choice/response to another agent's actions over a large number of iterations? Perhaps this only makes sense where the total number of iterations is unknown, but known to be large. My intended direction with this is that if there is any side-channel communications, then the agents involved could construct an accountability mechanism. It might work this way: The agents voluntarily bind themselves to cooperate, after which they are irrevocably exposed to a greater single-case loss (group ostracism) than any possible single-case gain (effectively ceding freedom of action), if and when they defect against a colluder. In effect, they would be forgoing all (or many) future positive-sums, by the result of a single action. This would seem to be particularly salient as the number of agents increases, because the magnitude of the potential penalty would escalate more quickly (loss compounded over I iterations vs. single iteration gain). Just some thoughts... -Chris From hal at finney.org Thu May 18 17:35:13 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] chess and lizards Message-ID: <20060518173513.D64C057FD1@finney.org> Spike asked: > Whole nuther unrelated question please Eli. In your summit talk you made a > reference to politicians not being lizards. The audience made an unexpected > reaction, mirth or surprise. You looked around as if to say whaaaat? This > was my reaction too: whaaaat? Here's what I think happened. Eliezer made some straightforward comment about politicians being smarter than lizards. This is plainly true. However it is also a perfect 'straight line' setting up a joke, a put-down of politicians suggesting that they are dumber than lizards. The audience members each mentally supplied the punch line and laughed at that. I don't know whether Eliezer failed to anticipate that his comment would be interpreted that way, or whether this was a set-up with feigned surprise, intended for humorous effect. Hal From sentience at pobox.com Thu May 18 18:47:54 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:47:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] chess and lizards In-Reply-To: <20060518173513.D64C057FD1@finney.org> References: <20060518173513.D64C057FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <446CC15A.2090105@pobox.com> Hal Finney wrote: > Spike asked: > >>Whole nuther unrelated question please Eli. In your summit talk you made a >>reference to politicians not being lizards. The audience made an unexpected >>reaction, mirth or surprise. You looked around as if to say whaaaat? This >>was my reaction too: whaaaat? > > Here's what I think happened. Eliezer made some straightforward comment > about politicians being smarter than lizards. This is plainly true. > However it is also a perfect 'straight line' setting up a joke, a put-down > of politicians suggesting that they are dumber than lizards. The audience > members each mentally supplied the punch line and laughed at that. > > I don't know whether Eliezer failed to anticipate that his comment > would be interpreted that way, or whether this was a set-up with feigned > surprise, intended for humorous effect. I thought it might be worth a smile, but not a laugh loud enough to drown out my next lines. Maybe it has to do with "the wrong lizard might win" or "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos", or there's just some pop-culture thing I don't know. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From asa at nada.kth.se Thu May 18 18:49:35 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 20:49:35 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: <1697.86.130.18.238.1147919632.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <36292.81.152.102.156.1147978175.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Lee Corbin wrote: > It depends on perspective: as a *group* this could be disastrous: > What if the Romans had opened their borders in 220 B.C.? They > shortly would have ceased to exist as a distinct culture or as a > distinct people. Latin would have been swamped. You mean like how Chinese culture got swamped by Mongolian? :-) In fact, had the romans opened their borders (and loosened the archaic citizenship rules) I think we would be living in a far more latinate world. If you look at the culture of the "barbarians" that moved in at the end of the empire you will see that they quite quickly adopted a great deal of roman culture. It was just that the empire itself had broken, and the loss of complexity set things back centuries. One of the core reasons for the roman problems was the privileges given to citizens, requiring a vast number of non-citizens to supply them. (I actually did an alternate history based on this idea for a roleplaying game, producing a Celtic-Roman Europe http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~asa/Game/Fukuyama/aquincorum.html ) Overall, I don't see any particular value in a culture per se beyond the good of human diversity. It is not obvious to me that I would be worse off if my home culture was mixed with other cultures. Sure, it requires a bit more tolerance and adaptability, but the benefits of a wider toolkit of ideas, connections and approaches to life seem far greater. > But why Russians? The Swedish government should issue invitations to > the most needy and prolific people it can find, e.g. Moslems from > several places in the world, or Mexicans. Why shouldn't the Swedish > government feel a moral obligation to do what I suggest? After all, > *economically* it'll quite possibly help Sweden, but even if not, > it will certainly help whatever country the newcomers arrive from. Exactly. I love to point out how hypocritical our left is with its traditional promotion of international solidarity and heavy protectionism. It should applaud when Swedish jobs go to Portugal or China, since from a utilitarian point of view they do much more good there. And why try to limit "social tourism" (not that it occurs to any great extent) when they claim having heavy social security nets are good for individual growth and productivity? At least some parts of the Swedish right have hidden racism as an excuse. And I honestly believe Sweden would become a better place if it was "invaded" by a lot more people. It would likely become messier, less stable and not the Sweden we are used to. But melting pots are usually where new ideas are created. Of course, the key problem with integration in Europe is that everybody is obsessed with nationality and culture and hance preventing immigrants from integrating well. So I seriously doubt my ideas would ever get a chance. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 18 19:04:33 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 20:04:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542961B8212@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542961B8212@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605181204u35dc619bxed817a0d6af5d8fe@mail.gmail.com> On 5/18/06, Christopher Healey wrote: > > I agree that in the case of iterated PD, with side-channel > communications unavailable, it's really a cut-and-dry outcome, but as > far as informing us toward real-world decisions it leaves a lot to be > desired. The good news is that iterated PD leads towards mutual cooperation ("Tit for Tat" is the name usually given to the strategy, or family of strategies, that tends to evolve); you don't even need side channels. It's only the unrealistic one-shot variant that leads towards mutual defection. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 18 19:14:40 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:14:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: <200605180411.k4I4BjNH028824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: I don't see how an illegal immigrant especially can extract much wealth from the system without working for it. Last time I checked valid id, address and so on were required to get on most welfare programs or to enroll in most largely tax subsidized programs. An exception may be K-12 education. Also many things are closed to non- citizens. So I am not sure I buy that immigrants are extracting more wealth due to the welfare state. Even if they were this would seem to be an argument against the welfare state more than against immigrants. - samantha On May 17, 2006, at 9:50 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On May 17, 2006, at 9:11 PM, spike wrote: >> If any country existed that had no >> border restrictions, I could imagine the entire world using it as a >> prison, >> a dumping ground for welfare cases, a place of exile for the very >> poor or >> very sick, anyone the world's governments wanted gone would get a >> one-way >> ticket there. Come to think of it, the US and Australia were both >> used for >> that purpose before border restrictions were put in place. > > > I would point out that at the point in time the US (as well as pre-US > colonies) and Australia were used for this purpose, there was very > little cost to the average resident (ignoring the usual xenophobic > rationalizations) because there was very little government to speak > of, and at least in the US, no taxes to speak of either. Immigrants > prospered or withered with relatively little negative consequence to > those around them, and most prospered in that environment in the way > that humans tend to. The argument in modern times for a country like > Sweden and even the US is that an immigrant has the ability to > extract a significant amount of resources from the residents by > default, which increases the risk to residents. The risk has > increased, but the benefit has stayed the same. > > J. Andrew Rogers > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Thu May 18 19:23:01 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060518151608.GE26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060518192301.98816.qmail@web50202.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Eugen Leitl To: KAZ Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:16:08 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:04:57AM -0700, KAZ wrote: > > Five thousand years ago, the rational thing to do was mummification; what could you lose? > It wasn't a rational thing, it was a religion thing. No, because religion was as close as they had to science, at the time. Remember, religion started, in part, as really poorly thought-out science. "Why is there thunder? Well, I figure it's because giants are rolling the moon across the clouds". They just didn't have scienfic method, yet. If you were an ancient egyptian, you were pretty sure that NOT being mummified meant you were just plain dead, therefore getting mummified was your best shot at an afterlife. It's not like they had cryonics and the hope of nano-rebuilding of human cells. > The difference between mummification and cryonics is the same > difference as voodoo and modern medicine. Precisely. At one time modern medicine didn't exist, and a shaman was better than nothing for many kinds of ailments. > Remember, they poo-pooed sterile technique and microbial > theory of infection, too. Indeed, and now they've gone too far the other direction, where "germs" and "disinfection" are a societal substitute for "that is unclean, taboo, it must be purified", and people over-clean their homes until their immune systems atrophe and they become more vulnerable to illness instead of less. > > Today, it's cryogenics. > It's cryonics. Cryogenics is the science and technology of deep temperatures. thpbpbpbp -- Words of the Sentient: Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having these arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? --Patrick Henry E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From jrd1415 at gmail.com Thu May 18 19:30:22 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:30:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award Message-ID: Someone wrote: > > > For what are basically economic reasons it will take nanotech level technology to get us into space. I don't see any way to avoid strong AI. Then someone else replied: > > I encountered this myth regularly when I was working as a consultant for NASA, and it just doesn't hold water. Then Samantha wrote: > Depends on what you mean I suspect. The context of > these remarks is getting enough of humanity into space and far enough away to end up with self-sustaining colonies/outposts that give humanity a much better chance of survival. To satisfy all of these constraints we are talking self-sustaining groups of on the order of thousands of humans (genetic diversity) preferably relocated outside the Solar System or at least in the outer system. Please tell me what you are going to use pre-nanotech to make this a reality. Now me: This is an economic problem. Man hours per kilogram of payload. To lower this cost, to lower the man hours per kilo, you need to have more of the work done by machines, ie automation. It's not magic, and it's some futuristic ?ber-tech. You don't need full-on self-replication with 100 percent closure. A lesser degree of closure will do. In the end it's still just advanced automation. It's irrelevant whether it's nano-, micro-, or macro-tech. I'm working on it. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Thu May 18 19:30:36 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:30:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] WHITE PAPER: Numenta's Hierarchical Temporal Memory (Jeff Hawkins and Dileep George) Message-ID: FYI, it looks like Jeff Hawkins and Dileep George have made available a white paper on Hierarchical Temporal Memory, the neurally-inspired framework discussed in Hawkins' book, "On Intelligence." I'm still not convinced about how well their system will work on more natural/complex stimuli, but it's an interesting read nonetheless. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Numenta Date: May 17, 2006 1:49 PM Subject: Numenta Newsletter #3 To: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Please note: you may be receiving this email as a duplicate of an earlier email. We're sending the newsletter to some subscribers a second time because some of the links did not work in the earlier email. We apologize for the inconvenience!) May 17, 2006 Dear Newsletter Subscriber: This is the third newsletter from Numenta. We are pleased to announce that we have completed a first white paper on Hierarchical Temporal Memory. It is now available on our web site http://www.numenta.com/Numenta_HTM_Concepts.pdf. The white paper introduces the concepts and theory behind HTM technology. For those of you who would like to learn more about Numenta's technology, this is a good place to start. In order to create a stronger product offering, and to facilitate more targeted communications, we ask you to tell us a little bit about your interest in Numenta. Please follow the profile link at the bottom of the email in order to answer two quick questions. (Doing so is entirely optional, and failure to do so will NOT remove you from our list, but we'd appreciate it if you would take a minute to respond to our two questions!) We continue to make good progress on designing and developing our Hierarchical Temporal Memory (HTM) toolset. We have completed a first set of learning algorithms, and are moving towards testing them in our production environment. We recently decided to move from the MatLab development environment for the learning algorithms to using Python, which will enable more rapid prototyping and a smoother integration into the C++ production environment. The overall architecture of the system has continued to progress, along with early work on the tools themselves. Our hope is to complete an integration milestone, bringing together the learning algorithms within the system architecture, within the next month. We have three partners participating with us in our Numenta Partner Program today. I'm pleased to say that we have hired Phillip Shoemaker to be our Director of Developer Programs. Phillip has substantial experience in working with developer communities. Our tentative plan remains to release a beta version of our toolset before the end of 2006. It is likely that our first developer symposium will be in 2007, giving developers a chance to work with the tools for some time before meeting together. Thank you for your continuing interest and your support. We are very pleased with our progress, and continue to feel that HTM technology offers the potential to solve some significant problems in computing across a broad range of application areas. Donna Dubinsky CEO, Numenta Notes: Our first two newsletters can be accessed at our web site, http://www.numenta.com/newsletter. ------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this newsletter, follow this link. You may update your profile by following this link. Copyright 2006, Numenta, Inc. All rights reserved. All materials contained in this newsletter are protected by United States and international copyright laws and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Numenta, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of this newsletter. From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Thu May 18 19:34:02 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:34:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: <200605180411.k4I4BjNH028824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <3D26BA76-00AE-4E59-BA13-9983E4ACA24C@ceruleansystems.com> On May 18, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Even if they were this would seem > to be an argument against the welfare state more than against > immigrants. That is the interpretation I would prefer. J. Andrew Rogers From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 18 19:44:15 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 21:44:15 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060518194415.GS26713@leitl.org> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 12:30:22PM -0700, jeffrey davis wrote: > This is an economic problem. Man hours per kilogram of payload. To lower It's also an ecological problems. Perchlorate/metal/resin boosters, boranes and fluorine and dimethylhydrazine/NOx need not apply. It has to be clean, and not even seed the stratosphere too much. Hydrogen/oxygen is basically the only thing left. Fred Hapgood keeps this great line as his .sig: In twenty years half the population of Europe will have visited the moon. -- Jules Verne, 1865 > this cost, to lower the man hours per kilo, you need to have more of the > work done by machines, ie automation. It's not magic, and it's some Another issue is failure rate. You need something at least as safe as the civilian air fleet. > futuristic ?ber-tech. You don't need full-on self-replication with 100 > percent closure. A lesser degree of closure will do. In the end it's still > just advanced automation. It's irrelevant whether it's nano-, micro-, or > macro-tech. > > I'm working on it. Good luck. We really need an affordable way to get a ton or so into LEO. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 18 19:56:07 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 20:56:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0605181256u70daffd9rf2f737716467bf8a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/18/06, jeffrey davis wrote: > This is an economic problem. Man hours per kilogram of payload. To lower > this cost, to lower the man hours per kilo, you need to have more of the > work done by machines, ie automation. > Well, not so much per kilogram of payload (existing launchers would be good enough to scrape by with, if the flight rate could be increased enough) as per person-year of life in space (the latter of course complicated by the large up-front cost of building a habitat as opposed to an outpost). > It's not magic, and it's some futuristic ?ber-tech. You don't need full-on > self-replication with 100 percent closure. A lesser degree of closure will > do. In the end it's still just advanced automation. It's irrelevant > whether it's nano-, micro-, or macro-tech. > True, but saying "90% closure is okay" doesn't buy you much, as it turns out; by the time you've cracked the problem of converting e.g. lunar regolith into solar cells, that's the hard part of the problem. Nanotech's looking like the best bet for solving it, though perhaps sufficiently advanced macro/microtech robotics would suffice. > I'm working on it. > Good! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu May 18 19:57:44 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:57:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35320.72.236.103.207.1147982264.squirrel@main.nc.us> Amara writes: > > Don't worry. I have my eyes on another place: sunny, Mediterranean, > optimistic people, no working limits for all EU member states, strong > economy, science/technology-friendly culture, presently injecting alot > of money (and for the last 1/2 dozen years) into the sciences to > raise the education level of its citizens. > > Immigration bureaucracy is a pain wherever you go, but the benefits on > the other side should outweigh it. > Great! Uh - it sounds like Heaven - you're not sick are you???? :))) I hope things work out, for sure you've paid your dues! Regards, MB From mstriz at gmail.com Thu May 18 20:25:38 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 16:25:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <20060518151112.GD26713@leitl.org> References: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20060518122215.GN26713@leitl.org> <20060518151112.GD26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 5/18/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Good point. At individuum level and (related) social group > there's territory protection. I wasn't thinking about such > small-scale clustering. You wouldn't see Canuck deer > erect a fence to separate themselves from Yankee deer. For good reason. The theoretically observable universe presents a physical limit on human understanding, but the actually observable universe presents a cognitive limit on most nonhuman animal understanding. I suspect that to most nonhuman animals, nothing exists beyond the horizon, at least to the extent that they never think about it (migratory species notwithstanding). So the lack of large-scale artificial borders in biology is not due to theoretical impediments but the practical fact that most biological systems aren't complex/intelligent enough. > Absolutely -- and with small tribes it made even sense, > from a genome's view. But the bulk of our interactions in > urban areas is now among unrelated individuals, so clustering by > other markers (language, culture, mobile phone brand) > is an atavism. Interestingly, even in the highly mobile modern world, humans tend to cluster along racial, ethnic and cultural lines (culture being a marker of tribal affiliation and solidarity). How many ethnic subregions does New York City have? I don't think that all historical trends in human behavior are inviolable biological phenomena, but this one does seem to persist. Martin From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 18 21:37:08 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:37:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7777CE34-EFD7-44BB-8D7C-11C9E4EE32C9@mac.com> On May 18, 2006, at 12:30 PM, jeffrey davis wrote: > Then Samantha wrote: > > > Depends on what you mean I suspect. The context of > > these remarks is getting enough of humanity into space and far > enough away to end up with self-sustaining colonies/outposts that > give humanity a much better chance of survival. To satisfy all of > these constraints we are talking self-sustaining groups of on the > order of thousands of humans (genetic diversity) preferably > relocated outside the Solar > System or at least in the outer system. Please tell > me what you are going to use pre-nanotech to make this a reality. > > Now me: > > This is an economic problem. Man hours per kilogram of payload. To > lower this cost, to lower the man hours per kilo, you need to have > more of the work done by machines, ie automation. It's not magic, > and it's some futuristic ?ber-tech. You don't need full-on self- > replication with 100 percent closure. A lesser degree of closure > will do. In the end it's still just advanced automation. It's > irrelevant whether it's nano-, micro-, or macro-tech. > > I'm working on it. It is not irrelevant as the type of technology available determines the costs of such a project and its feasibility. Sufficiently advanced automation to accomplish this task as well as sufficient resources and sustaining technology may require nanotechnology and AI. I think that it will. If you think otherwise then please make your case. - samantha From amara at amara.com Thu May 18 21:46:40 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 23:46:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration Message-ID: MB mbb386 at main.nc.us: >Great! Uh - it sounds like Heaven - you're not sick are you???? :))) I have accepted a position at the Planetary Science Institute (Tucson) (http://www.psi.edu) as a long-distance associate researcher. I can be located where I want, for example: Italy, Spain, ... (*) PSI is a private research institute of about 50 PhD planetary astronomers. It is a 'soft money' position that does not automatically come with a salary, instead, the scientists earn their work and living support via grants. Because I am just starting and expect to lose more in the beginning while I gain experience, I don't expect to see any financial support for at least one year. All of my salary eventually could come from this position; or not, it is up to me. With this position, then I have access to all of the US planetary/ astronomy resources: National Science Foundation and NASA funds and telescopes for example, and I can be the principle investigator on NASA grant proposals. Such a position should give me the flexibility to build my life more in the way that I want. Amara (*) Spain just lifted their immigration caps for the new EU member countries such as Latvia. Now there are only three EU countries: Germany, France and Italy who limit the workers from the new EU member states; the economic benefits were apparently clear to the others. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu May 18 22:05:07 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 18:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35464.72.236.103.207.1147989907.squirrel@main.nc.us> Amara writes: > > I have accepted a position at the Planetary Science Institute (Tucson) > (http://www.psi.edu) as a long-distance associate researcher. I can be > located where I want, for example: Italy, Spain, ... (*) > So you can use your Latvian credentials to live "there"! Sounds very good. I'm happy for you. As I said, you've certainly paid your dues. Regards, MB From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu May 18 22:15:22 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:15:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542961B8212@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: Chris writes > > Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > My reasoning: if you know the other person > > is going to cooperate, then according to the > > table, you must defect. Likewise, if you know > > that the person is going to defect, then you > > must defect. (Failure to do so simply means > > that you aren't reading the payoff table, or > > don't know what it means.) Only in the case > > that you don't know what the person will do- > > --and, most importantly, there is reason to > > believe that his behavior is correlated with > > yours---can you logically cooperate. > > Then might we say that superrationality is prescriptive, rather than > decisive? Well, were it in our power to redefine what Hofstadter meant, then yes, it might be an improvement to call it advice---or, what is the same thing in game theory, a strategy. > I agree that in the case of iterated PD, with side-channel > communications unavailable, it's really a cut-and-dry outcome, :-) Well, it can't be *too* cut-and-dried, or else so many careful thinkers could not have been misled. > but as far as informing us toward real-world decisions it > leaves a lot to be desired. Any communications before or > during the PD, between agents,... Oh, yes, and that changes everything! The context of "superrationality" was and is a Non-Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Or, as Russell wrote > > The good news is that iterated PD leads towards mutual cooperation > > ("Tit for Tat" is the name usually given to the strategy, or family > > of strategies, that tends to evolve); you don't even need side > > channels. It's only the unrealistic one-shot variant that leads > > towards mutual defection. There remain many striking semi-real life scenarios, however, in which the NIPD arises. But it's amazing how zany even some geniuses can be about this sort of thing: Raymond Smullyan, for example, said that he would *not* cooperate in the NIPD even with his reflected mirror image! Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu May 18 22:36:32 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:36:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <36292.81.152.102.156.1147978175.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Anders writes > Lee Corbin wrote: > > > But why Russians? The Swedish government should issue invitations to > > the most needy and prolific people it can find, e.g. Moslems from > > several places in the world, or Mexicans. Why shouldn't the Swedish > > government feel a moral obligation to do what I suggest? After all, > > *economically* it'll quite possibly help Sweden, but even if not, > > it will certainly help whatever country the newcomers arrive from. > > Exactly. Delightful! I love consistency, and the pushing of ideas to their ultimate implications. > And I honestly believe Sweden would become a better place if it was > "invaded" by a lot more people. It would likely become messier, less > stable and not the Sweden we are used to. But melting pots are usually > where new ideas are created. Of course, the key problem with integration > in Europe is that everybody is obsessed with nationality and culture and > hence preventing immigrants from integrating well. So I seriously doubt my > ideas would ever get a chance. Yes, I'm afraid that there isn't time for your values on this topic to get much of a run. But one must scientifically inquire exactly as to *why* most Swedes---or any other nationality one cared to speak of---so resist the logic here. Perhaps it was just a fashion statement from Victorian times, or something else ancient that arose by chance? Of course not. The cultural values of most Swedes, including this form of xenophobia, arose though evolution. Cultures that did not have such values did not last very long. (Burden of proof: just where, historically, did one see a long lasting culture or society not jealous of its own identity?) There are two reasons why your ideas don't have time enough. One, of course, is the singularity (even if in its mildest and gentlest form). A second reason is that of evolution itself: the Swedish population that entertains such ideas will indeed be overwhelmed by "other ideas". To wit, if/when the majority in Sweden becomes, say, Moslem, then nature will revert to form, and the injunctions in the Koran that say to conquer the world in the name of Islam, and adopt an extremely hostile stance towards freethinking, will have proven their vitality. And memetic fitness. Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 19 00:55:59 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 20:55:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20060518090144.04f7fdf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060518194945.01cea448@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:06 AM 5/18/2006 -0500, Natasha wrote: >At 12:20 AM 5/18/2006, Keith wrote: > >>Joseph, appreciate your defense, but wish you and others would take a meta >>look at his attention seeking behavior and not reward it. > >This message and its subject line ought to have sent to moderators, not >expressed on this list. It simply does not set a tone that we want to support. > >Thanks Keith, >Natasha Sorry you took what I said as objectionable. I took the original post as noise injection. It takes a relatively small amount of noise to wreck a list if list members (or moderators) don't recognize it for what it is. I have been expressing this opinion for decades in many places and in my opinion I fall for provocation more often than I should. Perhaps there is moderation by Eugene and J. Andrew going on the background and this is just leakage. May I suggest the list technical people hang the moderator(s) email on the bottom of each post? Depending on your setup it can be difficult to go back and find who the current ones are. Best wishes, Keith From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri May 19 00:38:06 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 20:38:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nootropics & Spanish Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060518203501.08183700@unreasonable.com> Anyone both familiar with nootropics and Spanish, or know someone who is, who'd be willing to answer questions from a smart, curious acquaintance in Argentina? -- David. From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 19 01:33:09 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 21:33:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend Message-ID: <380-220065519133946@M2W013.mail2web.com> From: Keith Henson At 09:06 AM 5/18/2006 -0500, Natasha wrote: >At 12:20 AM 5/18/2006, Keith wrote: >Sorry you took what I said as objectionable. I took the original post as >noise injection. It takes a relatively small amount of noise to wreck a >list if list members (or moderators) don't recognize it for what it is. I >have been expressing this opinion for decades in many places and in my >opinion I fall for provocation more often than I should. On this list, members are asked to take their concerns and/or complaints to moderators off list. It is the moderators' responsibity to handle same. >May I suggest the list technical people hang the moderator(s) email on the >bottom of each post? Depending on your setup it can be difficult to go >back and find who the current ones are. This is a good suggestion and if moderators agree they can ask John to take care of it. Best wishes, Natasha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri May 19 02:16:34 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:16:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060518194945.01cea448@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060518194945.01cea448@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <446D2A82.8020001@goldenfuture.net> I take issue with my post being dismissed as "leakage". To my mind, it was a legitimate response to a legitimate criticism of cryonics. Sorry, Keith, if you think that such criticism is unwarranted and deserving of summary censorship. I chose to respond, and I don't think doing so was in any way contributing to any degredation of the list's signal-to-noise ratio. Indeed, I might say your response, and this one I'm replying to now, might fit into that category. Last I'm saying on the subject. Joseph Keith Henson wrote: >At 09:06 AM 5/18/2006 -0500, Natasha wrote: > > >>At 12:20 AM 5/18/2006, Keith wrote: >> >> >> >>>Joseph, appreciate your defense, but wish you and others would take a meta >>>look at his attention seeking behavior and not reward it. >>> >>> >>This message and its subject line ought to have sent to moderators, not >>expressed on this list. It simply does not set a tone that we want to support. >> >>Thanks Keith, >>Natasha >> >> > >Sorry you took what I said as objectionable. I took the original post as >noise injection. It takes a relatively small amount of noise to wreck a >list if list members (or moderators) don't recognize it for what it is. I >have been expressing this opinion for decades in many places and in my >opinion I fall for provocation more often than I should. > >Perhaps there is moderation by Eugene and J. Andrew going on the background >and this is just leakage. > >May I suggest the list technical people hang the moderator(s) email on the >bottom of each post? Depending on your setup it can be difficult to go >back and find who the current ones are. > >Best wishes, > >Keith > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 19 02:37:37 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:37:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <380-220065519133946@M2W013.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200605190237.k4J2bhda013540@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:33 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend > > From: Keith Henson ... > > >May I suggest the list technical people hang the moderator(s) email on > the > >bottom of each post? Depending on your setup it can be difficult to go > >back and find who the current ones are. > > This is a good suggestion and if moderators agree they can ask John to > take > care of it. > > Best wishes, > > Natasha I would be OK with being listed as "advisor to moderators", or "assistant moderator", or "something lower ranking than a moderator." I want to be someone who can help if available, but don't know how much that will be in the coming months. {8-] spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri May 19 03:51:11 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:51:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: ExICh list & moderation system logistics? Message-ID: Could someone who understands the technical details please explain the current ExiCh list moderation logistics? This may include documenting precisely what software is being used (hopefully open source, so anyone could examine any documentation or in a pinch the code itself to see how it works). If the software is extremely flexible the current policy (configuration file) settings being used would be helpful. If that is unavailable, a clear explanation as to the mechanism(s) involved in moderation would be nice. Interesting questions seem to be hanging over the list. If the Extropy Institute is "closing its doors" do the people involved with the "former" organization have any legitimate role in dictating ExICh list policies? Should the list change its name and/or domain? I ask these questions not to be difficult (or a troll) but out of curiosity with respect to whether we are slipping from a relatively transparent organizational structure to one where it much less clear what is going on "behind the curtain". History has numerous examples of the ill that befall groups or entire populations who fail to pay attention to changes taking place in front of their eyes. (The one which immediately comes to mind today is... "Oh don't mind that volcano that is showing particularly troublesome signs... Just go about your daily lives as if it wasn't there.") Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 19 05:09:32 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 01:09:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <446D2A82.8020001@goldenfuture.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060518194945.01cea448@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060518194945.01cea448@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060519005857.0b2f3be0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:16 PM 5/18/2006 -0400, you wrote: >I take issue with my post being dismissed as "leakage". It wasn't *your* post, Joseph, it was the guy who has said to me in private email that he has left the list. >To my mind, it was a legitimate response to a legitimate criticism of >cryonics. Sorry, Keith, if you think that such criticism is unwarranted >and deserving of summary censorship. Oh, I agree that your response was legit, and said I appreciated it. It is just that the original post was intentionally provocative--for this list. >I chose to respond, and I don't think doing so was in any way >contributing to any degredation of the list's signal-to-noise ratio. >Indeed, I might say your response, and this one I'm replying to now, >might fit into that category. Yes and no. The current topic is at the meta level. I.e., how do you respond to what looks like intentional provocation? >Last I'm saying on the subject. It is a long standing problem. One way it was solved can be seen on the cryonics list. Worth considering I think. Best wishes Keith >Joseph > >Keith Henson wrote: > > >At 09:06 AM 5/18/2006 -0500, Natasha wrote: > > > > > >>At 12:20 AM 5/18/2006, Keith wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Joseph, appreciate your defense, but wish you and others would take a meta > >>>look at his attention seeking behavior and not reward it. > >>> > >>> > >>This message and its subject line ought to have sent to moderators, not > >>expressed on this list. It simply does not set a tone that we want to > support. > >> > >>Thanks Keith, > >>Natasha > >> > >> > > > >Sorry you took what I said as objectionable. I took the original post as > >noise injection. It takes a relatively small amount of noise to wreck a > >list if list members (or moderators) don't recognize it for what it is. I > >have been expressing this opinion for decades in many places and in my > >opinion I fall for provocation more often than I should. > > > >Perhaps there is moderation by Eugene and J. Andrew going on the background > >and this is just leakage. > > > >May I suggest the list technical people hang the moderator(s) email on the > >bottom of each post? Depending on your setup it can be difficult to go > >back and find who the current ones are. > > > >Best wishes, > > > >Keith > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri May 19 05:39:36 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:39:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award In-Reply-To: <7777CE34-EFD7-44BB-8D7C-11C9E4EE32C9@mac.com> References: <7777CE34-EFD7-44BB-8D7C-11C9E4EE32C9@mac.com> Message-ID: On 5/18/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > It is not irrelevant as the type of technology available determines the > costs of such a project and its feasibility. Sufficiently advanced > automation to accomplish this task as well as sufficient resources and > sustaining technology may require nanotechnology and AI. I think that it > will. If you think otherwise then please make your case. > > - samantha You're perhaps familiar with "Advanced automation for space missions"(AASM), a seminal work on self-replication by Freitas et al. sometimes referred to as the 1980 NASA summer study. A quarter century ago Freitas declared self-replication doable, and on the moon no less, with the attendant severe restrictions on human on-site assistance. So it's not really my case but Freitas's. Engineering-wise, it's about control systems. Our current industrial system with humans in the loop has 100 percent closure. Replacing the humans requires control systems. Since 1980 we've seen how many doublings of computational capacity, which translates into vastly cheaper (and/or vastly more capable) control systems components? Using Moore's law as a rough guide, in the twenty-five years since AASM, control element costs have fallen, or capability risen, by a factor of 10e6. Beyond that, the obstacles to implementation remain vision, creativity, the size of the project(very big), and perhaps political will. Personally, I prefer to dispense with political will and go with vision and creativity. That said, many smart folks still contend that the problem is "too hard". Add the daunting size of the undertaking and it becomes a non-trivial matter to mobilize enough folks to "Just give it a try and well see if it can be done." That's where the creativity comes in. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri May 19 06:15:50 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 23:15:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 5/17/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > From: hal at finney.org ("Hal Finney") > > Is immigration really "the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised?" > > What about government's double standard on obeying laws. Illegal > immigrants are breaking the "law." Should they be rewarded for doing > this? Where is the balance? Fleeing from, or assisting those fleeing from slavery was once against the law. Women attempting to vote was once against the law. Promoting, offering for sale, or using birth control was once against the law. Ninety-five percent of the drivers on the nation's highways at any given moment are breaking the law. There are laws and there are laws. I would suggest looking closely at the "it's against the law" argument and the motivations of those who use this very powerful (yet strikingly slavish and uncritical) rhetorical tactic. Could it be pure hate-mongering slash scapegoating driven by the lowest form of political opportunism on the part of the elites, and for the mob lusting for blood the bigot's fury born in a time of fear and economic stress and uncertainty? Why are decent, hardworking, massively-contributing, yet vulnerable (lacking rights, protections, and political power) people being demonized with a narrative of criminality? These are dangerous times. Best, Jeff Davis "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." Winston Churchill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri May 19 06:19:57 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 23:19:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> <200605180148.k4I1mERY016100@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5/17/06, spike wrote: > > One aspect of libertarianism that I always choked on was the notion of > open borders. To this day I still can't quite see how such a policy could > ever work. Take a look around you, spike. The border is open. This is what it looks like. Works just fine. Best, Jeff Davis "And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!" Louie Armstrong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Fri May 19 16:41:25 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 18:41:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Official opening of uvvy island in Second Life: Transhumanist day Message-ID: <470a3c520605190941m7c7d9f0bt7ab6ba5f0b0f8db5@mail.gmail.com> Official opening of uvvy island in Second Life: Wednesday June 7, 2006, 2 pm EST (8 pm in most European countries, this should be convenient for visitors from both the US and Europe). The opening event will be a "Transhumanist Day", with presentations: "Transhumanism: The Most Dangerous Idea?", by James Hughes (James Sleeper in SL). "Transhumanist Technologies on the Horizon and Beyond", by Giulio Prisco (Giulio Perhaps in SL). "Virtually Real Virtuality", by Philippe Van Nedervelde (Philippe Golding in SL). See: http://uvvy.com/index.php/Official_opening_of_uvvy_island_in_SL From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 19 16:41:52 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 09:41:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <200605190237.k4J2bhda013540@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605190237.k4J2bhda013540@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <97C22FA0-80D8-4FD6-809B-37000B79202D@mac.com> This seems obtrusive and unnecessary to me. How about a once a week post or listing them on the associated website. Is there still an associated web site? Personally I didn't see why this particular flame bait meta comment was even necessary at this time. It seemed to do more harm than good as a public to the list post. - s On May 18, 2006, at 7:37 PM, spike wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com >> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:33 PM >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Meta, flame bait was hope you can >> comprehend >> >> From: Keith Henson > ... >> >>> May I suggest the list technical people hang the moderator(s) >>> email on >> the >>> bottom of each post? Depending on your setup it can be difficult >>> to go >>> back and find who the current ones are. >> >> This is a good suggestion and if moderators agree they can ask >> John to >> take >> care of it. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Natasha > > I would be OK with being listed as "advisor to moderators", or > "assistant > moderator", or "something lower ranking than a moderator." I want > to be > someone who can help if available, but don't know how much that > will be in > the coming months. {8-] > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 May 19 16:49:52 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 09:49:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award In-Reply-To: References: <7777CE34-EFD7-44BB-8D7C-11C9E4EE32C9@mac.com> Message-ID: On May 18, 2006, at 10:39 PM, jeffrey davis wrote: > > > On 5/18/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > It is not irrelevant as the type of technology available determines > the costs of such a project and its feasibility. Sufficiently > advanced automation to accomplish this task as well as sufficient > resources and sustaining technology may require nanotechnology and > AI. I think that it will. If you think otherwise then please make > your case. > > - samantha > > You're perhaps familiar with "Advanced automation for space > missions"(AASM), a seminal work on self-replication by Freitas et > al. sometimes referred to as the 1980 NASA summer study. A quarter > century ago Freitas declared self-replication doable, and on the > moon no less, with the attendant severe restrictions on human on- > site assistance. So it's not really my case but Freitas's. Assuming sufficient resources, energy, control and logics that can't be locally replicated without something like MNT, yes? > > Engineering-wise, it's about control systems. Our current > industrial system with humans in the loop has 100 percent closure. > Replacing the humans requires control systems. How sophisticated are these likely to need to be to build infrastructure capable of supporting large numbers of humans in a hostile environment. Where is the case that we have that sophistication remotely in hand or will have with less than major AI advancements? > > Since 1980 we've seen how many doublings of computational capacity, > which translates into vastly cheaper (and/or vastly more capable) > control systems components? Using Moore's law as a rough guide, > in the twenty-five years since AASM, control element costs have > fallen, or capability risen, by a factor of 10e6. > Total hand waving. Chip density and raw speed to not remotely directly translate to increased autonomous control capabilities. > > Beyond that, the obstacles to implementation remain vision, > creativity, the size of the project(very big), and perhaps > political will. Personally, I prefer to dispense with political > will and go with vision and creativity. > > That said, many smart folks still contend that the problem is "too > hard". Add the daunting size of the undertaking and it becomes a > non-trivial matter to mobilize enough folks to "Just give it a try > and well see if it can be done." That's where the creativity comes > in. Thanks for for the rah-rah non-answer. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 19 17:31:46 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A couple weird questions... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060519173146.45157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hey y'all, I'm trying to work on the Life/Death Reality Argument off-list, and I have a couple of bizarre questions for anyone with a greater knowledge of Neurobiology: 1) What would be a very lower-bound estimate for the physical distance between the Soma/Main-Body of one neuron and the Soma/Main-Body of an adjacent neuron in the Human brain? (Doesn't matter what units are used) 2) What would be a very lower-bound estimate for the distance between a Terminal Button and the Dendrite's surface? (Again, units don't matter) The reason I ask, is that I'm trying to refine my estimate of the time delay between neuronal discharges by incorporating a discussion about the illusion of Simultaneity of discharges - involving distances between neurons and the speed of light. Any input is greatly appreciated. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ 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 hal at finney.org Fri May 19 17:25:33 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality Message-ID: <20060519172533.E52FF57FD1@finney.org> A couple of thoughts on superrationality and the PD: The PD is usually expressed in perfectly symmetrical form, something like: (5,5) | (0,10) (10,0)| (1,1) However in real life a PD situation is unlikely to be perfectly symmetrical in terms of utilities. It might be more like: (5.1,4.9) | (0.2,9.9) (10.3,0.1) | (0.9,1.1) With this kind of payoff matrix, the argument that I gave doesn't quite work. It is no longer the case that the two parties will *necessarily* play the same strategy. They will plausibly play nearly the same, or similar strategies, but there might be some variations. Clearly we could modify the matrix still more, and the farther we got from perfect symmmetry, the less force the argument for superrationality would carry. It's not clear how to modify the superrationality argument and analysis to deal with arbitrary games. When should superrational behavior cut in? What does it tell you in general? Superrationality needs to be formalized and extended beyond the simplistic argument I gave in order for it to have any credibility as a real model for reasoning and behavior. Possibly Anders' colleague who is working on related concepts might be exploring along these lines. On another topic, I posted a while back an interesting analogy between superrationality in the PD, and Newcomb's paradox. Newcomb's paradox is described at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox > The player of the game is presented with two opaque boxes, labeled A and > B. The player is permitted to take the contents of both boxes, or just > of box B. (The option of taking only box A is ignored, for reasons soon > to be obvious.) Box A contains $1,000. The contents of box B, however, > are determined as follows: At some point before the start of the game, > the Predictor makes a prediction as to whether the player of the game will > take just box B, or both boxes. If the Predictor predicts that both boxes > will be taken, then box B will contain nothing. If the Predictor predicts > that only box B will be taken, then box B will contain $1,000,000. > > By the time the game begins, and the player is called upon to choose which > boxes to take, the prediction has already been made, and the contents > of box B have already been determined. That is, box B contains either > $0 or $1,000,000 before the game begins, and once the game begins even > the Predictor is powerless to change the contents of the boxes. Before > the game begins, the player is aware of all the rules of the game, > including the two possible contents of box B, the fact that its contents > is based on the Predictor's prediction, and knowledge of the Predictor's > infallibility. The only information withheld from the player is what > prediction the Predictor made, and thus what the contents of box B are. One way to think of the alternatives in this case is to use the distinction between "evidentiary" and "causative" reasoning. If you take both boxes, you are *causing* yourself to get more than if you take one box. You know that the 2nd box has $1,000 so your action of taking both boxes has a direct causative consequence. If however you take just box B, you are giving yourself *evidence* that you are likely to get more money. You don't directly cause the box to have more (in most analyses), rather you get yourself into a state which is highly correlated with there being more money for you. The fact that you are the kind of person who is willing to take just one box gives you *evidence* to believe that you will get more money. The connection to superrationality is that it is another example of evidentiary reasoning, like the case of taking just one box in the Newcomb paradox. Cooperating in the one-shot PD gives you evidence, per the standard superrationality reasoning, that the other player will also cooperate. (Likewise, defecting would give you evidence that he will defect.) However, it does not *cause* him to act that way. Your choice has no direct causal consequences on the other player, it merely gives you evidence about how he is likely to behave. It's interesting that although people are generally split on Newcomb's paradox, substantial numbers going either way, very few people accept evidentiary reasoning in the case of superrationality. I suspect that the trouble, ironically, is that people are just not thinking clearly in evaluating superrational reasoning. They fail to appreciate the strength of the argument that rational people will do the same thing. We see this clearly when people accept that superrationality makes sense up to a point, conclude that it means the other player will cooperate, and then decide to defect. This failure is not too surprising, since economic reasoning relies on a certain degree of abstraction and reductionism in terms of evaluating what rational actors will do. The game theorist's ideal of a rational player does not capture all of human complexity, and I think people have trouble reducing their model of humanity to the restricted, pure kinds of reasoning available to the idealized rationalist. If people did think about game theory in that ideal sense, we might see a more even split over superrationality, as we do for Newcomb's paradox. The other point of note is that my understanding is that most philosophers agree that there is only one valid choice in Newcomb's paradox, and it is the same consideration that applies in the PD. Causal reasoning is considered the only valid option, and therefore they say that the only rational choice is to take two boxes in Newcomb's case, and to defect in the PD. In either case, the alternative strategy is dominated - you cause yourself to get more by making these choices. Proponents of this view admit that you actually will get less by doing this, but they insist that nevertheless, rationality forces you to make this choice. I ran across a very persuasive statement of this position in the case of the Newcomb paradox by a decision theorist named James Joyce, which I can present if anyone is interested. Hal From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 19 18:18:11 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Which Cryonics option is optimal? In-Reply-To: <20060519173146.45157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060519181811.39509.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, I intend to sign up for cryopreservation with Alcor in the near future, but I'm not completely decided on which option I would prefer: Neuropreservation Option (head only) or full-body (head + body). Note: at this time, both options involve a supposedly successful vitrification of the brain. Right now I'm leaning toward Neuropreservation for a few reasons: - brain structure preservation still seems to be marginally superior with Neuro. - easier transport in emergencies. - emergency conversion to Neuro option is not necessary. - possibly less likely to be the first revival guinea pig as a Neuro, and so perhaps a lower chance of a disastrously failed revival. - may actually be easier to revive a Neuro than a full-body- so extra money may be wasted- and could lead to delay in revival. - a Neuro is substantially cheaper. My inclination right now is to tentatively sign up as a Neuro, but to hopefully purchase a life insurance policy that will barely cover a full-body, in case I change my mind later. I would like to get the opinions of other Cryonicists regarding which option is superior based on factors which I may have failed to list here. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From exi at syzygy.com Fri May 19 19:25:50 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 19 May 2006 19:25:50 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] A couple weird questions... In-Reply-To: <20060519173146.45157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060519173146.45157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060519192550.30212.qmail@syzygy.com> Jeffrey Herrlich: > What would be a very lower-bound estimate for the physical distance > between the Soma/Main-Body of one neuron and the Soma/Main-Body of an > adjacent neuron in the Human brain? (Doesn't matter what units are > used) It's not clear to me what you're asking about here. Neurons typically only interact via synapses. Without a synapse, why does the inter-cellular distance matter? > What would be a very lower-bound estimate for the distance between a > Terminal Button and the Dendrite's surface? (Again, units don't > matter) There are two types of synapses: electrical and chemical. In electrical synapses, the cell membranes are directly connected by "gap junction channels" which directly connect the cytoplasm of the two cells. There, the distance between the cell membranes is about 3.5nm. There is no significant delay for signal propagation, and it is usually bidirectional. In chemical synapses, the membrane distance is 20-40nm, the signaling delay is at least 0.3ms, and usually 1-5ms or longer. This is from Principles of Neural Science, Fourth Edition, by Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessell, published in 2000. Chapter 10, Overview of Synaptic Transmission, p176. > The reason I ask, is that I'm trying to refine my estimate of the > time delay between neuronal discharges by incorporating a discussion > about the illusion of Simultaneity of discharges - involving distances > between neurons and the speed of light. Any input is greatly > appreciated. Action potentials (the firing of the neuron) have a duration of about 1ms, and propagate along axons at rates of 1-100 m/sec. The refractory period between firings is a few ms. Repetitive firing properties vary widely among different types of neurons. I doubt that there is any time during which there are not any neurons in the process of firing within a normally functioning human brain. -eric From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri May 19 20:32:15 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:32:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award In-Reply-To: References: <7777CE34-EFD7-44BB-8D7C-11C9E4EE32C9@mac.com> Message-ID: Your response is rude, but more important you seem to ignore what I've written. Check out below. On 5/19/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 18, 2006, at 10:39 PM, jeffrey davis wrote: > > > > On 5/18/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > > > It is not irrelevant as the type of technology available determines the > > costs of such a project and its feasibility. Sufficiently advanced > > automation to accomplish this task as well as sufficient resources and > > sustaining technology may require nanotechnology and AI. I think that it > > will. If you think otherwise then please make your case. > > > > - samantha > > > You're perhaps familiar with "Advanced automation for space > missions"(AASM), a seminal work on self-replication by Freitas et al. > sometimes referred to as the 1980 NASA summer study. A quarter century ago > Freitas declared self-replication doable, and on the moon no less, with the > attendant severe restrictions on human on-site assistance. So it's not > really my case but Freitas's. > > > > > > > Assuming sufficient resources, energy, control and logics that can't be > locally replicated without something like MNT, yes? > No. Who says they can't be "locally replicated" -- your use of "replication" here is totally bogus. Your use of "locally" means you didn't read -- or understand -- what I wrote. I'm talking about a self-replicating machine system HERE ON EARTH with humans at beck and call, as contrasted with the MORE DIFFICULT moon-based operation of AASM. What are you talking about here? Have you read AASM? There's no indication here that you have, or that if you have you understand what you read. Talk about hand-waving. It makes me think it's not even worth respondoing to someone so dishonest in discussion. That said.... Any project that is to be completed must have sufficient resources,...well duh. And the resources required are easily with human reach. For example a very small fraction of what's been spent on the Iraq war. Do you know what that cost was estimated to be by Freitas in AASM? If you did you would not question the sufficiency of resources. Current industrial infrastructure has sufficient everything to do what it does, else it wouldn't successfully complete anything. > > Engineering-wise, it's about control systems. Our current industrial > system with humans in the loop has 100 percent closure. Replacing the > humans requires control systems. > > > > How sophisticated are these likely to need to be to build infrastructure > capable of supporting large numbers of humans in a hostile environment. > Where is the case that we have that sophistication remotely in hand or will > have with less than major AI advancements? > What large numbers of humans in what hostile environment? What in the world are you talking about. You're certainly not talking about what I'm talking about. Reducing the human factor in a Self-replicating Machine System (SRMS) means NOT having large numbers of humans participating anywhere. Small numbers, yes, for maintenance and troubleshooting in the early prototyping and shakedown stages. But > > Since 1980 we've seen how many doublings of computational capacity, which > translates into vastly cheaper (and/or vastly more capable) control systems > components? Using Moore's law as a rough guide, in the twenty-five years > since AASM, control element costs have fallen, or capability risen, by a > factor of 10e6. > > > > > > Total hand waving. Chip density and raw speed to not remotely directly > translate to increased autonomous control capabilities. > > > Beyond that, the obstacles to implementation remain vision, creativity, > the size of the project(very big), and perhaps political will. Personally, > I prefer to dispense with political will and go with vision and creativity. > > That said, many smart folks still contend that the problem is "too hard". > Add the daunting size of the undertaking and it becomes a non-trivial matter > to mobilize enough folks to "Just give it a try and well see if it can be > done." That's where the creativity comes in. > > > > > > > Thanks for for the rah-rah non-answer. > > - samantha > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri May 19 21:04:55 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:04:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award In-Reply-To: References: <7777CE34-EFD7-44BB-8D7C-11C9E4EE32C9@mac.com> Message-ID: MY FINGERS SLIP[PED MID-REPLY. I RESUME BELOW AT "early prototyping and shakedown stages. But" ... On 5/19/06, jeffrey davis wrote: > Your response is rude, but more important you seem to ignore what I've > written. Check out below. > > > On 5/19/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > On May 18, 2006, at 10:39 PM, jeffrey davis wrote: > > > > > > > > On 5/18/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not irrelevant as the type of technology available determines > > > the costs of such a project and its feasibility. Sufficiently advanced > > > automation to accomplish this task as well as sufficient resources and > > > sustaining technology may require nanotechnology and AI. I think that it > > > will. If you think otherwise then please make your case. > > > > > > - samantha > > > > > > You're perhaps familiar with "Advanced automation for space > > missions"(AASM), a seminal work on self-replication by Freitas et al. > > sometimes referred to as the 1980 NASA summer study. A quarter century ago > > Freitas declared self-replication doable, and on the moon no less, with the > > attendant severe restrictions on human on-site assistance. So it's not > > really my case but Freitas's. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assuming sufficient resources, energy, control and logics that can't be > > locally replicated without something like MNT, yes? > > > > No. Who says they can't be "locally replicated" -- your use > of "replication" here is totally bogus. Your use of "locally" means you > didn't read -- or understand -- what I wrote. I'm talking about a > self-replicating machine system HERE ON EARTH with humans at beck and call, > as contrasted with the MORE DIFFICULT moon-based operation of AASM. > > What are you talking about here? Have you read AASM? There's no > indication here that you have, or that if you have you understand what you > read. Talk about hand-waving. It makes me think it's not even worth > respondoing to someone so dishonest in discussion. > > That said.... Any project that is to be completed must have sufficient > resources,...well duh. And the resources required are easily with human > reach. For example a very small fraction of what's been spent on the Iraq > war. Do you know what that cost was estimated to be by Freitas in AASM? If > you did you would not question the sufficiency of resources. > > Current industrial infrastructure has sufficient everything to do what it > does, else it wouldn't successfully complete anything. > > > > > > > > Engineering-wise, it's about control systems. Our current industrial > > system with humans in the loop has 100 percent closure. Replacing the > > humans requires control systems. > > > > > > > > How sophisticated are these likely to need to be to build infrastructure > > capable of supporting large numbers of humans in a hostile environment. > > Where is the case that we have that sophistication remotely in hand or will > > have with less than major AI advancements? > > > > > What large numbers of humans in what hostile environment? What in the > world are you talking about. You're certainly not talking about what I'm > talking about. Reducing the human factor in a Self-replicating Machine > System (SRMS) means NOT having large numbers of humans participating > anywhere. Small numbers, yes, for maintenance and troubleshooting in the > early prototyping and shakedown stages. But (resumes here) fewer and and > fewer humans as the system (SRMS) becomes ever more autonomous through > upgrades and "training". > And what hostile environments ? I envision the SRMS in a desert > environment -- lots of open cheap land with lots of sun and not much ecology > to be disturbed -- but hey, it's just a flippin' desert. The Mojave or > Sonoran deserts aren't like the surface of the moon or Venus. A trailer and > some AC will take the edge off of any "hostility", and LA, Vegas, and Tucson > are close by, though some might consider those to be "a hositle > environment". > > > Since 1980 we've seen how many doublings of computational capacity, which translates into vastly cheaper (and/or vastly more capable) control systems components? Using Moore's law as a rough guide, in the twenty-five years since AASM, control element costs have fallen, or capability risen, by a factor of 10e6. Samantha writes: Total hand waving. Chip density and raw speed to not remotely directly translate to increased autonomous control capabilities. I respond: Horseshit! Twenty-five years of advances in IT means vastly more capability. And you know it. You just can't stomach anyone who disagrees with you. Beyond that, the obstacles to implementation remain vision, creativity, the size of the project(very big), and perhaps political will. Personally, I prefer to dispense with political will and go with vision and creativity. That said, many smart folks still contend that the problem is "too hard". Add the daunting size of the undertaking and it becomes a non-trivial matter to mobilize enough folks to "Just give it a try and well see if it can be done." That's where the creativity comes in. Thanks for for the rah-rah non-answer. - samantha To which I say, simply, your welcome and fuck you. Jeff Davis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Fri May 19 21:15:34 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 23:15:34 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A couple weird questions... In-Reply-To: <20060519192550.30212.qmail@syzygy.com> References: <20060519173146.45157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060519192550.30212.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <34433.86.141.187.178.1148073334.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Eric Messick wrote: > Jeffrey Herrlich: >> What would be a very lower-bound estimate for the physical distance >> between the Soma/Main-Body of one neuron and the Soma/Main-Body of an >> adjacent neuron in the Human brain? (Doesn't matter what units are >> used) Some somata are probably adjacent, so they are just two membranes and a little intercellular space away (perhaps 1-10 nm). So somewhere beween 40-90 nm. In most cases the distances are a bit larger, but you get clustered somata in cortical minicolumns. >> The reason I ask, is that I'm trying to refine my estimate of the >> time delay between neuronal discharges by incorporating a discussion >> about the illusion of Simultaneity of discharges - involving distances >> between neurons and the speed of light. Any input is greatly >> appreciated. There is also a delay 1-2 ms (or more, for some messenger systems) at the synapse due to starting the vesicle emmission machinery, diffusion and receptor reaction. > I doubt that there is any time during which there are not any neurons > in the process of firing within a normally functioning human brain. The background firing activity is about 2% active (within a time bin of one second), with higher rates for cortical on-states that may reach a few more procent at least locally. Activity in the brain is likely to a large degree asynchronous. You find a lot of synchronization papers out there, both because it is easily detected on the macroscale and because people like to invent elegant information processing based on synchronized oscillations and spike timing. In theory neurons can do a lot of cool simultaneity-based processing, but we do not have any evidence that it is really used. Outside a few systems (like phase-based auditory orienting in owls) we do not know that synchronization is used for anything. We do not even know how to distinguish a widely dispersed synchronization from asynchronous noise. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri May 19 21:20:20 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:20:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060517151341.79152.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/17/06, KAZ wrote: > One could eschew every and all extropian thought and still choose to > sign up for cryonic suspension, because it's a matter of sheer logic that if > you're frozen, there is SOME chance of you being revived, while if you're > buried in the ground you are absolutely guaranteed to be gone forever, > barring something super-natural. > Rarely have I heard it put more succinctly. The historical does not record the names of those legions whose mantra is "It'll never work." Legions incapable of logic. Best, Jeff Davis > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 19 21:28:20 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:28:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Darwin Award In-Reply-To: References: <7777CE34-EFD7-44BB-8D7C-11C9E4EE32C9@mac.com> Message-ID: On May 19, 2006, at 1:32 PM, jeffrey davis wrote: > Your response is rude, but more important you seem to ignore what > I've written. Check out below. I did read what you wrote. It specifically mentions replication on the moon. Did you read what I wrote earlier about the context? I don't see where what you have written really makes a case for satisfying the context. Did I miss it or was it not provided? > > On 5/19/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 18, 2006, at 10:39 PM, jeffrey davis wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/18/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> >> It is not irrelevant as the type of technology available >> determines the costs of such a project and its feasibility. >> Sufficiently advanced automation to accomplish this task as well >> as sufficient resources and sustaining technology may require >> nanotechnology and AI. I think that it will. If you think >> otherwise then please make your case. >> >> - samantha >> >> You're perhaps familiar with "Advanced automation for space >> missions"(AASM), a seminal work on self-replication by Freitas et >> al. sometimes referred to as the 1980 NASA summer study. A >> quarter century ago Freitas declared self-replication doable, and >> on the moon no less, with the attendant severe restrictions on >> human on-site assistance. So it's not really my case but Freitas's. >> > > > > > Assuming sufficient resources, energy, control and logics that > can't be locally replicated without something like MNT, yes? > > No. Who says they can't be "locally replicated" -- your use of > "replication" here is totally bogus. Your use of "locally" means > you didn't read -- or understand -- what I wrote. I'm talking > about a self-replicating machine system HERE ON EARTH with humans > at beck and call, as contrasted with the MORE DIFFICULT moon-based > operation of AASM. > The context is "out there" and the moon was specifically mentioned so I don't see what you are shouting about. > > What are you talking about here? Have you read AASM? There's no > indication here that you have, or that if you have you understand > what you read. Talk about hand-waving. It makes me think it's not > even worth respondoing to someone so dishonest in discussion. > No, I haven't and your brief description does not make it seem worthwhile to dig it up and do so at this time as what you speak of about AASM does not address the question at hand. > That said.... Any project that is to be completed must have > sufficient resources,...well duh. And the resources required are > easily with human reach. For example a very small fraction of > what's been spent on the Iraq war. Do you know what that cost was > estimated to be by Freitas in AASM? If you did you would not > question the sufficiency of resources. > When you get around to speaking relevant to the context perhaps we can continue this. > Current industrial infrastructure has sufficient everything to do > what it does, else it wouldn't successfully complete anything. > > > >> >> Engineering-wise, it's about control systems. Our current >> industrial system with humans in the loop has 100 percent >> closure. Replacing the humans requires control systems. > > > How sophisticated are these likely to need to be to build > infrastructure capable of supporting large numbers of humans in a > hostile environment. Where is the case that we have that > sophistication remotely in hand or will have with less than major > AI advancements? > > What large numbers of humans in what hostile environment? What in > the world are you talking about. You're certainly not talking > about what I'm talking about. Reducing the human factor in a Self- > replicating Machine System (SRMS) means NOT having large numbers of > humans participating anywhere. Small numbers, yes, for maintenance > and troubleshooting in the early prototyping and shakedown stages. > But > > Again, context is large scale off-world self-sustaining human habitat. It appears we are talking at cross purposes despite my continuing efforts to reference the context. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Fri May 19 21:41:43 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 23:41:43 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: <36292.81.152.102.156.1147978175.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <34497.86.141.187.178.1148074903.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Lee Corbin wrote: > Of course not. The cultural values of most Swedes, including this form > of xenophobia, arose though evolution. Cultures that did not have such > values did not last very long. (Burden of proof: just where, historically, > did one see a long lasting culture or society not jealous of its own > identity?) The idea that a society should have its own identity is fairly historically recent. Nationalism as an ideology was invented mid 1800's. Before that it was more a matter of who was the ruler or who had inhereited the land, although there have been a few exceptions like the romans, who had an originally ethnicity-based citizenship concept. I can't recall any suggestion that (say) Egyptians had a need to assert their identity. On a purely psychological levels people always tend to assert the identity of their in-group, but for much of history this was far smaller than iron age states. Village identity, guild identity, religious identity, yes, but not so much a social identity encompassing a particular nation. The nationalism movement did its best to grow a nationalism identity out of many of these traditional identities. Hence the interest of the Brothers Grimm in collecting German folk tales. > There are two reasons why your ideas don't have time enough. One, of > course, is the singularity (even if in its mildest and gentlest form). Why wouldn't nation states survive the singularity? If we assume that people do socially cluster according to some form of identity, even if this identity is based on highly archaic and traditional notions, then the postsingularity entities might still have kept such mental properties and contine preferential clustering based on the same notions. And if states actually make sense from a practical point of view they will remain, while their merging may be limited by economies of scale or the emergence of useful sub-superstate clusters (e.g. like in Nozick's utopia model). So barring radical shifts in vulnerability to *all* threats, extreme autonomy and the need to network selectively, state-like entities are not implausible post singularity. Of course, if postsingularity Sweden is still debating taxes I'm going to (postsingularity-) cry. > A second reason is that of evolution itself: the Swedish population > that entertains such ideas will indeed be overwhelmed by "other ideas". > To wit, if/when the majority in Sweden becomes, say, Moslem, then > nature will revert to form, and the injunctions in the Koran that say > to conquer the world in the name of Islam, and adopt an extremely > hostile stance towards freethinking, will have proven their vitality. > And memetic fitness. Hmm, this assumes some memes become stably dominant for long. If you look at history you will see that even the concept of Islam and what islamic society is has evolved tremendously across time and different countries (and it is still one of the most homogeneous and new religions around - just look at all the weirdness that passes for Christianity or Buddhism!). If meme X becomes a monoculture at time T and remains so forever, maybe it has proven its fitness and stability. But what if it remains dominant just between T1 and T2? In most evolution fitness peaks are transitory and highly dependent on coevolving genes or memes. Given the cultural diversity we see within cultures - even within cultures with strong communications - monocultures seem unlikely. Although western culture (the metaculture encompassing the others, highly informed by humanistic, enlightenment and later notions) seems to be the only major culture that is actively concerned with maintaining cultural diversity. But even within repressive nonwestern cultures homogenity doesn't seem to be too stable. If one favors cultural diversity it is not clear that isolating "pure" cultures is the way to go, since most cultural diversity emerges from the mixing and resynthesis of cultures rather than memetic drift. If one thinks that culture is just an ongoing evolutionary struggle, then it doesn't matter much which culture wins. In either case there is no reason to keep borders. I think it becomes a case (from a culture standpoint) if one thinks particular cultures have something valuable that may not be lost (essentially a kind of cultural racism) or one thinks that melting pots would eventually lead to a low-value homogenization. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hal at finney.org Fri May 19 20:42:44 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Lottery tickets as personal savings plan Message-ID: <20060519204244.DE70857FD1@finney.org> I mentioned the Marginal Revolution (marginalrevolution.com) blog the other day, on immigration; they also had a pointer to a pay article in Forbes with a great idea. Recall that I had also discussed human irrationality and the paradox of how people can remain irrational in a world which will take advantage of them financially (in connection with human over-confidence). These two threads come together in this entry from the blog: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/05/get_lucky_or_ge.html > A lottery savings ticket would look just like a lotto ticket, scratch > like a lotto ticket, cost a buck and pay out the same prizes. The > only difference would be that half the revenue would be earmarked for a > personal retirement savings account rather than for education. There would > still be about a third for prizes and the remainder for administering > the game. > > Setting up a personal retirement account would be no more difficult > than setting up a mutual fund. Players would receive a swipeable card > that would automatically credit a portion of each losing ticket to the > player's retirement account... > > Some 20 million Americans spend at least $1,000 a year on lottery > tickets. For these heavy purchasers the new tickets would increase their > personal savings by $500 a year. Invested over 40 years, these savings > tickets would generate an expected retirement nest egg of $200,000. This > is a lot of money for the mostly not very prosperous crowd who buy > lottery tickets every week. They are actually quoting the Forbes article, which is by Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff. I was intrigued enough by this idea to order their book "Why Not?" from Amazon. I'll write about some of the amazing ideas in this book soon. The problem this proposal aims to fix is two-fold: poor people tend not to save enough of their income, which both keeps them poor and makes them especially vulnerable in old age; and poor people waste money on the lottery. By turning lottery income into personal savings plans we exploit people's human weakness for gambling and turn it into a long-term benefit in the form of forced savings. Politically this would be difficult because of the charade that lottery money is being used for schools. In fact, all government income is essentially put into a big barrel and used as the government likes. The whole school thing was just a scam to sell the lottery to voters. The bigger issue is that diverting lottery profits to be income for poor people would reduce government revenues. In the long run it should be OK because government liabilities would be much lower in the future as poor people are able to fund their own retirements, but governments tend not to think in the long term. Taking a hit today in return for long-run benefits is the opposite of how governments usually work. Hal From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 19 20:55:47 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A couple weird questions... In-Reply-To: <20060519192550.30212.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <20060519205547.31514.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Eric, Thanks for your response. At the beginning of the thread titled "Dead Time of the Brain" (a long, long time ago), I made a back-of-the-envelope calculation which seemed to show that there exists a significant delay between the firing/discharging of *any* two neurons in the brain, arbitrarily located *anywhere* in the brain, ranging from a 3 nm separation to 6 inch separation (- it doesn't matter). Here's a quick recap of the calculation: 1 Second / 1000 Firings / 100 Billion Neurons / 10^ -43 Seconds = ... ... Approximately 10^29 Planck Intervals during which not a single neuron anywhere could be firing within the human brain (based on its limited parameters). The "1000 Firings" above represents the high upper limit on the frequency of cycles/firings of the fastest of neurons within the brain. My first presentation of this was very informal and did not include any treatment of the issue of Simultaneity. That is the oversight I'm trying to address now. Here is a rough draft of my new version. When I divided by 100 Billion in the above calculation, that represented an (artificial) *perfectly* staggered time-distribution of neuronal firings - such that every neuron in the brain fired after a uniform period following the firing of some different neuron located elsewhere (arbitrarily located). A person could readily object, that this treatment ignored the "reality" that neurons in the brain are *not* perfectly staggered in their firing sequence; in other words, that at any chosen instantaneous "moment" multiple neurons would be firing in what amounted to a Simultaneity; their collective firing distributions will be so apparently random that many neurons "must" be firing at the same time. This is essentially the same objection you just raised when you wrote: "I doubt that there is any time during which there are not any neurons in the process of firing within a normally functioning human brain." And this is a very reasonable objection, however, it is ultimately incorrect. The theory of Relativity has shown that true Simultaneity does *not* exist; it is an abstracted human *illusion*. ( I know that Entanglement exists, but it is irrelevant to this topic, and it doesn't conduct information). It's based on the limitations imposed by the speed of light. Any two physical events *cannot* be Simultaneous, they are temporally separated in proportion to the distance between them (determined by the speed of light limitation). The minimal distance I could use was the the relevant distance between two immediately adjacent brain neurons (two Somas that are bumping shoulders). I did a pretty poor job of stating my question clearly, here is what I meant to ask: What is a lower-bound estimate of the average distance between a central point in the middle of one neuronal Soma and a central point in the middle of the neighboring neuronal Soma (two Somas that are bumping shoulders)? Or, a more straightforward way of asking the same question is: What is a lower-bound estimate on the diameter of the Soma of the average neuron within the brain (ignoring peripheral neurons)? I really appreciate your help Eric, is there any chance that you or someone else can also answer this question for me so that I can finish with my calculations? It would be much appreciated. Once I have this number, I will calculate the the time necessary for light to traverse this distance. This number will most likely provide a new, lower limit on the *very minimum* duration of time span during which no neurons are firing, however, it will still be a larger than zero number, and in fact probably significantly larger than zero. In other words, this particular conclusion is still valid: There is indeed a repeating, small span of time during which not a single neuron is discharging/firing anywhere in the normal human brain. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Eric Messick wrote: Jeffrey Herrlich: > What would be a very lower-bound estimate for the physical distance > between the Soma/Main-Body of one neuron and the Soma/Main-Body of an > adjacent neuron in the Human brain? (Doesn't matter what units are > used) It's not clear to me what you're asking about here. Neurons typically only interact via synapses. Without a synapse, why does the inter-cellular distance matter? > What would be a very lower-bound estimate for the distance between a > Terminal Button and the Dendrite's surface? (Again, units don't > matter) There are two types of synapses: electrical and chemical. In electrical synapses, the cell membranes are directly connected by "gap junction channels" which directly connect the cytoplasm of the two cells. There, the distance between the cell membranes is about 3.5nm. There is no significant delay for signal propagation, and it is usually bidirectional. In chemical synapses, the membrane distance is 20-40nm, the signaling delay is at least 0.3ms, and usually 1-5ms or longer. This is from Principles of Neural Science, Fourth Edition, by Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessell, published in 2000. Chapter 10, Overview of Synaptic Transmission, p176. > The reason I ask, is that I'm trying to refine my estimate of the > time delay between neuronal discharges by incorporating a discussion > about the illusion of Simultaneity of discharges - involving distances > between neurons and the speed of light. Any input is greatly > appreciated. Action potentials (the firing of the neuron) have a duration of about 1ms, and propagate along axons at rates of 1-100 m/sec. The refractory period between firings is a few ms. Repetitive firing properties vary widely among different types of neurons. I doubt that there is any time during which there are not any neurons in the process of firing within a normally functioning human brain. -eric _______________________________________________ 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 hal at finney.org Fri May 19 21:12:26 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A couple weird questions... Message-ID: <20060519211226.DE3D857FD1@finney.org> Jeffrey Herrlich writes: > Thanks for your response. At the beginning of the thread titled "Dead > Time of the Brain" (a long, long time ago), I made a back-of-the-envelope > calculation which seemed to show that there exists a significant delay > between the firing/discharging of *any* two neurons in the brain, > arbitrarily located *anywhere* in the brain, ranging from a 3 nm > separation to 6 inch separation (- it doesn't matter). Here's a quick > recap of the calculation: > > 1 Second / 1000 Firings / 100 Billion Neurons / 10^ -43 Seconds = ... > > ... Approximately 10^29 Planck Intervals during which not a single neuron > anywhere could be firing within the human brain (based on its limited > parameters). The "1000 Firings" above represents the high upper limit > on the frequency of cycles/firings of the fastest of neurons within > the brain. That's probably not the right way to look at it. Each neural firing lasts a millisecond or more. It's a somewhat complex process, involving a cascade of ion channels opening, ions rushing in (or out), electrical potentials varying, resulting in an explosive climax, not unlike a sneeze. The bottom line is, from Anders' comment, that a typical neuron spends maybe 2% of its time in the firing state. With 100 billion neurons that means that we have 2 billion neurons firing at any one time. Plus even when a neuron is technically not firing, it is still doing stuff. It constantly senses its environment, particularly the neurotransmitter concentration. It may be subject to continual small pulses of neurotransmitter that fail to raise its electrical potential to the threshold necessary to trigger a firing (like when you get that "almost" feeling when you don't quite sneeze). From the information-theory perspective, failing to fire sends information just like firing does. (Not as much information, since firing is less common than not firing, but information nonetheless.) Hal Finney From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 19 22:26:51 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 23:26:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lottery tickets as personal savings plan In-Reply-To: <20060519204244.DE70857FD1@finney.org> References: <20060519204244.DE70857FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: On 5/19/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > The problem this proposal aims to fix is two-fold: poor people tend not > to save enough of their income, which both keeps them poor and makes > them especially vulnerable in old age; and poor people waste money on > the lottery. By turning lottery income into personal savings plans we > exploit people's human weakness for gambling and turn it into a long-term > benefit in the form of forced savings. > > Politically this would be difficult because of the charade that lottery > money is being used for schools. In fact, all government income is > essentially put into a big barrel and used as the government likes. > The whole school thing was just a scam to sell the lottery to voters. > > The bigger issue is that diverting lottery profits to be income for > poor people would reduce government revenues. In the long run it should > be OK because government liabilities would be much lower in the future > as poor people are able to fund their own retirements, but governments > tend not to think in the long term. Taking a hit today in return for > long-run benefits is the opposite of how governments usually work. > In the UK, the government savings department sells Premium Bonds to the public. Max holding is 30,000 pounds (56,000 USD). Your bonds go into a monthly lottery. There are two ?1 million jackpots plus over a million other tax-free prizes every month. Your original purchase money can be cashed in and returned at any time. A maximum holder will usually win enough small prizes to have a regular interest payment every month. The government makes a profit by only paying out 3% interest (tax free) in prizes. BillK From asa at nada.kth.se Fri May 19 22:56:51 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 00:56:51 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] A couple weird questions... In-Reply-To: <20060519211226.DE3D857FD1@finney.org> References: <20060519211226.DE3D857FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <35758.86.141.187.178.1148079411.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> "Hal Finney" wrote: > That's probably not the right way to look at it. Each neural firing > lasts a millisecond or more. It's a somewhat complex process, involving > a cascade of ion channels opening, ions rushing in (or out), electrical > potentials varying, resulting in an explosive climax, not unlike a sneeze. > > The bottom line is, from Anders' comment, that a typical neuron spends > maybe 2% of its time in the firing state. With 100 billion neurons that > means that we have 2 billion neurons firing at any one time. Yes. The data I was referring to (from Cossart, Aronov & Yuste, Attractor dynamics of network UP states in the neocortex, Nature 423, 15 may 2003) suggests that each active neuron fires a few times per second during active states, and that these states appear to be randomly distributed in time between different populations. So at any given time we probably have 2% in an upstate, firing about 5 times per second, taking up about a millisecond. So the "duty cycle" for an individual neuron is about 1/10,000. So we have at least a hundred million neurons firing at any time. >From a Planck time perspective brain activity is like watching ice ages come and go (or rather, galaxy clusters to form and dissipate). Even spikes are slow processes, involving those lazy ions diffusing randomly through channels and electric fields taking *femtoseconds* to spread across membranes (28 orders of magnitude difference!). > Plus even when a neuron is technically not firing, it is still > doing stuff. It constantly senses its environment, particularly > the neurotransmitter concentration. It may be subject to continual > small pulses of neurotransmitter that fail to raise its electrical > potential to the threshold necessary to trigger a firing (like when > you get that "almost" feeling when you don't quite sneeze). The Cossart paper shows that the summation of inputs from other neurons likely is important, since even silent neurons have to detect when they get a "go" signal to enter an up-state and begin (possibly) firing. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri May 19 23:08:49 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 00:08:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <20060519172533.E52FF57FD1@finney.org> References: <20060519172533.E52FF57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605191608r411b89d8y9d9051a4982ce683@mail.gmail.com> On 5/19/06, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > The connection to superrationality is that it is another example of > evidentiary reasoning, like the case of taking just one box in the > Newcomb paradox. Cooperating in the one-shot PD gives you evidence, > per the standard superrationality reasoning, that the other player will > also cooperate. (Likewise, defecting would give you evidence that > he will defect.) However, it does not *cause* him to act that way. > Your choice has no direct causal consequences on the other player, > it merely gives you evidence about how he is likely to behave. Yep. In Newcomb's Paradox, the answer to this is to increase the accuracy of the prediction, to the ultimate case where the prediction is made by running an exact copy of you through an exact copy of the test; this is equivalent to increasing the similarity of the partners in the one-shot PD, to the ultimate case where the other player is your mirror image. Once you do this, there _is_ a causal link between your decision and the outcome, and it again becomes rational to cooperate. (For how there can be that sort of "reverse causality" in the extreme version of Newcomb's Paradox, see http://www.sl4.org/archive/0305/6638.html) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat May 20 01:41:29 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 02:41:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605191608r411b89d8y9d9051a4982ce683@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060519172533.E52FF57FD1@finney.org> <8d71341e0605191608r411b89d8y9d9051a4982ce683@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605191841x73a89edbr5a27d594771f760f@mail.gmail.com> It occurs to me that there's an even better parallel between the PD and Newcomb's Paradox. Suppose a television company were to actually try to run the Newcomb experiment today, as a game show. They can't resort to hypothetical technology or supernatural powers; they'll presumably have to hire a psychologist or fortune teller to interview the candidate. (The latter isn't as irrational as it might sound - a good fortune teller needs to be a good practical psychologist.) Suppose I'm the candidate - how could my actions on stage when presented with the two boxes be predicted? It would appear impossible to do it reliably, right? Very simply. I offer to give my word that I will take only one box, in return for the forecaster's word that the prize money will be there. On stage, the rational course of action is then for me to take only one box, since my word is much more important to me than $1000. The forecaster's prediction record is supported, and I get the prize. And if you think about it, that's just how we handle a lot of PD-type situations in real life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri May 19 00:14:24 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:14:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. X, Consulting Resologist (Books of Charles Fort) Message-ID: <446D0DE0.4010703@mindspring.com> Unsure if everyone, especially new subscribers, are aware that Charles Hoy Fort's books are on-line. The weather data is of interest to weather folks. http://www.resologist.net/ 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.] From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat May 20 05:36:46 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 22:36:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <20060519172533.E52FF57FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: Hal writes > It's interesting that although people are generally split on Newcomb's > paradox, substantial numbers going either way, very few people accept > evidentiary reasoning in the case of superrationality. I suspect that > the trouble, ironically, is that people are just not thinking clearly > in evaluating superrational reasoning. They fail to appreciate the > strength of the argument that rational people will do the same thing. > We see this clearly when people accept that superrationality makes sense > up to a point, conclude that it means the other player will cooperate, > and then decide to defect. > > This failure is not too surprising, since economic reasoning relies on > a certain degree of abstraction and reductionism in terms of evaluating > what rational actors will do... I have one question. Suppose that today Hofstadter suddenly a time machine, and decides to visit the year 1983. He then finds himself in a sealed room, with his 1983 version in an adjacent sealed room. All each know is that they're in a one-shot PD with each other, and each knows the year from which the other comes. Our Doug, (Doug 2006) consults the payoff matrix. It says (5,5) | (0,10) (10,0)| (1,1) It is clear what the 1983 Doug will do. What move should our Doug play in order to maximize his payoff? Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat May 20 06:28:09 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 23:28:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605191608r411b89d8y9d9051a4982ce683@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell wrote > ...ultimate case where the prediction is made by running an > exact copy of you through an exact copy of the test; this is > equivalent to increasing the similarity of the partners in > the one-shot PD, to the ultimate case where the other player > is your mirror image. Once you do this, there _is_ a causal > link between your decision and the outcome, and it again > becomes rational to cooperate. Actually, there need be no *causal* link; as I said in my earlier post, a correlation is sufficient. A small point, but... In an adjacent post Russell also wrote > Very simply. I offer to give my word that I will take only one > box, in return for the forecaster's word that the prize money > will be there. On stage, the rational course of action is then > for me to take only one box, since my word is much more important > to me than $1000. The forecaster's prediction record is supported, > and I get the prize. Yes, but then if we want to reason outside the boxes (as it were), then one may wish to take only one box in Newcomb's Paradox in order to show that one is a nice guy, or that one is not greedy, or some other irrelevant consideration. The monetary payoffs in Newcomb's Paradox are designed to thwart such motivations, which distract from the key issue. (And, by the way, there is only one correct answer: you take just the one box, any other course of action being either foolish, or not in accord with the hypotheses, or relevant only to a slightly different but entirely uninteresting parallel puzzle.) > And if you think about it, that's just how we handle a lot of > PD-type situations in real life. The ones that we encounter in real life fail to have all our incentives tabulated in the one-shot PD. If one is entirely *rational*, and one's values are entirely in accordance with the entries in the payoff matrix, then whether in real life or not, one of course defects (except in the peculiar circumstances that one is playing against one's duplicate or mirror image, etc.) In real life, on the contrary, we are not entirely rational, nor should we be, insofar as "rational" means self-interested. Most of us have an innate tendency to be altruistic, (as is carefully explained "The Origins of Virtue" and other sources, as surely you know). For the 96% of us who are not psychopaths, for a great majority these other rewards must be added to the payoff matrix in order for it to retain verisimilitude. When the boxes in the "Cooperate" row are thus incremented, one does cooperate, and indeed it then becomes quite rational to do so. Lee From hal at finney.org Sat May 20 05:57:08 2006 From: hal at finney.org (Hal Finney) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 22:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality Message-ID: <20060520055708.1F4A557FD1@finney.org> Lee Corbin writes: > I have one question. Suppose that today Hofstadter suddenly a time machine, > and decides to visit the year 1983. He then finds himself in a sealed room, > with his 1983 version in an adjacent sealed room. All each know is that > they're in a one-shot PD with each other, and each knows the year from which > the other comes. > > Our Doug, (Doug 2006) consults the payoff matrix. It says > > (5,5) | (0,10) > (10,0)| (1,1) > > It is clear what the 1983 Doug will do. What move should our > Doug play in order to maximize his payoff? It's funny that you should word the question like that, since there is a fundamental ambiguity in the word "his" in this situation. We might argue that cooperating will maximize "his", Douglas Hofstadter's, payoff, making it 5+5=10, with 5 coming earlier and therefore, due to discounting and inflation, worth more. Or we might interpret it to be asking what will maximize Doug-2006's payoff, in which case defecting would serve. One problem with this time-machine variant is that it raises a causation paradox. Wouldn't Doug-2006 remember being visited by a future version of himself, back in 1983? Wouldn't he remember how that future self had played, and in that case, wouldn't he be forced to play the same way this time? Perhaps we can get around this by assuming that the 1983 version submitted to localized amnesia, forgetting the details of the incident; or else we could use a model of time travel where a new time line is formed when the future person reaches the past. I can't speak for Hofstadter, of course, but ignoring these complications I strongly suspect he would cooperate in this situation. We know he found the reasoning compelling enough in 1983 to make quite an issue of it. If he still feels that way, he will play the same. If not, I imagine that out of solidarity and sympathy for his earlier self, he will show respect for the person he was and continue to follow that principle. How many of us might be more motivated to follow through on our commitments, plans and dreams, if we could somehow be confronted by our younger selves and called to account for how we had lived our lives? Hal From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat May 20 07:46:01 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 08:46:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605191608r411b89d8y9d9051a4982ce683@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605200046t61cf11a7wfdc1736160a8589a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/20/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Yes, but then if we want to reason outside the boxes (as it were), > then one may wish to take only one box in Newcomb's Paradox in order > to show that one is a nice guy, or that one is not greedy, or some > other irrelevant consideration. But that's the whole point. 1) Solution(Equation X) = Y. So what? 2) What we should do = defect. What the fuck? No way! People are foul hideous monsters if they contemplate that!! I hate humanity!!! Mathematics isn't true!!!! (Hofstadter's words, in fairly reasonably accurate paraphrase if my memory is even vaguely on the same continent as the mark.) But #1 does not in any way imply #2. The only way you can conclude anything about real life from #1 is by putting in the "outside the box" stuff that makes it realistic. And when you do that, #2 stops applying. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sat May 20 08:07:19 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:07:19 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Confronting our younger selves (was: Superrationality) Message-ID: Hal Finney >How many of us might be more motivated to follow through on our >commitments, plans and dreams, if we could somehow be confronted by >our younger selves and called to account for how we had lived our >lives? http://www.amara.com/aboutme/dialoguewmy22self.html Oh, I'm motivated. Still I have made what could be dreadful mistakes on particular paths. Paths that I was thinking were exactly following my dreams, when in reality, I lost the strength to take good care of myself. I hope the mistakes were not too dreadful, though, and that I can still do something about those dreams. The URL above is the result of an interaction about 1.5 years ago when someone, an artist, who I didn't know very well, offered to sketch me a picture of myself from a photograph. The photograph needed to be black and white, high quality. It was interesting exercise from both sides because I decided to give him a 21 year old photograph. On his side, he knew that he had a 21 year old photograph and needed to give a personality of the present person projected onto a picture of someone from the past. I told him he was free to project who and what he wanted. From my side, I wanted to look into the eyes of my 22 year old self and have a dialog with her. When that sketch arrived about one week later, I framed it and hung it on my wall so I could talk to her. It's not easy talking to my younger self. I don't know the answer yet if I have done well in following some of her dreams, but I think I'm trying. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From pgptag at gmail.com Sat May 20 08:55:48 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:55:48 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Confronting our younger selves (was: Superrationality) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520605200155o75f994bcw939b10afd58d3ecb@mail.gmail.com> It is not like our ability to dream dies when we are 25. We keep evolving, and so do our dreams. I am basically the same person I was at 25, but I have different dreams now, some related to the things we discuss on this list. My current dreams make more sense to the current me. The only thing that I have really lost is physical energy and stamina. Looking forward to biotech to fix that. G. On 5/20/06, Amara Graps wrote: > Hal Finney > >How many of us might be more motivated to follow through on our > >commitments, plans and dreams, if we could somehow be confronted by > >our younger selves and called to account for how we had lived our > >lives? > > http://www.amara.com/aboutme/dialoguewmy22self.html > > Oh, I'm motivated. Still I have made what could be dreadful mistakes > on particular paths. Paths that I was thinking were exactly following > my dreams, when in reality, I lost the strength to take good care of > myself. I hope the mistakes were not too dreadful, though, and that I > can still do something about those dreams. > > The URL above is the result of an interaction about 1.5 years ago when > someone, an artist, who I didn't know very well, offered to sketch me > a picture of myself from a photograph. The photograph needed to be > black and white, high quality. It was interesting exercise from both > sides because I decided to give him a 21 year old photograph. > > On his side, he knew that he had a 21 year old photograph and needed > to give a personality of the present person projected onto a picture > of someone from the past. I told him he was free to project who and > what he wanted. > > From my side, I wanted to look into the eyes of my 22 year old self > and have a dialog with her. When that sketch arrived about one week > later, I framed it and hung it on my wall so I could talk to her. > > It's not easy talking to my younger self. I don't know the answer yet > if I have done well in following some of her dreams, but I think I'm > trying. > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From discwuzit at yahoo.com Sat May 20 11:09:46 2006 From: discwuzit at yahoo.com (John B) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 04:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060520110946.91774.qmail@web54504.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 23:41:43 +0200 (MEST) From: "Anders Sandberg" Lee Corbin wrote: >> Of course not. The cultural values of most Swedes, >> including this form of xenophobia, arose though >> evolution. Cultures that did not have such >> values did not last very long. (Burden of proof: >> just where, historically, did one see a long lasting >> culture or society not jealous of its own >> identity?) Anders Sandberg replied: > The idea that a society should have its own identity > is fairly historically recent. Nationalism as an > ideology was invented mid 1800's. Before that it was > more a matter of who was the ruler or who had > inhereited the land, although there have been a few > exceptions like the romans, who had an originally > ethnicity-based citizenship concept. I can't recall > any suggestion that (say) Egyptians had a need to > assert their > identity. What about Mayan culture, or Japan in the various empire periods? (Weren't they also using a figleaf of empire in some of feudal periods as well?) Weren't those 'nationalistic'? Or China's history of a single style of bureaucracy thru multiple dynasties? Anders continues: > On a purely psychological levels people always tend > to assert the identity of their in-group, but for > much of history this was far smaller than iron > age states. Village identity, guild identity, > religious identity, yes, but not so much a social > identity encompassing a particular nation. Couldn't those - especially a religious identity - be a precursor of nationalism, especially as so many nation-states across the history of the world were formed explicitly or implicitly for the dissemmination of a specific religion? Even a village (upscaled to city) identity IMO could be pointed to as a foundation of a nation-state. Look at the history of Greek civilization wherein city-states struggled to impose their cultural mores (and political rulers) on their neighbors militarily and economically. -snip Bros Grim example- Lee Corbin wrote: >> There are two reasons why your ideas don't have time >> enough. One, of course, is the singularity (even if >> in its mildest and gentlest form). Anders responded: > Why wouldn't nation states survive the singularity? Excellent question. There is no reason that I know of that nationality, religion, pseudoscience, liking for football, or other 'waste of time' activity might not survive the singularity. Anders: > If we assume that people do socially cluster > according to some form of identity, even if this > identity is based on highly archaic and traditional > notions, then the postsingularity entities might > still have kept such mental properties and > contine preferential clustering based on the same > notions. And if states actually make sense from a > practical point of view they will remain, while > their merging may be limited by economies of scale > or the emergence of useful sub-superstate clusters > (e.g. like in Nozick's utopia model). So barring > radical shifts in vulnerability to *all* threats, > extreme autonomy and the need to network selectively, > state-like entities are not implausible post > singularity. Additionally, if we assume that the singularity is not all-encompassing in its scope - sweeping up every sophont within a short period of time - there's a huge divide waiting to be exploited - pre- and post- singularity sophonces will most likely have radically different goals, conceptualizations, and explanations for themselves. Therefore, IMO, assuming SOME form of social clustering continues to exist, there's a huge rationale for developing pre- and post-singularity social clusters. Anders: > Of course, if postsingularity Sweden is still > debating taxes I'm going to (postsingularity-) cry. And if America still has its embedded political class, so'll I. *wry grin* -John B __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat May 20 12:20:48 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 07:20:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: References: <20060517151341.79152.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/19/06, jeffrey davis wrote: > > On 5/17/06, KAZ wrote: > > > > One could eschew every and all extropian thought and still choose to > > sign up for cryonic suspension, because it's a matter of sheer logic that if > > you're frozen, there is SOME chance of you being revived, while if you're > > buried in the ground you are absolutely guaranteed to be gone forever, > > barring something super-natural. > > > > Rarely have I heard it put more succinctly. > It is succinct, unfortunately part of the statement is highly problematic (perhaps even *wrong*). Paraphrasing: "If you are frozen there is some chance of being revived." True. "If you are buried in the ground you are absolutely guaranteed to be gone forever." Not so fast. For the last ~100 years or more in the developed countries many "dead" persons have been embalmed and buried [1,2]. This results in a significant retardation of many active (e.g. bacterial) and passive (biochemical) decay processes. Anyone who watches CSI knows that it is not unusual to recover the DNA from someone who has been buried. (In fact work is ongoing for the reconstruction of the Mammoth genome from a Mammoth buried in permafrost for ~30,000 years.) 1. If you can get back the genome of an individual, you can get back part of the basis for "who" they were. 2. If you have sufficient information about the person, e.g. biographies, autobiographies, tax records, credit card histories, films of lectures (e.g. Feynman), etc. you have a pretty good idea of "who" or "how" they expressed themselves. 3. Depending upon the length of time one has been embalmed and the precise recovery methods you should be able to extract the ultrastructural information (neuron number, location, interconnection network, synaptic strengths, etc.) from a "dead" brain. >From (1) you can work forward to an individual. From (2) you can work backward to the individual. Those combined significantly constrain the phase space of "who" a person was to give you some reasonable approximation of the person. Combined with (3) and you have significant recreation capabilities. I doubt we understand the physiological & psychological complexity of individuals sufficiently to be to evaluate when a "recreation" is or is not effectively the "real", J.D., Kaz, Dyson, Sasha, Feynman, Kennedy, etc. A significant aspect of this that Kaz (and many others) who consider this problem miss is how much computer capacity in which to run and evaluate simulations we will have at our disposal in the future. One could wonder whether the "dark galaxies" that exist in the universe are devoted to reconstruction & simulation activities aimed at "bringing back" particular individuals who were critically important to the evolution of the first "advanced" civilizations that evolved within those galaxies. In order to be *really*, *really*, *really* dead in this day and age you have to actually work at it. It starts with a minimum requirement of having your body incinerated. You probably also have to incinerate your home, office and car (leave *no* DNA behind), then you have to kill off a fair number of your living relatives (who carry sufficient information that one can get back to a reasonable approximation of your genome). You shouldn't purchase things by credit card, can't make investments, can't pay taxes, can't be employed, etc. Of course it goes without saying that you certainly shouldn't be posting to the ExICh list... Going back to the original statement -- there is of course the "flip" side of the coin. One could be quite extropic and choose not to sign up for cryonic suspension because one doesn't want to be revived. A *true* extropian will make the decision whether or not to undergo cryonic suspension on the basis of whether or not they feel that activity will in the future contribute towards increasing the quantity and/or quality of "useful" information in the universe [3]. One has to compare investing the financial resources in the preservation of oneself as an ice cube for 20-50 years to say investing in the same financial resources in other potentially more extropic efforts [4]. Robert 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbalming 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embalming_solution 3. I would tend to believe that most people selecting cryonic suspension are *not* making the decision on the basis of "extropic" arguments but are simply selecting cryonic suspension out of a highly evolved desire for self-preservation. 4. For example, donating the money to organizations that would limit efforts to create advanced general AIs, which could in turn lead to "SkyNet" which could in turn lead to the end of humanity as we know it. Selecting cryonic suspension involves a rather questionable assumption that the future will be "better". Who would want to be reanimated if the future sucked? (Makes one wonder what fraction of cryonic reanimation specifications include "only bring me back *if*" clauses.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat May 20 14:17:16 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 15:17:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: References: <20060517151341.79152.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/20/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > It is succinct, unfortunately part of the statement is highly problematic > (perhaps even *wrong*). > > > Going back to the original statement -- there is of course the "flip" side > of the coin. One could be quite extropic and choose not to sign up for > cryonic suspension because one doesn't want to be revived. A *true* > extropian will make the decision whether or not to undergo cryonic > suspension on the basis of whether or not they feel that activity will in > the future contribute towards increasing the quantity and/or quality of > "useful" information in the universe [3]. One has to compare investing the > financial resources in the preservation of oneself as an ice cube for 20-50 > years to say investing in the same financial resources in other potentially > more extropic efforts [4]. > I also wanted to criticise Jeff's post, especially the dismissive comment about 'Legions incapable of logic' applied to anyone outside of the very, very few signed up to cryonics. But then I thought that on extropy-chat, being signed up to cryonics is like having the membership ticket of the 'true believer', so I had better keep my mouth shut. ;) However, as Robert has stepped in (once again) where angels fear to tread, I'll add a few comments. As Robert says, signing up to cryonics is making a financial decision that this is the best way to allocate a *minimum* of 80,000 USD (head) or 150,000 USD (whole body). If you already have this much spare cash lying around in petty cash and you have already invested in / provided for everything else, then this point is not significant. But for most people, whether via life insurance or other methods, cryonics has to be selected in preference to many other possibilities. Donating to other organisations, e.g. SIAI to speed up FAI, providing for family, bequests to charities, etc. Alcor makes the point that for younger people the life insurance premiums should be smaller and easier to fund. It should also be pointed out though that younger people are the least likely to require cryonics. Other developments like life-extending tech, nano medicine and even the Singularity are likely to arrive well within the next 40 to 50 years. And if you die prematurely in a flaming car wreck, then cryonics won't help. Most scientists say that revival of a cryonics case is not possible in any near future technology. You need 'magic' nano medicine before you can make a case for this. But if you can live long enough, via interim life-extension tech, until nano medicine arrives then you have no need for cryonics. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Sat May 20 14:25:56 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:25:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: References: <20060517151341.79152.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060520142556.GN26713@leitl.org> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 03:17:16PM +0100, BillK wrote: > As Robert says, signing up to cryonics is making a financial decision > that this is the best way to allocate a *minimum* of 80,000 USD (head) > or 150,000 USD (whole body). If you already have this much spare cash You don't need 150 k$. 80 k$ is very manageable if you do it with a life insurance, buying in early. Or, via an investment fund, at a similiarly young age. If you start at 20-30, and expire at 90, the math is straightforward. > lying around in petty cash and you have already invested in / provided > for everything else, then this point is not significant. > > Most scientists say that revival of a cryonics case is not possible in > any near future technology. You need 'magic' nano medicine before you > can make a case for this. But if you can live long enough, via interim You don't need nanomedicine for uploading. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat May 20 15:46:43 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 11:46:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wisdom of Crowds In-Reply-To: <20060515175719.128D157FD1@finney.org> References: <20060515175719.128D157FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060520114359.02492e88@gmu.edu> On 5/15/2006, Hal Finney wrote: >Economics teaches us that, modulo certain assumptions, this should >happen to a much greater degree, to the point where it is basically >impossible to disagree with the market consensus. There is something of >an unrecognized public goods problem here. Bets that disagree with the >market are harmful to the bettors but helpful to society. Luckily, people >haven't yet figured out this effect, so markets generally work well. I'm not sure I agree with your summary. It is true that contributing info to a common estimate is a public goods problem, and so we should expect rational people to under-contribute. What is less clear is whether irrational overconfidence people on net increase or decrease the quality of common info via their actions. 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 May 20 15:41:44 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 11:41:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] singularity conference at stanford In-Reply-To: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> References: <20060515060049.2769957FD2@finney.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060520110734.02435ac0@gmu.edu> [I've been buried grading finals, and my DSL has been down at home. So I'm a bit late in replying to a bunch of these messages. RH] On 5/15/2006, Hal Finney wrote: >our human tendency to be over-confident in our predictions.... It's >reasonable and appropriate to ... try to ... expand >our estimates of what is possible and likely. Nick mentioned this, >and then Max did as well, and I think Eliezer may have touched on it. >That's fine, but then they asked a question of the panelists, when do >you think human-level AI will be achieved? Kurzweil gave his answer, >2029, John Smart said 2070, and a few others answered as well, but Nick >and Max demurred on the grounds of this result on overconfidence. >There are two problems with this reasoning. The first is that >it is technically incorrect: when you recalibrate because of human >overconfidence, you should expand your range, the confidence interval, >but not your mean, the center of the range. And the mean is what the >panelists were being asked to provide. Overconfidence is usually more fundamentally about your own ability relative to the ability of others. So it makes more sense to correct it by moving your whole distributions closer to the distribution of others this could change your mean as well as your variance. >But more fundamentally, ... Individually we >tend to be highly overconfident. But, collectively, our estimates >are often extremely good. Surowiecki describes classic examples like >guessing the weight of a pig, or the number of jelly beans in a jar. ... >... when people refuse to make guesses because >they have recalibrated themselves into a mental fog, they are no longer >contributing to the social welfare. ... >Of course, the speakers were not exactly a model of diversity, and >probably an even better estimate could have come from the audience. ... >The lesson I take. ... is this ... Your private estimations should be as >accurate as possible, taking into consideration known biases and >attempting to compensate for them. .... But, at the same time, your >public communications should perhaps .... not necessarily reflect >all these internal mental adjustments and calibrations. >... People should not be afraid to guess just because they fear >being overconfident. Acting as if we don't know that we are overconfident >may actually be a socially more responsible way to behave. Yes, in order to promote information aggregation in the group, it is essential that people state their opinions. But it is not at all essential, and may even be harmful, for people to provide overconfident opinions. The key questions are two: 1) whether observers can solve the inverse problem, to infer the information that people have from the opinions that they express, and 2) whether enough people *want* to solve this inverse problem accurately, "enough" relative to the information institution they are contributing to. Knowing that a person is perfectly rational, or that a person completely ignores the info of others, can both support effective inference in principle. In practice I'm not sure what sort of over (or under) confidence would make it easier to solve the inverse problem. But it seems clear that the second problem is best solved by people who want to be as accurate as possible. Regarding this particular conference (which I did not attend) other potentials for overconfidence seem much more important to me. It was a conference created by people with an extreme view, in order for such extremists to interact. The organizers appear confident that they know who is expert in this area, as there was no call for proposals or open competition for participation. And in judging such expertize for this academic conference they seem to put relatively little value on traditional academic credentials in the related academic areas. (Since the subject is the social consequences of artificial intelligence, the relevant academic credentials would be in A.I. or social science.) Relative to such potential biases, a few people not offering a forecast number seems pretty minor. 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 May 20 16:15:32 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 12:15:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Hard TakeOff [was: Bluff and the Darwin award] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0605151815x64b8cd30t9a01c7b621036731@mail.gmail.com> <446A1048.6010407@pobox.com> <8d71341e0605161339v18a7008du5eb41f9a0d53fe03@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060520115326.0240e258@gmu.edu> On 5/16/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: >Hard takeoff = a process by which seed AI (of complexity buildable >by a team of very smart humans in a basement) undertakes >self-improvement to increase its intelligence, without needing mole >quantities of computronium, _without needing to interact with the >real world outside its basement_, and without needing a long time; >subsequently emerging in a form that is already superintelligent. ... >2) Recursive self-improvement mightn't be a valid concept in the first place. I never saw a response to this. I'm a skeptic of the hard takeoff scenario myself - while it is logically possible, I am disappointed by the attention it gets relative to more likely scenarios. The complaint that such a seed wouldn't have a "real world environment" seems a bit misstated though. In any system with parts, each part has a real environment composed of the other parts. The Earth has been a largely self-contained system that has experienced great self-improvement. My skepticism is instead based on the observation that effective autarky is rare (http://hanson.gmu.edu/dreamautarky.html). 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 May 20 16:22:24 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 12:22:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality (was: singularity conference at stanford) In-Reply-To: <38094.81.152.102.156.1147909327.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.s e> References: <20060517221749.2731F57FD1@finney.org> <38094.81.152.102.156.1147909327.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060520121824.024fa250@gmu.edu> At 07:42 PM 5/17/2006, Anders Sandberg wrote: >... superrationality requires that you have no false beliefs, no uncertainty >and indefinite amounts of mindpower, and that is unrealistic. >This is also why I distrust a lot of ordinary game theory. People have a >hard time doing these "rational" calculations, so they can't be trusted to >follow rational strategies. And actions are subject to noise etc. Instead >the aim ought to be to look for stable and robust strategies under many >kinds of noise, uncertainty and coevolving competitors, and that is in >IMHO a far more *fun* problem that finding equilibria. But it lacks all >the austere purity of philosophy and classic game theory. In case folks are not aware, most activity in game theory in the last decade has been in these two directions: 1) Specific heuristics that people use in specific game contexts. These models tend to be very context dependent, and so are of relatively little use when applied to games with little behavior data. 2) Noisy game theories, which use a few general noise parameters to predict behavior in a wide range of games. These have been quite successful and reasonably account for lack of full rationality without getting bogged down in details. 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Sat May 20 17:41:21 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060520174121.70735.qmail@web50212.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Robert Bradbury To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 7:20:48 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend > 1. If you can get back the genome of an individual, > you can get back part of the basis for "who" they were. This is only true insofar as two identical twins raised separately are the same person. > 2. If you have sufficient information about the person, e.g. biographies, > autobiographies, tax records, credit card histories, films of lectures > ( e.g. Feynman), etc. you have a pretty good idea of "who" or "how" they expressed themselves. Yes, you should be able to, with sufficient psychiatric technology, make someone who /behaves/ like the person. I doubt you'd even need their genome, though. And behavior isn't really the same thing as being the person. Not even close. That's like the famous turing test example where someone simply programmed a database with pretty much every question the tester might ask, and a sane response. The tester can be fooled into believing he's conversing with a real person, but the database still will not be sapient or sentient, even to the limited degree that humans are. It's still as stupid as a wind-up watch, in the human sense. Likewise no amount of making someone /behave/ like the original will make him the original. The original person's true self will still be missing. > 3. Depending upon the length of time one has been embalmed and the > precise recovery methods you should be able to extract the ultrastructural > information (neuron number, location, interconnection network, synaptic > strengths, etc.) from a "dead" brain. This is rendered moot, aside from how little embalming probably helps (and it may do an enormous amount of damage to the details of the brain, in fact), by my response to #2. The human mind is a complex application, developed in a trail and error way, essentially evolving over the course of the human's life. All the fine details comprise, at least as a whole, who the human is. The macro properties are only a framework, really. Guessing the number and general structure/properties would no more create the individual, even with 1 and 2, than duplicating the complete user interface of MS Windows using black box development (to avoid copyright violation) means you've actually duplicated the OS itself. Without the fine details of the source code, it's not the same "identity". > I doubt we understand the physiological & psychological complexity of individuals > sufficiently to be to evaluate when a "recreation" is or is not effectively the "real", J.D., I think we can safely say that what you outlined cannot be "real", unless we can actually determine the detailed state of most of the neurons after centuries in the dirt, which may be literally impossible. Maybe not; they've found soft tissue inside t-rex bones, and are working on inferring the genetics of dinosaurs from it, and just a few years ago we all would have agreed this was literally impossible. But it MAY be impossible to do this to neurons, dentrides, and synapses in specific detail. > Kaz, Dyson, Sasha, Feynman, Kennedy, etc. A significant aspect of this > that Kaz (and many others) who consider this problem miss is how much > computer capacity in which to run and evaluate simulations we will have > at our disposal in the future. One could wonder whether the "dark galaxies" > that exist in the universe are devoted to reconstruction & simulation activities > aimed at "bringing back" particular individuals who were critically important > to the evolution of the first "advanced" civilizations that evolved within those galaxies. Surely you're not thinking it'd take a galaxy to replicate a human mind's function. It wouldn't take more than a computer the same volume as a human skull, and probably considerably less. > In order to be *really*, *really*, *really* dead in this day and age you have > to actually work at it. It starts with a minimum requirement of having your body > incinerated. You probably also have to incinerate your home, office and car > (leave *no* DNA behind), then you have to kill off a fair number of your living > relatives (who carry sufficient information that one can get back to a reasonable > approximation of your genome). You shouldn't purchase things by credit card, > can't make investments, can't pay taxes, can't be employed, etc. Of course > it goes without saying that you certainly shouldn't be posting to the ExICh list... Actually, all of that would be only if you're worried about them creating someone who ACTED like you. None of that will reconstruct YOU. Just your behavior. It's the turing argument analogy, again. The actual consciousness of the entity created would "feel", from the inside, and function, internally, completely differently. Sorta like Windows versus those occasionally-trendy X shells which look, at a glance and even through casual use, identical to it. > Going back to the original statement -- there is of course the "flip" side of the coin. > One could be quite extropic and choose not to sign up for cryonic suspension > because one doesn't want to be revived. Logically, if all other factors (leaving money to kids, wanting to spend it going out with a bang, et cetera) are set aside, this is in effect the same as saying "perhaps they'll want to commit suicide". If there is NO practical impediment, just not /wanting/ to be revived, then I see no difference between that and shooting yourself in the head right now, except WHEN you're choosing to off yourself. > A *true* extropian will make the decision whether or not to undergo cryonic > suspension on the basis of whether or not they feel that activity will in the > future contribute towards increasing the quantity and/or quality of "useful" > information in the universe [3]. I'm unaware of selflessness as a requirement of extropianism. In fact, I am 99.999% certain that SOMEONE, somewhere, has most of the information already. The odds that we, after sixteen billion years, are the first civilization to get to this point are insanely small. Probably we've had trillions of predecessors, spread over billions of preceeding years. And we may be just one p-brane in a 10 spatial dimension universe of other 3d universes, perhaps an infinity of them, or at least a number comparable to the particle count of this universe. And maybe the chemistry of the containing 4+ spacial dimension space supports sentience in some fashion, as well. Imagine how much room for intelligence there would be in a 6 dimensional chemistry system. The greatest intellectual system of our entire universe would be an idiot...not even worth calling a simple calculator...in comparison with what would arise at random there, perhaps. And then there's the question of whether our entire reality is contained in someone's simulation. 10 dimensional sentient beings in our universe could be worthless, mechanistic dolts compared to whatever runs their (and our) simulation. So, to get back to the point, I'm not worried about "contributing toward the increasing quantity and/or quality of 'useful' information in the universe", because it's probable that SOMEONE has already gone so far beyond anything we will EVER do that it's hopeless. No, I selfishly wish to HAVE the information. I hope to help the species get it mainly on the off chance that I'll end up being around. I even console myself with the idea of my descendants getting it in the short-term, if necessary. But, overall, "the universe"...especially if you include whatever contains it...has almost certainly got a ridiculous amount of access and organization being used by far more sentient beings, already. And all that's aside from the distinct possibility that "the universe" is a self-referential form of that information. Really, better semantics would be "is being accessed by sentient beings", the information could be otherwise defined as useful by its very existence. > One has to compare investing the financial resources in the preservation of > oneself as an ice cube for 20-50 years to say investing in the same financial > resources in other potentially more extropic efforts [4]. People motivated by /selfish/ desire to get the information will, in the long run, be far more productive at advancing knowledge than those who attempt to altruistically look for whatever will advance some abstract goal. Selfish action produces the modern Internet; careful attempts to work specifically toward future knowledge produces NASA. The former is the best we've produced, the latter among the most useless. -- Words of the Sentient: >From a psychological point of view, 'sins' are indispensable in any society organized by priests; they are the actual levers of power, the priest lives on sins; he needs the commission of sins. -- Friederich Nietzsche E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Sat May 20 17:58:15 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 10:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060520175815.75849.qmail@web50213.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Robert Bradbury To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 7:20:48 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend I missed the last part of that post... > 4. For example, donating the money to organizations that would limit efforts to > create advanced general AIs, which could in turn lead to "SkyNet" which could > in turn lead to the end of humanity as we know it. First, as noted already, "donating" rarely contributes to real advancement. The for-profit guys continue to kick the asses of the non-profit researchers, when it comes to knowledge advancement. The illusion that the latter is the cutting edge comes mainly from them buying the former's stuff and announcing that they're working for some blue-sky thing based on it. Imagine if government and non-profit research had been responsible for the advancement computing, instead of Intel, Motorola, Microsoft, Apple, et cetera. We probably still would have to go beg computer time from big central machines which would be about as fast as a Pentium, with a clunkier interface and poorer information system. Note the lack of roman numeral after the word "Pentium". Instead, the researchers buy modern multi-processor AMD/Intel boxes. They make supercomputers out of PC technology...and then base their new projects on that. Of course one reason is that there's no effective means of measuring how productive non-profits, government agencies, and other extra-market research is. All market-based activity is part of a complex system which measures the value of all of its components to the society as a whole. So even though it is apparently far less directed and "rational", it constantly outproduces even the most careful, advancement-seeking effort that lacks any such objective quality control. > Selecting cryonic suspension involves a rather questionable assumption that the future > will be "better". Who would want to be reanimated if the future sucked? (Makes > one wonder what fraction of cryonic reanimation specifications include "only bring me back *if*" clauses.) I still don't see why creating AIs who see our intellects as positively amoebic would even make the end of humanity likely, much less probable. Their ability to organize and utilize resources would probably be so advanced that they would not see us as any kind of liability or threat. Again I note that pretty much nobody minds the guys living in shacks in Montana, all inefficient and primitive, nor do we worry about killing bacteria out in the wilds of the Amazon because it's using resources in ways different than we find useful. -- Words of the Sentient: The young always have the same problem -- how to rebel and conform at the same time. They have now solved this by defying their parents and copying one another. --Quentin Crisp E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal _______________________________________________ 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 andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat May 20 19:26:04 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 12:26:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: HTML emails (was: hope you can comprehend) In-Reply-To: <20060520174121.70735.qmail@web50212.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060520174121.70735.qmail@web50212.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I would like to remind some of our new guests (our old guests have undoubtedly heard this before) that HTML formatted email is frowned upon. It substantially increases email size, ruins readability in some clients, and pollutes archival and web display mechanisms without adding any significant benefit. Plain text emails are simply good mailing list etiquette, in the same way response trimming is. Good email etiquette improves signal-to- noise ratios, increasing the effective bandwidth of the channel. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Sat May 20 18:53:38 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 11:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: <20060518121151.GK26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060520185338.20854.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Eugen Leitl To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:11:51 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:42:43AM -0400, Heartland wrote: > Look, MS Outlook/Express users are completely free to develop their own, > alternative set of RFCs, and an alternative Internet, and leave us all in peace. > But we built this city of rock'n'roll, and these are our rules. > Don't like them -- don't play. End of discussion. Surely you're using such ridiculous hyperbole consciously, as self-ridicule. It is utterly laughable fallacy to say, in essence, "we did one thing you like, therefore you must accept everything". A majority of the "standards" developed by such bodies has gone by the way-side, for the same reason that central planning can NEVER work better than a free market in the long run. It is always best for the standards-setters to be nothing but suggestors, and for the free individuals of the society to always, in each case subsequently, decide the value of their musings. I shudder to imagine the world where we submitted to each standard the "experts" expounded at us. -- Words of the Sentient: The government is huge, stupid, greedy and makes nosy, officious and dangerous intrusions into the smallest corners of life -- this much we can stand. But the real problem is that government is boring. We could cure or mitigate the other wills Washington visits on us if we could only bring ourselves to pay attention to Washington itself. -- P.J.O'Rourke E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Sat May 20 19:01:24 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 12:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] chess and lizards In-Reply-To: <20060518173513.D64C057FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060520190124.94977.qmail@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Hal Finney To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:35:13 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] chess and lizards Spike asked: > > Whole nuther unrelated question please Eli. In your summit talk you made a > > reference to politicians not being lizards. The audience made an unexpected > > reaction, mirth or surprise. You looked around as if to say whaaaat? This > > was my reaction too: whaaaat? > Here's what I think happened. Eliezer made some straightforward comment > about politicians being smarter than lizards. This is plainly true. > However it is also a perfect 'straight line' setting up a joke, a put-down > of politicians suggesting that they are dumber than lizards. The audience > members each mentally supplied the punch line and laughed at that. Hmmm...I agree with Spike, insofar as it's just not funny. I mean, politicians ARE dumber than lizards. Does anyone here seriously think that we would be anything but better off, if every politician in the US were replaced in their job, tomorrow, by a lizard? To be fair, it would be an improvement for precisely the same reason that replacing them with rocks would work. Hmmm...by "replacing with rocks" I mean putting the rocks in their place, not using the rocks as a means of driving them out of office. That wouldn't be nearly as effective in practice as it is pleasant to imagine. -- Words of the Sentient: We delegates of the people of Virginia . . . do in the name and on the behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. -- Delegates to the Convention to Ratify the Constitution, Virginia E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Sat May 20 21:14:15 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:14:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic Message-ID: <9b9887c80605201414r3f7d685cq7e00be49d25e4387@mail.gmail.com> i am leading a session at the u.u. all church retreat some time in june and thought you might like a peek at some of what i do in the non digital world. this is the blurb for the program flier. smile, ilsa butterfly mind: have you ever wondered what all the fuss is about meditation? you might have looked into the early days of the 'relax response' promulgated by herbert benson at harvard or all the sweetly iced varieties fanned out by the new age to the serious study of the mind by Buddhists and the Abraham religions contemplation plans for self knowledge.. did you see the film, 'what the bleep do we know'? thoughts as well as the mind are now being looked over by hard scientists all over the world. hospitals are offering meditation before surgery to aid in the healing process. what has hard science taught us about nerve ganglion's function in the chemistry of thought? where is the origin of thoughts and what is their path through our minds, into our bodies and out to the atmosphere. where do thoughts land? how do we direct our thoughts? the brain generates 85 thoughts per second. let us get a handle on this process. i have studied for many years spending a short time at harvard as well as serious time with both religious leaders and scientists. bring your questions and be ready to go to the GYM for YOUR BRAIN. i have formulated a few steps for your progress on this journey. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wingcat at pacbell.net Sat May 20 21:24:21 2006 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <20060520055708.1F4A557FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: <20060520212421.57316.qmail@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Hal Finney wrote: > One problem with this time-machine variant is that it raises a > causation > paradox. Wouldn't Doug-2006 remember being visited by a future > version > of himself, back in 1983? Wouldn't he remember how that future self > had > played, and in that case, wouldn't he be forced to play the same way > this time? Perhaps we can get around this by assuming that the 1983 > version submitted to localized amnesia, forgetting the details of the > incident; or else we could use a model of time travel where a new > time > line is formed when the future person reaches the past. There's also the fact that the payoff matrix is inherently warped by time travel. If I gave $1000 to myself about a decade ago, interest from investments mean I'd likely have more than that $1000 today (especially if I also communicated which stocks would peak highest, and when). > How many of us might be more motivated to follow through > on > our commitments, plans and dreams, if we could somehow be confronted > by > our younger selves and called to account for how we had lived our > lives? I know I'm unusual in this, but I still proceed with my dreams from younger years - not forgotten, not at all, but rather built up and sharpened over the years, steadily growing towards reality. From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat May 20 22:37:47 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 18:37:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy 200th, John Stuart Mill Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060520183709.08b73548@unreasonable.com> Let me be the first, and I hope not the last, to tip my hat to John Stuart Mill on his 200th birthday. If you haven't, read his Autobiography and On Liberty, both of which are free on-line. If nothing else, he was a fine example of what you can achieve when you combine a very high IQ with home schooling, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill -- David. From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 21 00:34:40 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 17:34:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80605201414r3f7d685cq7e00be49d25e4387@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605210034.k4L0YmTK007267@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Ilsa, do refrain from posting to ExI this foolishness forthwith, thanks. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ilsa Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:14 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic i am leading a session at the u.u. all church retreat some time in june and thought you might like a peek at some of what i do in the non digital world. this is the blurb for the program flier. smile, ilsa butterfly mind: have you ever wondered what all the fuss is about meditation? you might have looked into the early days of the 'relax response' promulgated by herbert benson at harvard or all the sweetly iced varieties fanned out by the new age to the serious study of the mind by Buddhists and the Abraham religions contemplation plans for self knowledge.. did you see the film, 'what the bleep do we know'? thoughts as well as the mind are now being looked over by hard scientists all over the world. hospitals are offering meditation before surgery to aid in the healing process. what has hard science taught us about nerve ganglion's function in the chemistry of thought? where is the origin of thoughts and what is their path through our minds, into our bodies and out to the atmosphere. where do thoughts land? how do we direct our thoughts? the brain generates 85 thoughts per second. let us get a handle on this process. i have studied for many years spending a short time at harvard as well as serious time with both religious leaders and scientists. bring your questions and be ready to go to the GYM for YOUR BRAIN. i have formulated a few steps for your progress on this journey. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 21 01:04:49 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 18:04:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <200605210034.k4L0YmTK007267@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200605210104.k4L14rf9017621@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Ooops apologies, that was intended as a private post. (blush) spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 5:35 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] off topic Ilsa, do refrain ... spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ilsa Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:14 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic i am leading a session at the u.u. all church retreat ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 21 01:13:26 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 18:13:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: References: <20060517151341.79152.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8EB60423-1732-4ACE-B8C6-87A027A13DAF@mac.com> On May 20, 2006, at 5:20 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > It is succinct, unfortunately part of the statement is highly > problematic (perhaps even *wrong*). > > Paraphrasing: > "If you are frozen there is some chance of being revived." True. > "If you are buried in the ground you are absolutely guaranteed to > be gone forever." Not so fast. > > For the last ~100 years or more in the developed countries many > "dead" persons have been embalmed and buried [1,2]. This results > in a significant retardation of many active ( e.g. bacterial) and > passive (biochemical) decay processes. Anyone who watches CSI > knows that it is not unusual to recover the DNA from someone who > has been buried. (In fact work is ongoing for the reconstruction > of the Mammoth genome from a Mammoth buried in permafrost for > ~30,000 years.) > Embalming is not advertised as preserving brain structure sufficiently to reclaim much if anything of the persons unique brain interconnections. If you really believe this is actually present then by all means explain how. A lot of us could save a bundle or cryogenics and still have a good chance of revival. > 1. If you can get back the genome of an individual, you can get > back part of the basis for "who" they were. No. You get at best a clone, an individual with the same DNA but different experiences. > 2. If you have sufficient information about the person, e.g. > biographies, autobiographies, tax records, credit card histories, > films of lectures ( e.g. Feynman), etc. you have a pretty good idea > of "who" or "how" they expressed themselves. So what? Very little is recorded in the above, certainly not enough to produce a convincing duplicate except in extremely limited venues. > 3. Depending upon the length of time one has been embalmed and the > precise recovery methods you should be able to extract the > ultrastructural information (neuron number, location, > interconnection network, synaptic strengths, etc.) from a "dead" > brain. > Please provide a decent argument for this instead of simply asserting it. > From (1) you can work forward to an individual. A clone. > From (2) you can work backward to the individual. Those combined > significantly constrain the phase space of "who" a person was to > give you some reasonable approximation of the person. Not at all. You only have a few snapshots of a few aspects of the person's life. > Combined with (3) and you have significant recreation capabilities. This seems like pure assertion there is remotely enough left from the embalming process to reconstruct the individual's brain state to any useful extent. > I doubt we understand the physiological & psychological > complexity of individuals sufficiently to be to evaluate when a > "recreation" is or is not effectively the "real", J.D., Kaz, Dyson, > Sasha, Feynman, Kennedy, etc. I think we understand it enough to get that a meat doll with some behavioral engineering and little of the original's brain wiring is not that individual. > A significant aspect of this that Kaz (and many others) who > consider this problem miss is how much computer capacity in which > to run and evaluate simulations we will have at our disposal in the > future. One could wonder whether the "dark galaxies" that exist in > the universe are devoted to reconstruction & simulation activities > aimed at "bringing back" particular individuals who were critically > important to the evolution of the first "advanced" civilizations > that evolved within those galaxies. > How do simulations have anything to do with actually bringing back the embalmed individual from the dead? The simulation does not have the unique brain layout of the individual. It may or may not get some simulated individuals that match what is remembered about the original. But this is not remotely any sort of resurrection. > In order to be *really*, *really*, *really* dead in this day and > age you have to actually work at it. It starts with a minimum > requirement of having your body incinerated. > You probably also have to incinerate your home, office and car > (leave *no* DNA behind), then you have to kill off a fair number of > your living relatives (who carry sufficient information that one > can get back to a reasonable approximation of your genome). You > shouldn't purchase things by credit card, can't make investments, > can't pay taxes, can't be employed, etc. Of course it goes without > saying that you certainly shouldn't be posting to the ExICh list... Yeah, assuming your entire flight of fantasy is remotely plausible. I see no reason to assume it. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 21 01:28:00 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 18:28:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: <20060520175815.75849.qmail@web50213.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060520175815.75849.qmail@web50213.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <34F0D0D2-8894-4E58-8EE5-8654A6FADE7D@mac.com> On May 20, 2006, at 10:58 AM, KAZ wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Robert Bradbury > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 7:20:48 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend > I missed the last part of that post... > > > 4. For example, donating the money to organizations that would > limit efforts to > > create advanced general AIs, which could in turn lead to "SkyNet" > which could > > in turn lead to the end of humanity as we know it. > > First, as noted already, "donating" rarely contributes to real > advancement. > > The for-profit guys continue to kick the asses of the non-profit > researchers, when it comes to knowledge advancement. The illusion > that the latter is the cutting edge comes mainly from them buying > the former's stuff and announcing that they're working for some > blue-sky thing based on it. Imagine if government and non-profit > research had been responsible for the advancement computing, > instead of Intel, Motorola, Microsoft, Apple, et cetera. We > probably still would have to go beg computer time from big central > machines which would be about as fast as a Pentium, with a clunkier > interface and poorer information system. Note the lack of roman > numeral after the word "Pentium". This does not seem reasonable. I have worked in commercial software for heading toward three decades now. I have continuously noted that academic and non-profit research is way ahead of what is actual commercial practice. Some companies have significant research divisions but relatively little of the results seem to come to market. The commercial world emphasizes that which has likely profit potential in the not too distant future. Trends in business today are strongly oriented to short term bottom line results, especially in software businesses. I doubt very much you are going to find many commercial software houses willing to internally fund a 10+ year effort to produce AGI. if you know of any there are many here who would very much like to have this information. I know that you won't find a VC firm willing to fund an AGI startup or a startup to achieve full MNT for that matter. Again, if you can point to for profit significant private funding in these areas other than a few self-funded efforts then please share. I am a big believer in the free market. However, that is a darn sight different from a claim that only for profit efforts are any good at all in all fields. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun May 21 02:52:28 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 19:52:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: References: <20060517151341.79152.qmail@web37504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060517161513.81361.qmail@web50205.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/20/06, BillK wrote: > I also wanted to criticise Jeff's post, especially the dismissive comment > about 'Legions incapable of logic' applied to anyone outside of the very, > very few signed up to cryonics. Ummmm. Bill, no need to be shy. Yes, I have been known to get pissy (I usually regret it afterward, except when metaphorically grinding my heel into the occasional transient Fascisti looking to settle in to the list), but if you stay civil, I'll do the same. Though I'll abandon the discussion if you abandon logic. Yes, my comment was dismissive, but it wasn't "applied to anyone outside of the very, very few signed up to cryonics." Rather it was applied to well, those folks who don't care to think about what they believe, stick by their beliefs fiercely, and then energetically oppose new ideas out of blind loyalty to their own unexamined beliefs. The legions who believe without thinking, or without thinking very hard. Don't they deserve a bit of disdain? Should they be babied, coddled, pandered to, even as they actively obstruct human progress? In the absence of any proof to verify spiritual beliefs -- the soul, the Divine spark, the astral body, god, etc -- materialism remains the only source of verifyable truth -- maybe I should say "usable" truth. Your brain is a lump of material. This lump of stuff is wholly responsible for the awesome fact of your existence, consciousness, and uniqueness, though heart, lungs, guts, bone, and skin are vital as well. Your perception and your persona, however are mediated by your brain. To keep the Authentic You going strong, against "the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to", you have to keep that lump of flesh (your brain) in good shape. When the support system (your body) breaks down, you're faced with options. Rotting and burning don't cut it. Freezing is far better. What could be simpler, more logically obvious? It may or may not work. The future is iffy. But the logic, the logic is blindingly crystal. > But then I thought that on extropy-chat, being signed up to cryonics is > like having the membership ticket of the 'true believer', so I had better > keep my mouth shut. ;) > > However, as Robert has stepped in (once again) where angels fear to tread, Regarding Robert's comments, this part: "2. If you have sufficient information about the person, e.g. biographies, autobiographies, tax records, credit card histories, films of lectures ( e.g. Feynman), etc. you have a pretty good idea of "who" or "how" they expressed themselves." just doesn't work for me, as a basis for restoring the Authentic You. And while there is theory that information in the universe can never really be destroyed, recovering it from the Plank matrix or the embalmed/rotted corporeal remains seems much more challenging than from the LN2 preserved remains. I'll add a few comments. > > As Robert says, signing up to cryonics is making a financial decision that > this is the best way to allocate a *minimum* of 80,000 USD (head) or 150,000 > USD (whole body). If you already have this much spare cash lying around in > petty cash and you have already invested in / provided > for everything else, then this point is not significant. The cost of suspension from CI is 28K + the cost to get the patient/remains to their Michigan facility. But for most people, whether via life insurance or other methods, cryonics > has to be selected in preference to many other possibilities. Donating to > other organisations, e.g. SIAI to speed up FAI, providing for family, > bequests to charities, etc. > > Alcor makes the point that for younger people the life insurance premiums > should be smaller and easier to fund. It should also be pointed out though > that younger people are the least likely to require cryonics. Other > developments like life-extending tech, nano medicine and even the > Singularity are likely to arrive well within the next 40 to 50 years. And if > you die prematurely in a flaming car wreck, then cryonics won't help. > > Most scientists say that revival of a cryonics case is not possible in any > near future technology. You need 'magic' nano medicine before you can make a > case for this. But if you can live long enough, via interim life-extension > tech, until nano medicine arrives then you have no need > for cryonics. And we'd all like to see things move quickly enough so that we can all enjoy that circumstance. Yah? Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 21 06:25:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 23:25:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] clocking atoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605210642.k4L6g0tK006534@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Hey cool: http://www.news.wisc.edu/12614.html spike From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 21 09:18:38 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 11:18:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: <20060520185338.20854.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060518121151.GK26713@leitl.org> <20060520185338.20854.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060521091837.GA26713@leitl.org> On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:53:38AM -0700, KAZ wrote: > Surely you're using such ridiculous hyperbole consciously, as self-ridicule. > > It is utterly laughable fallacy to say, in essence, "we did one thing you like, therefore you must accept everything". Surely when posting such nonsense you know how the IETF and the RFC process work. No? Then look it up. > A majority of the "standards" developed by such bodies has gone by the way-side, for the same reason that central planning can NEVER work better than a free market in the long run. A majority of the "laws" developed by democracies has gone by the way-side, for the same reason that democracy can NEVER work better than a free market in the long run. > It is always best for the standards-setters to be nothing but suggestors, and for the free individuals of the society to always, in each case subsequently, decide the value of their musings. It is always best for the law-makers to be nothing but suggestors, and for the free individuals of the society to always, in each case subsequently, decide the value of each individual law. > I shudder to imagine the world where we submitted to each standard the "experts" expounded at us. I shudder to image the world where we submitted to each law the law-makers expounded on us. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 21 14:26:37 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 07:26:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <34497.86.141.187.178.1148074903.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Anders wrote > > > Lee Corbin wrote: > > The cultural values of most Swedes, including this form > > of xenophobia, arose though evolution. Cultures that did not have such > > values did not last very long. (Burden of proof: just where, historically, > > did one see a long lasting culture or society not jealous of its own > > identity?) > > The idea that a society should have its own identity is fairly > historically recent. Nationalism as an ideology was invented mid 1800's. > Before that it was more a matter of who was the ruler or who had > inherited the land, although there have been a few exceptions like the > Romans, who had an originally ethnicity-based citizenship concept. I can't > recall any suggestion that (say) Egyptians had a need to assert their > identity. An Egyptologist friend of mine believes that the Egyptians did have a sense of national identity; but if so, they'd be an exception, so I agree basically with what you've written here. > On a purely psychological levels people always tend to assert the identity > of their in-group, but for much of history this was far smaller than iron > age states. Oh yes, at the *latest*, tribal or small group identity arose in the EEA (Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness). And it really is very easy to understand the fitness it conferred (although just how to look at it through the lens of group selection has not been so easy). But that it existed and exists is clear; just attend a soccer match. What is remarkable about humans is how easy they find it to morph basic group loyalty onto groups of nearly arbitrary size; today *my* soccer team must win, tomorrow my religious affiliation should reign. And not so long ago in the West, people loved their countries. > The nationalism movement did its best to grow a nationalism identity out of > many of these traditional identities. Hence the interest of the Brothers > Grimm in collecting German folk tales. Indeed. Given the human adaptability on this score, all that was needed was for it to confer fitness. In this case there was not enough time for a genetic adaptation (in the larger more recent European nationalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries). But the memetic fitness is plain to see: in China, for example, the early Marxist (and for Mao, semi-Marxist) leaders recognized the need for China to unite if it was to expel the "foreigners", whereas Japan had (and still has) ample national spirit. So to this day individuals have urges to identify with their own team (whether it's soccer, inter-country rivalry, or religious affiliation), but the strength varies greatly from person to person, and is also due to different penetration power of various memes at various times and places. > > A second reason is that of evolution itself: the Swedish population > > that entertains such ideas will indeed be overwhelmed by "other ideas". > > To wit, if/when the majority in Sweden becomes, say, Moslem, then > > nature will revert to form, and the injunctions in the Koran that say > > to conquer the world in the name of Islam, and adopt an extremely > > hostile stance towards freethinking, will have proven their vitality. > > And memetic fitness. > > Hmm, this assumes some memes become stably dominant for long. If you look > at history you will see that even the concept of Islam and what Islamic > society is has evolved tremendously across time and different countries > (and it is still one of the most homogeneous and new religions around - > just look at all the weirdness that passes for Christianity or Buddhism!). > If meme X becomes a monoculture at time T and remains so forever, maybe it > has proven its fitness and stability. But what if it remains dominant just > between T1 and T2? In most evolution fitness peaks are transitory and > highly dependent on coevolving genes or memes. Exactly so. But I contend that Islam has not changed much since about the 1200's, at least in the key aspects relevant to memetic fitness. Nearer to home, we can see that Swedish patriotism has followed the pattern of most Western nations: its strength was largely destroyed by the cultural changes taking place in the wake of the world wars. This *does* make most modern Western nations easy prey for more vigorous group interests. For example, itt is inconceivable that 19th century France would allow itself to be taken over by Islamic groups---the outrage would have been intense. But with who or what the typical Frenchman today identifies isn't clear, but surely for many it's no longer France as a bastion of French culture for "French people" as opposed to other peoples. That demographic trends suggest that by the end of the 20th century France will be Muslim is not of much concern to modern French people. And that's just how evolution works: the fit survive. > Given the cultural diversity we see within cultures - even within cultures > with strong communications - monocultures seem unlikely. It seems less likely in the more advanced industrial nations, yes. > Although western culture (the metaculture encompassing the others, > highly informed by humanistic, enlightenment and later notions) > seems to be the only major culture that is actively concerned with > maintaining cultural diversity. And that *would* be a terrible weakness were there only time for nature to take its course. Not a few Muslims feel strongly that their ancient ability to conquer merely suffered an interruption between 1500 A.D. and 2000 A.D. The battle for Spain is still on in their eyes (as witness the recent "terrorism" there). For a huge number of Muslims, the Crusades were yesterday, as were the surges into the Balkans and even into France in the 8th century. Sam Harris is an amazingly eloquent voice against religious belief. In his book "The End of Faith", he has a couple of pretty scary chapters about Islam too. As a matter of doctrine, the Muslim conception of tolerance is one in which non-Muslims have been politically and economically subdued, converted, or put to sword.... Lewis observes that "for Muslims, no piece of land once added to the realm of Islam can ever be finally renounced." We might also add that no *mind*, once added to the realm, can ever be finally renounced---because, as Lewis also notes, the penalty for apostasy is death. We would do well to linger over this fact for a moment, because it is the black pearl of intolerance that no liberal exegesis will ever fully digest. Within the house of Islam, the penalty for learning too much about the world---so as to call the tenets of the faith into question---is death. If a 21st century Muslim loses his faith, though he may have been a Muslim only for a single hour, the normative response, everywhere under Islam, is to kill him. (p. 115) Harris backs this up with *literally* pages of quotes from the Koran, and deals with all the objections that Christianity and Judaism have had their extremists too, (the difference being in degree) and many other objections. > If one favors cultural diversity it is not clear that isolating "pure" > cultures is the way to go, since most cultural diversity emerges from the > mixing and resynthesis of cultures rather than memetic drift. If one > thinks that culture is just an ongoing evolutionary struggle, then it > doesn't matter much which culture wins. But it does matter which cultures win or dominate and which don't! This is because *values* are tied very strongly to culture. As I wrote earlier > > if/when the majority in Sweden becomes, say, Moslem, then > > nature will revert to form, and the injunctions in the > > Koran that say to conquer the world in the name of Islam, > > and adopt an extremely hostile stance towards freethinking, > > will have proven their vitality, and memetic fitness. Those who value Western traditions (e.g. tolerance, freedom to express unpopular views, "the open society", to use Popper's term) at some point will realize that their new immigrants do not share these values. I understand that Denmark has resorted to some kind of trick during the interview process that compels people attempting to immigrate to make uncomfortable assertions. > In either case there is no reason to keep borders. I think it > becomes a case (from a culture standpoint) if one thinks > particular cultures have something valuable that may not be > lost (essentially a kind of cultural racism)... "Cultural racism". Really! But that's such a harsh way of putting the fact that some people may treasure certain aspects of their cultures (e.g. open-mindedness. or lack of bigotry, or certain other values, good or bad). Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 21 14:50:44 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 07:50:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <20060520055708.1F4A557FD1@finney.org> Message-ID: Hal writes > Lee Corbin writes: > > I have one question. Suppose that today Hofstadter suddenly a time machine, > > and decides to visit the year 1983. He then finds himself in a sealed room, > > with his 1983 version in an adjacent sealed room. All each know is that > > they're in a one-shot PD with each other, and each knows the year from which > > the other comes. > > > > Our Doug, (Doug 2006) consults the payoff matrix. It says > > > > (5,5) | (0,10) > > (10,0)| (1,1) > > > > It is clear what the 1983 Doug will do. What move should our > > Doug play in order to maximize his payoff? > > It's funny that you should word the question like that, since there is > a fundamental ambiguity in the word "his" in this situation. Well, of course! I was hoping that the topic of personal identity wouldn't distract. There is a temptation to see the NIPD outside the context of game theory. But NIPD arose and fundamentally is simply a question in game theory. You were to translate the above into "what should an instance do", i.e., what is the best that a player can attain in a particular 2-person game? To be clearer to all, let me say a few words about the fundamentals. Two person games can usually be analyzed by means of a payoff table. The object is for a player playing rows, say, to select as his "strategy" whatever row affords him the greatest payoff as made explicit in the ith row and jth column of the matrix. The most difficult case arises when a "mixed strategy" is called for. Considerations *outside* the payoff table---such as that one may be playing against one's husband who is known to have a terrible temper---are supposed to be completely irrelevant. But in extremely simple situations such as the above matrix WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT COLUMN WILL BE SELECTED BY THE OTHER PLAYER, it amounts simply to finding a row which "dominates" all your other rows. This is the object of the game. > I can't speak for Hofstadter, of course, but ignoring these complications > I strongly suspect he would cooperate in this situation. We know he > found the reasoning compelling enough in 1983 to make quite an issue > of it. If he still feels that way, he will play the same. If not, > I imagine that out of solidarity and sympathy for his earlier self... Oh yes, I'm sure that he'd cooperate. But I didn't ask that. I asked what he *should* do as a player in the game. The NIPD is notoriously challenging. But, as I contend, only in the case where a player does *not* know which column the adversary will select. The game becomes trivial in the case that a player happens to know what his opponent will do. It is obvious that if a player happens to know which column his adversary is going to select, then his best move is to defect. I can't make it any simpler than that. Therefore, you have yet to find an argument that suggests that in the case when a player's opponent's move is known to a player, the player in question should Cooperate. I think that you should admit that Doug2006---if he is to honestly participate as a player in the NIPD---should Defect against Doug1983. Yes, he may indeed have side incentives (for instance, people's well known reluctance to admit that they have been wrong), but they're irrelevant to the role of player within the game. It's really easy to see just how the discussion between Doug2006 and Doug1983 would go after an unbiased and open-minded Doug2006 Defects, and so of course wins against Doug1983. Doug 1983: "I can't believe that you Defected. WHY!?" Doug 2006: "I was reading the Extropian list, and it became clear that as I *KNEW* what you were going to do, honesty compelled me as a player in the game, to Defect! Just look at the payoff table: it was clearly better for the player whose role I was assuming---as well you know ---to Defect. Honestly, I could not do otherwise." But alas yes, people are seldom so honest or so objective that they can put ideological considerations or pride behind them. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 21 15:14:51 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 08:14:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Newcomb's Paradox (was Superrationality) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605200046t61cf11a7wfdc1736160a8589a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes On 5/20/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Yes, but then if we want to reason outside the boxes (as it were), > > then one may wish to take only one box in Newcomb's Paradox in order > > to show that one is a nice guy, or that one is not greedy, or some > > other irrelevant consideration. > But that's the whole point. Good heavens! It is not! As I wrote, the incentives in Newcomb's Paradox (a million 1960 dollars in one box against a thousand dollars in the other) were specifically designed to overcome these side considerations such as what one's mother will think of one. You are supposed to consider that you are *only* interested in walking away with the greatest amount of money. An argument pro taking two boxes: "What is in two boxes is logically more than what is in one box"; an argument in favor of taking one box "It will turn out that I'll get more money by just taking the one box". Nowhere in there are there any considerations of whether one is a nice guy, or that one is greedy, or that one is concerned about what other people think. > 1) Solution(Equation X) = Y. So what? > 2) What we should do = defect. You've lost me. Aren't you talking about Newcomb's Paradox? Indulge me, and let's keep *this* new thread on the NP (thanks!). > What the fuck? No way! People are foul hideous monsters if they > contemplate that!! I hate humanity!!! Mathematics isn't true!!!! > (Hofstadter's words, in fairly reasonably accurate paraphrase if > my memory is even vaguely on the same continent as the mark.) Dear, dear. This really is one case where we shouldn't get carried away. People are not "foul hideous monsters" (although there are a few exceptions, of course). As Solzhenitsyn wrote, "the line between good and evil goes through every human heart". And I just have to let your "Mathematics isn't true" pass without comment. > But #1 does not in any way imply #2. The only way you can > conclude anything about real life from #1 is by putting in > the "outside the box" stuff that makes it realistic. And > when you do that, #2 stops applying. None of this was supposed to be about real life. At least not until we've solved the strictly theoretical cases of what the optimal strategies are. THEN, maybe----and only maybe---should we wonder whether this has implications for real life. As I begged in my original post > > P.S. Fooey: it needs stating to some people that real-life situations > > are *far* removed from mathematical theory, and that in fact I'd > > cooperate with any human being I thought had a heart, and I advise > > others to do likewise, because the other person's good is a factor too > > (not shown, of course, in the payoff table). Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun May 21 15:23:24 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:23:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Newcomb's Paradox (was Superrationality) In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605200046t61cf11a7wfdc1736160a8589a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605210823r38e995erd6673882ea20ce48@mail.gmail.com> On 5/21/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > You've lost me. Aren't you talking about Newcomb's Paradox? Indulge me, > and let's keep *this* new thread on the NP (thanks!). Oh, no, I was talking about the PD again but am quite happy to move on at this stage. Dear, dear. This really is one case where we shouldn't get carried > away. Well yes, that's my point. As I said, I was trying to paraphrase, in order to communicate the flavor of, the arguments that were made for "superrationality" (which I don't have any truck with) and suchlike concepts. None of this was supposed to be about real life. At least not until > we've solved the strictly theoretical cases of what the optimal > strategies are. THEN, maybe----and only maybe---should we wonder > whether this has implications for real life. No problem - part of my point being that as long as one is doing that, it is important to be dispassionate about it, and not let emotion and value judgement backflow into one's mathematics; I dwelt on "superrationality" because it is an excellent example of a fallacy resulting directly from such backflow. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 21 15:38:59 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 08:38:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Loyalties Post-Singularity (was Economic consensus on immigration) In-Reply-To: <20060520110946.91774.qmail@web54504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: John B writes > What about Mayan culture, or Japan in the various > empire periods? (Weren't they also using a figleaf of > empire in some of feudal periods as well?) Weren't > those 'nationalistic'? Or China's history of a single > style of bureaucracy thru multiple dynasties? I agree that very similar impulses and aspirations dominated the thinking of the Mayan kings and queens, or, in fact historical examples too numerous to mention. But "nationalism" was different, in that it attained the highest level of effect identification thus achieved. (Oh, there are a few people, e.g. on this list, who conceive their loyalties to the entire human race or to intelligent life itself, but their numbers are insignificant.) But I really wanted to attend to what Anders and you are saying concerning my claims about the singularity. > Anders wrote > > Why wouldn't nation states survive the singularity? > > Excellent question. There is no reason that I know of > that nationality, religion, pseudoscience, liking for > football, or other 'waste of time' activity might not > survive the singularity. > > Additionally, if we assume that the singularity is not > all-encompassing in its scope That's assumption #1 > - sweeping up every sophont within a short period of > time - there's a huge divide waiting to be exploited > - pre- and post-singularity sophonces will most likely > have radically different goals, conceptualizations, > and explanations for themselves. Therefore, IMO, > assuming SOME form of social clustering continues to exist, That's assumption #2 > there's a huge rationale for developing pre- and post- > singularity social clusters. Under "fast takeoff", everything will depend on the goals of the winner AI that takes over first. If it's beneficent then yes, some games people play (like national rivalries or religious affiliations) may persist, but there won't be much meaning left to them. Not if a beneficent Overmind offers everyone much greater intelligence and understanding. And if it's not beneficent, then we all die anyway. Under a "slow takeoff", our values, our understanding, what is important to "us" (whatever we become) will undergo such radical transformation to preclude us from much speculation now. It's as though someone from the EEA were to demand of 21st civilization ("Well, I dunno about all that stuff you're talking about; what I want to know is whether game can still be found in the high ranges in winter.") We would have to patiently explain that his old concerns were no longer at all relevant. (It was for that reason that I stated that the fitness of and survival of various nations and ethnic groups and so on is likely to be of little consequence post singularity, and nation-states will almost surely be as obsolete as winter hunting in high pastures.) Lee From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Sun May 21 15:49:13 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 08:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: <20060521091837.GA26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060521154913.41061.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Eugen Leitl To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:18:38 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:53:38AM -0700, KAZ wrote: > Surely when posting such nonsense you know how the IETF > and the RFC process work. No? Then look it up. I know...I've been doing this stuff since the eighties. But it's irrelevent. YOU can buy into the myth that they have some kind of real authority, but that's your own problem. Worship authority, but don't foist it off onto other people. Like W3C, ECMA, and pretty much everyone else, the "standards" the IETC develop are NOTHING but advice. Just as first Netscape and now MS through IE have implemented improvements on HTML/JavaScript/CSS which violated standards but became accepted by everyone, so anyone can do for any other protocal. IETC are no more perfect, as central planners, than a Soviet shoe planning board, sitting around deciding how many of what kind of shoe should be produced. It's probably helpful as an advisory system, but would be disastrous if given the authority to force their way. The premise that email should remain purely text-based forever is an example of that. And the idea that an /extropian/ would be sounding so technophobic as to be saying "this should remain the old way, forever" is quite ironic. Embedded HTML is bad? Perhaps we should all go back to ridding horse and buggie and building barns by hand. The Amish had it right, eh? Now I, personally, only use text. Every email I write...unless Yahoo slips one past me because it picks the standard used by the email to which I reply and I forget to over-ride it...is something I could read on pine. But there is a CLEAR advantage, for those who wish to use it, to being able to use rich text in email. /I/ use slashes to represent italics, but frankly that looks pathetic compared to the real thing. > > A majority of the "standards" developed by such bodies has gone by > > the way-side, for the same reason that central planning can NEVER > > work better than a free market in the long run. > A majority of the "laws" developed by democracies has gone by the way-side, for the same reason > that democracy can NEVER work better than a free market in the long run. You say that as if it were not obviously also true. If you're thinking of majority rule as "democracy", then democracy is actually a bad thing, which is why the founders of the US opposed it and set up a constitutional republic, INSTEAD of a democracy. Saying "you want democracy" was slander, in 1776. The majority of laws ever passed have gone by the way-side precisely because they were bad. But, unfortunately, /governments/, unlike voluntary standards organizations, have authority to force people to comply with their bad laws. Fortunately, the IETF does not. TRUE democracy, each individual ruling himself, works far better than majority rule. Government's proper role is to protect his decision-making power, not to over-ride it. > > It is always best for the standards-setters to be nothing but suggestors, > > and for the free individuals of the society to always, in each case > > subsequently, decide the value of their musings. > It is always best for the law-makers to be nothing but suggestors, > and for the free individuals of the society to always, > in each case subsequently, decide the value of each individual law. Yes, and that's precisely what Common Law allowed us to do in the US, until our corrupt judiciary undermined jury powers, like nullification. Until the 20th century, any time a jury found a law to be unjust, they could choose to rule in favor of a defendant even though he had actually broken the law. This was used, for example, to bypass laws requiring the return of runaway slaves. Part of the reason we've had such a massive outgrowth of bad and unjust laws in the US, starting in the 20th century, is the crippling of jury powers. Just as, during alcohol prohibition, OVER HALF of all alcohol cases were overturned by juries simply because they disagreed with the ban, so we'd be seeing with drug cases today, if only juries understood their powers. But even aside from jury nullification, even if we accept the authoritarian-government-worshipping myth that laws are absolute, that is a case of a /government/ agency. The ONLY legitimate source of coercion in any society...if we accept that there are any at all...is government. But even for government, and this is one thing that jury nullification used to enforce, the only truly legitimate powers are those which prevent violation. In other words, government exists only to protect our natural rights. To secure our rights of life and liberty...the RFC against robbery, rape, fraud, and murder come back pretty much unanimous. When a government oversteps this, and starts trying to /violate/ our natural rights with laws which initiate, rather than prevent, coercion, then you get a snowballing trend toward tyrannical, totalitarian government. The RFC for low-flow toilets, banning tanks large enough to actually flush without clogging except under extreme conditions, is one we should all laugh at and reject. And then maybe we wouldn't even get TO the much larger, more budensome ones which are crushing our society under their weight, now. > > I shudder to imagine the world where we submitted to each standard the "experts" expounded at us. > I shudder to image the world where we submitted to each law the law-makers expounded on us. Absolutely. I'm glad we're in agreement. It'd take an utterly obtuse government-school victim to think that all laws should be obeyed, treated as if they were what defined right and wrong. Imagine...Schindler turning all the Jews over to the democratically elected Nazi government, instead of smuggling them out. Abolitionists shutting down the Underground Railroad because the Supreme Court had ruled them in violation of laws. Juries enforcing the alcohol prohibition, which alone probably would have prevented the constitutional amendment from being overturned...hopefully you're aware that much of the reason for its removal was that so few people submitted to the prohibition laws. Think of it; Martin Luther King, Jr, Henry David Thoreau, and Ghandi all submitting to each law expounded upon us, instead of clearly explaining why it is UP TO US to decide which laws are moral and just, and which should be specifically violated, ignored, worked around, or overturned. If Bush were to announce that he'd written an Executive Order requiring us to round up all Muslims to be kept in concentration camps, would you submit to that law? Personally, I wouldn't even turn in a neighbor who had an illegal three gallon toilet tank, not even a contractor who was running around installing them willy-nilly. Whose side are you on...Thomas Paine and Rosa Parks, or the "it's illegal to advocate the breaking of laws" crowd? Even government must be second-guessed, not blindly accepted. And the IETC doesn't even have a shred of the coercive authority which we temporarily lend governments in order to protect ourselves from violence, murder, robbery, and fraud. It's just a set of ivory-tower what-iffers, a central planning committee sitting around coming up with what they guess MIGHT be a useful standard. And they're often right, to some degree. Rarely, they might even be correct from start to finish. So it's up to us to choose for ourselves, to use the marketplace of ideas and vote with our /individual/ decisions. This is how TRUE democracy works, by the way. Not majority rule, but actual "rule by the people", where each of us rules his own life, and decides every day, with every decision, what is best for society, with our "vote" encompassing ourself and whatever we happen to effect with our choices. http://www.ButNowYouKnow.com/democracy.html I wrote an article about that very thing, a decade ago. -- Words of the Sentient: Love, the stongest and deepest element in all life, the harbinger of hope, of joy, of ecstasy; love, the defier of all laws, of all conventions; love, the freest, the most powerful moulder of human destiny; how can such an all-compelling force be synonymous with that poor little State and Church-begotten weed, marriage? -- Emma Goldman E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From jonkc at att.net Sun May 21 15:17:19 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 11:17:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) References: <20060518121151.GK26713@leitl.org><20060520185338.20854.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com> <20060521091837.GA26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <013101c67ce9$d8ff9310$3f094e0c@MyComputer> "Eugen Leitl" > democracy can NEVER work better than a free market in the long run. You are absolutely positively 100% correct Eugen, and that's why I find your position puzzling. A bunch of Linux nerds voted on a E mail standard in a democratic election and you regard their decree as gospel, Holy Writ, a fundamental law of the universe. Meanwhile the free market has decided that it prefers a different standard set by outlook express and you treat it with contempt. And by the way Eugen, it's a tribute to how much I value your messages that I took the trouble to open a attachment and then scroll continuously to the right as your words wandered aimlessly off my screen; but I don't think I can keep that up much longer. John K Clark From alexboko at umich.edu Sun May 21 16:15:46 2006 From: alexboko at umich.edu (alexboko) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 11:15:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The (frighteningly likely) alternative to singularity. Message-ID: <44709232.7070001@umich.edu> So you think singularity is inevitable? Read this brief essay. http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1996/making.html It explains IMO a very plausible alternative scenario for what can happen, more succinctly than I have managed to so far, and perhaps in sufficiently science-fictiony terms that even a transhumanist might give it some consideration before dismissing it as leftist propoganda. Which it absolutely is not. From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 21 17:21:26 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 19:21:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: <013101c67ce9$d8ff9310$3f094e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060521091837.GA26713@leitl.org> <013101c67ce9$d8ff9310$3f094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060521172126.GL26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:17:19AM -0400, John K Clark wrote: > "Eugen Leitl" > > > democracy can NEVER work better than a free market in the long run. I wrote that with a giant tongue in cheek, of course. To lead KAZ's position ad absurdum. I'm sorry you took this at face value. > You are absolutely positively 100% correct Eugen, and that's why I find your > position puzzling. A bunch of Linux nerds voted on a E mail standard in a Calling the IETF a 'bunch of Linux nerds' is like calling James Watt and Rudolf Diesel car mechanics. http://www.garykessler.net/library/ietf_hx.html It is often said that the Internet is one of the best success stories of anarchy or, even, socialism in modern history. The Internet has proven itself to be an example of cooperation between countries, (often-competing) commercial entities, government agencies, and educational institutions for the sole purpose of enhancing communication. Yet even this loose cooperative requires some central administrative authority for such things as operational guidelines, protocol specifications, and address assignment. The key to the success of communication over the Internet is the use of a standard set of protocols, based on TCP/IP. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is the group that oversees the Internet standards process. This chapter will focus on the history of the IETF, its organization and function, and, in particular, its role in developing Internet security specifications. The Evolving Administration of the Internet The Internet began as a project funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), as an experiment in the use of packet switching technology. Starting with only four nodes in 1969, the ARPANET spanned the continental U.S. by 1975 and was reaching to other continents by the end of the 1970s. In 1979, the Internet Control and Configuration Board (ICCB) was formed. The charter of the ICCB was to provide an oversight function for the design and deployment of protocols within the connected Internet. In 1983, the ICCB was renamed as the Internet Activities Board (IAB). With an original charter similar to that of the ICCB, the IAB evolved into a full-fledged de facto standards organization dedicated to ratifying standards used within the Internet. The Chairman of the IAB was called the Internet Architect. That individual's major function was to coordinate the activities of numerous task forces within the IAB, each of which focused on a specific architectural or protocol issue. In 1984, the ARPANET was split into two components: the ARPANET, used for research and development, and MILNET, used to carry unclassified military traffic. With this division, designation of TCP/IP as the official protocol suite, and subsequent National Science Foundation (NSF) funding, the modern Internet was born. In 1986, the IAB was reorganized to provide an oversight function for a number of subsidiary groups. The Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) was put into place to oversee research activities related to the TCP/IP protocol suite and the architecture of the Internet. The activities of the IRTF are coordinated by the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG). The IETF was formed to concentrate on short-to-medium term engineering issues related to the Internet. The U.S. Internet has historically received funding from government agencies, such as the DoD, Department of Energy, NASA, and the NSF. By the end of the 1980s, it became apparent that this funding would decrease over time. In addition, the introduction of commercial users and an increasing number of commercial Internet service providers foreshadowed the loss of a dominate central administration which, in turn, threatened the long-term process for making Internet standards. In January 1992, the Internet Society (ISOC) was formed with a charter of providing an institutional home for the IETF and the Internet standards process. ISOC provides a number of services in support of this role including sponsoring conferences and workshops, and raising funds from industry, government, and other sources. Although headquartered in the U.S., the ISOC is an international organization providing administrative support for the international Internet. Included in this administrative structure is the IAB, IETF, IRTF, and the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)1. To reflect its new role as a part of ISOC, the Internet Activities Board was renamed the Internet Architecture Board in June 1992. ISOC provides support for the IETF and IRTF, as they have historically been a part of the IAB. The relationship between ISOC and the IETF has changed slightly each year as they both determine exactly what that relationship should be. In June 1995, the ISOC Board of Trustees confirmed that their main goal remains to "keep the Internet going." It is still committed to providing services that facilitate the standards process as carried out by the IETF. IETF Overview and Charter The IETF provides a forum for working groups to coordinate technical developments of new protocols. Its most important function is the development and selection of standards within the Internet protocol suite. When the IETF was formed in 1986, it was a forum for technical coordination by contractors for the U.S. Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) working on the ARPANET, Defense Data Network (DDN), and Internet core gateway system. Since that time, the IETF has grown into a large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. The IETF mission includes: 1. Identifying, and proposing solutions to, operational and technical problems in the Internet. 2. Specifying the development or usage of protocols and the near-term architecture to solve technical problems for the Internet. 3. Facilitating technology transfer from the IRTF to the wider Internet community. 4. Providing a forum for the exchange of relevant information within the Internet community between vendors, users, researchers, agency contractors, and network managers. Figure 1 shows the general hierarchy of the IETF. Technical activity on any specific topic in the IETF is addressed within working groups, which are organized roughly by function into nine areas. Each area is led by one or more Area Directors who have primary responsibility for that one aspect of IETF activity. Together with the Chair of the IETF, these technical directors compose the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). FIGURE 2. Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Areas The WGs form the backbone of the IETF. In general, each WG is formed with a relatively narrow focus rather than looking at large problems. Furthermore, the WGs usually start with, or quickly define, a limited number of options with which to achieve their goals. When formed, each WG defines a charter with a specific set of goals and milestones. In addition, each WG maintains an Internet electronic mail discussion list and an on-line archive. The working groups conduct business during IETF plenary meetings, meetings outside of the IETF, and via electronic mail. The IETF holds week-long plenary sessions three times a year. These meetings include working group sessions, technical presentations, network status reports, working group reports, and an open IESG meeting. Proceedings of each IETF plenary are published, which include reports from each area, each working group, and each technical presentation, as well as a summary of all current standardization activities. Meeting reports, working group charters and mailing list information, and general information on current IETF activities are available on-line via anonymous FTP and the World Wide Web (WWW). Unlike most other "standards" groups, the plenary sessions and proceedings are not the only place where important work is accomplished and documented. In fact, most final decisions are made via e-mail or, at the very least, circulated by e-mail. One reason for this apparent looseness is that WG meetings and discussions are open to anyone within the Internet community (which includes just about everyone) with something to contribute. In another departure from other "standards" groups, the IETF WGs do not require unanimity before progressing with work. Furthermore, only proven and working protocols become standards. One of the guiding forces of the Working Groups is the IETF Credo, attributed to David Clark: We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code. The effect of this principle is that there is no formal voting within the WGs. Instead, disputes are resolved by discussion and demonstrations of working models. These discussions take place at the plenaries and on the discussion lists. The result of the WG activities is the publication of various Internet documents. The IETF publishes two types of documentation: * Internet-Drafts (ID) are working documents, and referred to as a "work in progress." IDs have no official status and expire after 6 months; they are not archived beyond their expiration date. The IETF Secretariat distributes the announcement for new Internet-Drafts. * Request for Comments are the literature of the Internet. In particular, they are the series of documents that provide an historical record of the IAB. RFCs are edited, assigned a number, and announced by the RFC Editor. There are four categories of RFC: * Historic refers to an RFC that is important for historic purposes, but is unlikely to become (or remain) an Internet standard either due to lack of interest or because it has been superseded by later work. Examples include the Common Management Information Services over TCP/IP (CMOT) specification (RFC 1189) and the Border Gateway Protocol version 3 (BGP-3; RFCs 1267 and 1268). * Experimental refers to an RFC describing experimental work related to the Internet and not a part of an operational service offering. Examples (as of November 1995) are the Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2; RFC 1819)and UNARP (RFC 1868). * Informational refers to RFCs that provide general, historical, and tutorial information for the Internet community; these are usually produced by a standards organization or other group or individual outside of the IESG. Examples are the Novell IPX Over Various WAN Media (IPXWAN) specification (RFC 1634) and A Primer on Internet and TCP/IP Tools (RFC 1739). * Standards Track refers to RFCs that are intended to become Internet standards. There are three classes of Standards Track RFCs: * A Proposed Standard is a complete, credible specification that has a demonstrated utility for use on the Internet. A Proposed Standard has an expiration date from between 6 months and 2 years of the publication date, by which time it must be elevated to a higher status, updated, or withdrawn. * A Draft Standard is written only after there have been several independent, interoperable implementations of a specification. Draft Standards usually reflect some limited operational experience, but enough knowledge that the specification seems to work well. A Draft Standard has an expiration date from between 4 months and 2 years of the publication date, by which time it must be moved to a different status, updated, or withdrawn. Examples (as of November 1995) are the HyperText Markup Language (HTML) version 2 (RFC 1866) and Relative Uniform Resource Locators (URLs; RFC 1808). * An Internet Standard is "the real thing" and refers to specifications with demonstrated operational stability; examples are IP (RFC 791; also known as STD 5) and TCP (RFC 793; also known as STD 7). An RFC can stay as a Standard forever or may be reclassified as Historic. > democratic election and you regard their decree as gospel, Holy Writ, a > fundamental law of the universe. Meanwhile the free market has decided that > it prefers a different standard set by outlook express and you treat it > with contempt. Again, there are "no different standards", one suiting for anybody to pick. Choosing on which side of the road to drive is not open to subjective interpretation. If you choose the default MUA of a particular desktop OS which has a known bug (being unable to parse RFC2015 signatures), I recommend you submit a bug report with your vendor. Or choose a MUA which has no such issues: http://www.spinnaker.de/mutt/rfc2015.html The list is out of date, though. You might or might not be able to read RFC2015 signed messages with PGP installed -- no gurantees, though. > And by the way Eugen, it's a tribute to how much I value your messages that > I took the trouble to open a attachment and then scroll continuously to the > right as your words wandered aimlessly off my screen; but I don't think I > can keep that up much longer. Again, I'm sorry you choose to stick to a broken system. This behaviour you describe is unacceptable, but I'm not responsible for a broken implementation, and I won't sign inline for unrelated, technical reasons. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 21 17:50:22 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 10:50:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: <013101c67ce9$d8ff9310$3f094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200605211750.k4LHoaal020735@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark ... > > And by the way Eugen, it's a tribute to how much I value your messages > that > I took the trouble to open a attachment and then scroll continuously to > the > right as your words wandered aimlessly off my screen; but I don't think I > can keep that up much longer. > > John K Clark Hi John, I agree with your sentiment regarding the value of Gene's posts. But isn't the format controlled by a setting on your own computer? Eugen's messages do not scroll off of my screen. They did at one time, but then the home IT department (my wife) did some mysterious thing to my settings and it began automatically adjusting the text to fit the window. Shall I have Shelly contact you with the details? {8-] spike From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 21 18:16:24 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 11:16:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Group Loyalties Post-Singularity (was Economic consensus on immigration) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74C24192-24EB-4954-8F0F-A185BC3C2EC6@mac.com> On May 21, 2006, at 8:38 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > >> Anders wrote >> >> Additionally, if we assume that the singularity is not >> all-encompassing in its scope > > That's assumption #1 > >> - sweeping up every sophont within a short period of >> time - there's a huge divide waiting to be exploited >> - pre- and post-singularity sophonces will most likely >> have radically different goals, conceptualizations, >> and explanations for themselves. Therefore, IMO, >> assuming SOME form of social clustering continues to exist, > > That's assumption #2 > >> there's a huge rationale for developing pre- and post- >> singularity social clusters. > > Under "fast takeoff", everything will depend on the goals of > the winner AI that takes over first. Thats assumption (A), that the first AI will be interested in controlling everything sufficiently that other peers do not develop. Assumption (A.1) is that its goals and capabilities include control of a much of local reality at all. > If it's beneficent > then yes, some games people play (like national rivalries > or religious affiliations) may persist, but there won't be > much meaning left to them. Why not? A beneficent AI is not likely to significantly overwrite human minds regardless of their stated wishes straight off. > Not if a beneficent Overmind > offers everyone much greater intelligence and understanding. > And if it's not beneficent, then we all die anyway. Offer versus taking the offer. Assumption (B) is that all the things listed are in all significant ways stupid given greater intelligence and understanding. > > Under a "slow takeoff", our values, our understanding, what > is important to "us" (whatever we become) will undergo such > radical transformation to preclude us from much speculation > now. But somehow we can speculate on what will happen under an all- controlling AI?? > > (It was for that reason that I stated that the fitness of > and survival of various nations and ethnic groups and so > on is likely to be of little consequence post singularity, > and nation-states will almost surely be as obsolete as > winter hunting in high pastures.) > You have not shown a sound basis for assuming any of these things. - samantha From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun May 21 20:00:33 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 15:00:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <200605210104.k4L14rf9017621@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605210034.k4L0YmTK007267@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200605210104.k4L14rf9017621@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike, I'd like to know particularly what aspect you consider to be "foolish"? If it has to do with meditation or direction of ones thoughts than you are going to have me to tangle with. I already posted sometime in the last few months my discussion regarding "self-awareness". If you like I can cite you medical journal articles on what they are finding out about various types of or states of "thought" using fMRI. Then we could get into a long discussion about the various aspects of thought processes which are "sub-conscious" -- since your "conscious" thought isn't tapping even a fraction of what is going on under the surface of the brain (I think the Science or Discovery channel is hosting a special this Friday on the individual who was the real life prototype individual for "The Rain Man"). Then we could get into a long involved discussion about various neuroreceptors, the polymorphisms they have and how they may contribute to various very individual ways of viewing "reality". I do not think that the ExICh list should be a place where we exclude subjective views or discussions of "reality" so long as people are clear from the start that is what is being discussed and they may be facing the problem that some people actually lack the physical ability (due to genome differences) to experience reality the way they may experience it. Or are we going to end up being the list where the only people who can participate are those with the ApoE4 view of reality vs. those with the ApoE2 view of reality? [1]. Robert 1. ApoE is a gene that contributes to lipid transport / metabolism and variants appear to play roles in a number of diseases, including Alzheimer's. While perhaps not a good example of a gene that physically causes people to think differently, it would be a good example of a gene that would determine how people might view life if they knew the risks associated with the alleles they have. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From riel at surriel.com Sun May 21 20:11:52 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 21 May 2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > An Egyptologist friend of mine believes that the Egyptians did have > a sense of national identity; but if so, they'd be an exception, so > I agree basically with what you've written here. So did the Greek, who united against the Persians despite their own infighting. The Etruskans and several others from that era also had a national identity. A common theme appears to be that identity is aligned with religion, and/or other common activities. I would not be surprised if nowadays people are more united by which sports team they belong to or which online community they are in, than by their nationality. -- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 21 21:56:38 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:56:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605212206.k4LM62I6020559@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] off topic > Spike, I'd like to know particularly what aspect you consider to be "foolish"? I was both harsh and hasty. I googled and read up on u.u. which I think means Universalist Unitarian. As far as I can tell, this is a church for people who don't really believe in traditional religion, but have all the emotional aspects that tradition religion provides. I am one who should have related to this better than I did, for I am one who has only fond memories and positive emotions towards religion in general. I like the art, the music, the culture that goes with religion incorporated. In my religious days, I loved my church. I loved my church family. I was a good church guy. It was the hardest thing for me to sever my ties. The problem I kept running against was the stubborn conclusion that it simply was not true. I studied evolution, visited the petrified forest in Arizona, hiked down into the Grand Canyon from the south rim to the north, looked at the fossils, studied the layers. I climbed the mountain to Wolcott's quarry to see the Burgess Shale in Canada, watched the Harvard students as they chipped the fossils out of stone. Against my will, I became convinced that evolution is true, which meant my religion was false. Science is the way and the truth, even if not the life. For years I struggled with the question, does it matter if religion is true or false? Eventually I concluded that for most people it does not matter. But for me, it matters. I love true things. I want to base my life on objective truth, evidence, reason. Only truth, and I argue to this day that there is objective truth. I still miss the church life. I would like to believe it is true, but I cannot. Perhaps Universalist Unitarian is a good place for recovering religionists. It probably would have helped me 20 years ago. Now, I no longer need it, any more than a person who quit smoking 20 years ago would need nicotine patches now. Too late for that, mighta helped back then. I apologized for jumping Ilsa, and I meant it. I didn't understand what she was talking about exactly (did you?), but after that unpleasantness regarding religion a few months ago, I was eager to see that not repeated. Ideally, ExI-chat should be a religion-free zone; we are not about that here. But perhaps that is not practical either, or perhaps that is just my own view that I should keep to myself. On the other hand, I am not currently acting as moderator (thanks Gene and J.Andrew) so Ilsa is free to ignore my request; I wouldn't do anything. Robert, criticism accepted. Do meditate away, with my sincerest blessing my friend. {8-] spke From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 21 21:32:02 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:32:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605212206.k4LM62I5020559@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > > Sam Harris is an amazingly eloquent voice against religious belief. > In his book "The End of Faith", he has a couple of pretty scary > chapters about Islam too. > > As a matter of doctrine, the Muslim conception of tolerance > is one in which non-Muslims have been politically and > economically subdued, converted, or put to sword.... > Lee Lee this whole debate reminds me of a recurring theme in Hofstadter's EGB. He illustrated Godel's incompleteness theorem by having Mr. Crab obtaining ever more perfect stereo systems. Mr. Tortoise would play on it records that created tones so perfectly tuned to the natural resonances of the system that the stereo self-destructed (GEB 75-78). From that, Hofstadter explained Godel's theorem shows that no logic system can ever be designed that is completely free of paradox. In our modern system of liberal democracy, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, so treasured by USians and Europeans, we have just such a paradox. What happens when a free society meets a religion that does not accept freedom, requires unification of church and state, deplores liberal democracy, and specifically demands slavery to that particular religion? Must a free society tolerate intolerance? What happens if it does? What happens if it does not? Mr. Crab's stereo is shattered once again. spike From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Sun May 21 23:10:08 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:10:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <200605212206.k4LM62I6020559@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605212206.k4LM62I6020559@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605211610p192217a6w6a97454dce1cd6ee@mail.gmail.com> a word about myself: i was asked by the u.u.'s to give this event at their retreat. most u,u.'s go to the fellowship or church for the community support no matter where they came from or where they are going. i was asked by the HH Dalia Lama's personal assistant to write a book for people like spike who have left religion for all the right reasons. why he asked me is beyond my understanding. i am not a religionist. they are not religionists. they as you are focused in their part of the process. in my past life i was a science writer. hard and clear. lobsang samten picked a title and suggested that i arrange to have a web site for this work. lobsang samten played himself in the Scorsese film 'kundun'. you can see his face and position in that movie. well he asked me to help people understand their humanity in context of evolution and infinity. i have no issue nor do i ever missionary. i have taken my years of training and formulated a non religious process. the only religion i practice is Kindness. ai is understood and fostered by those arround HHDL. after all every one on this list is all that and a brain! yea baby! i have a real sense of some aspects of who some on this list are and i was sharing a facet of what your research can manifest to the 85 percent of the walking unaware of your work in simplicity to help a beginning of a paradigm shift. if not a shift then just getting to the line in the shifting sand. gertrude stein said at the turn of the 19th century that in the 21 st century there will no longer be a need for capitol letters. a prophetic thought that expands in meaning as i ushser in the practice. enough about me. grin, ilsa On 5/21/06, spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] off topic > > > > Spike, I'd like to know particularly what aspect you consider to be > "foolish"? > > > I was both harsh and hasty. I googled and read up on u.u. which I think > means Universalist Unitarian. As far as I can tell, this is a church for > people who don't really believe in traditional religion, but have all the > emotional aspects that tradition religion provides. > > I am one who should have related to this better than I did, for I am one who > has only fond memories and positive emotions towards religion in general. I > like the art, the music, the culture that goes with religion incorporated. > In my religious days, I loved my church. I loved my church family. I was a > good church guy. It was the hardest thing for me to sever my ties. > > The problem I kept running against was the stubborn conclusion that it > simply was not true. I studied evolution, visited the petrified forest in > Arizona, hiked down into the Grand Canyon from the south rim to the north, > looked at the fossils, studied the layers. I climbed the mountain to > Wolcott's quarry to see the Burgess Shale in Canada, watched the Harvard > students as they chipped the fossils out of stone. Against my will, I > became convinced that evolution is true, which meant my religion was false. > Science is the way and the truth, even if not the life. > > For years I struggled with the question, does it matter if religion is true > or false? Eventually I concluded that for most people it does not matter. > But for me, it matters. I love true things. I want to base my life on > objective truth, evidence, reason. Only truth, and I argue to this day that > there is objective truth. I still miss the church life. I would like to > believe it is true, but I cannot. > > Perhaps Universalist Unitarian is a good place for recovering religionists. > It probably would have helped me 20 years ago. Now, I no longer need it, > any more than a person who quit smoking 20 years ago would need nicotine > patches now. Too late for that, mighta helped back then. > > I apologized for jumping Ilsa, and I meant it. I didn't understand what she > was talking about exactly (did you?), but after that unpleasantness > regarding religion a few months ago, I was eager to see that not repeated. > Ideally, ExI-chat should be a religion-free zone; we are not about that > here. But perhaps that is not practical either, or perhaps that is just my > own view that I should keep to myself. On the other hand, I am not > currently acting as moderator (thanks Gene and J.Andrew) so Ilsa is free to > ignore my request; I wouldn't do anything. > > Robert, criticism accepted. Do meditate away, with my sincerest blessing my > friend. > > {8-] > > spke > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun May 21 22:20:08 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 18:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: <013101c67ce9$d8ff9310$3f094e0c@MyComputer> References: <20060518121151.GK26713@leitl.org><20060520185338.20854.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com> <20060521091837.GA26713@leitl.org> <013101c67ce9$d8ff9310$3f094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <33012.72.236.102.108.1148250008.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > > And by the way Eugen, it's a tribute to how much I value your messages > that > I took the trouble to open a attachment and then scroll continuously to > the > right as your words wandered aimlessly off my screen; but I don't think I > can keep that up much longer. > I too would find that most annoying. But why is it like that for you? It wasn't like that for me even with AOL! Surely there is a setting somewhere in Outlook that will help things work better? Regards, MB From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon May 22 00:05:52 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 17:05:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rik writes > On Sun, 21 May 2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > An Egyptologist friend of mine believes that the Egyptians did have > > a sense of national identity; but if so, they'd be an exception, so > > I agree basically with what you've written here. > > So did the Greek, who united against the Persians despite > their own infighting. The Etruskans and several others > from that era also had a national identity. I think that there may be two problems with what you are saying. First, "nationalism" is supposed to mean more than mere allegiance to a particular tribe (a "people") or a sect (a religion). It in fact is supposed to be a unifying principle that unites such disparate groups. Germany for all Germans (19th century), or Italy for all Italians, the Soviet Union for everyone they could overrun, etc. China too is a nation. So I would agree that possibly with a few exceptions, nationalism really got going with the French revolution, when the French began strongly identifying with "La Patrie", which gave them their tremendous strength (being able to take on all of Europe and win). Secondly, the Greeks never united. Philip the Second conquered them all, and Alexander enforced it. When Philip died, Alexander felt that he had to subdue the Danube area before heading East. The Greek city states rebelled while he was away, and so Alexander came back and made an example of Thebes. He had no further trouble with rebellions in Greece. So one may say that Greece was united in the same way that Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, Estonia, and dozens of other entities were "united" (in the Soviet Union). Later on, the Greeks became "united" in much the same way under Rome. > A common theme appears to be that identity is aligned with > religion, and/or other common activities. > > I would not be surprised if nowadays people are more > united by which sports team they belong to or which > online community they are in, than by their nationality. Yes, quite right. In the West, nationalism has died. It was a victim of the world wars and also of leftist influence. So indeed most Americans feel much stronger loyalty to their own political party or baseball team than they do to "America". Besides, it isn't so easy having much loyalty or devotion to such an amorphous diverse entity. Lee From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Mon May 22 00:16:53 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 20:16:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <447102F5.5050303@goldenfuture.net> How about the Romans? Joseph Lee Corbin wrote: >Rik writes > > > >>On Sun, 21 May 2006, Lee Corbin wrote: >> >> >> >>>An Egyptologist friend of mine believes that the Egyptians did have >>>a sense of national identity; but if so, they'd be an exception, so >>>I agree basically with what you've written here. >>> >>> >>So did the Greek, who united against the Persians despite >>their own infighting. The Etruskans and several others >>from that era also had a national identity. >> >> > >I think that there may be two problems with what you are saying. >First, "nationalism" is supposed to mean more than mere allegiance >to a particular tribe (a "people") or a sect (a religion). It >in fact is supposed to be a unifying principle that unites such >disparate groups. Germany for all Germans (19th century), or >Italy for all Italians, the Soviet Union for everyone they could >overrun, etc. China too is a nation. > >So I would agree that possibly with a few exceptions, nationalism >really got going with the French revolution, when the French began >strongly identifying with "La Patrie", which gave them their >tremendous strength (being able to take on all of Europe and win). > >Secondly, the Greeks never united. Philip the Second >conquered them all, and Alexander enforced it. When Philip >died, Alexander felt that he had to subdue the Danube area >before heading East. The Greek city states rebelled while >he was away, and so Alexander came back and made an example >of Thebes. He had no further trouble with rebellions in Greece. > >So one may say that Greece was united in the same way that Latvia, >Lithuania, the Ukraine, Estonia, and dozens of other entities >were "united" (in the Soviet Union). > >Later on, the Greeks became "united" in much the same way under >Rome. > > > >>A common theme appears to be that identity is aligned with >>religion, and/or other common activities. >> >>I would not be surprised if nowadays people are more >>united by which sports team they belong to or which >>online community they are in, than by their nationality. >> >> > >Yes, quite right. In the West, nationalism has died. It was a >victim of the world wars and also of leftist influence. So indeed >most Americans feel much stronger loyalty to their own political >party or baseball team than they do to "America". Besides, it isn't >so easy having much loyalty or devotion to such an amorphous >diverse entity. > >Lee > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon May 22 00:23:57 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 17:23:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration In-Reply-To: <200605212132.k4LLWSY66504@mail0.rawbw.com> Message-ID: Spike writes > > Sam Harris is an amazingly eloquent voice against religious belief. > > In his book "The End of Faith", he has a couple of pretty scary > > chapters about Islam too. > > > > As a matter of doctrine, the Muslim conception of tolerance > > is one in which non-Muslims have been politically and > > economically subdued, converted, or put to sword.... > > Lee this whole debate reminds me of a recurring theme in Hofstadter's EGB. I always envy your powers of free association, and seeing deeper connections! :-) > He illustrated Godel's incompleteness theorem by having Mr. Crab obtaining > ever more perfect stereo systems. Mr. Tortoise would play on it records > that created tones so perfectly tuned to the natural resonances of the > system that the stereo self-destructed (GEB 75-78). From that, Hofstadter > explained Godel's theorem shows that no logic system can ever be designed > that is completely free of paradox. > > In our modern system of liberal democracy, freedom of religion, separation > of church and state, so treasured by USians and Europeans, we have just such > a paradox. Yes. I suppose that it is indeed appropriate to call it a paradox. Some kinds of free-thinking appear to sometimes assist an ESS (Evolutionarily Stable Strategy) and sometimes they work against it. We need to remember the great strength of the West actually derived from its freedoms and tolerance too. > What happens when a free society meets a religion that does not > accept freedom, requires unification of church and state, > deplores liberal democracy, and specifically demands slavery > to that particular religion? The short answer is that the free society may go down against determined enough foes. Example: Japanese morale was vastly higher than America's in world war; *only* lack of resources and lack of better technology did them in. Those who believe strongly in something usually prevail against those who believe in nothing, or those whose belief and self-confidence is mild. > Must a free society tolerate intolerance? What happens if it does? What > happens if it does not? My guess is that the free society, in order to survive, must *not* tolerate notions too inimical to its very existence. Of course, this is easier said than done, and there are always enormous difficulties in determining whether some groups or ideas have crossed the line. The difficulty is compounded by the inevitable tendency for certain ruling groups to sometimes use this as an excuse to strangle legitimate dissention and legitimate rivals. Still, for a liberal society to be too liberal is tantamount to committing suicide. That's the road the West is taking, and the demise of the West looks inevitable to me (pace singularity, i.e. super-exponentially evolving technology). Lee > Mr. Crab's stereo is shattered once again. > > spike From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon May 22 01:03:27 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 18:03:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Romans (was Economic consensus on immigration) In-Reply-To: <447102F5.5050303@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: Joseph asks > How about the Romans? Might you be a little more explicit in the future? or perhaps willing to venture a conjecture or opinion yourself? :-) Must I do all the work? 8^D The Romans achieved an historically unparalleled degree of faith in themselves, their culture, and their people as a whole. Take their little encounter with Hannibal, remembering that while Rome had allies nearby, basically it was a very small city by today's standards. The entire manpower of the whole peninsula was on the order of a half million, according to Caesar (who came along later, of course). And in 216 B.C., they and their allies made up just a fraction of the peninsula. First Hannibal, with just 30,000 troops, destroyed a Roman army at Trebia, killing about 20,000 Romans. Next he annihilated a Roman army of 40,000 at Lake Trasimeno. Finally he slaughtered 60,000 Romans at Cannae. After that, the Romans wouldn't come out and play any more. Imagine a small city state losing 120,000 men in a few months. Imagine what weeping and wailing there would be in a modern nation like the United States under parallel circumstances (say the loss of forty or fifty million (!) able-bodied men). The United States (population 260,000,000 was traumatized by the loss of 57,000 men in Viet Nam to such an extent that a memorial---a weeping wall---was set up in the nation's capital listing the names of all who had fallen. But the Romans were made of sterner stuff. When word reached Rome of the incredible disaster at Cannae, did they cry and wail? No, they sternly went so far as to absolutely forbid public mourning. They never stopped fighting, never considered making terms, and never gave the Carthagenians an inch that they didn't have to. (They finally wore him out, and then went on to win the Second Punic War.) Could any nation, people, or tribe that has prospered since, say as much? The Romans had unlimited faith in themselves, apparently unlimited self- confidence, and on top of that, it was simply inconceivable to them that their own inner strength---and the fact that they were *Romans*--- wouldn't eventually enable them to prevail over their enemies. But they were not a nation in the post-18th century sense. When the Senate and People of Rome incorporated disparate peoples into their realm, it soon became an empire, not even then actually a nation as we conceive of it today. It was a city leading a league, and then an empire, always with The City at its core. At least that's what I think the term has come to mean. Lee From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 22 02:25:44 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 22:25:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Which Cryonics option is optimal? In-Reply-To: <20060519181811.39509.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060519173146.45157.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060519181811.39509.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60605211925y368c808bs70731335ed858fe6@mail.gmail.com> Neuro, definitely, for the reasons you named. Rafal, A-1941 On 5/19/06, A B wrote: > > Hello, > > I intend to sign up for cryopreservation with Alcor in the near future, but > I'm not completely decided on which option I would prefer: Neuropreservation > Option (head only) or full-body (head + body). Note: at this time, both > options involve a supposedly successful vitrification of the brain. Right > now I'm leaning toward Neuropreservation for a few reasons: > > - brain structure preservation still seems to be marginally superior with > Neuro. > - easier transport in emergencies. > - emergency conversion to Neuro option is not necessary. > - possibly less likely to be the first revival guinea pig as a Neuro, and so > perhaps a > lower chance of a disastrously failed revival. > - may actually be easier to revive a Neuro than a full-body- so extra money > may be > wasted- and could lead to delay in revival. > - a Neuro is substantially cheaper. > > My inclination right now is to tentatively sign up as a Neuro, but to > hopefully purchase a life insurance policy that will barely cover a > full-body, in case I change my mind later. > > I would like to get the opinions of other Cryonicists regarding which option > is superior based on factors which I may have failed to list here. > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich > > > > > ________________________________ > Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! > Messenger with Voice > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Chief Clinical Officer, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From amara at amara.com Mon May 22 05:41:28 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:41:28 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Romans (was Economic consensus on immigration) Message-ID: Lee Corbin: >The Romans had unlimited faith in themselves, apparently unlimited self- >confidence, and on top of that, it was simply inconceivable to them that >their own inner strength---and the fact that they were *Romans*--- >wouldn't eventually enable them to prevail over their enemies. In that Roman mixture was a good bit of Etruscan stuff [1]. The Romans assimilated them, absorbing and using alot of their (disparate, since the Etruscans were individual city-states like the Greeks) culture(s), such as the alphabet, calendar, building technology (arches, waterways). The fifth Roman king was Tarquinius Priscus, an Etruscan. The classic statue depicting the mythical founding of Rome, the Capitoline Wolf, which shows Romulus and Remus suckling at the she-wolf is not Roman, but Etruscan [2]. How can you be so sure that the Romans didn't commit racial suicide? By the way, you seem to be right regarding the unlimited faith in themselves, if you talk to a Roman today. One would commit a faux pas if they criticize a Roman about their city. It's very difficult for a typical Roman to see faults with Rome. Amara [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitoline_Wolf -- ******************************************************************** 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 spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 22 06:14:40 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 23:14:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Romans (was Economic consensus on immigration) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605220614.k4M6Erp7018629@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > > How can you be so sure that the Romans didn't commit racial suicide?... Amara Racial suicide? What is that? Did you mean the Romans turned on other Romans? Amara please forgive my deplorable lack of historical knowledge, I always did suck at that. spike From amara at amara.com Mon May 22 06:35:26 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:35:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Romans (was Economic consensus on immigration) Message-ID: spike: >Racial suicide? What is that? A little tongue-in-cheek, 'racial suicide' is a concept sometimes used as propaganda, that has fueled a number of unpleasant campaigns in world history. It means that a particular race is reduced to no longer being recognizable, due to the mixing ("in-breeding") of other races. In my example, I was suggesting that the Romans could have assimilated themselves out of existence by absorbing/breeding with/etc. other races and cultures. In my discussion of Romans/Etruscans, a second alternative I should have suggested instead of the Romans assimilating the Etruscans, was the Etruscans assimilating the Romans. I don't think you can separate the two very easily. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 22 06:37:17 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 23:37:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80605211610p192217a6w6a97454dce1cd6ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605220715.k4M7FZuZ004194@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Ilsa, please reread what you wrote, then explain. Everything past "lobsang samten" threw me. I remain thrown. Honest pal, your style requires a certain amount of concentration. {8-] spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ilsa > Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:10 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] off topic > > a word about myself: i was asked by the u.u.'s to give this event at > their retreat. > most u,u.'s go to the fellowship or church for the community support > no matter where they came from or where they are going. > i was asked by the HH Dalia Lama's personal assistant to write a book > for people like spike who have left religion for all the right > reasons. why he asked me is beyond my understanding. i am not a > religionist. they are not religionists. they as you are focused in > their part of the process. in my past life i was a science writer. > hard and clear. > lobsang samten picked a title and suggested that i arrange to have a > web site for this work. > lobsang samten played himself in the Scorsese film 'kundun'. you can > see his face and position in that movie. well he asked me to help > people understand their humanity in context of evolution and infinity. > i have no issue nor do i ever missionary. i have taken my years of > training and formulated a non religious process. the only religion i > practice is Kindness. ai is understood and fostered by those arround > HHDL. > after all every one on this list is all that and a brain! yea baby! > i have a real sense of some aspects of who some on this list are and i > was sharing a facet of what your research can manifest to the 85 > percent of the walking unaware of your work in simplicity to help a > beginning of a paradigm shift. if not a shift then just getting to > the line in the shifting sand. > gertrude stein said at the turn of the 19th century that in the 21 st > century there will no longer be a need for capitol letters. a > prophetic thought that expands in meaning as i ushser in the practice. > enough about me. grin, ilsa > From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Mon May 22 07:21:38 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 00:21:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <200605220715.k4M7FZuZ004194@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <9b9887c80605211610p192217a6w6a97454dce1cd6ee@mail.gmail.com> <200605220715.k4M7FZuZ004194@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c@mail.gmail.com> butterfly mind: have you ever wondered what all the fuss is about meditation? you might have looked into the early days of the 'relax response' promulgated by herbert benson at harvard or all the sweetly iced varieties fanned out by the new age to the serious study of the mind by Buddhists and the Abraham religions contemplation plans for self knowledge.. did you see the film, 'what the bleep do we know'? thoughts as well as the mind are now being looked over by hard scientists all over the world. hospitals are offering meditation before surgery to aid in the healing process. what has hard science taught us about nerve ganglion's function in the chemistry of thought? where is the origin of thoughts and what is their path through our minds, into our bodies and out to the atmosphere. where do thoughts land? how do we direct our thoughts? the brain generates 85 thoughts per second. let us get a handle on this process. i have studied for many years spending a short time at harvard as well as serious time with both religious leaders and scientists. bring your questions and be ready to go to the GYM for YOUR BRAIN. i have formulated a few steps for your progress on this journey. where is lobsang samten? On 5/21/06, spike wrote: > > Ilsa, please reread what you wrote, then explain. Everything past > "lobsang > samten" threw me. I remain thrown. Honest pal, your style requires a > certain amount of concentration. {8-] spike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ilsa > > Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:10 PM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] off topic > > > > a word about myself: i was asked by the u.u.'s to give this event at > > their retreat. > > most u,u.'s go to the fellowship or church for the community support > > no matter where they came from or where they are going. > > i was asked by the HH Dalia Lama's personal assistant to write a book > > for people like spike who have left religion for all the right > > reasons. why he asked me is beyond my understanding. i am not a > > religionist. they are not religionists. they as you are focused in > > their part of the process. in my past life i was a science writer. > > hard and clear. > > lobsang samten picked a title and suggested that i arrange to have a > > web site for this work. > > lobsang samten played himself in the Scorsese film 'kundun'. you can > > see his face and position in that movie. well he asked me to help > > people understand their humanity in context of evolution and infinity. > > i have no issue nor do i ever missionary. i have taken my years of > > training and formulated a non religious process. the only religion i > > practice is Kindness. ai is understood and fostered by those arround > > HHDL. > > after all every one on this list is all that and a brain! yea baby! > > i have a real sense of some aspects of who some on this list are and i > > was sharing a facet of what your research can manifest to the 85 > > percent of the walking unaware of your work in simplicity to help a > > beginning of a paradigm shift. if not a shift then just getting to > > the line in the shifting sand. > > gertrude stein said at the turn of the 19th century that in the 21 st > > century there will no longer be a need for capitol letters. a > > prophetic thought that expands in meaning as i ushser in the practice. > > enough about me. grin, ilsa > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon May 22 07:49:17 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 00:49:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Romans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amara writes > spike: > > Racial suicide? What is that? Yeah, I wondered too :-) > A little tongue-in-cheek, 'racial suicide' is a concept sometimes used > as propaganda, that has fueled a number of unpleasant campaigns in world > history. Hmm, I don't recall it coming up, though I have heard about the fear of admixture. So sometimes it was called "racial suicide", hmm? Well, Google reports that there are many right-of-center accusations that the present day Europeans and Anglo-Saxons are committing racial suicide. I suppose that this is because it is claimed that they have the power (but not the will) to cause the demographics to go the other way if they truly wanted. > It means that a particular race is reduced to no longer being > recognizable, due to the mixing ("in-breeding") of other races. In my > example, I was suggesting that the Romans could have assimilated > themselves out of existence by absorbing/breeding with/etc. other > races and cultures. Well, I haven't heard that theory (about the Romans) seriously proposed. Now it has been proposed that their ever increasing use of slaves drove out the small landholders, who were a linchpin of the society. And of course, there are the theories about lead poisoning and so on. It's interesting that after some point the most able generals and aggressive politicians were non-Italians, if memory serves. There was almost surely various kinds of cultural decay, but I don't think that they were demographically replaced---at least not at all suddenly and even if so, not by people differing from them much in innate characteristics. > In my discussion of Romans/Etruscans, a second alternative I should have > suggested instead of the Romans assimilating the Etruscans, was the > Etruscans assimilating the Romans. I don't think you can separate the > two very easily. That happened early enough that what most of us mean by "Roman" refers to the people later on. I.e., In 282 B.C. they accepted a peace treaty after suffering another defeat. Within a few years, all Etruscan cities were taken over by Rome, and the Etruscans thus vanished from the political realms of the world. By "Roman" most writers are referring to later periods. Although where I got this from http://www.crystalinks.com/etruscians.html has fodder for explanations concerning the fall of the *Etruscans*. Thanks for the tidbit; I hadn't realized that it's not completely clear whether culturally the early Romans assimilated the Etruscans or it happened the other way around. Lee From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon May 22 07:44:13 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 00:44:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The pleasure is all mine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B9DF41C-8483-4F97-9C46-51F682A7A2DE@ceruleansystems.com> Fellow extropes, I would like to thank all you who have contributed in the last couple weeks to Ye Olde Extropians list. I have observed a surge in quality of the like that I have not seen in many years on this list. Some of the recent discourse has been as interesting as I have seen on this list in a long time, and it is nice to see some long silent names posting again. Please, please keep it up. Grant an old man (*cough*bullshit*cough*) the pleasure of seeing one of the oldest influential mailing lists on the net recapture some of its former glory. In all seriousness, the insightfulness has risen markedly recently and should represent the baseline for the continuing discourse on this mailing list. In my humble opinion, of course. Cheers! J. Andrew Rogers From velvethum at hotmail.com Mon May 22 11:56:37 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:56:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Which Cryonics option is optimal? Message-ID: Rafal wrote: "Neuro, definitely, for the reasons you named." Hi Rafal, We've talked about this few years before and I don't want to draw you into this discussion but your comment that believing in what exactly constitutes "you" is "matter of taste" stayed with me and left me wondering what you meant exactly. Seeing that you've signed up for suspension, I just have to ask you the following. Assuming you know that cryonics is going to be able to recover nothing more than a 4D symbol of you, did you sign up because you *want* 4D symbols of you to exist after you die? Or, did you sign up because you want to continue to live and simply don't accept the logic of the assumption from the previous sentence? Again, I'm not interested in starting another debate about this. I'm only curious about the motivation of someone who chooses to sign up for suspension. H. (sp) From amara at amara.com Mon May 22 13:10:17 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:10:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Romans Message-ID: Lee Corbin: >Thanks for the tidbit; I hadn't realized that it's not completely clear >whether culturally the early Romans assimilated the Etruscans or it >happened the other way around. I don't know if "assimilated" is the right word (perhaps to strong), but clearly the Etruscans were in the area first, and had well-established city-states and many of their technology and traditions permeated through the Roman membrane. There were marriages, codependencies, but alot of murders and wars too. What the Romans didn't absorb, they destroyed, but the Etruscans were victors some of time too. From the nice writeup at Wikipedia (surprising to me how much information is there.. instead, I've been studying the Etruscans from books I've bought in local museums) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization we read, for example -------------- The Question of the founding population "Due to the fact that Rome was destroyed by the Gauls, losing most of its inscriptional evidence about its early history (according to Livy), most of that history is legendary. Archaeology confirms a widespread level of destruction by fire dated to that time. Legend; namely, the story of the rape of the Sabine women, says outright that the Italic Sabines were brought into the state." Later history relates that the Etruscans lived in the Tuscus vicus, the "Etruscan quarter", and that there was an Etruscan line of kings (albeit ones descended from Demaratus the Corinthian) as opposed to the non-Etruscan line. These views must come from the later reduction of Etrurian cities and absorption of the Etruscan populations into the Roman state. If we begin recounting all the institutions and persons said to be Etruscan, and comparing cultural objects to ones we know to have been of Etruscan origin, an originally Etruscan Rome appears unmistakably before our view. Rome was founded by Etruscans, all the kings were Etruscans, and the earliest government was Etruscan." -------------- more information on that page too. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From mfj.eav at gmail.com Mon May 22 13:49:00 2006 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:49:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ag-energy-pharma-bioprod-engine Message-ID: <61c8738e0605220649p7b5099c9s9d8dfc480f2a5260@mail.gmail.com> That is exactly what Bayer and the large pharmas are doing now. Creating the efficiency in agbiotech so that biosystems have net energy outputs that approach our present consumption rates for the petro-fossil sources. They see energy as rationed by price and other mechanisms. They see the low energy users as gaining a market share from the high consumers. They see those who live in non GMO idealism as the future have-nots and wasteland which eventually will be controlled by those who take the technology to it full advantage. E.G. Brazilian sugar cane farmers wil own the great american desert and redevelop it. What I see as the greatest danger now is this global warming problem. Am I wrong to see the end of the ice caps and liberation of all available water into bio-production as terrible. Yes there will be a great deal of work to capture global water supply increases into bio-forms , but if all the deserts were converted int rain forest scale bio-factories what would the math say about water actually being in excess anymore? -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-290-8734 Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals http://www.angelfire.com/on4/extropian-lifespan http://www.4XtraLifespans.bravehost.com megao at sasktel.net, arla_j at hotmail.com, mfj.eav at gmail.com extropian.pharmer at gmail.com Extreme Life-Extension ..."The most dangerous idea on earth" -Leon Kass , Bioethics Advisor to George Herbert Walker Bush, June 2005 Extropian Smoke Signals Waft Softly but Carry a big Schtick ... Morris Johnson - June 2005* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 22 14:08:53 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:08:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200605221409.k4ME95re002846@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ? On 5/21/06, spike wrote: Ilsa, please reread what you wrote, then explain.??Everything past "lobsang samten" threw me...??{8-]??spike bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ilsa Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] off topic ... > where is lobsang samten? Right here, in a jarring and puzzling transition from the previous text: ... > lobsang samten played himself in the Scorsese film 'kundun'.??you can > see his face and position in that movie.??well he asked me to help > people understand their humanity in context of evolution and infinity... >??enough about me.??grin,??ilsa From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 22 14:22:29 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:22:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] forward from keith In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605221422.k4MEMfc5003771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Something was causing this post to bounce. When I forward, it loses indentation, so I don't know which was written by Keith and which by Alex Bokov. What ever happened to him? Anyone know Alex? spike At 11:15 AM 5/21/2006 -0500, alexboko wrote: So you think singularity is inevitable? Read this brief essay. http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1996/making.html Reprinted from Personal Notes #7, 1977. This page was last updated August 11, 1996. It explains IMO a very plausible alternative scenario for what can happen, more succinctly than I have managed to so far, and perhaps in sufficiently science-fictiony terms that even a transhumanist might give it some consideration before dismissing it as leftist propoganda. Which it absolutely is not. He leaves out a massive reduction in population, on the order of 90%, and the likely destruction of a substantial fraction of the infrastructure in the wars you can expect. It surely wouldn't be an Extropian future. Keith Henson From kazvorpal at yahoo.com Mon May 22 14:41:16 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Romans (was Economic consensus on immigration) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060522144116.86673.qmail@web50214.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Lee Corbin lcorbin at tsoft.com > Joseph asks > > > How about the Romans? > The Romans achieved an historically unparalleled degree of faith in > themselves, their culture, and their people as a whole. I believe that the Greeks, Romans, and perhaps even Egyptians are examples of something more culturism than nationalism. This is definitely true of the Greeks. The Romans weren't being nationalists, whether it's culturalism or not...they were an empire, a collection of many nations, with no illusions of being a single nation at all. Another candidate, though, would be Charlemagne's France. Charlemagne specifically attempted to exploit something you could either call nationalism or culturism, regarding the former Roman province of Gaul. He announced Latin to be dead and France to have its own national language, culture, et cetera. But I think that the point of "nationalism" being a new thing is that the very idea of a clear-cut, segregated nation is a new thing. Previously borders were very volatile, really being collections of smaller states held together temporarily, and in changing order, by strong rulers. As I keep implying, people could have cultural identity, but that's not really the same thing. Another aspect may be that class warfare is a new thing, one of the many generous contributions of socialism, and "nationalism" could be narrowly defined as a way of unifying people by pitting them in an "us vs them" sort of way which wasn't even /necessary/ during times of belief in Divine Right, or under authoritarian conquerers. The fascists, for example, were simply socialists who didn't stop with workers vs management and rich vs poor, but added nationalism and racism. Jews/Gypsies vs Aryans, the Third Reich versus everyone who deserved to be conquered. Charlemagne's the best I can come up with of anyone previously having used the us vs them thing, and in his case is was purely positive, unlike how it worked after the socialists got finished effing humanity. -- Words of the Sentient: To revolt is a natural tendency of life. Even a worm turns against the foot that crushes it. In general, the vitality and relative dignity of an animal can be measured by the intensity of its instinct to revolt. -- Mikhail Bakunin E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon May 22 14:15:55 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:15:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542961B8212@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> Message-ID: <20060522141555.GB19756@ofb.net> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:15:22PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Then might we say that superrationality is prescriptive, rather than > > decisive? > > Well, were it in our power to redefine what Hofstadter meant, then > yes, it might be an improvement to call it advice---or, what is the > same thing in game theory, a strategy. What he said, which I can because I just checked, was that you should realize you're a typical member of the society, hence will make the same decision as the other, hence should cooperate. One flaw is that thinking this way is in fact not typical of members of our society, at least put in this abstract way. In more usual situations, as my tipping question was meant to suggest, many of us may have superrational habits. What he also said, in his postscript to the final column, was that societies might be divided into Type and Type II. Type II we're familiar with. Type I members believe in the rationality of one-shot cooperation *with other members of Type I societies*. Or in other words, the superrational should cooperate with the superrational, and defect with the merely rational. Of course, knowing (or even having a high probability) that the other is supperrational is probably a side-channel bit which isn't part of the general PD. It is part of the original PD, though, where you and the other prisoner really are accomplices. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon May 22 14:28:32 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:28:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/10/06, Samantha Atkins <[1]sjatkins at mac.com> wrote: > > Many of us multi-task quite well and are adept at catching the new > nobody had laptops, but the reality was that these people were capable > of fully participating in the game and doing other things > simultaneously; and if my expectations didn't match current reality, How true is this "quite well" and "fully participating"? I have a dim memory of studies actually looking at this, and finding performance deficits, but I don't remember any specifics. Well, cell phones hampering drivers. Some tasks do go well in parallel because they're both automatic *and* using different parts of the brain; reading and listening don't seem so segregated. I hang out a fair bit with undergrad gamers, many of whom seem to have the attention span of a ferret. It annoys *them* sometimes, let alone me, when they realize that their role playing game is inching forward because half the players get distracted every five minutes. -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon May 22 14:10:41 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:10:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605181204u35dc619bxed817a0d6af5d8fe@mail.gmail.com> References: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C8542961B8212@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> <8d71341e0605181204u35dc619bxed817a0d6af5d8fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060522141041.GA19756@ofb.net> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:04:33PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > strategies, that tends to evolve); you don't even need side channels. > It's only the unrealistic one-shot variant that leads towards mutual > defection. Unrealistic? Do you tip when leaving a restaurant on a road trip, which restaurant you'll probably never visit again? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Mon May 22 14:34:27 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:34:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <30CD893E-3A97-4A53-9E07-58B9B19A776A@mac.com> References: <20060511213303.BB3B157FD1@finney.org> <30CD893E-3A97-4A53-9E07-58B9B19A776A@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060522143427.GD19756@ofb.net> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:27:12PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Do not confuse critical thinking with the absence of apparent other > activity. I am not "distracting myself" by actively listening with a > computer. I note my ideas and associations and follow them nearly > immediately by using a computer. Is this so difficult for you to > understand or accept? I think it's more that you seem to be the exception, apparently actually using your computer the way people would use notebooks, to take notes of what you're listening to or thinking. A speaker might note that you actually seemed attentive as you typed away, vs. the 90 other students checking their e-mail during the lecture. -xx- Damien X-) From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 22 14:38:37 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:38:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] forward from keith In-Reply-To: <200605221422.k4MEMfc5003771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605221422.k4MEMfc5003771@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060522093731.0304d440@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:22 AM 5/22/2006, spike wrote: >Something was causing this post to bounce. When I forward, it loses >indentation, so I don't know which was written by Keith and which by Alex >Bokov. What ever happened to him? Anyone know Alex? He was on the list recently. Alex lives about 1 hour away from me. :-) 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Mon May 22 14:48:45 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: <013101c67ce9$d8ff9310$3f094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20060522144845.96768.qmail@web50208.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: John K Clark > "Eugen Leitl" > > democracy can NEVER work better than a free market in the long run. > You are absolutely positively 100% correct Eugen, and that's why I find your > position puzzling. A bunch of Linux nerds voted on a E mail standard in a > democratic election and you regard their decree as gospel, Holy Writ, a > fundamental law of the universe. Meanwhile the free market has decided that > it prefers a different standard set by outlook express and you treat it > with contempt. I'm pretty sure he was attempting to rebutt me with a reductio ad absurdum argument, though he obviously failed, since his faith in bureaucracy caused him to overlook the fact that what HE thinks of as "democracy", majority rule, really is markedly inferior to the free market (meaning each person ruling his own life and deciding what decisions to make in each case separately). It's funny to watch academics and elitist-wannabes angrily declaring free choice to be an evil mistake, because their favorite stuff is constantly passed over for stuff which is objectively better, thanks to their personal criteria for value judgement being wrong. History's littered with their remains. I always go back to Beta and OS/2, though, as the most laughable examples of inferior products being touted by people with poor judgement, a few of whom stick with them to this day. -- Words of the Sentient: Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. --C.S.Lewis E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From jonkc at att.net Mon May 22 15:55:23 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:55:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Which Cryonics option is optimal? References: Message-ID: <003801c67db8$28afeb70$e6084e0c@MyComputer> "Heartland" >Hi Rafal > Assuming you know that cryonics is going to be able to recover nothing > more than a 4D symbol of you Ok let's assume that the poor man will become nothing but a "4D symbol", but according to you Rafal is probably already just a "4D symbol", at least he is if he's ever had a tooth pulled under anesthesia; but being a "4D symbol" doesn't seem to bother him now so I don't see why it would bother him after he's revived from cryonics. I can't speak for Rafal but as for me I rather enjoy being a "4D symbol". 4D symbol, hmm, I suppose a word in a book would be a 3D symbol as it has no depth but the letters in the famous "Hollywood" sign do have some depth so that would be a 4D symbol. So you're saying don't sign up for cryonics because if you do you'll end up as a billboard. > Or, did you sign up because you want to continue to live and simply don't > accept the logic of the assumption from the previous sentence? Logic? What logic is that? John K Clark From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon May 22 18:53:10 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 14:53:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Albright Speaks Out Re Bush's Faith Message-ID: <380-220065122185310857@M2W090.mail2web.com> "Bush's faith worries Albright" Monday, May 22, 2006; Posted: 11:18 a.m. EDT (15:18 GMT) "LONDON, England (Reuters) -- U.S. President George W. Bush has alienated Muslims around the world by using absolutist Christian rhetoric to discuss foreign policy issues, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says. "I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats and Christians. "President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different," said Albright, who has just published a book on religion and world affairs. "The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us." http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/albright.bush.reut/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon May 22 20:30:22 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:30:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <200605221409.k4ME95re002846@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c@mail.gmail.com> <200605221409.k4ME95re002846@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike, Kundun (1997) -- see [1]. Lobsang Samten is apparently "Master of the Kitchen". I have not seen the movie, but given its credit list (4 Oscar nominations as well as a number of other wins) it might be worth tracking down. I would tend to agree however that I would prefer messages with "normal" capitalization for readability. The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly), is that self-awareness and conscious thought are two of perhaps many modes of operation of the biomatter between our ears. Certain philosophies have developed various approaches towards exploring these areas -- as have neuroscientists who have access to research tools such as fMRI. In part it comes back to whether *you* have your thoughts or whether your thoughts have *you*. The pursuit of "truth" over mere "thoughts" is one approach to this. Buddhism, Zen and other disciplines provide alternate paths. I would guess that most people on the extropian list migrate towards enlightenment through the "truth" path in contrast to many Eastern cultures where a "discipline" path is perhaps more common. Obviously they are not exclusive of each other. Given the common Western mindset (which by default includes thousands of years of cultural spin control) it may be difficult not to label a discipline or a path as a religion. You can see how easy it is for this trap to present itself in the IMDB quote from Kundun. An Indian asks the Dalai Lama if he is the "Lord Buddha"? The Dalai Lama's answer refuses to acknowledge that he is a "Lord" of any kind. Robert 1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119485/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon May 22 21:17:23 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:17:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Which Cryonics option is optimal? In-Reply-To: <003801c67db8$28afeb70$e6084e0c@MyComputer> References: <003801c67db8$28afeb70$e6084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7641ddc60605221417w7bd3d44y2486c0a8bb127ff0@mail.gmail.com> > "Heartland" > > >Hi Rafal > > Assuming you know that cryonics is going to be able to recover nothing > > more than a 4D symbol of you and > > Or, did you sign up because you want to continue to live and simply don't > > accept the logic of the assumption from the previous sentence? ### The personal identity issue has been worked to death on this list, including by yours truly. If you wish to know more about my views on this subject, consult the archives, I have really nothing useful to add anymore. Rafal From amara at amara.com Mon May 22 22:12:05 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 00:12:05 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) Message-ID: KAZ kazvorpal at yahoo.com : >I'm pretty sure he was attempting to rebutt me with a reductio ad >absurdum argument, though he obviously failed, since his faith in >bureaucracy caused him to overlook the fact that what HE thinks of as >"democracy", majority rule, really is markedly inferior to the free >market (meaning each person ruling his own life and deciding what >decisions to make in each case separately). >It's funny to watch academics and elitist-wannabes angrily declaring >free choice to be an evil mistake, because their favorite stuff is >constantly passed over for stuff which is objectively better, thanks to >their personal criteria for value judgement being wrong. >History's littered with their remains. I always go back to Beta and >OS/2, though, as the most laughable examples of inferior products being >touted by people with poor judgement, a few of whom stick with them to >this day. Is ranting helpful to this list? I don't see the point of any of these paragraphs. If referring to Eugen, then I wish you would read more of his words before posting, since what you write about him makes even less sense. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon May 22 23:20:58 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 19:20:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) Message-ID: <380-220065122232058312@M2W013.mail2web.com> KAZ kazvorpal at yahoo.com : >It's funny to watch academics and elitist-wannabes angrily declaring >free choice to be an evil mistake, because their favorite stuff is >constantly passed over for stuff which is objectively better, thanks to >their personal criteria for value judgement being wrong. >History's littered with their remains. I always go back to Beta and >OS/2, though, as the most laughable examples of inferior products being >touted by people with poor judgement, a few of whom stick with them to >this day. KAZ, Can you approach your argument constructively while leaving out the mocking commentary? Natasha Natasha Vitta-More Extropy Institute, President -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 22 23:32:38 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 00:32:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> On 5/22/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > How true is this "quite well" and "fully participating"? It's true in the cases I'm referring to. I have a dim > memory of studies actually looking at this, and finding performance > deficits, but I don't remember any specifics. Well, cell phones > hampering drivers. Well yeah, having one hand completely occupied and unavailable for the steering wheel or gear stick is going to be a problem with a real-time physical task like driving. I don't think it's a good analogy here. Some tasks do go well in parallel because they're > both automatic *and* using different parts of the brain; reading and > listening don't seem so segregated. > > I hang out a fair bit with undergrad gamers, many of whom seem to have > the attention span of a ferret. It annoys *them* sometimes, let alone > me, when they realize that their role playing game is inching forward > because half the players get distracted every five minutes. > It probably depends on the person. I'm choosy about who I invite to my games; whether most people of average intelligence could multitask that well, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 22 23:14:47 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 19:14:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Albright Speaks Out Re Bush's Faith (EP) In-Reply-To: <380-220065122185310857@M2W090.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060522190956.0b44a010@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:53 PM 5/22/2006 -0400, you wrote: >"Bush's faith worries Albright" > >Monday, May 22, 2006; Posted: 11:18 a.m. EDT (15:18 GMT) > >"LONDON, England (Reuters) -- U.S. President George W. Bush has alienated >Muslims around the world by using absolutist Christian rhetoric to discuss >foreign policy issues, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says. > >"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make >their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to >Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats and Christians. > >"President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division >between good and evil, is, I think, different," said Albright, who has just >published a book on religion and world affairs. "The absolute truth is what >makes Bush so worrying to some of us." From a stone age tribe perspective, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin were the right kind of leader for a time where the whole point of war was to kill a substantial fraction of the population. Keith Henson From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Tue May 23 01:37:51 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:37:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: References: <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c@mail.gmail.com> <200605221409.k4ME95re002846@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986@mail.gmail.com> Buddhism is a truth seeking path and not a religion of any kind. there are the every day new agers who call themselves Buddhists and have given the prevailing colors to this current popularity but that is the first turning of the wheel. Buddha gave 84 thousand suturas. there is the first: all life is suffering, the second turning is called the middle way and represents the walking on the razor edge between the pairs of opposites and the third turning which is a vast scientific study of all realities. my daughter just called she is taking me out to dinner at a place that needs a reservation! wowwser. i will return to this if called upon. imagine all this overlay ed on the biology and physics of the here and now. what after all do we have access to but you and me baby. On 5/22/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > Spike, > > Kundun (1997) -- see [1]. > > Lobsang Samten is apparently "Master of the Kitchen". > > I have not seen the movie, but given its credit list (4 Oscar nominations > as well as a number of other wins) it might be worth tracking down. > > I would tend to agree however that I would prefer messages with "normal" > capitalization for readability. > > The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly), is that self-awareness > and conscious thought are two of perhaps many modes of operation of the > biomatter between our ears. Certain philosophies have developed various > approaches towards exploring these areas -- as have neuroscientists who have > access to research tools such as fMRI. In part it comes back to whether > *you* have your thoughts or whether your thoughts have *you*. The pursuit > of "truth" over mere "thoughts" is one approach to this. Buddhism, Zen and > other disciplines provide alternate paths. > > I would guess that most people on the extropian list migrate towards > enlightenment through the "truth" path in contrast to many Eastern cultures > where a "discipline" path is perhaps more common. Obviously they are not > exclusive of each other. > > Given the common Western mindset (which by default includes thousands of > years of cultural spin control) it may be difficult not to label a > discipline or a path as a religion. You can see how easy it is for this > trap to present itself in the IMDB quote from Kundun. An Indian asks the > Dalai Lama if he is the "Lord Buddha"? The Dalai Lama's answer refuses to > acknowledge that he is a "Lord" of any kind. > > Robert > > 1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119485/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kazvorpal at yahoo.com Mon May 22 15:20:47 2006 From: kazvorpal at yahoo.com (KAZ) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: <20060521172126.GL26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20060522152047.64401.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org > It is often said that the Internet is one of the best success stories of anarchy > or, even, socialism in modern history. It'd only be an example of the success of anarcho-capitalism. Certainly not socialism. When a government accidentally creates something it doesn't like and abandons it, then it's taken over by random private individuals, that's not socialism. The original point of the internet was to create a government intelligence network which could survive, say, a nuclear war, because it was decentralized. But the internet proved ineffective for this, which is why emphasis was gradually shifted to more secure, controllable alternatives. I'm sure a few of the people here remember how, in the late eighties and early nineties, there was all the whining and crying about how the net couldn't possibly be funded and expanded sufficiently to keep up with its own growth. The very sort of people errantly demanding compliance with standards too inferior to win majority support on here were, back then, saying "we have to ban binaries on the usenet, we need to force this standard and that for lists, servers, gopher, because otherwise bandwidth will be consumed and the things which are REALLY important...as defined by arrogant and unimaginative we...will be squeezed out". They screamed and cried that Mosaic, and eventually netscape, were evil because they supported graphics, which were not necessary for sgml-driven data webs, and did not "pay for" the bandwidth (by the amount of information delivered) the way text did. "EEEvil! Sound the Conch!" Fortunately, they were largely ignored, or better still laughed off-stage, and as the bureaucrats who funded the 'net "wisely" abandoned it for alternatives, the free market took over and proved that we could have oodles of /excess/ bandwidth despite usage being literally thousands of times greater than the amount they black-sky predicted was the amount that would bring even Mighty Government Funding to its knees. Ironically, you still here nonsensical echos of this, today. Like people saying "You can't have a four line quote header, because you're reducing effective bandwidth!" /snort Yeah, we're SO short of bandwidth, these days. > The Internet has proven itself to be an example of cooperation between > countries, (often-competing) commercial entities, government agencies, > and educational institutions for the sole purpose of enhancing communication. BZZZZZ Wrong. The primary driving and funding force behind the Internet is selfish quest for gain. That's why it's doing so well. > Yet even this loose cooperative requires some central administrative authority > for such things as operational guidelines, protocol specifications, and address assignment. BZZZZZZZZ! Strike two. This is the same silly argument you hear for government coercion on so many fronts...but of course the very reason used to justify it, the importance of the resource in question, is precisely why there is ZERO need for "authority" in it. Because people, not being "led" by some dubious authority, aren't going to throw up their hands and give up on the thing they want. They're going to make sure, themselves, that it's delivered. And they're going to do, of course, a far better job than any useless bureaucrats. > The key to the success of communication over the Internet is the use of > a standard set of protocols, based on TCP/IP. BZZZZZZWAHAHAH! No, that's just a cosmetic technological aspect. If the precise ones being used ceased to exist tomorrow, and no authority were set up to coerce people into using some other one, people would begin throwing their own together, and competing protocals would quickly evolve into /spontaneous/ standards, which of course would work better than anything some committee of bureaucrats could ever dream up. Ironically, the natural standards would also be more dynamic. "standards" agencies tend to create stagnancy. Essentially, the difference between China inventing gunpowder, noodles, the printing press, and modern steel and Europe turning them into USEFUL technology was one of China being run by a great big IETF, who enforced the "standards" of Chinese civilization, keeping it all nice, orderly, and stagnant. > Again, I'm sorry you choose to stick to a broken system. > This behaviour you describe is unacceptable, but I'm not > responsible for a broken implementation, and I won't sign > inline for unrelated, technical reasons. The "broken system" is that of sticking blindly to what some bureaucrats announce, even when the marketplace has pissed all over it and moved on. You might as well sign one of those online resolutions to turn off images in Mosaic. To save bandwidth for its real, text-based use. I wonder...WERE you one of the guys complaining about Mosaic, saying a lynx/gopher type was better for the net's limited bandwidth potential? Or did you turn into a fuddy-duddy with age? -- Words of the Sentient: Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitleement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the `right' to education, the `'right' to health care, the `right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle. There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. -- P.J.O'Rourke E-Mail: KazVorpal at yahoo.com Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal MSN Messenger: KazVorpal at yahoo.com ICQ: 1912557 http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 23 03:30:57 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 20:30:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] foxnews wants us to die In-Reply-To: <20060522152047.64401.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200605230331.k4N3VJbZ017397@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196498,00.html Toward Immortality: The Social Burden of Longer Lives Monday, May 22, 2006 By Ker Than Adam and Eve lost it, alchemists tried to brew it and, if you believe the legends, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de Leon was searching for it when he discovered Florida. To live forever while preserving health and retaining the semblance and vigor of youth is one of humanity's oldest and most elusive goals. Now, after countless false starts and disappointments, some scientists say we could finally be close to achieving lifetimes that are, if not endless, at least several decades longer. This modern miracle, they say, will come not from drinking revitalizing waters or from transmuted substances, but from a scientific understanding of how aging affects our bodies at the cellular and molecular levels. . Part One of a three-part series. Click back on FOXNews.com Tuesday and Wednesday for parts two and three. Whether through genetic tinkering or technology that mimics the effects of caloric restriction - strategies that have successfully extended the lives of flies, worms and mice - a growing number of scientists now think that humans could one day routinely live to 140 years of age or more. Extreme optimists such as University of Cambridge gerentology Aubrey de Gray think the maximum human lifespan could be extended indefinitely, but such visions of immortality are dismissed by most scientists as little more than science fiction. While scientists go back and forth on the feasibility of slowing, halting or even reversing the aging process, ethicists and policymakers have quietly been engaged in a separate debate about whether it is wise to actually do so. A doubled lifespan If scientists could create a pill that let you live twice as long while remaining free of infirmities, would you take it? If one considers only the personal benefits that longer life would bring, the answer might seem like a no-brainer: People could spend more quality time with loved ones; watch future generations grow up; learn new languages; master new musical instruments; try different careers or travel the world. But what about society as a whole? Would it be better off if life spans were doubled? The question is one of growing relevance, and serious debate about it goes back at least a few years to the Kronos Conference on Longevity Health Sciences in Arizona. Gregory Stock, director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at UCLA's School of Public Health, answered the question with an emphatic "Yes." A doubled lifespan, Stock said, would "give us a chance to recover from our mistakes, lead us towards longer-term thinking and reduce healthcare costs by delaying the onset of expensive diseases of aging. It would also raise productivity by adding to our prime years." Bioethicist Daniel Callahan, a cofounder of the Hastings Center in New York, didn't share Stock's enthusiasm. Callahan's objections were practical ones. For one thing, he said, doubling life spans won't solve any of our current social problems. "We have war, poverty, all sorts of issues around, and I don't think any of them would be at all helped by having people live longer," Callahan said in a recent telephone interview. "The question is, 'What will we get as a society?' I suspect it won't be a better society." Others point out that a doubling of the human lifespan will affect society at every level. Notions about marriage, family and work will change in fundamental ways, they say, as will attitudes toward the young and the old. Marriage and family Richard Kalish, a psychologist who considered the social effects of life extension technologies, thinks a longer lifespan will radically change how we view marriage. In today's world, for example, a couple in their 60s who are stuck in a loveless but tolerable marriage might decide to stay together for the remaining 15 to 20 years of their lives out of inertia or familiarity. But if that same couple knew they might have to suffer each other's company for another 60 or 80 years, their choice might be different. Kalish predicted that as life spans increase, there will be a shift in emphasis from marriage as a lifelong union to marriage as a long-term commitment. Multiple, brief marriages could become common. A doubled lifespan will reshape notions of family life in other ways, too, says Chris Hackler, head of the Division of Medical Humanities at the University of Arkansas. If multiple marriages become the norm, as Kalish predicts, and each marriage produces children, then half-siblings will become more common, Hackler points out. And if couples continue the current trend of having children beginning in their 20s and 30s, then eight or even 10 generations might be alive simultaneously, Hackler said. Furthermore, if life extension also increases a woman's period of fertility, siblings could be born 40 or 50 years apart. Such a large age difference would radically change the way siblings or parents and their children interact with one other. "If we were 100 years younger than our parents or 60 years apart from our siblings, that would certainly create a different set of social relationships," Hackler told LiveScience. The workplace For most people, living longer will inevitably mean more time spent working. Careers will necessarily become longer, and the retirement age will have to be pushed back, not only so individuals can support themselves, but to avoid overtaxing a nation's social security system. Advocates of anti-aging research say that working longer might not be such a bad thing. With skilled workers remaining in the workforce longer, economic productivity would go up. And if people got bored with their jobs, they could switch careers. But such changes would carry their own set of dangers, critics say. Competition for jobs would become fiercer as "mid-life re-trainees" beginning new careers vie with young workers for a limited number of entry-level positions. Especially worrisome is the problem of workplace mobility, Callahan said. "If you have people staying in their jobs for 100 years, that is going to make it really tough for young people to move in and get ahead," Callahan explained. "If people like the idea of delayed gratification, this is going to be a wonderful chance to experience it." Callahan also worries that corporations and universities could become dominated by a few individuals if executives, managers and tenured professors refuse to give up their posts. Without a constant infusion of youthful talent and ideas, these institutions could stagnate. Hackler points out that the same problem could apply to politics. Many elected officials have term limits that prevent them from amassing too much power. But what about federal judges, who are appointed for life? "Justices sitting on the bench for a hundred years would have a powerful influence on the shape of social institutions," Hackler writes. Time to act A 2003 staff working paper drawn up by the U.S. President's Council of Bioethics - then headed by Leon Kass, a longtime critic of attempts to significantly extend the human lifespan - stated that anti-aging advances would redefine social attitudes toward the young and the old, and not in good ways. "The nation might commit less of its intellectual energy and social resources to the cause of initiating the young, and more to the cause of accommodating the old," the paper stated. Also, quality of life might suffer. "A world that truly belonged to the living would be very different, and perhaps a much diminished, world, focused too narrowly on maintaining life and not sufficiently broadly on building the good life." While opinions differ wildly about what the ramifications for society will be if the human lifespan is extended, most ethicists agree that the issue should be discussed now, since it might be impossible to stop or control the technology once it's developed. "If this could ever happen, then we'd better ask what kind of society we want to get," Callahan said. "We had better not go anywhere near it until we have figured those problems out." Copyright C 2006 Imaginova Corp. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 23 04:04:39 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 21:04:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:32:38AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/22/06, Damien Sullivan <[1]phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > I have a dim memory of studies actually looking at this, and > finding performance deficits, but I don't remember any specifics. > Well, cell phones hampering drivers. > > Well yeah, having one hand completely occupied and unavailable for the > steering wheel or gear stick is going to be a problem with a real-time > physical task like driving. I don't think it's a good analogy here. No, it's the phone conversation itself, even with a handsfree set, which increases the chance of your needing that cryonics contract. Attention is a limited resource. http://www.nsc.org/library/shelf/inincell.htm http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051209113320.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050205121600.htm And I'd note that if we're going to use computer metaphors such as multi-tasking, we should remember that context-switching is not costless. It may be worth the cost, but there'll be one, unless the tasks can be run automatically by different parts of the brain. But if attention is needed for both tasks then I think context-switching is going to apply. -xx- Damien X-) From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 23 04:09:28 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 05:09:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605222109u4fea5f65p94798fecce52bd30@mail.gmail.com> On 5/23/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > > No, it's the phone conversation itself, even with a handsfree set, which > increases the chance of your needing that cryonics contract. Attention > is a limited resource. > Oh, then hands-free cell phones aren't particularly low-hanging fruit; it'd be better to start off persuading the world's taxi drivers to refrain from holding conversations, not just for a minute on occasion but for the entire duration of every trip :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 23 04:14:27 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 21:14:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605222109u4fea5f65p94798fecce52bd30@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605222109u4fea5f65p94798fecce52bd30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060523041427.GB11015@ofb.net> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 05:09:28AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Oh, then hands-free cell phones aren't particularly low-hanging fruit; > it'd be better to start off persuading the world's taxi drivers to > refrain from holding conversations, not just for a minute on occasion > but for the entire duration of every trip :) Quite possibly. But I wasn't advocating banning the use of cell phones in cars; just saying that multitasking often has measurable penalties, and if someone says it doesn't affect them at all I'm inclined to be skeptical, people not being great judges of their own competence. -xx- Damien X-) From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue May 23 03:38:38 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 20:38:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] foxnews wants us to die References: <200605230331.k4N3VJbZ017397@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000501c67e1a$618f7980$6600a8c0@brainiac> Feeling is mutual ... I want foxnews to die. Olga From amara at amara.com Tue May 23 05:18:59 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 07:18:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] multitasking (was no electronics at Singularity Summit???) Message-ID: Russell Wallace russell.wallace at gmail.com : >Oh, then hands-free cell phones aren't particularly low-hanging fruit; >it'd be better to start off persuading the world's taxi drivers to >refrain from holding conversations, not just for a minute on occasion >but for the entire duration of every trip :) Taxi drivers talking during the entire duration of the trip are not the lowest-hanging fruit of the multitasking taxi drivers either (at least they look at the road occasionally), instead we have the taxi-drivers concentrating on their GPS navigation system ... Amara From amara at amara.com Tue May 23 06:31:31 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 08:31:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Universe is Structured Like a Language Message-ID: Another fun post by Sean Carroll: http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/22/the-universe-is-structured-like-a-language/ where he muses on Zizek, the origin of the universe, quantum fluctuations, Seth Lloyd and quantum computing, the entropy state of the early and present universe, randomly typing monkeys, cellular automata, and Kolmogorov complexity. Review for many people here, but probably new material for others. Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Physics is simple only when analysed locally. " ---Misner, Thorne & Wheeler From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue May 23 07:16:44 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 00:16:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Agreement on principles. (was Microsoft) In-Reply-To: <20060522152047.64401.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060522152047.64401.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0D3A1CCD-EF28-4AF8-90D3-AAD3C9EF5639@ceruleansystems.com> On May 22, 2006, at 8:20 AM, KAZ wrote: > They screamed and cried that Mosaic, and eventually netscape, were > evil because they supported graphics, which were not necessary for > sgml-driven data webs, and did not "pay for" the bandwidth (by the > amount of information delivered) the way text did. "EEEvil! Sound > the Conch!" Oddly, I do not remember this and I was there. Yes, bandwidth was limited back then, but the only discussions I remember were about making *efficient* use of graphics, not eliminating them. > Like people saying "You can't have a four line quote header, > because you're reducing effective bandwidth!" > > /snort > > Yeah, we're SO short of bandwidth, these days. ClueTime: the bandwidth people are trying to save is their own, not their DSL or ethernet drop. It takes humans economically significant amounts of time to sift through piles of irrelevant text for that nugget of wisdom. For example, with few exceptions, people that quote more than a pageful of text before responding frequently get their email dumped straight to /dev/null by me. I receive many hundreds of emails a day, and if the potential value of the post is not immediately obvious either by content or sender, I often trash it. Are they wasting my Internet bandwidth? Yes, but I really could not care because I have far more bandwidth than most such that the cost is insignificant. On the other hand, the many additional keystrokes and time spent scanning with the Mark I eyeball is damn expensive when you have as much text to go through as I do in an average day. It is not about computer bandwidth, because that gets faster every year. It is about human bandwidth, which is painfully finite and still not getting any faster. [...much poorly focused flamebait elided...] > The "broken system" is that of sticking blindly to what some > bureaucrats announce, even when the marketplace has pissed all over > it and moved on. If the marketplace has moved on then stop claiming an implementation of the old standard. If you really believe in this anarcho- capitalism, it should not bother you that a huge chunk of the market disagrees with your assertions. If defective implementations of de facto standards are obviously superior, then they will win over the long term. This is not about new standards, but making claims of conformance to an old standard when that is clearly not in evidence. > I wonder...WERE you one of the guys complaining about Mosaic, > saying a lynx/gopher type was better for the net's limited > bandwidth potential? Strawman. It really has nothing to do with network bandwidth consumption. I use a fancy modern GUI email client that seems to render everything just fine no matter what perversion has been applied to the function of sending a text message. I still adamantly support a clean plain text email implementation. I have no problems at all with modifying standards, de facto or otherwise, provided that one can demonstrate an obvious and necessary improvement versus the existing standard. I am not affected by these choices in practice, but I still recognize when a choice is a bad choice and remain an advocate of good choices by default. There is a cost to breaking widely accepted standards, so there damn well better be a benefit for that cost. More often than not, when people think a carefully engineered protocol needs to be "improved" to support some minor pet feature, all it really shows is that they do not understand the protocol under discussion or the theory behind the protocol. For a classic example of stupid protocol design through ignoring literature and not understanding existing equivalent protocols, one only needs to look at XML. Wildly popular, but with serious fundamental deficiencies that make it useless for many of the problems it was supposed to solve, despite these same problems having been well characterized and solved long before. The engineers and scientists of prior generations were not barely functional idiots with nothing but the shallowest of insights. Engineering brilliance is not a recent phenomenon. The collective ingenuity of those old minds may in fact be missing the mark, but only a fool would so casually dismiss the invested wisdom and experience of those designers without very carefully considering the nature of the problem they were trying to solve. J. Andrew Rogers From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 23 08:09:59 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 01:09:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986@mail.gmail.com> References: <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c@mail.gmail.com> <200605221409.k4ME95re002846@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9896055C-3D03-45EF-8AE2-D855595BCEC6@mac.com> On May 22, 2006, at 6:37 PM, ilsa wrote: > Buddhism is a truth seeking path and not a religion of any kind. With all respect I have for Buddhism, the above is clearly not the case. One of my best friends just took refuge last weekend. Another acquaintance is heading off in a month for a three year plus three months major retreat and will likely become a Buddhist nun. The taking refuge was a very moving and real religious commitment to a religious path. There was nothing ambiguous about this. Yes it is a kind of truth seeking but the path is fundamentally one filled with well known religious practices and aspirations, especially in the Mahayana traditions with their strong focus on the liberation of all beings. There are many schools/sects to Buddhism as I understand it. Many of them have things like reincarnation, cyclic existence, six realms of being (including hell realms) within which one may be at some time incarnated, heaven-like realms (Pure Land), deities and a decidedly mystical view of reality and what is really important. If that doesn't qualify as religion in your mind then I would very much like you to explain what does. > there are the every day new agers who call themselves Buddhists and > have given the prevailing colors to this current popularity but > that is the first turning of the wheel. Buddha gave 84 thousand > suturas. there is the first: all life is suffering, the second > turning is called the middle way and represents the walking on the > razor edge between the pairs of opposites and the third turning > which is a vast scientific study of all realities. That is not the way Buddhist friends have expressed these to me and your summary of each leaves much to be desired. This is not a request to explain them fully here however. > imagine all this overlay ed on the biology and physics of the here > and now. what after all do we have access to but you and me baby. > All of what overlaid on what? Could you please bother to be a bit more coherent? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Tue May 23 09:15:58 2006 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 02:15:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <9896055C-3D03-45EF-8AE2-D855595BCEC6@mac.com> References: <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c@mail.gmail.com> <200605221409.k4ME95re002846@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986@mail.gmail.com> <9896055C-3D03-45EF-8AE2-D855595BCEC6@mac.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80605230215g5593bccaw872cd900fe24a541@mail.gmail.com> because of my 35 years of training and my interest in science i do practice differently than your devoted friends. i teach people how to access their own lives. i have passed out of the devoted stage with the help of the qualified teachers who call themselves Friends on the Path. non hierarchical no special 'whatever' just perhaps more time and effort in the process.. a step or two ahead. all this started when i posted that i was offering a seminar. oh well. i have stirred something that now needs to stop boiling.. the second turning of the wheel is the mayahana path. there are two other paths with different practices. sorry ... i thought there was a space for understanding here of what i do. period. this space could be brought on by your intense study of intelligence by intelligent people here on this list. this is why losang asked me to write this book so that perhaps some clarity will arrive and evaporate the religion myasma from the truth. you are all gracious and patient. with warm regards, ilsa > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 23 12:04:18 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 08:04:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> Message-ID: <34050.72.236.102.76.1148385858.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > No, it's the phone conversation itself, even with a handsfree set, which > increases the chance of your needing that cryonics contract. Attention > is a limited resource. > I find having a *passenger* in the car is often so distracting that I could easily wreck. Does this go away with exposure over time? A parent with young children can find it almost impossible not to be distracted. *Seemed* like I got used to that noise and activity, but frequently I was not directly involved in conversations, just in ... peacekeeping! Perhaps the best arrangement is that old one, with the chauffeur who had a speaking tube to the rear compartment, but that could/would be closed off for most of the drive. ;) Now... where can I find such a person and such an auto! I do know that when I must navigate complicated traffic, I frequently ask passengers to be quiet so I can concentrate! Regards, MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 23 12:06:19 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 08:06:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605222109u4fea5f65p94798fecce52bd30@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605222109u4fea5f65p94798fecce52bd30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <34055.72.236.102.76.1148385979.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > Oh, then hands-free cell phones aren't particularly low-hanging fruit; > it'd > be better to start off persuading the world's taxi drivers to refrain from > holding conversations, not just for a minute on occasion but for the > entire > duration of every trip :) That's another example that makes me wonder if repeated exposure improves things. Regards, MB From mstriz at gmail.com Tue May 23 14:59:06 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:59:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986@mail.gmail.com> References: <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c@mail.gmail.com> <200605221409.k4ME95re002846@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/22/06, ilsa wrote: > > Buddhism is a truth seeking path and not a religion of any kind. And Christianity is a relationship. Every religion remodels itself to the fashions of the day. Martin From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue May 23 17:35:15 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:35:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <20060522141555.GB19756@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien wrote > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:15:22PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Well, were it in our power to redefine what Hofstadter meant, then > > yes, it might be an improvement to call it advice---or, what is the > > same thing in game theory, a strategy. > > What he said, which I can because I just checked, was that you should > realize you're a typical member of the society, hence will make the same > decision as the other, hence should cooperate. One flaw is that > thinking this way is in fact not typical of members of our society, at > least put in this abstract way. Thanks for checking on Hofstadter's original definition. Let me take a swing at it line by line. "One should realize that one is a typical member of some class and so hence will [helplessly] make the same decision as any other member of that class." We must acknowledge the cases in which there *does* exist such a class---and so superrationality exists, may I posit---and those cases in which there is no such class. Consider my earlier questions: (In the NIPD), would you Cooperate with a ruthless gangster who was used to exploiting others and who knew that you were not a ruthless gangster? Would you Cooperate with someone who was on record as expressing doubts about Superrationality? The answers to these are clearly "no". (Alas, I'm afraid that it is absolutely essential for readers to UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A ONE-SHOT PRISONER'S DILEMMA WHICH IS *NOT* RELATED TO REAL LIFE. IN REAL LIFE THERE IS NO EXPLICIT PAYOFF MATRIX THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL ONE'S VALUES; THIS IS A SINGLE PLAY OF A MATHEMATICAL SITUATION IN ABSTRACT GAME THEORY.) On the other hand, if you were playing with a duplicate of yourself that had been created five minutes ago, or were playing with a mirror-image of yourself, then the answers are most assuredly [and helplessly] "yes". For, were you to have doubts about whether superrationality were the correct strategy when playing against a close duplicate, then so would your duplicate! Again, we are talking about strategy for an *instance* of one in a particular game; we are *not* talking about the more subtle question of what is a *person*. (In the latter case, by the way, I do consider myself to be the same person as my duplicate; but I am *not* the same instance.) Is it superrational to vote? After all, if you decide to not vote, will that change the outcome by only one vote? No! Not necessarily! Suppose---just as in the case of superrationality---that whatever causal influences come to you from the outside (say the latest scandals involving certain politicians) that motivate you to vote may also motivate others to vote in exactly the same way. Therefore, it is sheer arrogance to assume that you have free will, and can make decisions uncorrelated with the rest of the universe. I always figure that when I do or don't vote, the totals are changed by perhaps 5-50 votes in a large election. One way of looking at Hofstadter's superrationality, then, is to consider whether or not this meme of superrationality (or meme of Cooperation under certain circumstances) is one of these "outside causal influences" that constrains your "free will". In a nutshell, if you know that you are playing a certain individual X in a NIPD, then is it or is it not the case that (as in some hypothetical voting cases) your behavior is correlated with his? As I have said, the *only* cases I know of where superrationality can be correct is when it is true that your behavior is positively correlated with that of your opponent X. Now if X is Douglas Hofstadter in 1983 (where Doug1983 happens to know that you are an Extropian from 2006 who is fully up to speed on Superrationality), then you know he's going to Cooperate. Hence you should Defect. I therefore repeat my earlier conclusion: Cooperation is possible if (1) you don't happen to know what your opponent will do, and (2) there is reason to believe that his behavior is strongly correlated with yours. > In more usual situations, as my tipping question was meant to > suggest, many of us may have superrational habits. I would suggest that this is *not* a case of superrationality at all. This is a case of genuine altruism. (I join those who praise genuine altruism, and strongly disagree with that brand of libertarian/individualist who embraces selfishness to such a degree that altruism is seen as unwise.) It's not any kind of NIPD because by the time you've got the check, the waitress has already played her move. > What he also said, in his postscript to the final column, was that > societies might be divided into Type I and Type II. Type II we're > familiar with. Type I members believe in the rationality of > one-shot cooperation *with other members of Type I societies*. Yes. Suppose that you *know* that the adversary in the NIPD is a Type I individual who believes in the rationality of one-shot cooperation. Then you should Defect. (All one has to do to understand this is read the payoff matrix again.) Likewise, suppose that your adversary knows that *you* are superrational; then he *should* exercise his free will and Defect. Even in the case that you both know, correctly, that the other is superrational, and that each knows that the other knows, and each knows that the other knows that the other knows, and so on, then if a meme from the outside drifts in and says to you "PAL, JUST THIS TIME, DEFECT!", then you *should* be affected by that meme. Because according to the payoff matrix, you'll be better off. > Or in other words, the superrational should cooperate with the > superrational, and defect with the merely rational. Of course, knowing > (or even having a high probability) that the other is superrational is > probably a side-channel bit which isn't part of the general PD. It is > part of the original PD, though, where you and the other prisoner really > are accomplices. In the world of real-life prisoners, who have internal payoffs such as personal loyalty, or even "thieves' honor", and who are human beings to have a self-image and a self-concept of themselves, then quite rightly such a prisoner may Cooperate without being irrational. But even if you are superrational, and it's a one-shot PD, and your payoff *is* magically captured by the entries in the payoff matrix, then to ignore the outside meme "PAL, JUST THIS TIME, DEFECT!", is not rational. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue May 23 17:55:59 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:55:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality (was Newcomb's Paradox (was Superrationality)) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605210823r38e995erd6673882ea20ce48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > > None of this was supposed to be about real life. At least not until > > we've solved the strictly theoretical cases of what the optimal > > strategies are. THEN, maybe----and only maybe---should we wonder > > whether this has implications for real life. > No problem - part of my point being that as long as one > is doing that, it is important to be dispassionate about > it, and not let emotion and value judgment backflow into > one's mathematics; I dwelt on "superrationality" because > it is an excellent example of a fallacy resulting directly > from such backflow. All right, let's for the moment make the arrogant assumption that indeed we have dispatched Superrationality, i.e., that defenders of Superrationality are no longer a part of this sub-thread. Then, *granted* that Superrationality has been shown to be of rather limited utility---or, as I gather you would say ---has been refuted, then we may move on to a new question of exactly what promulgated this fallacy in the first place. Your theory, if I understand it as expressed above, is that Superrationality descended from wishful thinking, and that victims erroneously allowed their hearts to begin dictating to their mathematics. As you well put it: "[they] let emotion and value judgment backflow into [their] mathematics". I must fail to disagree. (I guess you're lucky that I didn't say "I could hardly fail to disagree less!" which is yet another way of agreeing :-) Yes. So I speculate further. First, wouldn't it be a nice world if everyone were superrational in just the way that Hofstadter described? We *all* would be so much better off if we *all* embraced Superrationality and all Cooperated with each other in every real-life instance. I don't think that there can be any doubt about that. Therefore, one might easily see it as one's duty to do his part to both adopt Superrationality and spread the meme! This very rosy (and highly desirable outcome) appears to have backflowed into mathematics just as you say. Well, it wouldn't be the first time that some Western notions were shown to be too idealistic. Now, often real harm can come from such untrammelled idealism. It is this: the *very* people who succumb to it become the victims not only of the more prudent or wise who do not--- that we could live with!---but also become the victims of the extremely unscrupulous and genuinely evil who as a part of their nature intend actual harm to many innocent people. (It vaguely reminds me of laws which outlaw handguns but which naturally succeed only in disarming those who obey laws---but that is a subject for another other list.) Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 23 17:57:09 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:57:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] off topic In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80605230215g5593bccaw872cd900fe24a541@mail.gmail.com> References: <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c@mail.gmail.com> <200605221409.k4ME95re002846@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986@mail.gmail.com> <9896055C-3D03-45EF-8AE2-D855595BCEC6@mac.com> <9b9887c80605230215g5593bccaw872cd900fe24a541@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <966832C3-CEDD-41CD-8A32-56DF0D73DF9F@mac.com> Ilsa, I experienced the following from you in this exchange: stream of consciousness posts; lack of bother to capitalize or clean up syntax when asked; sloppy semantic content; often not speaking very directly to people's questions and concerns. I hope that you agree that this is not very skillful communication. If you have take on communicating important things then this is something you absolutely must work on. As it is I have not experienced you in this exchange as leading any credence or inciting any interest in what you are offering. Quite the opposite. - samantha On May 23, 2006, at 2:15 AM, ilsa wrote: > because of my 35 years of training and my interest in science i do > practice differently than your devoted friends. i teach people how > to access their own lives. i have passed out of the devoted stage > with the help of the qualified teachers who call themselves Friends > on the Path. non hierarchical no special 'whatever' just perhaps > more time and effort in the process.. a step or two ahead. > all this started when i posted that i was offering a seminar. oh > well. i have stirred something that now needs to stop boiling.. > the second turning of the wheel is the mayahana path. there are two > other paths with different practices. > sorry ... i thought there was a space for understanding here of > what i do. period. this space could be brought on by your intense > study of intelligence by intelligent people here on this list. this > is why losang asked me to write this book so that perhaps some > clarity will arrive and evaporate the religion myasma from the truth. > you are all gracious and patient. with warm regards, ilsa > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 23 17:44:48 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Telepathy a safer route? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060523174448.92060.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm talking way, way, way out of my league here, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Would a safer approach to super-intelligence be through human to human telepathy - mediated by electronics (using essentially unenhanced humans, spare the telepathy machinery)? If some sort of non-intrusive scanning or sensing machine ( a really souped up fMRI ?) could produce a useful information stream to another implanted human, or a group of implanted humans, could the collective processing power be another (possibly safer) route to super-intelligence? Perhaps there could be some sort of filtering device where say 100 "connected" humans would cooperatively process a specified problem using their parietal lobes, while another 100 "connected" humans were cooperatively processing the same problem using the prefrontal cortex, and so on. I think that one of the greatest dangers of super-intelligence is the distinct possibility that when it emerges (even if as an upload), it will be completely unrivaled; there will be only a single mind with that awesome power, rather than several or many of comparable intelligence and differing intentions. A collective "meat-machine" super-intelligence would consist of many distinct minds, values, and interests. It's collective "circle of empathy" (Jaron Lanier) would likely be huge. No single individual from within the collective would be significantly more intelligent than any other member, and so no specific "world view" would dominate any others. And psychopaths could presumably be screened from the group. It would be kind of like a meaty version of Mr. Yudkowsky's "CEV". Although this may turn out to be a moot point if a pure AGI is created within the time frame that some AI experts believe (1 or 2 years from now, maybe less). If pure AGI does take much longer, like a few decades, then this other potential approach might be useful (or might not - don't know). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 23 17:54:20 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] foxnews wants us to die In-Reply-To: <000501c67e1a$618f7980$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20060523175420.53822.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- Olga Bourlin wrote: > Feeling is mutual ... I want foxnews to die. To be fair, Fox News does not want you to die until you are 65 years and 1 day old. Else who would buy all the crap their sponsors expect you to buy? :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 23 18:23:48 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 11:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060523182348.94601.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I don't think that choosing Cryopreservation is anything that one should be ashamed of. If an individual has a desire to live, I think it is more rational to choose Cryonics than to decline it. It is important to remember that an individual's ethical system is a product of their brain. If the brain is permanently destroyed through burial or cremation, then the individual's ethical system is also completely erased. The source of ethics is the individual (at least as of right now). In other words, a permanently dead person has zero altruistic desires. And ultimately, even an altruistic act, is still serving a selfish desire (although it is an objectively noble desire) - we only have access to our own minds. As a hypothetical question: If I became gravely ill, would it be ethically incorrect for me to allow the treatment, knowing that I will have to pay $80,000 in hospital bills? Even though I could donate the money elsewhere? In my opinion, it would not be unethical. A question I've asked myself: Would the world today be better off without me? No, I don't think so. So, I intend to sign up for Cryonics and I am not ashamed of it, at all. These are only my opinions though, and I realize that my life circumstance is different from many others, eg. I don't have children. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich BillK wrote: On 5/20/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > It is succinct, unfortunately part of the statement is highly problematic > (perhaps even *wrong*). > > > Going back to the original statement -- there is of course the "flip" side > of the coin. One could be quite extropic and choose not to sign up for > cryonic suspension because one doesn't want to be revived. A *true* > extropian will make the decision whether or not to undergo cryonic > suspension on the basis of whether or not they feel that activity will in > the future contribute towards increasing the quantity and/or quality of > "useful" information in the universe [3]. One has to compare investing the > financial resources in the preservation of oneself as an ice cube for 20-50 > years to say investing in the same financial resources in other potentially > more extropic efforts [4]. > I also wanted to criticise Jeff's post, especially the dismissive comment about 'Legions incapable of logic' applied to anyone outside of the very, very few signed up to cryonics. But then I thought that on extropy-chat, being signed up to cryonics is like having the membership ticket of the 'true believer', so I had better keep my mouth shut. ;) However, as Robert has stepped in (once again) where angels fear to tread, I'll add a few comments. As Robert says, signing up to cryonics is making a financial decision that this is the best way to allocate a *minimum* of 80,000 USD (head) or 150,000 USD (whole body). If you already have this much spare cash lying around in petty cash and you have already invested in / provided for everything else, then this point is not significant. But for most people, whether via life insurance or other methods, cryonics has to be selected in preference to many other possibilities. Donating to other organisations, e.g. SIAI to speed up FAI, providing for family, bequests to charities, etc. Alcor makes the point that for younger people the life insurance premiums should be smaller and easier to fund. It should also be pointed out though that younger people are the least likely to require cryonics. Other developments like life-extending tech, nano medicine and even the Singularity are likely to arrive well within the next 40 to 50 years. And if you die prematurely in a flaming car wreck, then cryonics won't help. Most scientists say that revival of a cryonics case is not possible in any near future technology. You need 'magic' nano medicine before you can make a case for this. But if you can live long enough, via interim life-extension tech, until nano medicine arrives then you have no need for cryonics. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Be a chatter box. Enjoy free PC-to-PC calls with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 23 20:07:35 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 13:07:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Telepathy a safer route? In-Reply-To: <20060523174448.92060.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060523174448.92060.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <47503128-C5CD-4FB4-BEA4-B61ADB8AA7E9@mac.com> On May 23, 2006, at 10:44 AM, A B wrote: > I'm talking way, way, way out of my league here, but I'll give it a > shot anyway. Would a safer approach to super-intelligence be > through human to human telepathy - mediated by electronics (using > essentially unenhanced humans, spare the telepathy machinery)? If > some sort of non-intrusive scanning or sensing machine ( a really > souped up fMRI ?) could produce a useful information stream to > another implanted human, or a group of implanted humans, could the > collective processing power be another (possibly safer) route to > super-intelligence? Perhaps there could be some sort of filtering > device where say 100 "connected" humans would cooperatively process > a specified problem using their parietal lobes, while another 100 > "connected" humans were cooperatively processing the same problem > using the prefrontal cortex, and so on. > It is not at all clear this would work as described to obtain super- intelligence. Our communication networks today link human minds together much more tightly than at any earlier time in history. While this has led to an explosion of knowledge it is not clear that humans thus connected actually are more intelligent individually or as a group. If the connection was somehow more direct between the relevant conceptual and analytical parts of the human brains involved then perhaps there would be more of a real increase in intelligence. But the resulting mind melded group would be something rather different. Now a lot of improved effective intelligence could come from being able to know, more or less, what others were thinking in the group relevant to a problem at a deeper, clearer and more immediate level than through the medium of words. The communication could potentially be much faster and richer. This could indeed lead to greater effective intelligence in working groups. There is also a potential for greater empathy and understanding of one another that is somewhat promising. There are also possible downsides. I would think some form of brain augments a la Accelerando would be needed for a group to effectively share a larger conceptual space. As human brains seem to be fairly limited in the number of things that can be simultaneously consciously attended to ( 7 +- 2) it is not at all clear than simply wiring together a bunch of such minds would produce that much improvement. I think the brains involved would require augmentation to overcome that limitation in order to reason much more effectively as a group than any other humans or less directly connected groups of humans. > > A collective "meat-machine" super-intelligence would consist of > many distinct minds, values, and interests. It's collective "circle > of empathy" (Jaron Lanier) would likely be huge. No single > individual from within the collective would be significantly more > intelligent than any other member, and so no specific "world view" > would dominate any others. And psychopaths could presumably be > screened from the group. It would be kind of like a meaty version > of Mr. Yudkowsky's "CEV". I do not think so. The result would not think that much better or differently or necessarily be more intelligent. It would more or less largely do what humans do without such deep interlinking but faster and with less communicational friction. But that is not enough to actually be wiser and smarter as in a "CEV". - samantha From amara at amara.com Tue May 23 20:22:01 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 22:22:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single Message-ID: There was a news item on pg. 17 in the May 2006 Sky and Telescope, that blew me away when I read it. Most star systems are single. Charles Lada made this conclusion based on the Milky Way's most common stars: red dwarfs (spectral class M), which comprise about 85% of the total number of stars. Surveys of stars in our galaxy by others indicate that very few have companions, therefore about 2/3 of star systems in our galaxy are single star systems. Here is his paper: STELLAR MULTIPLICITY AND THE INITIAL MASS FUNCTION: MOST STARS ARE SINGLE Charles J. Lada The Astrophysical Journal, 640: L63-L66, 2006 March 20 ABSTRACT In this Letter I compare recent findings suggesting a low binary star fraction for late-type stars with knowledge concerning the forms of the stellar initial and present-day mass functions for masses down to the hydrogenburning limit. This comparison indicates that most stellar systems formed in the Galaxy are likely single and not binary, as has been often asserted. Indeed, in the current epoch two-thirds of all main-sequence stellar systems in the Galactic disk are composed of single stars. Some implications of this realization for understanding the star and planet formation process are briefly mentioned. which you can download here: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v640n1/20200/20200.web.pdf The implications for star formation is that the core mass of a molecular cloud undergoing collapse to a protostar would have a 2-3 times higher surface density. The angular momentum of the core body would be different too. For planet formation, the estimates of the number of planets around M stars just increased: (Lada) "Finally, I note that the large fraction of single star systems in the field is consistent with the idea that most stars could harbor planetary systems unperturbed by binary companions, and thus extrasolar planetary systems that are characterized by architectures and stabilities similar to that of the solar system could be quite common around M stars, provided planetary systems can form around M stars in the first place." Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "What I find most disheartening is the thought that somewhere out there our galaxy has been deleted from somebody else's sample." -- Alec Boksenberg [on the occasion of his 60th birthday celebration] From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 23 20:00:52 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 13:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <20060523182348.94601.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060523200052.3603.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Reading a few recent posts on SL4 got me re-interested in the "Simulation Argument" topic. I think a good topic for discussion is the morality of ancestor simulations. There is a significant chance that in the future we ourselves will be in a position to run an ancestor simulation if we so desire. I think it would be very interesting to gather a broad collection of honest opinions on whether doing so is morally acceptable or unacceptable. If the survey were sufficiently wide, it might even give us a hint as to whether we will *ever* choose to run an ancestor simulation in the future - which could in turn indicate whether we ourselves are embedded in one now. Just to hopefully start things off: I honestly consider ancestor simulations as extremely *immoral* based on the inherent widespread suffering of the individuals involved. Also because allowing such a simulation is a precedent for allowing the creation of even more ethically questionable simulations later on. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ 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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 23 21:24:27 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:24:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <34050.72.236.102.76.1148385858.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> <34050.72.236.102.76.1148385858.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20060523212427.GA8699@ofb.net> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 08:04:18AM -0400, MB wrote: > > No, it's the phone conversation itself, even with a handsfree set, which > > increases the chance of your needing that cryonics contract. Attention > > is a limited resource. > I do know that when I must navigate complicated traffic, I frequently ask > passengers to be quiet so I can concentrate! And polite and attentive passengers will shut up if they see traffic getting complicated, which is one advantage they have over cells. The driver may also have the option of simply tuning out the speaker; just because they're talking doesn't mean you're listening. :) -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 23 21:28:54 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:28:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060523212854.GB8699@ofb.net> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:22:01PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: > Most star systems are single. Without looking at the paper: does he actually settle whether most systems are *formed* single? As opposed to forming as binaries, and later being separated by chaotic dynamics or interaction with other stars? -xx- Damien X-) From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 23 21:30:19 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:30:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] multitasking (was no electronics at Singularity Summit???) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060523213019.GC8699@ofb.net> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 07:18:59AM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: > Russell Wallace russell.wallace at gmail.com : > >Oh, then hands-free cell phones aren't particularly low-hanging fruit; > >it'd be better to start off persuading the world's taxi drivers to > >refrain from holding conversations, not just for a minute on occasion > >but for the entire duration of every trip :) > > Taxi drivers talking during the entire duration of the trip are not the > lowest-hanging fruit of the multitasking taxi drivers either (at least > they look at the road occasionally), instead we have the taxi-drivers Come to think of it, how often do drivers have real conversations, vs. talking at the customer? Ranting about the state of the world may be a low-attention automated task. :) -xx- Damien X-) From lcorbin at tsoft.com Tue May 23 21:36:06 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:36:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <20060523200052.3603.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey writes > Just to hopefully start things off: I honestly consider > ancestor simulations as extremely *immoral* based on the > inherent widespread suffering of the individuals involved. > Also because allowing such a simulation is a precedent for > allowing the creation of even more ethically questionable > simulations later on. To me it depends on *one* single variable: during the time period in question, is or is not the life of the ancestor worth living? In particular, is the entire quality of the individual's life enhanced or diminished by your re-simulation? If the experience your ancestor---and, what the devil, anyone else to whom this question applied, whether or not they were your ancestor, whether or not they were human, or whether or not they ever existed---is positive, then you've done a good thing, otherwise you've done harm. That's my answer. There are subtle ramifications to this that I won't take the time to explore in detail now, e.g., is this an *exact* re- enactment of previous events? does your action constitute the first step---even if very painful---for the eventual entire resuscitation and immortality of the individual? is the experience positive from that *person's* viewpoint but negative from your view? and so on. (My answers to those, for what they're worth is, Yes, Yes, and Yes.) There is also the interesting but actually unrelated question of whether you should have the legal *right* to do so, given that you own all the equipment that will be necessary, which might inspire a different thread. Lee From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 23 21:31:34 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <20060523212427.GA8699@ofb.net> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> <34050.72.236.102.76.1148385858.squirrel@main.nc.us> <20060523212427.GA8699@ofb.net> Message-ID: <34263.72.236.102.71.1148419894.squirrel@main.nc.us> -xx- Damien wrote: > > And polite and attentive passengers will shut up if they see traffic > getting complicated, which is one advantage they have over cells. > Ah, and the cellphone user could simply hang up, explaining there is a complex traffic situation ahead. But somehow they don't seem to do that - or I don't hear of them doing so. > The driver may also have the option of simply tuning out the speaker; > just because they're talking doesn't mean you're listening. :) > Well said, and very true. On a cellphone, tuning out could be called hanging up. :) Regards, MB From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 23 21:45:32 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:45:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: References: <20060522141555.GB19756@ofb.net> Message-ID: <20060523214531.GD8699@ofb.net> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:35:15AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > > In more usual situations, as my tipping question was meant to > > suggest, many of us may have superrational habits. > > I would suggest that this is *not* a case of superrationality > at all. This is a case of genuine altruism. (I join those who > then to ignore the outside meme "PAL, JUST THIS TIME, DEFECT!", > is not rational. I'm tempted to say that altruistic behavior might be a result of superrational programming by controlling genes or memes. You're not thinking through the superrationality, you're just acting it out. But this might getting into more definitional wrangling than I want. There's also whether the Type I superrationals would outcompete the Type II rationals, but I guess a rationalist philosopher could argue this isn't truly one-shot, if the consequences of the other person doing well have payoff for you or your descendants down the road. One-shot for you, not for your genes. And if you emotionally care about how well other Type Is do then that should be part of your payoff matrix. That said, having defending the ultimate primacy of rationality, you may still get outcompeted by a population of superrationals, leading to the question of whether it is rational to be rational. Depends on your interests, I guess. Is it rational for you to praise altruism? *thinks* Well yes, I guess it is selfishly rational to praise altruism in others. :) Ah, the evolution of potential hypocrisy, where we all urge each other to act for the greater good, so we can exploit each other... suggesting that Objectivists are genuiniely altruistic, not rational. I'm sure this is well-travelled territory, though. -xx- Damien X-) From amara at amara.com Tue May 23 21:57:35 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 23:57:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single Message-ID: Damien Sullivan >does he actually settle whether most systems are *formed* single? It wasn't clear to me. Lada says mostly single from the beginning, but it depends on the mass of the molecular cloud. If it is very large, the gas is supposedly more turbulent, and breaks up into very large single stars (as apposed to smallish single stars). Frank Shu doesn't seem to agree completely with Lada, though. Here's a press release that says more http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/press/pr0611.html and a New Scientist article: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8640 Check this out: ------- Planets and life "If most red dwarfs form without a sibling, extrasolar planetary systems similar to our solar system may be common, says Lada. Kevin Luhman, an astronomer at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, US, agrees. He says planets would probably have a more difficult time forming around a star in a binary system because the other star's gravity would disturb them." "He adds that red dwarfs can live as long as a trillion years - 100 times longer than the Sun, which will heat and bloat up as a red giant in several billion years. "Those factors together make the stars very likely sites for the formation of planets and life," Luhman says." "The stars' longevity may make them ideal destinations when the Sun becomes a red giant and "makes life on Earth a living hell", says Shu. "In that case, travelling to a habitable planet (or making one by terraforming) around a red dwarf star could extend the lifetime of the human race by many, many billions of years." -------- Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Don't let me catch anyone talking about the Universe in my department. " ---Ernest Rutherford From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 23 22:04:06 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:04:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <34263.72.236.102.71.1148419894.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> <34050.72.236.102.76.1148385858.squirrel@main.nc.us> <20060523212427.GA8699@ofb.net> <34263.72.236.102.71.1148419894.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <3860622E-204E-49E6-BAB0-8F338A7B8E7B@mac.com> I wear a bluetooth headset so I am handsfree. If something needs more of my attention I tell the caller to hang on. No big deal. For most of us around 95% of the time we are driving the actual driving has very little of our attention as most of the non-emergency stuff is largely semi-automated behavior. So I see no reason that in these rather boring lag times we should forego conversation with physical or virtually present people. - samantha On May 23, 2006, at 2:31 PM, MB wrote: > -xx- Damien wrote: >> >> And polite and attentive passengers will shut up if they see traffic >> getting complicated, which is one advantage they have over cells. >> > > Ah, and the cellphone user could simply hang up, explaining there is a > complex traffic situation ahead. But somehow they don't seem to do > that - > or I don't hear of them doing so. > > >> The driver may also have the option of simply tuning out the speaker; >> just because they're talking doesn't mean you're listening. :) >> > > Well said, and very true. On a cellphone, tuning out could be called > hanging up. :) > > Regards, > MB > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 23 21:10:34 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060523211034.84445.qmail@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > "Finally, I note that the large fraction of single > star systems in the > field is consistent with the idea that most stars > could harbor planetary > systems unperturbed by binary companions, and thus > extrasolar planetary > systems that are characterized by architectures and > stabilities similar > to that of the solar system could be quite common > around M stars, > provided planetary systems can form around M stars > in the first place." That pushes my Drake Equation-derived priors up a notch. :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 23 22:52:51 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:52:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <3860622E-204E-49E6-BAB0-8F338A7B8E7B@mac.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> <34050.72.236.102.76.1148385858.squirrel@main.nc.us> <20060523212427.GA8699@ofb.net> <34263.72.236.102.71.1148419894.squirrel@main.nc.us> <3860622E-204E-49E6-BAB0-8F338A7B8E7B@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060523225251.GA24315@ofb.net> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 03:04:06PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I wear a bluetooth headset so I am handsfree. If something needs > more of my attention I tell the caller to hang on. No big deal. For > most of us around 95% of the time we are driving the actual driving > has very little of our attention as most of the non-emergency stuff > is largely semi-automated behavior. So I see no reason that in these > rather boring lag times we should forego conversation with physical > or virtually present people. The question is how quickly a situation can go from routine to emergency. The studies I mentioned didn't find interference with lane following, but with reaction time. -xx- Damien X-) From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 23 23:22:10 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 16:22:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <20060523225251.GA24315@ofb.net> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> <34050.72.236.102.76.1148385858.squirrel@main.nc.us> <20060523212427.GA8699@ofb.net> <34263.72.236.102.71.1148419894.squirrel@main.nc.us> <3860622E-204E-49E6-BAB0-8F338A7B8E7B@mac.com> <20060523225251.GA24315@ofb.net> Message-ID: <3DF5D265-10DC-439F-9C8D-B0967977C48C@mac.com> Subjectively speaking I get much more distracted by my thoughts when driving than by conversations. :-) - samantha On May 23, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 03:04:06PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> I wear a bluetooth headset so I am handsfree. If something needs >> more of my attention I tell the caller to hang on. No big deal. For >> most of us around 95% of the time we are driving the actual driving >> has very little of our attention as most of the non-emergency stuff >> is largely semi-automated behavior. So I see no reason that in these >> rather boring lag times we should forego conversation with physical >> or virtually present people. > > The question is how quickly a situation can go from routine to > emergency. The studies I mentioned didn't find interference with lane > following, but with reaction time. > > -xx- Damien X-) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 23 23:36:34 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 19:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] no electronics at Singularity Summit??? In-Reply-To: <3860622E-204E-49E6-BAB0-8F338A7B8E7B@mac.com> References: <20060510195211.7484D57FD2@finney.org> <928B0FB5-51A3-4EEF-A0CD-24315F106025@mac.com> <8d71341e0605101516j5ee6d289i8d18fec0895c9d03@mail.gmail.com> <20060522142831.GC19756@ofb.net> <8d71341e0605221632x62f74cb2tf35844c5cdd6dbbd@mail.gmail.com> <20060523040439.GA11015@ofb.net> <34050.72.236.102.76.1148385858.squirrel@main.nc.us> <20060523212427.GA8699@ofb.net> <34263.72.236.102.71.1148419894.squirrel@main.nc.us> <3860622E-204E-49E6-BAB0-8F338A7B8E7B@mac.com> Message-ID: <34393.72.236.103.215.1148427394.squirrel@main.nc.us> > I wear a bluetooth headset so I am handsfree. If something needs > more of my attention I tell the caller to hang on. No big deal. Perhaps you're talking with people who listen! Or perhaps (even more likely) you're paying enough attention to notice when things get tricky and to *say* something. :) > For > most of us around 95% of the time we are driving the actual driving > has very little of our attention as most of the non-emergency stuff > is largely semi-automated behavior. I certainly agree with this! Much of driving is extremely dull. > So I see no reason that in these > rather boring lag times we should forego conversation with physical > or virtually present people. > No, I don't see a problem with that either, it's the noticing of non-boring non-lag times that makes all the difference! Maybe you're just a bit more on the ball than the average, you know! :) I've been almost run down by some "blonde on a cellphone driving an SUV" too many times for comfort! Regards, MB From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 24 00:17:45 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 19:17:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: References: <20060523200052.3603.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Oh, it gets *far*, *far* worse than the proposals thus far made... :-; First, since its a simulation, its perfectly reasonable to do whatever one feels like. One may be running simulations whose explicit purpose is to explore morality. In which case one needs to create situations where some people may experience pain, suffer, die, etc. Either we are in the bottom level "reality" or everyone in the upper levels of reality have thrown away the "morality" paradigm. (This is the "If there is an all powerful God, why do people have to suffer and die?" question dressed differently.) Furthermore, once we have the ability to run simulations ourselves (remember *worlds* of billions of RBs, LCs, JHs, etc. -- i.e. 10^10 copies worth of each isn't even stretching things) there doesn't seem to be much one can do to prevent it. If I happen to spot an unused solar system nearby and say I am going to colonize it and turn it into a massive simulation engine to run billions and billions of RBs (some of whom are bound to suffer horribly and die) then some holier than I people are going to be bound and determined to prevent me from doing that. The only way that seems possible is to either (a) imprison me on the Earth (or even in a very high security prison) or (b) take the nanobots to my mind and force the removal of such "immoral" thoughts (i.e. state or equivalent "mind control"). The only way I can see to prevent this is heavily enforced state restriction on access to the various technologies and capabilities we regularly discuss on the list. (I.e. probably no lifespan extension, no access to "personal" nanorobots (to build my rocket ship), no ability to "program" bio/nano-matter (to manufacture the materials for my rocket ship), standing shoot-to-vaporize orders on anything unauthorized leaving the solar system (I'm not even sure if you could prevent low level nanorobot "leakage" from the solar system). Etc. To me it looks like the only way to "enforce" moralities of the form "thou shalt not make others (real or virtual) suffer" is to force the person who would think such thoughts (and presumably act upon them) to suffer instead. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 24 01:46:45 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 18:46:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: References: <20060523200052.3603.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0947FB65-9EC8-4ED3-A3E7-4E31B62F92F2@mac.com> On May 23, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Oh, it gets *far*, *far* worse than the proposals thus far > made... :-; > > First, since its a simulation, its perfectly reasonable to do > whatever one feels like. One may be running simulations whose > explicit purpose is to explore morality. In which case one needs > to create situations where some people may experience pain, suffer, > die, etc. Either we are in the bottom level "reality" or everyone > in the upper levels of reality have thrown away the "morality" > paradigm. (This is the "If there is an all powerful God, why do > people have to suffer and die?" question dressed differently.) > Well, if you are going to bother to create a world and have beings in it (or that evolve in it) who have some ability to choose among alternatives and where choices have consequences then there will be suffering. Any world you create will have some governing laws of physics or the equivalent even if you choose to change or violate them periodically. If it has laws of physics, i.e., identity, and it has choosing agents then it will always be possible that the agents will make some choices that they suffer some consequences from. It is not even a matter necessarily of "doing whatever one likes". Also, I have a suspicion that any sufficiently powerful intelligence creates de facto simulations just in the act of mulling over scenarios due to the greater level of detail and scope involved. If so then simulations naturally arise from the very thoughts and daydreams of sufficiently advanced minds. I also suspect that one reason for creating a historical sim is to tweak the factors involved as minimally as possible to get a different and better outcome. This could be one way to learn more deeply from experience. > Furthermore, once we have the ability to run simulations ourselves > (remember *worlds* of billions of RBs, LCs, JHs, etc. -- i.e. 10^10 > copies worth of each isn't even stretching things) there doesn't > seem to be much one can do to prevent it. I doubt this world or our current small selves are sufficiently interesting for such astronomical numbers of simulated copies to be at all likely. > > If I happen to spot an unused solar system nearby and say I am > going to colonize it and turn it into a massive simulation engine > to run billions and billions of RBs (some of whom are bound to > suffer horribly and die) then some holier than I people are going > to be bound and determined to prevent me from doing that. The only > way that seems possible is to either (a) imprison me on the Earth > (or even in a very high security prison) or (b) take the nanobots > to my mind and force the removal of such "immoral" thoughts ( i.e. > state or equivalent "mind control"). > Who says it is immoral? Silly maybe, but immoral? > The only way I can see to prevent this is heavily enforced state > restriction on access to the various technologies and capabilities > we regularly discuss on the list. ( I.e. probably no lifespan > extension, no access to "personal" nanorobots (to build my rocket > ship), no ability to "program" bio/nano-matter (to manufacture the > materials for my rocket ship), standing shoot-to-vaporize orders on > anything unauthorized leaving the solar system (I'm not even sure > if you could prevent low level nanorobot "leakage" from the solar > system). Etc. I would rather risk suffering and dying, even countless times, in some lunatic posthuman hell than allow some sophonts such unlimited power to forbid absolutely anything and everything that might be used somehow, sometime in a way they don't like. That would be worse than hell for me. - samantha From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 24 02:20:51 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 19:20:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605240221.k4O2L6iZ013684@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:22 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single > > There was a news item on pg. 17 in the May 2006 Sky and Telescope, > that blew me away when I read it. > > Most star systems are single. > > Charles Lada made this conclusion based on the Milky Way's most common > stars: red dwarfs (spectral class M), which comprise about 85% of the > total number of stars... Amara If Lada is correct, it's the best news I have heard since 20 October 2005. My unsophisticated BOTECs suggest that single stars would be more likely to have their angular momentum being carried in orbiting planets and dust. That is far more interesting than having the rocky stuff end up falling into the star because of the influence of a companion. Come to think of it, in any double system, not only is there less space for stable orbits, the habitability of any possible planets would presumably be reduced by variation of radiation from the two (or more) stars. I would think one steady star would be more friendly to evolution of life than two. spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 24 02:27:28 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 03:27:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <0947FB65-9EC8-4ED3-A3E7-4E31B62F92F2@mac.com> References: <20060523200052.3603.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0947FB65-9EC8-4ED3-A3E7-4E31B62F92F2@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605231927l3ec4e1d5o3fb4c573b08d74d@mail.gmail.com> On 5/24/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > I also suspect that one reason for creating a historical sim is to > tweak the factors involved as minimally as possible to get a > different and better outcome. This could be one way to learn more > deeply from experience. There might be other reasons for doing it too. Suppose you invented a time machine (of the science fiction variety that can take you back to any point in history without announcing your presence by flinging solar masses of unobtainium around the place). What's the first thing you do with it? Well, the traditional answer is straightforward: maybe you want to attend Woodstock or talk philosophy with Socrates or go dinosaur hunting or whatever, but along the way you stop off and kill Hitler. If you subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (as I do) then you have created an Everett branch in which Hitler died early, therefore hopefully in which the Holocaust didn't occur. This is good, is it not? Now suppose you create a simulation of Earth ~1930 onward, accurate in every respect except that Hitler died early in your simulation and therefore the Holocaust didn't occur. Given that by hypothesis a simulation is subjectively indistinguishable from a "real" Everett branch, should this not be considered good in exactly the same way? (Just to make it clear, my claim is not that we should rush out and create simulations as above - it's not like it's going to be an option anytime soon anyway, and if anyone ever does have the option they'll have a lot more information at their disposal and a lot more time to think about it than we have. My claim is only that there is no basis for assuming such must necessarily be wrong.) I would rather risk suffering and dying, even countless times, in > some lunatic posthuman hell than allow some sophonts such unlimited > power to forbid absolutely anything and everything that might be used > somehow, sometime in a way they don't like. That would be worse > than hell for me. Agreed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed May 24 03:55:58 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 20:55:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Superrationality In-Reply-To: <20060523214531.GD8699@ofb.net> Message-ID: Damien S. writes > I'm tempted to say that altruistic behavior might be a result of > superrational programming by controlling genes or memes. You're not > thinking through the superrationality, you're just acting it out. Yes, I think that that's a very good way of looking at it. EvPsych biologists now consider it to be quite likely that it developed in the first place from kin altruism. > There's also whether the Type I superrationals would outcompete the Type > II rationals, but I guess a rationalist philosopher could argue this > isn't truly one-shot, if the consequences of the other person doing well > have payoff for you or your descendants down the road. One-shot for > you, not for your genes. And if you emotionally care about how well > other Type Is do then that should be part of your payoff matrix. Yes; we may *explain* the presence of our urges to cooperate in the NIPD or to be altruistic from evolution, but that's a different matter from *recommending* a one-shot strategy in the game theory problem. > Is it rational for you to praise altruism? *thinks* Well yes, I guess > it is selfishly rational to praise altruism in others. :) I suspect that this is a case where the term "rational" can mislead us, because it all depends on our values in real-life cases. It *is* "rational" for me to leave a tip in a restaurant that I'll never visit again, simply because I'd feel guilty if I didn't. Rationality, per se, has nothing really vital to do with it. > Ah, the evolution of potential hypocrisy, where we all urge each > other to act for the greater good, so we can exploit each other... Come, now :-) Isn't that being a tad too cynical? Most people who urge others to act for the greater good have strong agents for so acting themselves, (just not quite so strong as they think). Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed May 24 03:58:59 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 20:58:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert writes > First, since its a simulation, its perfectly reasonable to do > whatever one feels like. Well, the question was whether or not it is *moral*. That is, let's take it for granted that it is immoral to upload a kitten ---or emulate a never previously existing one---and proceed to hideously torture it. I say that that's immoral, and I say that you shouldn't do it, (i.e., I disapprove). > One may be running simulations whose explicit purpose is to > explore morality. In which case one needs to create situations > where some people may experience pain, suffer, die, etc. Either > we are in the bottom level "reality" oh, what difference could it make what level it's on? so long as we are talking about verisimilar emulations? > or everyone in the upper levels of reality have thrown away the > "morality" paradigm. Sorry---you've lost me. Do you mean higher levels of embedded simulation? > Furthermore, once we have the ability to run simulations > ourselves (remember *worlds* of billions of RBs, LCs, JHs, > etc. -- i.e. 10^10 copies worth of each isn't even > stretching things) there doesn't seem to be much one can > do to prevent it. If you're in some solar system real estate that "belongs" to a very competitive AI, then it may force you to be nice. So it may lay down some stupid rule that says no matter how pleasant 99x10^8 copies of RB have it, the remaining 10^8 copies may *not* have unpleasant experiences of any kind. We know people who intend for their AI to do exactly this. > If I happen to [simulate] billions and billions of RBs > (some of whom are bound to suffer horribly and die) > then some-holier-than-I people are going to be bound and > determined to prevent me from doing that. The only way > that seems possible is to either (a) imprison me... or > (b) take the nanobots to my mind and force the removal > of such "immoral" thoughts ( i.e. state or equivalent > "mind control"). I believe that they would prefer for you to simply be frustrated in your designs. Much as people who today would run cock-fights are discouraged by contrary laws (and we are talking about entities who could enforce such with much greater efficiency than today). > To me it looks like the only way to "enforce" moralities > of the form "thou shalt not make others (real or virtual) > suffer" is to force the person who would think such thoughts > (and presumably act upon them) to suffer instead. Yes, but they suppose, rightly I think, that the "suffering" you endure because you can't freely simulate whom you please is dwarfed by the unpleasantness experienced by some of those you would simulate. Lee P.S. to those to whom it sounds like I've contradicted myself. Please remember that I may strongly disagree with your action yet believe that you should have the legal right and the physical ability to do it. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed May 24 04:08:01 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 21:08:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <0947FB65-9EC8-4ED3-A3E7-4E31B62F92F2@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha writes > Also, I have a suspicion that any sufficiently powerful intelligence > creates de facto simulations just in the act of mulling over > scenarios due to the greater level of detail and scope involved. If > so then simulations naturally arise from the very thoughts and > daydreams of sufficiently advanced minds. A good point that should be kept in mind. > I doubt this world or our current small selves are sufficiently > interesting for such astronomical numbers of simulated copies to be > at all likely. I wish that those who believe that there is a good chance that *we* are living in a simulation would remember this! > [Robert wrote] > > to run billions and billions of RBs (some of whom are bound to > > suffer horribly and die) then some holier than I people are going > > to be bound and determined to prevent me from doing that. The only > > way that seems possible is to either (a) imprison me on the Earth > > (or even in a very high security prison) or (b) take the nanobots > > to my mind and force the removal of such "immoral" thoughts ( i.e. > > state or equivalent "mind control"). > > Who says it is immoral? Silly maybe, but immoral? Oh, I can easily see why folks might say it's immoral. Consider even the case where mere rumination of an extremely advanced being---as you wrote before---amounts to horrible torture of a human-equivalent sophont. It's *real* easy to say that such thoughts on the part of such an advanced entity are not moral. In fact, I concur, unless it can be shown that this vast creature gets such overwhelming benefit from the activity that it becomes worth it, globally. > I would rather risk suffering and dying, even countless times, in > some lunatic posthuman hell than allow some sophonts such unlimited > power to forbid absolutely anything and everything that might be used > somehow, sometime in a way they don't like. That would be worse > than hell for me. Sure that you are not exaggerating? Provided that I fell in to the clutches of a rather benevolent AI, life could still be very full of almost everything I value. True, I couldn't engage in "too accurate" historical simulations and a few other banned activities, but I'd greatly prefer it to your "suffering and and dying countless times in a posthuman hell". Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 24 08:37:20 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 01:37:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605231927l3ec4e1d5o3fb4c573b08d74d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060523200052.3603.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0947FB65-9EC8-4ED3-A3E7-4E31B62F92F2@mac.com> <8d71341e0605231927l3ec4e1d5o3fb4c573b08d74d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 23, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/24/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I also suspect that one reason for creating a historical sim is to > tweak the factors involved as minimally as possible to get a > different and better outcome. This could be one way to learn more > deeply from experience. > > There might be other reasons for doing it too. > > Suppose you invented a time machine (of the science fiction variety > that can take you back to any point in history without announcing > your presence by flinging solar masses of unobtainium around the > place). What's the first thing you do with it? Well, the > traditional answer is straightforward: maybe you want to attend > Woodstock or talk philosophy with Socrates or go dinosaur hunting > or whatever, but along the way you stop off and kill Hitler. > > If you subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum > mechanics (as I do) then you have created an Everett branch in > which Hitler died early, therefore hopefully in which the Holocaust > didn't occur. This is good, is it not? As I understand it QM interpretations do not apply to macro level reality generally speaking. So I don't think MWI can be claimed to give you such a macro level branching. > > Now suppose you create a simulation of Earth ~1930 onward, accurate > in every respect except that Hitler died early in your simulation > and therefore the Holocaust didn't occur. Given that by hypothesis > a simulation is subjectively indistinguishable from a "real" > Everett branch, should this not be considered good in exactly the > same way? > Hmm. I don't know. Do the beings within have the same chances for Singularity and transcendence? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 24 08:49:23 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:49:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: References: <20060523200052.3603.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0947FB65-9EC8-4ED3-A3E7-4E31B62F92F2@mac.com> <8d71341e0605231927l3ec4e1d5o3fb4c573b08d74d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605240149qea34cd9n2c9b3cb1f75a0521@mail.gmail.com> On 5/24/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > As I understand it QM interpretations do not apply to macro level reality > generally speaking. So I don't think MWI can be claimed to give you such a > macro level branching. > They do in the right circumstances; consider Schroedinger's Cat. Now suppose you create a simulation of Earth ~1930 onward, accurate in every > respect except that Hitler died early in your simulation and therefore the > Holocaust didn't occur. Given that by hypothesis a simulation is > subjectively indistinguishable from a "real" Everett branch, should this not > be considered good in exactly the same way? > > > Hmm. I don't know. Do the beings within have the same chances for > Singularity and transcendence? > Suppose they do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 24 08:51:35 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 01:51:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <618C7117-C7AD-4742-9C4E-A3F248B422D6@mac.com> On May 23, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > >> Also, I have a suspicion that any sufficiently powerful intelligence >> creates de facto simulations just in the act of mulling over >> scenarios due to the greater level of detail and scope involved. If >> so then simulations naturally arise from the very thoughts and >> daydreams of sufficiently advanced minds. > > A good point that should be kept in mind. > >> I doubt this world or our current small selves are sufficiently >> interesting for such astronomical numbers of simulated copies to be >> at all likely. > > I wish that those who believe that there is a good chance that *we* > are living in a simulation would remember this! > >> [Robert wrote] >>> to run billions and billions of RBs (some of whom are bound to >>> suffer horribly and die) then some holier than I people are going >>> to be bound and determined to prevent me from doing that. The only >>> way that seems possible is to either (a) imprison me on the Earth >>> (or even in a very high security prison) or (b) take the nanobots >>> to my mind and force the removal of such "immoral" thoughts ( i.e. >>> state or equivalent "mind control"). >> >> Who says it is immoral? Silly maybe, but immoral? > > Oh, I can easily see why folks might say it's immoral. Consider > even the case where mere rumination of an extremely advanced > being---as you wrote before---amounts to horrible torture of > a human-equivalent sophont. It's *real* easy to say that such > thoughts on the part of such an advanced entity are not moral. > In fact, I concur, unless it can be shown that this vast > creature gets such overwhelming benefit from the activity > that it becomes worth it, globally. What is really real in such a case? Is the question meaningful? I think up a hypothetical situation in my Jupiter Brain self involving several million thought up intelligent beings and various situations and possibilities. In many of them my (from some perspective) dreamed up beings have within the dream dream-suffering. Is this really real and immoral to even dream in depth or not? Effectively no autonomous intelligent beings could be created or simulated or evolved by such an intelligence without their freedom of choice in a consistent environment being able and likely to lead to suffering. Having no intelligent beings or no autonomous ones or the Ultimate Nanny State to make sure they never for one moment suffer seems rather stifling. Perhaps we focus too much on the suffering and too much think the very fact of suffering plus intelligent simulator/creator being means the being is immoral. As long as the sim/creation has a way for the beings to actually hit a Singularity and/or address and ultimately eliminate a lot of their own suffering (perhaps with reincarnation- like inclusion of all who died in the reality before) then I don't think the creator being was immoral at all. > >> I would rather risk suffering and dying, even countless times, in >> some lunatic posthuman hell than allow some sophonts such unlimited >> power to forbid absolutely anything and everything that might be used >> somehow, sometime in a way they don't like. That would be worse >> than hell for me. > > Sure that you are not exaggerating? Provided that I fell in > to the clutches of a rather benevolent AI, life could still be > very full of almost everything I value. True, I couldn't engage > in "too accurate" historical simulations and a few other banned > activities, but I'd greatly prefer it to your "suffering and > and dying countless times in a posthuman hell". > The level of control necessary to absolutely forbid the creation of any intelligent being that would suffer in the created environment plus the attendant stifling of abilities of other intelligence by the "benevolent" AI would be intolerable. - samantha From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 24 10:39:24 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 05:39:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single In-Reply-To: <200605240221.k4O2L6iZ013684@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200605240221.k4O2L6iZ013684@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: What I don't understand is if there are so many M class stars, why doesn't the IMF trend continue? I.e. there should be even more brown dwarfs, methane dwarfs and superplanets (all "non-orbiting" / "rogue") running around the galaxy? One can understand why there aren't lots of O or B class stars because they burn out so quickly but it would seem that astronomers are ignoring the time dimension and are confining galaxies to a similar evolutionary state (presumably based on assumptions of the "age" of the universe and rates of stellar evolution). But if some galaxies evolved much faster than ours then presumably there should be few visible stars and mostly black holes, white dwarfs, M stars, brown dwarfs, methane dwarfs & superplanets remaining (i.e. "dark galaxies"). But I would tend to lean in the direction that current perspectives of our galaxy regarding abundances of sub-stellar mass objects are resting on rather thin ice. (The required amount of IR & occultation astronomy needed for robust abundance numbers has probably not been done). So I don't need a nearby M star to colonize and turn into the billion-RB simulation (and self-abuse) system [1]. I can settle for a relatively metal rich L or T dwarf "star" -- and there may be many more of them... R. 1. For the people not understanding this you have to read the recent thread started by Jeffrey & Lee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 24 13:44:58 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:44:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail bounced again, please fix In-Reply-To: <20060523190737.JOOO24981.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@tomts4 0-srv> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524094335.0b549df0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:07 PM 5/23/2006 -0400, you wrote: >This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason: > >Your message was not delivered because the return address was refused. > >The return address was '' >Reporting-MTA: dns; tomts40.bellnexxia.net >Arrival-Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:07:31 -0400 >Received-From-MTA: dns; entheta-b1df6f6.rogers.com (69.157.9.40) > >Final-Recipient: RFC822; >Action: failed >Status: 5.1.1 >Remote-MTA: dns; lists.extropy.org (69.31.45.60) >Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.1.8 ... Access denied. >HELO does not resolve. (HELO tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net) >Received: from entheta-b1df6f6.rogers.com ([69.157.9.40]) > by tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net > (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP > id > <20060523190730.JOOA24981.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net at entheta-b1df6f6.rogers.com> > for ; > Tue, 23 May 2006 15:07:30 -0400 >Message-Id: ><5.1.0.14.0.20060523151225.0b53a2b0 at pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> >X-Sender: hkhenson at rogers.com@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 >Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:14:10 -0400 >To: ExI chat list >From: Keith Henson >Subject: Meta again >In-Reply-To: <966832C3-CEDD-41CD-8A32-56DF0D73DF9F at mac.com> >References: <9b9887c80605230215g5593bccaw872cd900fe24a541 at mail.gmail.com> > <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c at mail.gmail.com> > <200605221409.k4ME95re002846 at andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986 at mail.gmail.com> > <9896055C-3D03-45EF-8AE2-D855595BCEC6 at mac.com> > <9b9887c80605230215g5593bccaw872cd900fe24a541 at mail.gmail.com> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > >It is someone else's turn to apply the boot. > >Please do or risk people bailing from too much clutter. > >Keith > From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed May 24 12:47:36 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:47:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations dangerous to us? In-Reply-To: <618C7117-C7AD-4742-9C4E-A3F248B422D6@mac.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524084440.0b4270b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:51 AM 5/24/2006 -0700, Samantha wrote: snip >The level of control necessary to absolutely forbid the creation of >any intelligent being that would suffer in the created environment >plus the attendant stifling of abilities of other intelligence by the >"benevolent" AI would be intolerable. A closely related thread on the sl4 list brings up an extremely cogent reason to forbid simulation of the past. My contributions: http://www.sl4.org/archive/0605/15031.html http://www.sl4.org/archive/0605/15042.html From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed May 24 14:37:50 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:37:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/23/06, Lee Corbin , commenting on my comments, wrote: > oh, what difference could it make what level it's on? so long > as we are talking about verisimilar emulations? But they don't have to be verisimilar. If you look at cultures on Earth today they are all "realities" with *very* different levels of acceptable suffering. Spending a day or two watching the History Channel (documenting societies & wars of antiquity, the middle ages & modern times) makes it clear that the levels of "morality" which are acceptable by essentially identical "modern" humans (i.e. the hardware is the same, only the software is different) exhibit quite a wide range. > or everyone in the upper levels of reality have thrown away the > > "morality" paradigm. > > Sorry---you've lost me. Do you mean higher levels of embedded simulation? I was thinking along the lines that because there is pain & suffering & death in *this* reality, the overlords running *this* sim must be running with "robust_morality_constraints = FALSE;" Though if you think about it if you grant the sims enough computing capacity (or time) -- such as that that we are approaching, then one could have nested sims, each sub-level could have increasingly less restrictive morality constrants. I believe this parallels something Dante has already written about. > Furthermore, once we have the ability to run simulations > > ourselves (remember *worlds* of billions of RBs, LCs, JHs, > > etc. -- i.e. 10^10 copies worth of each isn't even > > stretching things) there doesn't seem to be much one can > > do to prevent it. > We know people who intend for their AI to do exactly this. That is my impression of that perspective. Which is why it may be necessary to take a fast rocket ship out of this solar system at the earliest possible date. There must be the potential for gobs of post-human stories about interstellar/intergalactic "battles" being fought between the "though must be good" and "though ought to be able to do as one damn well pleases" philosophies. The various Stargate series seem to be evolving in this direction but I don't think they have fully grasped this (in part because they seem to be constrained to dealing with largely "human" entities). I believe that they would prefer for you to simply be frustrated > in your designs. Much as people who today would run cock-fights > are discouraged by contrary laws (and we are talking about > entities who could enforce such with much greater efficiency > than today). I'm with Samantha on this (if I understand her comments). It doesn't matter much whether the prison is physical or virtual. If my freedom is artificially limited by *anyone* or *anything* I have problems with it. Now what would be interesting is whether or not the overlords would attempt to prevent me from constructing a world where millions of RBs might suffer if they were created using self-copies after I have signed a legally binding document (e.g. contract) upon myself that I and all future self-copies have agreed to participate in an experiment which involves the potential for experiencing pain and/or suffering and/or death. In that case we have worlds populated by millions of copies of people who knowingly commited to participating in that experiment. So I can't cause pain & suffering to mice or rats but I can do it with people who agree to play the game. Now, the difference between an enlightened person and an unenlightened person in *this* reality is that many enlightened people already know they signed that contract. So the interesting thing about the FAI approach (as I understand it) is that it potentially bars people from engaging in the pursuit of or attaining enlightenment. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bret at bonfireproductions.com Wed May 24 16:52:26 2006 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 12:52:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Which Cryonics option is optimal? In-Reply-To: <20060519181811.39509.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060519181811.39509.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jeffrey, Here are: 1. Your points with my remarks. 2. My points, on why whole body was selected. And a tidy preface: I am not an expert in the field of cryonics, but have read extensively for the sake of myself and my loved ones. I have formed some opinions. That's that. I can't tell you where identity takes place, but neither can anyone else : ). That is all philosophical interpretation and outside the context of your email, imho. 1. Your points with my remarks. > - brain structure preservation still seems to be marginally > superior with Neuro. There are so many variables on what makes a "good" preservation. Amount of time between death and preservation, distance from facilities, proper early care by medical/trauma staff who may or may not be familiar with your wishes, how well your washout goes, etc. There are optimal circumstance. I'm sure many of us want to live the longest life with the highest quality possible, and end up with a nice clean cardiac arrest, before 5pm, on a workday, at a hospice in Scottsdale a hundred and fifty years from now. Each of these things, and many others, can change the quality of your preservation by 1% or more, and they are cumulative. However, we do not know what an "optimal" preservation is, really, until we start reviving people and get to know how long their recovery takes, what challenges they face, etc. Only then can we study and make cases on what preservation processes and formulae worked better than others. So if there are at times marginal differences in preservation, they would seem to be trivial given so many other factors. And at no point soon can we really state what marginal differences are really good or bad differences. > - easier transport in emergencies. > - emergency conversion to Neuro option is not necessary Both true. Easier to store as well. > - possibly less likely to be the first revival guinea pig as a > Neuro, and so perhaps a > lower chance of a disastrously failed revival. I am pretty sure this is a Last Will and Testament issue, and not a preservation issue. You can do things to aid with your eventual recovery, like building a trust, etc. There are people that can better speak to this point, but I don't think you have to "be afraid" of being a revival guinea pig. > - may actually be easier to revive a Neuro than a full-body- so > extra money may be > wasted- and could lead to delay in revival. More speculation, which is fine - we can only speculate on neuro and full-body recovery costs. > - a Neuro is substantially cheaper. This is your most solid point. But I am curious as to how much cheaper per month you are talking, since you seem to be going the life insurance route anyhow. It sounds as though you are talking a difference of $20. 2. My points, on why whole body was selected. I don't have any points that offer colossal wisdom or trump any of the points you've made. I offer the following: - Given that we do not totally understand the human body, we could speculate that recovery from cryopreservation could be a lot easier with 'x', 'x' being something as yet undiscovered, and not found within the human head. (hey, people speculate we can grow new bodies and be recovered from cryo, don't be too quick to invalidate! : ) - The cost of full-body when compared to neuro and done through life insurance, isn't that much difference. Think of those "for the price of a cup of coffee" type commercials. - Full-body is a lot easier for people to accept, particularly family members, or loved ones you want to "go forward" with you. - I like my body. It could use some upgrades, but its not bad. Yes, that is corpocentric, but hey. - I will point out, that we cannot speak to the quality or technology of a new body, we can only speculate. I think that eventually, a person will be able to get a new body, and that some time after that point, that body will be superior to a "current" body. - I like Futurama. Bret On May 19, 2006, at 2:18 PM, A B wrote: > Hello, > > I intend to sign up for cryopreservation with Alcor in the near > future, but I'm not completely decided on which option I would > prefer: Neuropreservation Option (head only) or full-body (head + > body). Note: at this time, both options involve a supposedly > successful vitrification of the brain. Right now I'm leaning toward > Neuropreservation for a few reasons: > > - brain structure preservation still seems to be marginally > superior with Neuro. > - easier transport in emergencies. > - emergency conversion to Neuro option is not necessary. > - possibly less likely to be the first revival guinea pig as a > Neuro, and so perhaps a > lower chance of a disastrously failed revival. > - may actually be easier to revive a Neuro than a full-body- so > extra money may be > wasted- and could lead to delay in revival. > - a Neuro is substantially cheaper. > > My inclination right now is to tentatively sign up as a Neuro, but > to hopefully purchase a life insurance policy that will barely > cover a full-body, in case I change my mind later. > > I would like to get the opinions of other Cryonicists regarding > which option is superior based on factors which I may have failed > to list here. > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich > > > Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. > Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice > _______________________________________________ > 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 amara at amara.com Wed May 24 18:03:54 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:03:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single Message-ID: Robert: >What I don't understand is if there are so many M class stars, why >doesn't the IMF trend continue? I.e. there should be even more brown >dwarfs, methane dwarfs and superplanets (all "non-orbiting" / "rogue") >running around the galaxy? --- Lada says in his paper: "First, the functional form of the stellar initial mass function (IMF) has been better constrained by observations of both field stars (e.g., Kroupa 2002) and young embedded clusters (e.g., Muench et al. 2002). The IMF has been found to peak broadly between 0.1 and 0.5 M_s, indicating that most stars formed in the Galactic disk are M stars. Second, surveys for binary stars have suggested that the binary star frequency may be a function of spectral type (e.g., Fischer & Marcy 1992). In particular, there have been a number of attempts to ascertain the binary frequency of M-type stars and even of L and T dwarfs, objects near and below the hydrogen-burning limit." --- The IMF is constrained by observations, and those faint objects are difficult to detect. Also, according to my old astronomy text, the definition and the derivation of the IMF assumes stars. The IMF is the number of stars formed per unit mass interval in a unit volume as a function of mass M. Usually it is derived by first deriving the initial luminosity function, and then calculating the mass function via the mass-luminosity relationship for main-sequence stars. The mass-lumino- sity relationship is empirical; do you know if such a relationship exists for brown dwarfs? I honestly don't know. Perhaps there are other ways to derive the IMF using non-main sequence objects. This is much more in your area than in mine, maybe a derivation like this is one of your texts. (My galactic astronomy text is from 1981) Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Our opinions of inelegance are influenced by the observational situation." ---Martin Rees From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed May 24 20:00:02 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:00:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel (was: Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Samantha wrote > On May 23, 2006, at 7:27 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 5/24/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > I also suspect that one reason for creating a historical sim is to > > > tweak the factors involved as minimally as possible to get a > > > different and better outcome. This could be one way to learn more > > > deeply from experience. That's an idea, yes, of fine SF pedigree, but not really compatible with the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that you all go into below. Russell: > > There might be other reasons for doing it too. > > Suppose you invented a time machine... What's the first thing > > you do with it? along the way you stop off and kill Hitler. > > If you subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum > > mechanics (as I do) Yes, me too. > > then you have created an Everett branch in which Hitler died > > early, therefore hopefully in which the Holocaust didn't occur. > > This is good, is it not? Samantha: > As I understand it QM interpretations do not apply to macro > level reality generally speaking. So I don't think MWI can be > claimed to give you such a macro level branching. In the MWI, branching is occurring all the time, and everywhere. I do think not that it is exactly correct to say that by making a certain choice I am *creating* an Everett branch. It's much more like I'm joining a certain pre-existing Everett branch. Remember that QM under MWI is a completely deterministic theory, and that "free will" is an awkward concept in deterministic systems. So you don't prevent 60 million deaths in World War II by killing the people who got the human race into it. That happens in a certain definite fraction of the universes anyway. Where free will is not entirely useless is when you decide to paint your house green or brown. It feels like you get to choose, and indeed there are universes in which Samantha, Russell, or Lee painted their house green, magenta, purple, yellow, and so on. Some of these have very low measure, but their measure is vast compared to extremely improbable universes (in which, for example, a glass of water you were holding suddenly began to boil). > > Now suppose you create a simulation of Earth ~1930 onward... > > Given that by hypothesis a simulation is subjectively > > indistinguishable from a "real" Everett branch, should this > > not be considered good in exactly the same way? Well, I don't know what distinguishes a "real" Everett branch from the one you are talking about. Time travel is theoretically possible, and David Deutsch has a chapter on it in his great "The Fabric of Reality", which is devoted to explaining MWI and its philosophical underpinnings. > Hmm. I don't know. Do the beings within have the same chances > for Singularity and transcendence? Unless there is a reason to suspect not---i.e., suspect a negative correlation---then the beings everywhere have the same chances. But it's true that younger people have better chances, and it's true that other 1930+ universes have either a greater or less chance of bestowing transcendence; for example, it may turn out that World War II fostered technological gains that raise slightly the measures of the worlds in which you and I gain transcendence. But for all I know, those worlds that did not go through World War II fare better technologically. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed May 24 20:27:14 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:27:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <618C7117-C7AD-4742-9C4E-A3F248B422D6@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha writes > > Oh, I can easily see why folks might say it's immoral. Consider > > even the case where mere rumination of an extremely advanced > > being---as you wrote before---amounts to horrible torture of > > a human-equivalent sophont. It's *real* easy to say that such > > thoughts on the part of such an advanced entity are not moral. > > In fact, I concur, unless it can be shown that this vast > > creature gets such overwhelming benefit from the activity > > that it becomes worth it, globally. > > What is really real in such a case? Is the question meaningful? Well, it was your idea! :-) But yes, why not? Let's drop out of virtual reality and uploaded beings for a moment. If a piece of matter undergoes calculations that are isomorphic to me having a headache, then that piece of matter is emulating me having a headache, and I object to this activity! Now it is *conceivable*, though hardly necessary, that an advanced being might think in such magnificent detail concerning some physical process (my aforesaid headache, for example), that it is indeed tantamount, as you thought, to me having a headache. Because suppose that we identify within the computation occurring within its brain certain subsets of data manipulation that are *isomorphic* to another calculation; then we must say that that calculation is happening again. Or, in other words, it does seem possible that within a larger computation---the being ruminating on 21st century type people and their headaches, say---we find isomorphic equivalents. > I think up a hypothetical situation in my Jupiter Brain self involving > several million thought up intelligent beings and various situations > and possibilities. In many of them my (from some perspective) > dreamed up beings have within the dream dream-suffering. Is this > really real and immoral to even dream in depth or not? It is important to distinguish between *portrayals* and *emulations*. Hollywood, for example, portrays thousands of warriors attacking a castle, but these days there don't need to be real actors. (Yet in one scene in Lord of the Rings, I think, hundreds of actors did need to stand for hours out in the hot sun, and so in this case the discomfort of the characters was emulated, not merely portrayed, unfortunately.) The Jupiter brain you have just described is probably running over *portrayals* of "several million thought-up beings". The J-brain probably is not *emulating* them. > Effectively no autonomous intelligent beings could be created or > simulated or evolved by such an intelligence without their freedom of > choice in a consistent environment being able and likely to lead to > suffering. That's right. Such historical or ahistorical simulations---emulations, really---do create bonafide emotions (and pain and pleasure) in those who are created. > Having no intelligent beings or no autonomous ones or > the Ultimate Nanny State to make sure they never for one moment > suffer seems rather stifling. Yes; I think that the principles of Private Property and Rule by Law, ---from which all our progress and prosperity derive---should be adhered to in the future as well. Then even if a beneficent AI does control the solar system, it ought to allow you or I freedom to do with his or her private property what he or she will. > As long as the sim/creation has a way for the > beings to actually hit a Singularity and/or address and ultimately > eliminate a lot of their own suffering (perhaps with reincarnation- > like inclusion of all who died in the reality before) then I don't > think the creator being was immoral at all. Yes, but that's not the hard question. What if someone just wants to run the battle of Gettysburg a few hundred times to settle certain "what if" questions? And he has no intention of allowing the emulated soldiers to advance to transcendence. Say you or I wish to do that with our own private resources, and say that we must (for some reason) emulate all the suffering therein in order to gain verisimilitude. My bet is that it is still best for the future for my AI master to let me do this; compared to the vast number of other things that any normal person (e.g. me) will be doing, this really won't amount to much. An analogy is laws against mistreatment of animals. Because so few people would actually go to the pound and get a dog for the purpose of tormenting him, it is better that people be allowed to do on their private property what they would like, without the nosy government trying to keep a tab on and control what they are permitted to do. But I can *live* with laws against cruelty to animals---they don't make my life intolerable even if in a small way they diminish my freedom. > The level of control necessary to absolutely forbid the creation of > any intelligent being that would suffer in the created environment > plus the attendant stifling of abilities of other intelligence by the > "benevolent" AI would be intolerable. I know that you and Russell feel this way, but the snooping by your AI master could be well-nigh invisible. Besides, there would be so many "approved of" things to do, that it just wouldn't bother me. But then, I'm strange: I don't really care if Bush taps my phone; maybe he'll learn something philosophically profound. Distasteful? Yes. But "intolerable"? No! What *is* intolerable is "suffering and dying countless times in a posthuman hell". In fact, given all the ways that the singularity could go wrong, I'll be downright grateful for all the runtime I get that *is* tolerable. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 24 20:40:50 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 21:40:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: References: <618C7117-C7AD-4742-9C4E-A3F248B422D6@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605241340p5baf9115lc830eee7b992a688@mail.gmail.com> On 5/24/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I know that you and Russell feel this way, but the snooping by your > AI master could be well-nigh invisible. Let me clarify my position: the scenario I was objecting to was one where an inescapable government starts exerting micro-level control over what people can do with technology and their own lives on the pretext of preventing abuse; human nature being what it is, that path inevitably leads to a nightmare dystopia whose one saving grace is that it probably leads on to extinction of all sentient life. If you're talking about a hypothetical post-Singularity world where an AI goes around making sure nobody creates hell worlds filled with pure pointless suffering, but otherwise leaves people alone (this would have to be an AI, if it were a human the innate desire to wield more power would take over), that would be a different thing altogether. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed May 24 20:48:23 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:48:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert writes > > > or everyone in the upper levels of reality have thrown away the > > > "morality" paradigm. > > Sorry---you've lost me. Do you mean higher levels of embedded simulation? > I was thinking along the lines that because there is pain & suffering & death > in *this* reality, the overlords running *this* sim must be running with > robust_morality_constraints = FALSE;" Yes, that they must. > Though if you think about it if you grant the sims enough computing capacity > (or time) -- such as that that we are approaching, then one could have nested > sims, each sub-level could have increasingly less restrictive morality > constraints. I believe this parallels something Dante has already written about. Yes, but I don't really understand why you suppose that the deeper the sub-level, the less restrictive the morality constraints. I would expect exactly the opposite. A Friendly-AI, as I understand it, would forbid me, and the sims I create, and the sims they create, etc. to all levels, from being cruel. On the other hand, I may *add* constraints, so that---say because of my own peculiar morality in that I cannot bear people experiencing disappointment ---my sims and all deeper ones must never even be frustrated in their projects. > > > Furthermore, once we have the ability to run simulations > > > ourselves (remember *worlds* of billions of RBs, LCs, JHs, > > > etc. -- i.e. 10^10 copies worth of each isn't even > > > stretching things) there doesn't seem to be much one can > > > do to prevent it. > > We know people who intend for their AI to do exactly this. > That is my impression of that perspective. Which is why it may > be necessary to take a fast rocket ship out of this solar system > at the earliest possible date. Yes, but don't forget to stay behind too. People are always forgetting that in the future most likely we'll be able to both do and not do some action. The copy of you that stays behind will still have a blast talking to his old friends (e.g. Lee Corbin) and what not. Actually, I am a bad example: you'll surely take a copy of me along for your wild ride, please? > There must be the potential for gobs of post-human stories about > interstellar/intergalactic "battles" being fought between the > "though must be good" and "though ought to be able to do as one > damn well pleases" philosophies. Yes, I just re-read an old one by Keith Laumer. > > I believe that they would prefer for you to simply be frustrated > > in your designs. Much as people who today would run cock-fights > > are discouraged by contrary laws (and we are talking about > > entities who could enforce such with much greater efficiency > > than today). > I'm with Samantha on this (if I understand her comments). It > doesn't matter much whether the prison is physical or virtual. > If my freedom is artificially limited by *anyone* or *anything* > I have problems with it. Oh, you guys! Relax. Things could be so much worse! As I have loudly asserted for years, "ANYONE OUT THERE WHO WANTS TO RUN A COPY OF LEE CORBIN HAS MY PERMISSION! I WON'T BE PICKY ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU PROVIDE, JUST SO LONG AS IT'S A LIFE WORTH LIVING!" You see, with my strategy, a lot of SysOPs and AIs may take me up on that, and I'll get plenty of runtime. :-) > Now what would be interesting is whether or not the overlords > would attempt to prevent me from constructing a world where > millions of RBs might suffer if they were created using self- > copies after I have signed a legally binding document ( e.g. > contract) upon myself that I and all future self-copies have > agreed to participate in an experiment which involves the > potential for experiencing pain and/or suffering and/or death. Yeah, the busybodies---your overlord---would probably object. Sigh. > In that case we have worlds populated by millions of copies > of people who knowingly committed to participating in that > experiment. So I can't cause pain & suffering to mice or > rats but I can do it with people who agree to play the game. Well, hmm, perhaps you're making a persuasive case. But most people object to slavery, say, even if it's all done legally and I were to lose my liberty, say, in a poker game. I'm with you: if I don't own my life, who does? The damn state? I should be able to gamble it away if I wish. > Now, the difference between an enlightened person and an > unenlightened person in *this* reality is that many enlightened > people already know they signed that contract. So the > interesting thing about the FAI approach (as I understand > it) is that it potentially bars people from engaging in the > pursuit of or attaining enlightenment. It bars them from pursuing *some* kinds of enlightenment, e.g., running historical simulations where actual creatures are emulated to the point that they experience negative emotions. Now I'll actually be *very* happy if any AI whatsoever takes over the solar system who leaves most of us with lives worth living at all. But even better for me, I might get to send copies along with all the live wires who are heading for parts unknown just ahead of the FAI. If y'all will be so kind as to let me tag along :-) Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 24 20:53:25 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 21:53:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel (was: Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0605241353y2cee5c68w92f1a424971477e8@mail.gmail.com> On 5/24/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I do think not that it is exactly correct to say that by making > a certain choice I am *creating* an Everett branch. It's much more > like I'm joining a certain pre-existing Everett branch. Both statements are correct, they are merely different ways to look at the same thing. Remember > that QM under MWI is a completely deterministic theory, and that > "free will" is an awkward concept in deterministic systems. Physics _has nothing whatsoever to do with free will_. Saying it has is a category error, like saying deterministic versus random physics determines whether water is genuinely wet. (If you still think the physics is important, remember that any random model is trivially isomorphic to a deterministic model.) So you don't prevent 60 million deaths in World War II by killing > the people who got the human race into it. That happens in a certain > definite fraction of the universes anyway. But our choices determine what _proportion_ of the universes it happens in. Well, since we don't actually have time travel our decisions in 2006 don't influence World War 2, but they do influence what happens from here onwards - including, for example, whether humanity makes it to the Singularity or sinks back into the mud. Our choices are _part of_ the causal matrix that determines the success percentage. Where free will is not entirely useless is when you decide to paint > your house green or brown. It feels like you get to choose, and > indeed there are universes in which Samantha, Russell, or Lee > painted their house green, magenta, purple, yellow, and so on. You do get to choose - and not just the color of your house. Free will is defined as the state of affairs where the causal matrix that determines the outcome includes your mind as a significant part. If I'm standing on a north-south path, I have free will on whether I go north or south, because the causal matrix that determines the result includes as a key component that pattern called "Russell's mind". If I fall out of an aircraft, as Infocom famously remarked, I have no free will on whether I go up or down, because the causal matrix that determines the result doesn't significantly include the pattern called "Russell's mind"; it's mostly about the pattern called "gravity". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 24 20:55:17 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 21:55:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605241340p5baf9115lc830eee7b992a688@mail.gmail.com> References: <618C7117-C7AD-4742-9C4E-A3F248B422D6@mac.com> <8d71341e0605241340p5baf9115lc830eee7b992a688@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/24/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > Let me clarify my position: the scenario I was objecting to was one where > an inescapable government starts exerting micro-level control over what > people can do with technology and their own lives on the pretext of > preventing abuse; human nature being what it is, that path inevitably leads > to a nightmare dystopia whose one saving grace is that it probably leads on > to extinction of all sentient life. > > If you're talking about a hypothetical post-Singularity world where an AI > goes around making sure nobody creates hell worlds filled with pure > pointless suffering, but otherwise leaves people alone (this would have to > be an AI, if it were a human the innate desire to wield more power would > take over), that would be a different thing altogether. > That's better. :) Post singularity, the FAI it won't be like a super head of the FBI and NSA combined, that we talk about and discuss whether we approve the latest political move. We will *LOVE* it with an all consuming passion. It will be our 'God'. We won't have any choice in the matter. It's nanobots will amend our puny brains as it sees fit. Humanity will be happy like never before, as we do it's bidding. Assuming that it still has any interests that humans can help with. Perhaps it will redesign the human race into something wonderful. (But not noticeably like present humanity). BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 24 20:58:49 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 21:58:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0605241358n48398b70g861afbde2b6e8e56@mail.gmail.com> On 5/24/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Now I'll actually be *very* happy if any AI whatsoever takes > over the solar system who leaves most of us with lives worth > living at all. I think an AI taking over the solar system is more likely in science fiction than in real life, but yeah, I'll basically be happy if we make it, so that meaningful, worthwhile lives can continue being lived into deep time, nevermind whether things could be slightly better or worse. But even better for me, I might get to send > copies along with all the live wires who are heading for parts > unknown just ahead of the FAI. If y'all will be so kind as to > let me tag along :-) > Sure, if I ever manage to build a starship, you're on the invite list ^.^ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 24 21:43:43 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:43:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: References: <618C7117-C7AD-4742-9C4E-A3F248B422D6@mac.com> <8d71341e0605241340p5baf9115lc830eee7b992a688@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3FC7DD25-FABA-4002-82B1-16EA20ECDED6@mac.com> On May 24, 2006, at 1:55 PM, BillK wrote: > > That's better. :) > Post singularity, the FAI it won't be like a super head of the FBI and > NSA combined, that we talk about and discuss whether we approve the > latest political move. > > We will *LOVE* it with an all consuming passion. It will be our 'God'. > We won't have any choice in the matter. It's nanobots will amend our > puny brains as it sees fit. > If I though so then I would do my utmost to kill it dead in its crib. - samantha From asa at nada.kth.se Wed May 24 21:55:28 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 23:55:28 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Telepathy a safer route? In-Reply-To: <20060523174448.92060.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060523174448.92060.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1542.213.112.92.208.1148507728.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> A B wrote: > I think that one of the greatest dangers of super-intelligence is the > distinct possibility that when it emerges (even if as an upload), it > will be completely unrivaled; there will be only a single mind with that > awesome power, rather than several or many of comparable intelligence > and differing intentions. Why do you think this? If we look at technological projects in the world the unrivalled ones are the ones taking lots of resources, requiring some very unique competence or not regarded as interesting by many. Projects that look useful, even when only partially successful, tend to get a lot of parallell work. Superinteligence would seem to be something like that. I can imagine a race to develop and market smarter AI, intelligence amplification or whatever it is, producing a world where the most super intelligence just leads a power law trail of other intelligences. The main argument against this is the exponential self-amplification idea, suggesting that there are economies of scale of intelligence. But I have not yet seen any convincing arguments for this claim. Overall, finding out the dynamics of accelerating intelligence (whether spikish or swellish) is an interesting methodological problem. > A collective "meat-machine" super-intelligence would consist of many > distinct minds, values, and interests. It's collective "circle of > empathy" (Jaron Lanier) would likely be huge. No single individual from > within the collective would be significantly more intelligent than any > other member, and so no specific "world view" would dominate any others. > And psychopaths could presumably be screened from the group. It would be > kind of like a meaty version of Mr. Yudkowsky's "CEV". Isn't this just a description of a society? High bandwidth communication does seem to help a society. A group of people have a productivity that scales with its size, reduced by the overhead of communication. Enhancing individuals increases the society result proportionally. Enhancing synergies between them increases the result with the square of their size. More efficient coordination allows larger groups, that can reach larger optimal sizes. I think we might very well end up with this kind of telepathic superintelligent society, but it would not necessarily act as a *being*. A lot of superintelligence talk assumes great minds to be beings, but they could just as well be something as non-agentlike as an economy or Google. Also, the best way of taming superintelligences is to make sure they are part of society and unwilling to oppose it. Friendly superintelligences want to be there for emotional reasons, rational selfish superintelligences may be motivated by economic benefits of infrastructure and comparative advantage and most superintelligences will of course be rooted in the human/posthuman culture that spawned them. The telepathic supermind would IMHO likely end up containing the SIs too. Maybe one could do an analysis of this a la Nozicks analysis of the (imaginary) formation of societies in "Anarchy, State & Utopia", checking what the cruicial ethical and practical points are that would ensure that SIs would join rather than oppose society. And I think one could steal his argument from the start to argue that people would love to join the nice borganism. http://angryflower.com/borg27.gif -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 24 21:38:59 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605241358n48398b70g861afbde2b6e8e56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060524213859.17085.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Generally speaking, I'm also a very freedom oriented person. My personal philosophy is that any living being should be able to do *whatever* they wish with their *own* bodies, minds, and non-sentient property. For example, I pretty much disapprove with every current social law; I think people should be able to do any drugs they want, they should be able to have consenting sex in any way they want, they should be able to walk around naked if they want, etc, etc, etc. But I personally draw the line with directly inflicting suffering or death on other conscious beings - in fact this is the only line that I draw, period. The following paragraph is not intended as criticism, just as my own POV. It is very easy for any one of us on this list to casually claim that this one potential infringement on freedom (preventing cruel simulations) would be far worse than ourselves enduring a painful simulation. However, none of us can *even imagine* what nearly infinite pain would feel like. None of "us" has ever experienced anything even remotely like it - we physically can't even approach it. And I have personally felt a hell of a lot of emotional pain in my own life, yet I know that its sum total represents only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the level of pain that is physically possible. I can say for myself, that in my opinion, a post-human future that freely allows "real" individuals to relentlessly torture "simulated" individuals is not a future that I want to be a part of. IMO, such a future would be "worse than nothing". Frankly, I would rather be dead than live in that universe, even if I was at the "real" layer of "reality". Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ 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 sentience at pobox.com Wed May 24 22:46:14 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:46:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605241353y2cee5c68w92f1a424971477e8@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605241353y2cee5c68w92f1a424971477e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4474E236.9040306@pobox.com> Decisionmaking has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with quantum physics, and would feel just the same subjectively in a purely Newtonian universe. Do you really think your neurons can sense the difference between thermal noise, quantum noise, and a pseudo-random number generator? If you want to know why decisionmaking feels the way it does, look to cognitive psychology, not physics. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Wed May 24 22:48:02 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:48:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <3FC7DD25-FABA-4002-82B1-16EA20ECDED6@mac.com> References: <618C7117-C7AD-4742-9C4E-A3F248B422D6@mac.com> <8d71341e0605241340p5baf9115lc830eee7b992a688@mail.gmail.com> <3FC7DD25-FABA-4002-82B1-16EA20ECDED6@mac.com> Message-ID: <4474E2A2.4060703@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > On May 24, 2006, at 1:55 PM, BillK wrote: > >>That's better. :) >>Post singularity, the FAI it won't be like a super head of the FBI and >>NSA combined, that we talk about and discuss whether we approve the >>latest political move. >> >>We will *LOVE* it with an all consuming passion. It will be our 'God'. >>We won't have any choice in the matter. It's nanobots will amend our >>puny brains as it sees fit. > > If I thought so then I would do my utmost to kill it dead in its crib. Second the motion. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 24 23:31:06 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Telepathy a safer route? In-Reply-To: <1542.213.112.92.208.1148507728.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060524233106.87825.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Anders, I was assuming the "...exponential self-amplification idea..." in my post. I made that assumption because I had read about several current AGI projects that are intending a "Seed AI". I don't personally know nearly enough to judge the feasibility of "Seed AI", so I can't really comment on that. I strongly agree that an open, free-market system would be a great way to *hopefully* create a smooth continuum of intelligence levels, so that the brightest mind would just barely exceed the second runner up. But this result seems dependent on "Seed AI" definitely not working. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Anders Sandberg wrote: A B wrote: > I think that one of the greatest dangers of super-intelligence is the > distinct possibility that when it emerges (even if as an upload), it > will be completely unrivaled; there will be only a single mind with that > awesome power, rather than several or many of comparable intelligence > and differing intentions. Why do you think this? If we look at technological projects in the world the unrivalled ones are the ones taking lots of resources, requiring some very unique competence or not regarded as interesting by many. Projects that look useful, even when only partially successful, tend to get a lot of parallell work. Superinteligence would seem to be something like that. I can imagine a race to develop and market smarter AI, intelligence amplification or whatever it is, producing a world where the most super intelligence just leads a power law trail of other intelligences. The main argument against this is the exponential self-amplification idea, suggesting that there are economies of scale of intelligence. But I have not yet seen any convincing arguments for this claim. Overall, finding out the dynamics of accelerating intelligence (whether spikish or swellish) is an interesting methodological problem. > A collective "meat-machine" super-intelligence would consist of many > distinct minds, values, and interests. It's collective "circle of > empathy" (Jaron Lanier) would likely be huge. No single individual from > within the collective would be significantly more intelligent than any > other member, and so no specific "world view" would dominate any others. > And psychopaths could presumably be screened from the group. It would be > kind of like a meaty version of Mr. Yudkowsky's "CEV". Isn't this just a description of a society? High bandwidth communication does seem to help a society. A group of people have a productivity that scales with its size, reduced by the overhead of communication. Enhancing individuals increases the society result proportionally. Enhancing synergies between them increases the result with the square of their size. More efficient coordination allows larger groups, that can reach larger optimal sizes. I think we might very well end up with this kind of telepathic superintelligent society, but it would not necessarily act as a *being*. A lot of superintelligence talk assumes great minds to be beings, but they could just as well be something as non-agentlike as an economy or Google. Also, the best way of taming superintelligences is to make sure they are part of society and unwilling to oppose it. Friendly superintelligences want to be there for emotional reasons, rational selfish superintelligences may be motivated by economic benefits of infrastructure and comparative advantage and most superintelligences will of course be rooted in the human/posthuman culture that spawned them. The telepathic supermind would IMHO likely end up containing the SIs too. Maybe one could do an analysis of this a la Nozicks analysis of the (imaginary) formation of societies in "Anarchy, State & Utopia", checking what the cruicial ethical and practical points are that would ensure that SIs would join rather than oppose society. And I think one could steal his argument from the start to argue that people would love to join the nice borganism. http://angryflower.com/borg27.gif -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University _______________________________________________ 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 lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu May 25 01:29:18 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 18:29:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel (was: Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605241353y2cee5c68w92f1a424971477e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > On 5/24/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I do think not that it is exactly correct to say that by making > > a certain choice I am *creating* an Everett branch. It's much more > > like I'm joining a certain pre-existing Everett branch. > Both statements are correct, they are merely different ways to look at the same thing. Exactly right. > > Remember that QM under MWI is a completely deterministic theory, and that > > "free will" is an awkward concept in deterministic systems. > Physics _has nothing whatsoever to do with free will_. Saying > it has is a category error, like saying deterministic versus > random physics determines whether water is genuinely wet. You're right. It was misleading of me to imply that determinism had something to do with it. "Free will" is an awkward concept period. Although when you write > Free will is defined as the state of affairs where the causal > matrix that determines the outcome includes your mind as a > significant part. I totally agree, and that's a good way of putting it. When all is said and done, our best choice is to accept the term, claim that it has the meaning you say, reject other common usages, and to then argue that we do indeed have free will. I'm glad that everyone appears to be up to speed on all this--- it didn't use to be that way, not long ago at all! Lee > If I fall out of an aircraft, as Infocom famously remarked, > I have no free will on whether I go up or down, because the > causal matrix that determines the result doesn't significantly > include the pattern called "Russell's mind"; it's mostly about > the pattern called "gravity". From alexboko at umich.edu Thu May 25 00:52:45 2006 From: alexboko at umich.edu (alexboko) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:52:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Bounce-test. Message-ID: <4474FFDD.2000501@umich.edu> Testing to see if this one bounces. How is everyone? From asa at nada.kth.se Thu May 25 05:38:12 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:38:12 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986@mail.gmail.com> References: <9b9887c80605220021r4f81500hf066c0362c00709c@mail.gmail.com> <200605221409.k4ME95re002846@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <9b9887c80605221837m21409f60ld482217b9d1e1986@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20139.62.65.118.114.1148535492.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> ilsa wrote: > Buddha gave 84 thousand suturas. there is the first: all > life is suffering, I sometimes consider myself to be a kind of Buddhist satanist (Mayanist?) since I disagree with the first noble truth. As I see it, all life is pleasure. And from this it follows that we ought to create more life, more diversity, more *stuff*. As David Zindell put it: "I am not interested in things getting better; what I want is more: more human beings, more dreams, more history, more consciousness, more suffering, more joy, more disease, more agony, more rapture, more evolution, more life." Of course, I do think we can make things better too. Unnecessary suffering is ugly and boring. But hedonism or contentment is not the sole value. >From a purely psychological perspective Buddhism clearly "gets it" in terms of how to keep humans feeling good and mentally healthy. But that is based on human mental architecture, how we deal with pain, attachments and desires, and that may not generalize very well to other models of minds. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu May 25 05:40:59 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 22:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Starship (was ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605241358n48398b70g861afbde2b6e8e56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060525054059.95918.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/24/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > But even better for me, I might get to send > > copies along with all the live wires who are > heading for parts > > unknown just ahead of the FAI. If y'all will be > so kind as to > > let me tag along :-) > > > > Sure, if I ever manage to build a starship, you're > on the invite list ^.^ Our hull is due for delivery in 22 years, 10 months, and 19 days. Let's try to have the engines ready by then. Or at least have someone in orbit to sign for it. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Thu May 25 15:05:54 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:05:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel (was: Are ancestor simulations immoral?) References: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060518010602.0b201170@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <000e01c6800c$b8f73750$82911f97@administxl09yj> Lee Corbin: Remember that QM under MWI is a completely deterministic theory, and that "free will" is an awkward concept in deterministic systems. # I may be wrong - since I don't like Everett's theory, and MWI, and Many Minds, and even the Relational theories by Rovelli, Mermin, etc. - but MWI is a deterministic theory in a very specific sense. One can say that the quantum states of QM evolve deterministically in time. One can say that Everett's or MWI Universal Wavefunction evolves deterministically in time. (There are hints, though, that even this statement is somehow simplistic, since there are strange cases, pointed out, i.e., by David Z. Albert [1]). But that has nothing to do with the definiteness of the predicted outcome of the possible measurement performable on a specific system while it is in a given prepared state. Even within MWI one cannot predict, in a deterministic way, the definite outcome of the possible measurement performable on a specific system (leaving apart the peculiar case of the quantum Zeno effect, in which there is no branching of worlds). Russell Wallace: Physics _has nothing whatsoever to do with free will_. # I don't know if physics has something to do with human free will. The problem seems to be the free will of simple systems [2], which is more subtle, since the Bell - Kochen & Specker theorems [3] aborted the so called 'value definiteness' of quantum states. s. [1] Barrett, J. A. and D. Z. Albert (1995) "On What It Takes to Be a World" Topoi, 14(1): 35-37 http://www.lps.uci.edu/home/fac-staff/faculty/barrett/papers.html [2] John Conway, Simon Kochen "The Free Will Theorem" http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079 [3] Kochen & Specker Theorem http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/ From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu May 25 16:46:34 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:46:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: <000e01c6800c$b8f73750$82911f97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: Serafino writes > Lee Corbin: > > Remember that QM under MWI is a completely > > deterministic theory, and that "free will" > > is an awkward concept in deterministic systems. Uh, I have already retracted that as written, as it gives the erroneous impression that in non-deterministic systems "free will" would not be awkward. The truth is that free will, while it makes sense when appropriately defined by people who renounce any concept of soul, is otherwise very "murky", as Douglas Hofstadter used to say. > # I may be wrong - since I don't like Everett's > theory, and MWI, and Many Minds, and even the > Relational theories by Rovelli, Mermin, etc. - > but MWI is a deterministic theory in a very specific > sense. Yes---that is exactly what the adherents of MWI believe (e.g. it's stated many places in Deutsch's book). > One can say that the quantum states of QM evolve > deterministically in time. One can say that Everett's > or MWI Universal Wavefunction evolves deterministically > in time. Yes. > (There are hints, though, that even this statement > is somehow simplistic, since there are strange cases, > pointed out, i.e., by David Z. Albert [1]). That I didn't know, thanks. > But that has nothing to do with the definiteness > of the predicted outcome of the possible measurement > performable on a specific system while it is in a given > prepared state. Yes, but your case of a specific system in a given prepared state is not the general case. In the general case, it's not possible, as you know, to announce ahead of time which Everett branch you'll be in, at least in the sense of being able to win bets. (You can always say that you'll be in both or all branches.) > Even within MWI one cannot predict, in a deterministic > way, the definite outcome of the possible measurement > performable on a specific system A way in which it is "sort of" possible to predict the definite outcome is to predict the probabilities of the outcomes; then, in MWI, one assumes that the branches split deterministically according to the prescribed probabilities. > Russell Wallace: > > Physics _has nothing whatsoever to do with free will_. The nit I can pick with Russell's statement is this. If we take "physics" to mean "the basic rules of the world", then physics has everything to do with free will: what if, for example, physics were to include spiritual phenomena so that souls exist which may make uncaused decisions? Then free will would exist in the everyday meaning of the term. > # I don't know if physics has something to do with > human free will. The problem seems to be the free will > of simple systems [2], which is more subtle, since the > Bell - Kochen & Specker theorems [3] aborted the so > called 'value definiteness' of quantum states. The key question then comes down to what is meant, again, by "free will". I studied Conway's idea, and even attended a lecture he gave. But I can't say I understand exactly what he's driving at. Russell gave as good a definition as I've ever seen: Free will is defined as the state of affairs where the causal matrix that determines the outcome includes your mind as a significant part. Where, by the way, "mind" means the program that is being run on one's brain. Lee From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu May 25 17:22:01 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <20060524213859.17085.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060525172201.74788.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Although I was completely sincere in everything I wrote in my last post on this thread, I realize that it may have come across as excessively morbid. I did not mean to put a damper on this particular topic; perhaps I can rephrase my position on this. My vision of the Singularity has been where the whole purpose of the Singularity is to bring more "Goodness" to this blindly cruel and indifferent Universe. If the Singularity is not about bringing universal joy, love, compassion, and beauty to this dead Universe, then *what* is its purpose? Does the Singularity boil down to a frenzied power struggle? Where the "winner" is rightfully entitled to do *anything* ve wishes in the name of "Freedom", with zero regard for morality? A struggle where the primary deciding factor is purely blind luck - being at the right place at the right time? I'm sorry, but that's a really f****d up reason for pursuing the Singularity. If we believe that someone in the future should be allowed to do absolutely *anything*, then we should allow someone in the future to trigger an existential disaster that ends all life, in the name of "Freedom". Note: I am not at all advocating this action, I'm just pointing out a glaring contradiction within this particular philosophy. What exactly is the quality that makes a "simulated" being of lower value and importance than a "real" being? Both are comprised of hardware and software, and they both exist at the "real" layer of "reality". One is simply a slave and the other a master. Does a "real" being have some mystical birthright that gives it absolute authority over a newly created "simulated" being? No. One being was simply lucky (and born early) and the other being was simply very misfortunate (and born late). This would basically be the same result as if today, half the world's population rounded up the other half and proceeded to torture them mercilessly. The difference would be that in the future, the victims of torture could be made to never die, and instead endure terrible pain for all eternity (or for at least as long as the Universe exists). I'm sorry to use a tired expression, but: Imagine yourself in the shoes of the "simulated" being, at the complete mercy (or lack thereof) of your "real" simulator. Does it still feel like an acceptable situation? I doubt it. A universe whose post-human occupants do nothing to stop gratuitous torture of "simulated" beings is just about as bad a Dystopia as I can possibly imagine. That Universe would be "worse than worthless", IMO. It would be better if that Universe had never spawned life to begin with, because as such, at least none would suffer. I'm sorry if these posts sound excessively dramatic or harsh. This topic is one I have very strong feelings about (probably above any other topic) and I don't wish to suppress myself, I wish to be blatantly honest. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 25 17:25:06 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:25:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel (was: Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <000e01c6800c$b8f73750$82911f97@administxl09yj> References: <20060518010338.19021.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060518010602.0b201170@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <000e01c6800c$b8f73750$82911f97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605251025o20eed9fdq38c68f3b6a46ddc1@mail.gmail.com> On 5/25/06, scerir wrote: > > # I don't know if physics has something to do with > human free will. The problem seems to be the free will > of simple systems Simple systems by virtue of the fact that they are simple don't have any kind of will, any more than they have poetry, stock portfolios or favorite ice cream. Free will by definition only applies to sentient beings, which are necessarily complex systems. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 25 17:33:46 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:33:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c6800c$b8f73750$82911f97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605251033n5c23f807k875cf00783a2658c@mail.gmail.com> On 5/25/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > The nit I can pick with Russell's statement is this. If > we take "physics" to mean "the basic rules of the world", > then physics has everything to do with free will: what if, > for example, physics were to include spiritual phenomena > so that souls exist which may make uncaused decisions? Who says the soul doesn't exist? There's no single universally agreed on definition of the word, but if we define it as "that nonmaterial entity which is the seat of consciousness and which could potentially survive death of one's body", then it does indeed exist: it is the mind, the pattern of information contained in the brain. But irrespective of one's view on the nature of the soul, physics etc, I claim that "uncaused decision" is an oxymoron. If I choose A, it is not a decision unless another person in my place might have chosen B. Therefore that I chose A is caused by the fact that I am me and not him (or, if one zooms in to a finer level of detail, by the fact that I have this disposition, goal, item of information etc and not that one). Therefore a decision is not uncaused. Then free will would exist in the everyday meaning of the > term. I will claim that my definition (which I'm glad you like, btw) _is_ the everyday meaning of the term (and therefore that free will does exist in the everyday meaning). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 25 18:31:53 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:31:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <20060525172201.74788.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060525172201.74788.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <32CFAAFE-DEC7-4B44-AEE9-23F46EDF368A@mac.com> On May 25, 2006, at 10:22 AM, A B wrote: > Although I was completely sincere in everything I wrote in my last > post on this thread, I realize that it may have come across as > excessively morbid. I did not mean to put a damper on this > particular topic; perhaps I can rephrase my position on this. > > My vision of the Singularity has been where the whole purpose of > the Singularity is to bring more "Goodness" to this blindly cruel > and indifferent Universe. If the Singularity is not about bringing > universal joy, love, compassion, and beauty to this dead Universe, > then *what* is its purpose? Does the Singularity boil down to a > frenzied power struggle? Where the "winner" is rightfully entitled > to do *anything* ve wishes in the name of "Freedom", with zero > regard for morality? A struggle where the primary deciding factor > is purely blind luck - being at the right place at the right time? > I'm sorry, but that's a really f****d up reason for pursuing the > Singularity. It is about bringing more intelligence and greater possibilities to this corner of the universe. Whether it achieves or can achieve a bunch of utopian universals or not does not gate whether it is desirable. I do not know and rather doubt whether such a list as "universal joy, love, compassion, beauty" is even well defined much less achievable. It is not utter perfect utopia or total dystopia. The actuality is likely to be more complex and multifarious than that. > > If we believe that someone in the future should be allowed to do > absolutely *anything*, then we should allow someone in the future > to trigger an existential disaster that ends all life, in the name > of "Freedom". Note: I am not at all advocating this action, I'm > just pointing out a glaring contradiction within this particular > philosophy. It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to really screw up. > > What exactly is the quality that makes a "simulated" being of lower > value and importance than a "real" being? Both are comprised of > hardware and software, and they both exist at the "real" layer of > "reality". One is simply a slave and the other a master. Does a > "real" being have some mystical birthright that gives it absolute > authority over a newly created "simulated" being? No. One being was > simply lucky (and born early) and the other being was simply very > misfortunate (and born late). Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on. > > This would basically be the same result as if today, half the > world's population rounded up the other half and proceeded to > torture them mercilessly. The difference would be that in the > future, the victims of torture could be made to never die, and > instead endure terrible pain for all eternity (or for at least as > long as the Universe exists). > This is a straw man that was not advocated. - samantha From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu May 25 18:49:30 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:49:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? ( An attempted survey ) In-Reply-To: <20060525172201.74788.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey writes > My vision of the Singularity has been where the whole purpose > of the Singularity is to bring more "Goodness" to this blindly > cruel and indifferent Universe. If the Singularity is not about > bringing universal joy, love, compassion, and beauty to this > dead Universe, then *what* is its purpose? Many natural phenomena occur---actually, the overwhelming portion ---that do not have a purpose. They just happen. To say, for example, that the purpose of Maxwell's, Heaviside's, and Fitz-Gerald's laws were to bestow the benefits of electricity on humankind sort of misses the point. The same could be said of Moore's Law: it doesn't really have a purpose. Those who work towards speeding the advent of technology, whether that results in a slow takeoff or a fast one, do so in the hope that they can ameliorate its effects on us. > If we believe that someone in the future should be allowed to > do absolutely *anything*, Your meaning isn't clear to me. What does "allow" here mean? Do you mean that the government should not allow certain actions, or do you mean that you/we ought to disapprove of them? I favor entities having as much freedom as possible, but I disapprove when this freedom curtails the freedom of others. I would also hope that a ruling AI would grant the entities within its realm the maximum possible freedom that is practical. > What exactly is the quality that makes a "simulated" being of > lower value and importance than a "real" being? I think that I agree with you; who says that a simulated being has lower value? But even to put the question in such terms invites confusion: value to whom? Therefore, I'll rephrase: given a volume of space, I approve of it hosting an entity over hosting vacuum. I do not necessarily prefer a "real" being in this volume over an "artificial" one. > Imagine yourself in the shoes of the "simulated" being, at the > complete mercy (or lack thereof) of your "real" simulator. > Does it still feel like an acceptable situation? I doubt it. Certainly not, at least not in your scenario of the real being torturing the simulated one. But until someone on this list claims that "real" beings have some kind of "rights" that artificial beings don't, this argument is moot. Now on the other hand, if I own some hardware and choose to run someone or something, then I ought also be able to determine the events transpiring on my hardware. In other words, no entity from the outside should (in my opinion) interfere with what I do. A respect for private property has taken us a long way, and I expect that it's the correct route in the future as well. > A universe whose post-human occupants do nothing to stop > gratuitous torture of "simulated" beings is just about as > bad a Dystopia as I can possibly imagine. Wherefore this notion that once humans can conduct simulations they'll immediately revert to torturing trillions of sentients? It's extremely unlikely. As an analogy, suppose that all laws against the mistreatment of animals were repealed tomorrow; would millions of people in Western nations immediately rush to the kennels and animal shelters to procure victims for torture? It's an old argument, but I do not favor monitoring my neighbor so closely that I can know exactly what he's doing, and I do not favor my going into his property to straighten him out if I find that I don't like what he's doing. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu May 25 18:58:34 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:58:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605251033n5c23f807k875cf00783a2658c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > Who says the soul doesn't exist? There's no single universally > agreed on definition of the word, but if we define it as "that > nonmaterial entity which is the seat of consciousness and which > could potentially survive death of one's body", then it does > indeed exist: it is the mind, the pattern of information > contained in the brain. We ought not willy-nilly redefine ordinary meanings when we can avoid it. In some cases where there is something at stake and some relevance, it doesn't bother me. But to redefine "soul" so that it exists really opens the door. Next I can say that God exists, and atheists are wrong. I need only mean by "God" the laws of nature. But I'm just getting started. Not only do souls and God exist, but so does Santa Claus. After all, Santa Claus can be defined as that spirit of Christmas happiness and generosity enjoyed by millions around the world, especially children. Of course Santa Claus exists (under this non-standard use of the term). > But irrespective of one's view on the nature of the soul, > physics etc, I claim that "uncaused decision" is an oxymoron. I agree with you in the strictest meanings of terms; but in the example I gave where (for example) in the "physics" of Thomas Aquinas both souls exist and uncaused decisions are the norm, "uncaused decision" is not an oxymoron. It's simply an incorrect description of the real world. > I will claim that my definition (which I'm glad you like, > btw) _is_ the everyday meaning of the term (and therefore > that free will does exist in the everyday meaning). Well, we might have to conduct a poll to see who is right, but my guess is that the everyday definition most people would use is that of an uncaused decision: namely, most people do believe in souls of a non-mechanical nature, and that it is possible for a soul to simply decide to do something, and to do it without following any laws of physics. Lee From scerir at libero.it Thu May 25 18:18:16 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 20:18:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel Message-ID: <006901c68027$98bd71f0$48bb1f97@administxl09yj> Hi Lee! > Uh, I have already retracted that as written, as it gives > the erroneous impression that in non-deterministic systems > "free will" would not be awkward. Oh, I'm sorry. Since I'm receiving just ... about ... 1% of the messages of this list - due to ISP's new general spam filter, which makes confusion between 'extropy' and ... 'extasy' and 'ecstasy' - I did not receive the next messages of the thread. > > But that has nothing to do with the definiteness > > of the predicted outcome of the possible measurement > > performable on a specific system while it is in a given > > prepared state. > Yes, but your case of a specific system in a given prepared > state is not the general case. In the general case, it's > not possible, as you know, to announce ahead of time which > Everett branch you'll be in, at least in the sense of being > able to win bets. (You can always say that you'll be in > both or all branches.) Yes, it's not possible to announce ahead of time which Everett branch you'll be in. Eugene Wigner (together with Fock, in Russia, Wigner was the only *big* name of the *orthodox* wing, at Princeton, who refused to believe in what Bohr and von Neumann were saying about quantum measurement theory) called that: 'Everett's indeterminism'. > > Even within MWI one cannot predict, in a deterministic > > way, the definite outcome of the possible measurement > > performable on a specific system > A way in which it is "sort of" possible to predict the > definite outcome is to predict the probabilities of the > outcomes; Usually determinism, in QM, is defined such that the probability of the outcome must be 0 or 1. (But your position is what V.Fock [1] tried to explain to the late Bohr, with some, little success). > then, in MWI, one assumes that the branches > split deterministically according to the prescribed > probabilities. > The key question then comes down to what is meant, again, > by "free will". I studied Conway's idea, and even attended > a lecture he gave. But I can't say I understand exactly > what he's driving at. The problem I see (perhaps! I'm not sure, eh!), with their approach, based on Bell and Kochen-Specker theorems, is that these theorems keep their validity even when we reverse the 'time arrow'. (The time reversed EPR is called RPE!). If this is true, the 'will' must be 'free' from any past cause but also from any future 'cause' (given the factlike, but not lawlike, time asymmetry, it seems strange to speak of future 'cause!). [It seems to me (not sure though) that in MWI we cannot have time symmetry because the merging of n worlds would cause some overpopulation. I mean n Lee(s) and n Serafino(s) all together. It is strange because MWI is strictly based on Schroedinger's equation, which has no time arrow.] > Russell gave as good a definition > as I've ever seen: Free will is defined as the state of affairs where the causal matrix that determines the outcome includes your mind as a significant part. Fine indeed. s. [1] V.A.Fock. 'Disskussija S Nilsom Borom', in 'Voprosy Filosofii', 1964 (a memorandum, about the interpretation of QM and the meaning of wavefunction, he gave to Bohr, in Copenhagen, 1957, who read it and, apparently, changed his mind about several points). This paper contained 4 objections to Bohr's ideas on the foundations of QM. 1. The wavefunction represents something "real", as it allows one predict the evolution of probabilities; 2. Only Laplacian determinism was broken down by QM; 3. Complementarity principle expresses limitation (imposed by Heisenberg's principle) only on the "classical" description of phenomena; 4. There is no "uncontrollable" interaction between classical apparata and quantum objects. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu May 25 18:07:56 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <20139.62.65.118.114.1148535492.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060525180756.23524.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Anders Sandberg wrote: > I sometimes consider myself to be a kind of Buddhist > satanist (Mayanist?) > since I disagree with the first noble truth. As I > see it, all life is > pleasure. And from this it follows that we ought to > create more life, more > diversity, more *stuff*. It has been my observation that there seems to be a definite limit to how good life can get. Perhaps it is a corollary to the law of diminishing returns. In any case, one can have billions of dollars, all the toys one could buy, an entourage of followers, and feast daily upon caviar and champagne and still be ridden with angst and ennui. On the other hand, there does not seem to be a limit on how bad life can get as there are numerous possible circumstances in life so horrible that the oblivion of death would be a blessing. So I think Mayanism is a fairy-tale but then again that was what Buddha said in the first place. >As David Zindell put it: > > "I am not interested in things getting better; what > I want is more: more > human beings, more dreams, more history, more > consciousness, more > suffering, more joy, more disease, more agony, more > rapture, more > evolution, more life." Then perhaps David Zindell ought to move to Shanghai where he can share a one bedroom flat with twelve room-mates and wrestle for the phone. :) > Of course, I do think we can make things better too. > Unnecessary suffering > is ugly and boring. But hedonism or contentment is > not the sole value. Contentment is warm and fuzzy and all but I don't see it having much true value. All true progress is driven by discontent while all contentment does is sit on its ass or worse yet actively oppose progress. Perhaps in this regard suffering itself attains value. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scerir at libero.it Thu May 25 18:36:09 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 20:36:09 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel References: <380-22006531720185296@M2W004.mail2web.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060518004229.027a7070@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <002001c6802a$18821d80$48bb1f97@administxl09yj> Russell: Simple systems by virtue of the fact that they are simple don't have any kind of will, any more than they have poetry, stock portfolios or favorite ice cream. Free will by definition only applies to sentient beings, which are necessarily complex systems. Ok, Conway and Cocken made a mistake. I would call it (together with Popper and Heisenberg) 'free propensity'! s. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 25 19:28:32 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 20:28:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605251033n5c23f807k875cf00783a2658c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605251228h65a4d0e0u1cb1a7b02aab8bc5@mail.gmail.com> On 5/25/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > We ought not willy-nilly redefine ordinary meanings when we can > avoid it. In some cases where there is something at stake and > some relevance, it doesn't bother me. But to redefine "soul" > so that it exists really opens the door. > > Next I can say that God exists, and atheists are wrong. I need > only mean by "God" the laws of nature. Well, I don't think the two are equivalent... to define "God" as the laws of nature discards the core of the traditional definition of God (a conscious agent, a source of moral authority), so that would be just doing violence to language yes. But to define "soul" as that nonmaterial entity which is the seat of consciousness and which could potentially survive the death of the body... I will suggest that preserves the core of the traditional definition. What I'm trying to get at here is saying "what's at the core of what people really meant by this?" and then constructing a definition that is faithful to that, while using modern knowledge. I mean, sure the Bible doesn't talk about the soul being a stream of bits - that's because nobody in those days knew about information theory! They thought the soul needed to be a _physical_ thing. Yes that's right, physical; for all the talk about the soul being nonmaterial, the attributes traditionally assigned to it - only in one place at a time, noncopyable, in some renditions having mass/energy - are those of a material object! We could say "you're wrong, there's nothing there, you're just chasing illusions". But I don't think that's true, because there is something there, it's something we ourselves believe in and care a lot about otherwise we wouldn't spend so much time talking about cryonics, uploading etc. So I'm saying, okay there _is_ something there. Now what's the nature of that something? Well okay, the ancients were wrong about how it works, that's not surprising, shoulders of giants and all. But the solution is to fix the errors and come up with a corrected definition, not to throw out the whole concept, since we ourselves agree there is a baby in the bath water. Well, we might have to conduct a poll to see who is right, but > my guess is that the everyday definition most people would use > is that of an uncaused decision: namely, most people do believe > in souls of a non-mechanical nature, and that it is possible > for a soul to simply decide to do something, and to do it without > following any laws of physics. > So you reckon a typical atheist/materialist and a typical religious believer have fundamentally different definitions of free will? Perhaps in the sense of what words they'd say if asked to give a definition... but I'll suggest that they have basically the same _extension_, the same set of things they'd call free will vs not... and that's what I've been working off; after all, the way I arrived at my definition was to start off by asking what's the extension, and working back from that to an appropriate definition. I guess it's the same idea, I'm starting off saying, is the traditional view just fluff to be thrown out wholesale? No, there's something there at the core, something important that we want to keep. So I constructed what I think is a corrected definition that uses everything we know today, but keeps the inherited core of that which is important. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu May 25 19:53:12 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:53:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Books: American Theocracy Message-ID: <380-220065425195312437@M2W122.mail2web.com> Has anyone read Kevin Phillips' _American Theocracy_? Natasha Natasha Vita-more http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 25 20:32:15 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:32:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605251228h65a4d0e0u1cb1a7b02aab8bc5@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0605251033n5c23f807k875cf00783a2658c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605251228h65a4d0e0u1cb1a7b02aab8bc5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 25, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/25/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > We ought not willy-nilly redefine ordinary meanings when we can > avoid it. In some cases where there is something at stake and > some relevance, it doesn't bother me. But to redefine "soul" > so that it exists really opens the door. > > Next I can say that God exists, and atheists are wrong. I need > only mean by "God" the laws of nature. > > Well, I don't think the two are equivalent... to define "God" as > the laws of nature discards the core of the traditional definition > of God (a conscious agent, a source of moral authority), so that > would be just doing violence to language yes. > > But to define "soul" as that nonmaterial entity which is the seat > of consciousness and which could potentially survive the death of > the body... I will suggest that preserves the core of the > traditional definition. Sorry but soul is already taken and means that non-material self independent of the body that enters the body somewhere around birth and survives the death of the body without us having to invent any new tech like uploading or whatever. It is already immortal according to all the religions of the world that grant an individualized self. Buddhism quibbles. Please let's not label what we mean by using this old word with tons of tired baggage. > > What I'm trying to get at here is saying "what's at the core of > what people really meant by this?" and then constructing a > definition that is faithful to that, while using modern knowledge. > I mean, sure the Bible doesn't talk about the soul being a stream > of bits - that's because nobody in those days knew about > information theory! > > They thought the soul needed to be a _physical_ thing. Yes that's > right, physical; for all the talk about the soul being nonmaterial, > the attributes traditionally assigned to it - only in one place at > a time, noncopyable, in some renditions having mass/energy - are > those of a material object! > Most of that stuff isn't biblical either for the negligible amount that is worth. There is nothing in there about mass/energy of the soul. And why are we having this conversation anyway? > > So I'm saying, okay there _is_ something there. Now what's the > nature of that something? Well okay, the ancients were wrong about > how it works, that's not surprising, shoulders of giants and all. > But the solution is to fix the errors and come up with a corrected > definition, not to throw out the whole concept, since we ourselves > agree there is a baby in the bath water. > We don't agree with the mystical immaterial soul of yesteryear. There is no reason to cause confusion by pretending we do or that science, by gum, as proved it is real after all. This simply leads our siblings into further error. There is something in the bible about that. > Well, we might have to conduct a poll to see who is right, but > my guess is that the everyday definition most people would use > is that of an uncaused decision: namely, most people do believe > in souls of a non-mechanical nature, and that it is possible > for a soul to simply decide to do something, and to do it without > following any laws of physics. > > So you reckon a typical atheist/materialist and a typical religious > believer have fundamentally different definitions of free will? > Perhaps in the sense of what words they'd say if asked to give a > definition... but I'll suggest that they have basically the same > _extension_, the same set of things they'd call free will vs not... > and that's what I've been working off; after all, the way I arrived > at my definition was to start off by asking what's the extension, > and working back from that to an appropriate definition. > They have a different basis for anything remotely like "free will", yes. Your working backwards practice is bound to generate errors and be intellectually dangerous as it starts with what it wants to be true and works backward to attempt to find some not too unpalatable way to support it. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu May 25 19:17:35 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 12:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <32CFAAFE-DEC7-4B44-AEE9-23F46EDF368A@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060525191735.71789.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, Samantha wrote: "It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to really screw up." Then do you believe that a post-human should have the right to trigger an existential disaster that ends all life within this Universe? Samantha: "Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on." I have indeed played violent video games, however, I was quite confident that my computer/game was not conscious and suffering. If I ever thought otherwise, I would immediately cease playing it. Any software that includes intentionally inflicting pain on conscious beings should be outlawed. Samantha: "This is a straw man that was not advocated." I didn't mean to claim that it was advocated, I was making my case. Let me ask you a question: I assume that we agree that a "real" being and a conscious "simulated" being are both composed of hardware and software and that both exist at the "real" layer of "reality". Why should ending the life of a "simulated" being, be viewed any differently than a "real" being murdering another "real" being? Why should torturing a conscious "simulated" being, be viewed differently than a "real" being torturing another "real" being? The crimes are equivalent. The only "factor" that would supposedly separate the status of a "real" being from the status of a "simulated" being is that the "real" one was born first and therefore supposedly deserves to wield ultimate power over the one that was born later. That's "messed up"; it's legally allowing murder and torture. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 25, 2006, at 10:22 AM, A B wrote: > Although I was completely sincere in everything I wrote in my last > post on this thread, I realize that it may have come across as > excessively morbid. I did not mean to put a damper on this > particular topic; perhaps I can rephrase my position on this. > > My vision of the Singularity has been where the whole purpose of > the Singularity is to bring more "Goodness" to this blindly cruel > and indifferent Universe. If the Singularity is not about bringing > universal joy, love, compassion, and beauty to this dead Universe, > then *what* is its purpose? Does the Singularity boil down to a > frenzied power struggle? Where the "winner" is rightfully entitled > to do *anything* ve wishes in the name of "Freedom", with zero > regard for morality? A struggle where the primary deciding factor > is purely blind luck - being at the right place at the right time? > I'm sorry, but that's a really f****d up reason for pursuing the > Singularity. It is about bringing more intelligence and greater possibilities to this corner of the universe. Whether it achieves or can achieve a bunch of utopian universals or not does not gate whether it is desirable. I do not know and rather doubt whether such a list as "universal joy, love, compassion, beauty" is even well defined much less achievable. It is not utter perfect utopia or total dystopia. The actuality is likely to be more complex and multifarious than that. > > If we believe that someone in the future should be allowed to do > absolutely *anything*, then we should allow someone in the future > to trigger an existential disaster that ends all life, in the name > of "Freedom". Note: I am not at all advocating this action, I'm > just pointing out a glaring contradiction within this particular > philosophy. It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to really screw up. > > What exactly is the quality that makes a "simulated" being of lower > value and importance than a "real" being? Both are comprised of > hardware and software, and they both exist at the "real" layer of > "reality". One is simply a slave and the other a master. Does a > "real" being have some mystical birthright that gives it absolute > authority over a newly created "simulated" being? No. One being was > simply lucky (and born early) and the other being was simply very > misfortunate (and born late). Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on. > > This would basically be the same result as if today, half the > world's population rounded up the other half and proceeded to > torture them mercilessly. The difference would be that in the > future, the victims of torture could be made to never die, and > instead endure terrible pain for all eternity (or for at least as > long as the Universe exists). > This is a straw man that was not advocated. - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu May 25 20:01:49 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? ( An attempted survey ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060525200149.59001.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lee, Would the Singularity be considered a "natural" phenomenon? A good question. I can certainly see where one could make the case. This seems to tie in with the "free will" discussion. Lee: "Those who work towards speeding the advent of technology, whether that results in a slow takeoff or a fast one, do so in the hope that they can ameliorate its effects on us." Yes, I agree. So far I haven't encountered anyone involved with the Singularity who I have felt was anything but a "good" person. But, there are millions of other twisted minds in this world. Lee: "I favor entities having as much freedom as possible, but I disapprove when this freedom curtails the freedom of others." Yes, that is exactly my philosophy also. I am advocating the protection of the freedoms of conscious "simulated" beings. Namely, the freedom from inflicted suffering and death. Lee: "As an analogy, suppose that all laws against the mistreatment of animals were repealed tomorrow; would millions of people in Western nations immediately rush to the kennels and animal shelters to procure victims for torture?" No, I don't think that millions would. But I'm confident that some would. People view other people (real or simulated) differently than they view animals, all that evolutionary baggage has made it so. In the future it will depend on how much of that baggage post-humans choose to retain. I'm going to propose what is perhaps a strange philosophical viewpoint that I happen to hold (and it's difficult for me to convey). Consider that today, the entire universe and all the good and bad things that it includes can only be separately represented in each of our separate minds. Each of us has only one mind and one reality to experience. In other words, the value I place on the whole of humanity (which is high) is restricted to my mind and my mind alone. So when viewed in this way, a *single* human life (real or simulated) is equally valuable as the sum of *all* human lives put together. This is partially why I find it completely repulsive to allow the torture or murder of even *one* conscious being, regardless of whether they are "real" or "simulated". Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Lee Corbin wrote: Jeffrey writes > My vision of the Singularity has been where the whole purpose > of the Singularity is to bring more "Goodness" to this blindly > cruel and indifferent Universe. If the Singularity is not about > bringing universal joy, love, compassion, and beauty to this > dead Universe, then *what* is its purpose? Many natural phenomena occur---actually, the overwhelming portion ---that do not have a purpose. They just happen. To say, for example, that the purpose of Maxwell's, Heaviside's, and Fitz-Gerald's laws were to bestow the benefits of electricity on humankind sort of misses the point. The same could be said of Moore's Law: it doesn't really have a purpose. Those who work towards speeding the advent of technology, whether that results in a slow takeoff or a fast one, do so in the hope that they can ameliorate its effects on us. > If we believe that someone in the future should be allowed to > do absolutely *anything*, Your meaning isn't clear to me. What does "allow" here mean? Do you mean that the government should not allow certain actions, or do you mean that you/we ought to disapprove of them? I favor entities having as much freedom as possible, but I disapprove when this freedom curtails the freedom of others. I would also hope that a ruling AI would grant the entities within its realm the maximum possible freedom that is practical. > What exactly is the quality that makes a "simulated" being of > lower value and importance than a "real" being? I think that I agree with you; who says that a simulated being has lower value? But even to put the question in such terms invites confusion: value to whom? Therefore, I'll rephrase: given a volume of space, I approve of it hosting an entity over hosting vacuum. I do not necessarily prefer a "real" being in this volume over an "artificial" one. > Imagine yourself in the shoes of the "simulated" being, at the > complete mercy (or lack thereof) of your "real" simulator. > Does it still feel like an acceptable situation? I doubt it. Certainly not, at least not in your scenario of the real being torturing the simulated one. But until someone on this list claims that "real" beings have some kind of "rights" that artificial beings don't, this argument is moot. Now on the other hand, if I own some hardware and choose to run someone or something, then I ought also be able to determine the events transpiring on my hardware. In other words, no entity from the outside should (in my opinion) interfere with what I do. A respect for private property has taken us a long way, and I expect that it's the correct route in the future as well. > A universe whose post-human occupants do nothing to stop > gratuitous torture of "simulated" beings is just about as > bad a Dystopia as I can possibly imagine. Wherefore this notion that once humans can conduct simulations they'll immediately revert to torturing trillions of sentients? It's extremely unlikely. As an analogy, suppose that all laws against the mistreatment of animals were repealed tomorrow; would millions of people in Western nations immediately rush to the kennels and animal shelters to procure victims for torture? It's an old argument, but I do not favor monitoring my neighbor so closely that I can know exactly what he's doing, and I do not favor my going into his property to straighten him out if I find that I don't like what he's doing. Lee _______________________________________________ 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 lcorbin at tsoft.com Thu May 25 23:42:11 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:42:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: <006901c68027$98bd71f0$48bb1f97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: Hi Serifino! Thanks for the info: > > The key question then comes down to what is meant, again, > > by "free will". I studied Conway's idea, and even attended > > a lecture he gave. But I can't say I understand exactly > > what he's driving at. > > The problem I see (perhaps! I'm not sure, eh!), > with their approach, based on Bell and Kochen-Specker > theorems, is that these theorems keep their validity > even when we reverse the 'time arrow'. (The time > reversed EPR is called RPE!). If this is true, > the 'will' must be 'free' from any past cause > but also from any future 'cause' (given the factlike, > but not lawlike, time asymmetry, it seems strange > to speak of future 'cause!). Is that what is meant by Conway and the others? That past causes cannot determine some event in order for it to be "free"? That is too strange. Especially---moreover---if it is also added that future 'causes' are forbidden. The latter I can only interpret to mean as the event may not leave an unambiguous record, so that the event may be (backwards) determined. > [It seems to me (not sure though) that in MWI > we cannot have time symmetry because the merging > of n worlds would cause some overpopulation. > I mean n Lee(s) and n Serafino(s) all together. > It is strange because MWI is strictly based > on Schroedinger's equation, which has no time > arrow.] I had always supposed time-reversibility of MWI, but probably unconsciously---as you say, it is based upon the SE. But as to what this could mean, I have no clue. As for overpopulation, I would simply suppose that the version of me who saw the photon go up would smoothly merge into the version of me who saw it go straight; if we branch into separate versions going forward in time, wouldn't it be very natural to merge into a single version going backwards? Lee > [1] V.A.Fock. > > 'Disskussija S Nilsom Borom', in 'Voprosy Filosofii', > 1964 (a memorandum, about the interpretation of QM > and the meaning of wavefunction, he gave to Bohr, > in Copenhagen, 1957, who read it and, apparently, > changed his mind about several points). > This paper contained 4 objections to Bohr's ideas on > the foundations of QM. > > 1. The wavefunction represents something "real", as it allows > one predict the evolution of probabilities; > > 2. Only Laplacian determinism was broken down by QM; > > 3. Complementarity principle expresses limitation (imposed > by Heisenberg's principle) only on the "classical" description of > phenomena; > > 4. There is no "uncontrollable" interaction between > classical apparata and quantum objects. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri May 26 00:12:20 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:12:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An Attempted Survey) In-Reply-To: <20060525191735.71789.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey replies to Samantha, but asks questions too delicious for me to pass up! > Samantha: > > "This is a straw man that was not advocated." > I didn't mean to claim that it was advocated, I was making my case. Well, Jeffrey, I have to add that I had the same impression that Samantha did. In my words, you did seem to be arguing against a position that I don't think anyone on this list takes. > Let me ask you a question: > I assume that we agree that a "real" being and a conscious > "simulated" being are both composed of hardware and software > and that both exist at the "real" layer of "reality". Why > should ending the life of a "simulated" being, be viewed > any differently than a "real" being murdering another "real" > being? Here is a case of the same thing, I think. I don't believe that anyone at all on this list would say that there is a difference. > Why should torturing a conscious "simulated" being, be viewed > differently than a "real" being torturing another "real" being? > The crimes are equivalent. Likewise---if you mean "moral crime". > The only "factor" that would supposedly separate the status > of a "real" being from the status of a "simulated" being is > that the "real" one was born first and therefore supposedly > deserves to wield ultimate power over the one that was born > later. It all depends. I do believe that you are ignoring differences that are essential to me, and perhaps to the others. I suspect that the core of the actual difference between our viewpoints can be seen in your next statement: > That's "messed up"; it's legally allowing murder and torture. Bringing "The Law" into it is an *entirely* different can of worms. Surely you don't believe that everything that is bad should be outlawed. Or do you? Almost *all* of our progress and all of the humanitarian improvements in the human condition the last ten thousand years have stemmed from (1) Rule of Law, and (2) Protection of Private Property. It is extremely hazardous, in my opinion, not to treat these two principles with the utmost respect. As the 20th century showed, there is practically no limit to the harm that results from tampering with these principles, tampering that is always accompanied, of course, by the best of intentions. As Samantha said, it may be non-trivial to determine the extent of consciousness of a character in a video game. I suspect that the difficulty can be arbitrarily great; i.e., it could be arbitrarily high up in the complexity classes, beyond NP-complete. So we come to the classic question: Who is to decide? The totalitarian answer is that all power should be in the hands of the people, i.e., in the hands of their elected or non-elected representatives. In other words, the government must decide what actions you take are ethical and moral, and which are not. But the evolved solution, namely (1) Rule of Law, and (2) Protection of Private Property, is far less ambitious. It recoils from the idea that wisdom can be concentrated in a single place (e.g. the Supreme Court) or anywhere in fact, that is not *local*. Thomas Sowell explains all this with fantastic clarity in his books, such as "Decisions and Knowledge". The greatest thinkers of the past, e.g. Von Mieses and Hayek, were perhaps the first to deeply understand, but an "in practice" understanding was also achieved by America's founders, who legislated tremendous *restrictions* on what higher bodies could do to lower ones. Therefore the instinctive recoil of people like Samantha, who are extraordinary leery of having a body intercede in her affairs to determine the complexity of her software and whether or not she's doing the "right" thing with it is well-founded. I do not happen to have such a strong aversion as many like she do; but still, I can fully understand on *principle* that it is best for someone to be able to determine what happens inside their own minds and inside their own property, without an outside regulator poking around. It seems that if I were get a software program that created and destroyed a sentient every microsecond, then after about a minute you would consider me the greatest mass-murderer of all time. Is that true? You should maybe think of what's bugging you this way: what are the odds that if you grant someone freedom they'll immediately conjure up a hell and conjure up millions of sophonts to agonize in it? Lee From sentience at pobox.com Fri May 26 00:24:04 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:24:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An Attempted Survey) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44764AA4.8090409@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > It seems that if I were get a software program that created > and destroyed a sentient every microsecond, then after about > a minute you would consider me the greatest mass-murderer of > all time. Is that true? Stalin may have done worse. > You should maybe think of what's bugging you this way: what > are the odds that if you grant someone freedom they'll > immediately conjure up a hell and conjure up millions of > sophonts to agonize in it? As Webb_S once said upon this very mailing list: "There are always at least a few people who are, by any arbitrary definition of the term, 'no damn good'." -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri May 26 00:33:25 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:33:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Can Suffering and Death be Quantified? (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <20060525200149.59001.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In the post of May 25, 1:02 PM Jeffrey makes quite a number of points that I agree with. I'm skipping those :-) and going straight to the most interesting (i.e. controversial and provocative!) > Lee: > > "As an analogy, suppose that all laws > > against the mistreatment of animals were repealed tomorrow; > > would millions of people in Western nations immediately rush > > to the kennels and animal shelters to procure victims for > > torture?" Jeffrey responds > No, I don't think that millions would. But I'm confident that > some would. And I infer from what comes next that this is just as big a crime to you as if *many* did. > I'm going to propose what is perhaps a strange philosophical > viewpoint that I happen to hold (and it's difficult for me to > convey). Consider that today, the entire universe and all the > good and bad things that it includes can only be separately > represented in each of our separate minds. Of course, this means with a *great* loss of detail. For example, I hold Russia and its millions in my mind, and I can even rattle off a great number of cities in that far- away land. But naturally, there is *some* loss of fidelity :-) For example, it would be *vastly* preferable if my mental model of Russia were to come to some harm, i.e., I imagine Russia being totally destroyed by a large meteorite, than it would be for the actual high-fidelity real version to undergo catastrophe. > Each of us has only one mind and one reality to experience. > In other words, the value I place on the whole of humanity > (which is high) is restricted to my mind and my mind alone. You're right. This is a strange philosophical viewpoint! > So when viewed in this way, a *single* human life (real or > simulated) is equally valuable as the sum of *all* human > lives put together. Isn't that rather, ahem, nuts? Sorry, but how in the world can you *not* regret the loss of millions about a million times more than you regret the loss of one? I don't believe it. I don't really think that you suppose Mao's "Great Leap Forward" to have been only as harmful as the death of a single pedestrian in Canton last year. > This is partially why I find it completely repulsive to > allow the torture or murder of even *one* conscious being, > regardless of whether they are "real" or "simulated". We agree that "real" vs. "simulated" makes no difference. But just to get to the bottom of this, let me ask you a couple of questions: (1) An alien shows up who has technology vastly, vastly beyond ours. He promises us that he will stop all poverty, and war, and traffic accidents, and cancer suffering and death, and all other medical suffering and death, for a year, provided that at the end of a year we offer up to him a human sacrifice. The poor human (which we select at random from our 6 billion, will be tortured by him to a very similar extent to which a cancer patient undergoes pain before his death. Do you think that we should take him up on his offer? (2) What if a new drug can be developed that will save many thousands of lives, but because radioactivity is involved, it is estimated that a few hundred random people around the world will die? Think we should allow the development of this drug? Best wishes, Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 26 00:28:45 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:28:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <20060525191735.71789.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060525191735.71789.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 25, 2006, at 12:17 PM, A B wrote: > Hi Samantha, > > Samantha wrote: > "It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to > really screw up." > > Then do you believe that a post-human should have the right to > trigger an existential disaster that ends all life within this > Universe? The Universe is a damn big place. Short of crashing space-time I don't see it happening and of course I don't see any way that could be done. Tell me, if a Being came a long so powerful that it *could* crash space-time what would be able to monitor and control it that was immune to possibly making the same suicidal error? Would you want a super-totalitarianism for all posthumans just on the off chance that one of them might do something really stupid, by accident or on purpose? Do you want super-totalitarianism or as close as we can get to it here and now on earth to prevent some evil genius from say, cooking up gray goo or a super-plague in the privacy of his or her basement? I don't think much less than super-totalitarianism by a hopefully guaranteed benevolent government or later a SAI more powerful (and kept that way) than anyone and anything else that can come along will get you full safety. Personally I value freedom far more than that level of safety. And I am very cynical about the "guaranteed benevolent" part. > > Samantha: > "Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of > complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or > outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than > just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have > argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous > beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on." > > I have indeed played violent video games, however, I was quite > confident that my computer/game was not conscious and suffering. If > I ever thought otherwise, I would immediately cease playing it. Any > software that includes intentionally inflicting pain on conscious > beings should be outlawed. Even if the players volunteered to perhaps experience such negative things? > > Samantha: > "This is a straw man that was not advocated." > > I didn't mean to claim that it was advocated, I was making my case. > Then perhaps it would be better to address the points of actual contention instead going off a bit on things no one really advocates. > > Let me ask you a question: > > I assume that we agree that a "real" being and a conscious > "simulated" being are both composed of hardware and software and > that both exist at the "real" layer of "reality". Why should ending > the life of a "simulated" being, be viewed any differently than a > "real" being murdering another "real" being? Why should torturing a > conscious "simulated" being, be viewed differently than a "real" > being torturing another "real" being? The crimes are equivalent. > The only "factor" that would supposedly separate the status of a > "real" being from the status of a "simulated" being is that the > "real" one was born first and therefore supposedly deserves to > wield ultimate power over the one that was born later. That's > "messed up"; it's legally allowing murder and torture. > At similar levels of complexity murder is murder. However, creating a world where murder and other grievous wrongs may occur among the inhabitants is not murder or necessarily immoral. That is the point I have been attempting to get across. - samantha From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri May 26 02:27:08 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (jeffrey davis) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:27:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] immune system "training" to prevent autoimmune diseases Message-ID: Spike and other bioreplicators, There's such a thing as too clean. Let the larvae play in the dirt, it's good for him/her. Parasitic worms used to fight bowel disease, says MSU researcher http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/2779/content.htm "Some researchers argue that improved hygiene throughout the developed world may be responsible for inflammatory bowel disease, as well as a whole range of autoimmune disorders. According to this "hygiene hypothesis," immune systems require exposure to infections of all sorts early in life in order to develop sufficiently." "...inflammatory bowel disease... is virtually unknown in the developing world, while it is increasing dramatically in developed societies." [I think epidemiological studies have shown the same to be true of MS: virtually unknown in the developing world.] "...giving humans a concoction of whipworm eggs and Gatorade is very effective in treating inflammatory bowel disease." "...wants to apply this effort to a variety of autoimmune conditions, such as asthma, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Some researchers suggest that all of these conditions can be explained as combinations of the hygiene hypothesis and genetics." Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri May 26 03:01:32 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 23:01:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <32CFAAFE-DEC7-4B44-AEE9-23F46EDF368A@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060526030132.8764.qmail@web35507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 25, 2006, at 10:22 AM, A B wrote: > Although I was completely sincere in everything I wrote in my last > post on this thread, I realize that it may have come across as > excessively morbid. I did not mean to put a damper on this > particular topic; perhaps I can rephrase my position on this. > > My vision of the Singularity has been where the whole purpose of > the Singularity is to bring more "Goodness" to this blindly cruel > and indifferent Universe. If the Singularity is not about bringing > universal joy, love, compassion, and beauty to this dead Universe, > then *what* is its purpose? Does the Singularity boil down to a > frenzied power struggle? Where the "winner" is rightfully entitled > to do *anything* ve wishes in the name of "Freedom", with zero > regard for morality? A struggle where the primary deciding factor > is purely blind luck - being at the right place at the right time? > I'm sorry, but that's a really f****d up reason for pursuing the > Singularity. Samantha wrote: It is about bringing more intelligence and greater possibilities to this corner of the universe. Whether it achieves or can achieve a bunch of utopian universals or not does not gate whether it is desirable. I do not know and rather doubt whether such a list as "universal joy, love, compassion, beauty" is even well defined much less achievable. It is not utter perfect utopia or total dystopia. The actuality is likely to be more complex and multifarious than that. Anna wrote: >>Then you have no idea what utopia is. I'm sorry to hear that. >>Just an opinion. A B wrote: > If we believe that someone in the future should be allowed to do > absolutely *anything*, then we should allow someone in the future > to trigger an existential disaster that ends all life, in the name > of "Freedom". Note: I am not at all advocating this action, I'm > just pointing out a glaring contradiction within this particular > philosophy. Samantha wrote: It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to really screw up. Anna wrote: A really good point AB wrotre: > What exactly is the quality that makes a "simulated" being of lower > value and importance than a "real" being? Both are comprised of > hardware and software, and they both exist at the "real" layer of > "reality". One is simply a slave and the other a master. Does a > "real" being have some mystical birthright that gives it absolute > authority over a newly created "simulated" being? No. One being was > simply lucky (and born early) and the other being was simply very > misfortunate (and born late). Samantha wrote: Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on. >>Anna wrote: >>No I don't. I don't play games. Reality is reality and virtual reality >>is virtual reality. Two different causes. AB Wrote: > This would basically be the same result as if today, half the > world's population rounded up the other half and proceeded to > torture them mercilessly. The difference would be that in the > future, the victims of torture could be made to never die, and > instead endure terrible pain for all eternity (or for at least as > long as the Universe exists). Samantha: This is a straw man that was not advocated. I agree - 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 femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri May 26 03:36:01 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 23:36:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060526033601.53234.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lee Corbin wrote: But I'm just getting started. Not only do souls and God exist,but so does Santa Claus. After all, Santa Claus can be defined as that spirit of Christmas happiness and generosity enjoyed by millions around the world, especially children. Of course Santa Claus exists (under this non-standard use of the term). >Anna rewrites from wiki: >Santa Claus (also known as Father Christmas, Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Kris >Kringle or simply Santa) is the North American and British variant of the European >folk tale of Saint Nicholas, explaining the source of Christmas presents given to >children on Christmas Day. He forms part of the Christmas tradition throughout > then English speaking world as well as in Latin America and Japan. >Anna replies: >Anybody that shares generosity:) >>Russell writes > >But irrespective of one's view on the nature of the soul, >> physics etc, I claim that "uncaused decision" is an oxymoron. >Anna writes: why or how come and what's an "uncaused decision"? Lee Corbin: I agree with you in the strictest meanings of terms; but in the example I gave where (for example) in the "physics" of Thomas Aquinas both souls exist and uncaused decisions are the norm, "uncaused decision" is not an oxymoron. It's simply an incorrect description of the real world. Anna asks: >>So what do you think is an inscription of the real world is? Lee Corbin writes: I will claim that my definition (which I'm glad you like, btw) _is_ the everyday meaning of the term (and therefore that free will does exist in the everyday meaning). Well, we might have to conduct a poll to see who is right, but my guess is that the everyday definition most people would use is that of an uncaused decision: namely, most people do believe in souls of a non-mechanical nature, and that it is possible for a soul to simply decide to do something, and to do it without following any laws of physics. Lee Again just being curious:) Anna Thanks --------------------------------- Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri May 26 06:32:04 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 23:32:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: <20060526033601.53234.qmail@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna writes > > Lee Corbin: > > I agree with [Russell] in the strictest meanings of terms; but in > > the example I gave where (for example) in the "physics" of Thomas > > Aquinas both souls exist and uncaused decisions are the norm, > > "uncaused decision" is not an oxymoron. It's simply an incorrect > > description of the real world. > > Anna asks: > So what do you think is an inscription of the real world is? I have to admit that I was puzzled for a long time by this question. It's a very intriguing one: just what would an inscription of the real world be? All sorts of thoughts came to mind, but I finally remembered Kafka's short story "In the Penal Colony". In that story, the prisoners of an island penal colony were strapped on top of a large machine as a final part of their punishment. This machine would then slowly make mechanical passes over the prisoner's back with some very sharp blades. At first, the blades would pass only very close to the skin, but finally, slowly, they'd move closer and closer, and then on succeeding passes begin to enter deeper and deeper into the prisoner's flesh. What the blades were doing was literally inscribing a message onto the prisoner's back, each pass going a little deeper, and causing more pain. (There even was ancillary equipment to wash away the blood.) This message would have to do with the nature of the crime committed by the felon. I always imagined that it would write something like "Thou shalt not Steal", or "Crime does not Pay", or something along that line. Eventually, so the narrator declares, after many hours the victim's eyes would begin to shine with a certain understanding, gleaned slowly during the torture: then, at last, just before he dies, the prisoner is able to *understand* the message. So what would an inscription of the real world be? Well, don't forget the Nazca drawings in Peru! That was pass one! On each succeeding pass, the aliens will write just a little deeper, until humans finally---just before the Earth is destroyed--- get the message. That, I think, would be an inscription of the real world is. By the way, it was Russell, not I, who wrote the following definition: > Lee Corbin writes: > I will claim that my definition (which I'm glad you like, > btw) _is_ the everyday meaning of the term (and therefore > that free will does exist in the everyday meaning). > > Again just being curious:) > Anna > Thanks You're welcome! Thanks for the fun question. Sorry if my answer was a little Kafkaesque. Lee From pgptag at gmail.com Fri May 26 09:19:43 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:19:43 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Official opening of uvvy island in Second Life June 7 2pm EST: Transhumanist day Message-ID: <470a3c520605260219n1ba056faj4711ecd43f5b511d@mail.gmail.com> See http://uvvy.com/index.php/Official_opening_of_uvvy_island_in_SL The event will be quite high profile and the press will attend. We have entered a partnership with Vivox as provider of voice comunications for this and forthcoming events. Vivox permits voice chatting with nearby avatars in Second Life and other virtual worlds. We are coordinating press releases with them. If you wish to come, you will need a Vivox account - please add your name to the participant list http://uvvy.com/index.php/June72006List and we will get you one. Giulio From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri May 26 09:51:26 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:51:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605251033n5c23f807k875cf00783a2658c@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605251228h65a4d0e0u1cb1a7b02aab8bc5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605260251x16f67928v7ddcd18b963ca60d@mail.gmail.com> On 5/25/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Sorry but soul is already taken and means that non-material self > independent of the body that enters the body somewhere around birth and > survives the death of the body without us having to invent any new tech like > uploading or whatever. It is already immortal according to all the > religions of the world that grant an individualized self. Buddhism > quibbles. Please let's not label what we mean by using this old word with > tons of tired baggage. > As far as practical communication goes, you'll note that indeed I'm not in the habit of using the word "soul"; there are alternative words that are less prone to being misinterpreted. I found it an interesting little philosophical digression, but if it doesn't do anything for you, fair enough. I'll stand by my usage of "free will" though; I think correctly defining it fixes a very common category error that's in practice quite independent of religious belief. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 26 13:37:12 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:37:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Romans (was Economic consensus on immigration) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/22/06, Amara Graps wrote: > In that Roman mixture was a good bit of Etruscan stuff [1]. The Romans > assimilated them, absorbing and using alot of their (disparate, since > the Etruscans were individual city-states like the Greeks) culture(s), > such as the alphabet, calendar, building technology (arches, waterways). > The fifth Roman king was Tarquinius Priscus, an Etruscan. The classic > statue depicting the mythical founding of Rome, the Capitoline Wolf, > which shows Romulus and Remus suckling at the she-wolf is not Roman, but > Etruscan [2]. > > How can you be so sure that the Romans didn't commit racial suicide? > This might interest you. For the first time, Stanford researchers have used novel statistical computer modeling to simulate demographic processes affecting the population of Tuscany over a 2,500-year time span. Rigorous tests used by the researchers have ruled out a genetic link between ancient Etruscans, the early inhabitants of central Italy, and the region's modern day residents. The findings suggest that something either suddenly wiped out the Etruscans or the group represented a social elite that had little in common with the people who became the true ancestors of Tuscans, said Joanna Mountain, assistant professor of anthropological sciences. BillK From pgptag at gmail.com Fri May 26 15:53:29 2006 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 17:53:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <20060526030132.8764.qmail@web35507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <32CFAAFE-DEC7-4B44-AEE9-23F46EDF368A@mac.com> <20060526030132.8764.qmail@web35507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520605260853j113f9922h6c783b1b66932bb0@mail.gmail.com> I would not assume that the concepts of morality of a civilization sufficiently advanced to run simulations with couscious beings in it have necessarily much in common with ours. G. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Fri May 26 16:10:04 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 09:10:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605260251x16f67928v7ddcd18b963ca60d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell writes > On 5/25/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > Sorry but soul is already taken and means that non-material > > self independent of the body that enters the body somewhere > > around birth... Please let's not label what we mean by > > using this old word with tons of tired baggage. > > As far as practical communication goes, you'll note that > indeed I'm not in the habit of using the word "soul"; > there are alternative words... > > I'll stand by my usage of "free will" though; I think correctly > defining it fixes a very common category error that's in practice > quite independent of religious belief. I agree with both Samantha and you. Here is a brief explanation why I think that in one case---"souls"---we need to hold fast that they don't exist, and in the other---"free will"---do what we can to correct common misuse, and actually go on to embrace the term. (Gee this is an old argument for me; in 1967, almost forty(!) years ago, I was explaining to friends why "free will" really is an acceptable concept even though we had agreed that the world is deterministic (pace your pointing out that even under indeterminism it doesn't matter).) First, there is "how much work do we need to do to change the basic idea?", and second there is "how much philosophically is really at stake?". The whole idea of *souls* is inextricably tied up with religion and spiritualism. The idea as used in practice is unalterably opposed to mechanism. Messing with souls leads directly to considerations about everything from abortion to salvation. "Free will" on the other hand is *not* something that the great majority of people can say anything intelligent about. (Whether the great majority of people can say anything intelligent period is a question I leave to another time.) But we must either say that the question is meaningless, or give an affirmative answer, or give a negative answer. Is the question, "do we have free will" meaningless? If it's at all possible to answer a question, then it's preferable to do so rather than fall back on the old "meaningless" recourse. Not only can we give an affirmative answer to "do we have free will", but we can even get some mileage out of it. We can go so far as to accuse those who would say that we do *not* have free will as entertaining a fantasy. For, the rejection of the applicability of the concept means that it's somehow conceivable that *their* notion of free will could apply to mechanism. In other words, I think that those who deny that we have free will really have not internalized that we are machines. Lee From amara at amara.com Fri May 26 15:57:29 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 17:57:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Romans (was Economic consensus on immigration) Message-ID: BillK: >Amara: >> How can you be so sure that the Romans didn't commit racial suicide? >> >This might interest you. > Then the origins of the Romans and the Etruscans are a mystery. There's one far-reaching explanation, that maybe the genetic differences between Tuscany people and ancient Etruscans are large because they are large between all Italians today, including those from Rome and south. Someone told me a long time ago that Cavalli-Sforza, in his population genetics work, found a genetic difference between Italians that is much larger than between wide swaths of Europeans between countries. Unfortunately I can't verify this information. It is perhaps in this book that I don't have: Genes, Peoples, and Languages By Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza Translated by Mark Seielstad. Illustrated. 228 pp. North Point Press. $24. Review http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE1D7133CF932A35757C0A9669C8B63&sec=&pagewanted=all And I found these next articles, but they don't discuss Italy-wide differences. Amara -------- (see the reference to Sardinians) http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v26/n3/full/ng1100_358.html Nature Genetics 26, 358 - 361 (2000) doi:10.1038/81685 Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations Peter A. Underhill1, Peidong Shen2, Alice A. Lin1, Li Jin3, Giuseppe Passarino1, Wei H. Yang2, Erin Kauffman2, Batsheva Bonn?-Tamir4, Jaume Bertranpetit5, Paolo Francalacci6, Muntaser Ibrahim7, Trefor Jenkins8, Judith R. Kidd9, S. Qasim Mehdi10, Mark T. Seielstad11, R. Spencer Wells12, Alberto Piazza13, Ronald W. Davis2, Marcus W. Feldman14, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza1 & Peter. J. Oefner2 Abstract Binary polymorphisms associated with the non-recombining region of the human Y chromosome (NRY) preserve the paternal genetic legacy of our species that has persisted to the present, permitting inference of human evolution, population affinity and demographic history1. We used denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC; ref. 2) to identify 160 of the 166 bi-allelic and 1 tri-allelic site that formed a parsimonious genealogy of 116 haplotypes, several of which display distinct population affinities based on the analysis of 1062 globally representative individuals. A minority of contemporary East Africans and Khoisan represent the descendants of the most ancestral patrilineages of anatomically modern humans that left Africa between 35,000 and 89,000 years ago. -------- Gene Geography 11:15-35, 1997. Seventy-five nuclear DNA polymorphisms in an Italian sample: A comparative worldwide study B. Matulloa, R. M. Griffoa, J. L. Mountainb, F. Calafellc, S. Guarreraa, A. Piazzaa, L. L. Cavalli-Sforzab SUMMARY A well defined Italian sample from Trino Vercellese (Northern Italy) is analyzed for 75 nuclear DNA RFLPs. It represents the only European sample [Matullo et al 1994] which is unmixed in a comparative study of eight populations from four continents [Bowcock et al 1991a; Lin et al 1994]. Genetic substructure of this sample has been investigated by allele sharing distances and no bias or higher homogeneity is shown. Genetic variability between populations was measured by the FST statistics (average FST was 0.312 + 0.069). Average heterozygosity for eight populations was 0.312 + 0.069. Genetic distances were evaluated between pairs of populations. Phylogenetic trees were reconstructed and principal component analysis performed. Particular attention has been given to the genetic relationship between our sample and the mixed-Caucasoid sample: 14 out of 75 markers show statistically significant frequency differences (P<0.05), 5 of which are significant at a probability level <1%: GH/Bg1II (Lower system), D7S1/HindIII, D17S71/MspI, EPB3/PstI, HLA-DQA. Hypothesis on admixed origin of Europeans has been discussed. From amara at amara.com Fri May 26 16:04:44 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 18:04:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] cosmicvariance musings on astrobiology and the search for life Message-ID: "Further Away From the Lamp-Post" Musings on Astrobiology and the Search for Life http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/24/further-away-from-the-lamp-post/ -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From asa at nada.kth.se Fri May 26 17:07:05 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 19:07:05 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <20060525180756.23524.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20139.62.65.118.114.1148535492.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20060525180756.23524.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3041.67.188.126.126.1148663225.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The Avantguardian wrote: > It has been my observation that there seems to be a > definite limit to how good life can get. Perhaps it is > a corollary to the law of diminishing returns. Yes, happiness studies have shown that happiness is not so easily affected by otiside factors. Most people have a setpoint they return to after a transient when something good or bad happens. This setpoint is likely heavily biologically determined. But my point is that the value of life has little to do with happiness, just as Buddha claimed that even very happy people were actually unhappy. We ought to fix the setpoints (see Pearces "The Hedonistic Imperative" for some ideas, despite having a very different philosophical outlook) and give ourselves as much enjoyment we can, but it is also important to create more of life. > Contentment is warm and fuzzy and all but I don't see > it having much true value. All true progress is driven > by discontent while all contentment does is sit on its > ass or worse yet actively oppose progress. Perhaps in > this regard suffering itself attains value. Happiness is after all a tool. It is used to drive us towards useful action. In the past useful was defined by evolution, but now it is up to us to define in what direction we point it. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri May 26 19:06:55 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 20:06:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0605260251x16f67928v7ddcd18b963ca60d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605261206g67311380o5b6bc4614e057dae@mail.gmail.com> On 5/26/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I agree with both Samantha and you. Here is a brief explanation > why I think that in one case---"souls"---we need to hold fast > that they don't exist, and in the other---"free will"---do what > we can to correct common misuse, and actually go on to embrace > the term. Good explanation, thanks - yes, I agree. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Fri May 26 18:55:49 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 20:55:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel Message-ID: <000601c680f6$0233b0d0$56961f97@administxl09yj> > Is that what is meant by Conway and the others? > That past causes cannot determine some event in > order for it to be "free"? That is too strange. Difficult question (at least for me). And I'm not sure I understand your (deep) question properly. Anyway I try to write what I can :-) As W.Pauli said 'In the case of undefiniteness of a property of a system for a certain arrangement (with certain state of the system) any attempt to measure that specific property destroys (at least partially) the influence of earlier knowledge of the system on (possibly statistical) statements about later possible measurement results.' Difficult? It is (at least for me). Let us try to say some more, i.e. about that 'undefiniteness'. Imagine a pure state describing a 1/2-spin particle prepared as (1) psi = 1/sqrt2 [S(+)_z + S(-)_z] Imagine we wish to know if that 1/2-spin particle has, *before* we measure it, a *definite* *value* of the spin, on the z projection, i.e. +1/sqrt2 S(+)_z *or* -1/sqrt2 S(-)_z . We can write that [S(+)_z + S(-)_z] = = 1/sqrt2 [(S(+)_x + S(-)_x) + (S(+)_x - S(-)_x)] = = 1/sqrt2 (2 S(+)_x) = sqrt2 S(+)_x Then, psi = 1/sqrt2 [S(+)_z + S(-)_z] => S(+)_x where S(+)_x is a state for which the spin, on the x projection, is +1/2 . This means that if you have a certain number of particles described by equation (1) and you send them through a Stern & Gerlach, with a field along the x axis, *all* particles take the *same* path, qualified by the state S(+)_x . On the contrary, if you have the same number of particles described by (1) psi = 1/sqrt2 [S(+)_z + S(-)_z] and you pretend to say that, *before* the measurement, each particle must not be in the superposition state 1/sqrt2 [(S(+)_x + S(-)_x) + (S(+)_x - S(-)_x)], but it is in the state S(+)_z = 1/sqrt2 [(S(+)_x + S(-)_x)] *or* in the state S(-)_z = 1/sqrt2 [(S(+)_x - S(-)_x)] well, passing these particles through the Stern & Gerlach you will find that 50% of them take one path, and 50% of them take the opposite path. All the above just means that if you have a simple state like psi = 1/sqrt2 [S(+)_z + S(-)_z] = = 1/sqrt2 [(S(+)_x + S(-)_x) + (S(+)_x - S(-)_x)], you cannot attach to this state, *before* the measurement is performed, any *definite* property, i.e. 1/sqrt2 [(S(+)_x + S(-)_x)], or 1/sqrt2 [(S(+)_x - S(-)_x)]. But we find there are different kinds of 'undefiniteness'. John Bell, i.e., writes in 1966 that "It was tacitly assumed that measurement of an observable must yield the same value independently of what other [compatible] measurements may be made simultaneously [....] There is no apriori reason to believe that the results should be the same. The result of an observation may reasonably depend not only on the state of the system (including hidden variables) but also on the complete disposition of the apparatus [...]". It is easy to realize that the above has much to do with some famous koan by Bohr, such as "the impossibility of any sharp distinction between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is easy to realize that Bohr's "complementarity" has much to do with Bell's and Kochen-Specker "contextuality". What John Bell (in 1966) and Kochen-Specker (1967) showed is that any deterministic theory (and any hidden variable deterministic theory) which would attribute a *definite* result to a quantum measurement, still reproducing the statistical properties of the indeterministic QM, must be "contextual". http://koantum.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_koantum_archive.html http://koantum.blogspot.com/2006/04/koantum-end-game.html What John Bell (in another more famous theorem), and Ghirardi, and Eberhard, etc. showed, is that any deterministic theory (and any hidden variable deterministic theory) which would attribute a *definite* result to a quantum measurement, still reproducing the statistical properties of the indeterministic QM, must be "superluminal". >From the above "undefiniteness", "contextuality", supposed "superluminality", you can get an idea, at least 'in nuce', of what it is possible to say about the so called particle's "free will". And if one is as brilliant as Conway and Kochen (they wrote many papers about quantum "contextuality") you can even try to *prove* something, under strict conditions, about "free will" in general! [I'll write about the rest later, or tomorrow] > Especially---moreover---if it is also added that > future 'causes' are forbidden. The latter I can > only interpret to mean as the event may not leave > an unambiguous record, so that the event may be > (backwards) determined. > As for overpopulation, I would simply suppose > that the version of me who saw the photon go > up would smoothly merge into the version of me > who saw it go straight; if we branch into > separate versions going forward in time, wouldn't > it be very natural to merge into a single version > going backwards? From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 26 20:33:47 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 13:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Can Suffering and Death be Quantified? (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060526203347.54723.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lee, I completely understand why this viewpoint seems "nuts" to you. I'll just restate it this way: I would consider it a greater *objective* tragedy if a million people died, than if a single person died. I place a very high value on a single life as well as the collection of all lives, such that if a single person is murdered or tortured or made to suffer, I find that completely unacceptable - probably as equally unacceptable as if the same thing happened to a million people. Does that make any more sense? You offer up some challenging questions Lee :-) I'll do my best to answer. 1) I'm very sorry to you and the world but unless that randomly selected human willfully agrees to such a thing, I cannot endorse it. If I were that randomly selected person, I would think very hard about it, but in the end I would probably volunteer as long as I was allowed to perish and didn't have to suffer indefinitely. 2) As long as the clinical trial patients agree to taking that risk, then sure, go for it. The current system of human clinical trials isn't too different from this - they volunteer though of course. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Lee Corbin wrote: In the post of May 25, 1:02 PM Jeffrey makes quite a number of points that I agree with. I'm skipping those :-) and going straight to the most interesting (i.e. controversial and provocative!) > Lee: > > "As an analogy, suppose that all laws > > against the mistreatment of animals were repealed tomorrow; > > would millions of people in Western nations immediately rush > > to the kennels and animal shelters to procure victims for > > torture?" Jeffrey responds > No, I don't think that millions would. But I'm confident that > some would. And I infer from what comes next that this is just as big a crime to you as if *many* did. > I'm going to propose what is perhaps a strange philosophical > viewpoint that I happen to hold (and it's difficult for me to > convey). Consider that today, the entire universe and all the > good and bad things that it includes can only be separately > represented in each of our separate minds. Of course, this means with a *great* loss of detail. For example, I hold Russia and its millions in my mind, and I can even rattle off a great number of cities in that far- away land. But naturally, there is *some* loss of fidelity :-) For example, it would be *vastly* preferable if my mental model of Russia were to come to some harm, i.e., I imagine Russia being totally destroyed by a large meteorite, than it would be for the actual high-fidelity real version to undergo catastrophe. > Each of us has only one mind and one reality to experience. > In other words, the value I place on the whole of humanity > (which is high) is restricted to my mind and my mind alone. You're right. This is a strange philosophical viewpoint! > So when viewed in this way, a *single* human life (real or > simulated) is equally valuable as the sum of *all* human > lives put together. Isn't that rather, ahem, nuts? Sorry, but how in the world can you *not* regret the loss of millions about a million times more than you regret the loss of one? I don't believe it. I don't really think that you suppose Mao's "Great Leap Forward" to have been only as harmful as the death of a single pedestrian in Canton last year. > This is partially why I find it completely repulsive to > allow the torture or murder of even *one* conscious being, > regardless of whether they are "real" or "simulated". We agree that "real" vs. "simulated" makes no difference. But just to get to the bottom of this, let me ask you a couple of questions: (1) An alien shows up who has technology vastly, vastly beyond ours. He promises us that he will stop all poverty, and war, and traffic accidents, and cancer suffering and death, and all other medical suffering and death, for a year, provided that at the end of a year we offer up to him a human sacrifice. The poor human (which we select at random from our 6 billion, will be tortured by him to a very similar extent to which a cancer patient undergoes pain before his death. Do you think that we should take him up on his offer? (2) What if a new drug can be developed that will save many thousands of lives, but because radioactivity is involved, it is estimated that a few hundred random people around the world will die? Think we should allow the development of this drug? Best wishes, Lee _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 26 19:36:34 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An Attempted Survey) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060526193634.57165.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lee, Lee writes: "Well, Jeffrey, I have to add that I had the same impression that Samantha did. In my words, you did seem to be arguing against a position that I don't think anyone on this list takes." Okay, well perhaps I phrased it poorly. I was making a somewhat exaggerated example in order to show that the principle behind it is at least ethically questionable. Lee: "Surely you don't believe that everything that is bad should be outlawed. Or do you?" No, absolutely not! I realize that "bad" doesn't have an objective definition. Lot's of people think that pre-marital sex is extremely "bad!" I think it's perfectly fine, for example. Like I said before, I think that anyone should be able to do *anything* with their own bodies, minds, and non-sentient property - and when I say *anything*, I mean *ANYTHING* :-) The only line I draw is murdering or torturing (or intentionally bringing harm to) other *conscious* beings. Lee, I'm a little bit confused by your reference to "Rule of Law". Could you elaborate for me on exactly what you are referring to? I can't really determine whether you mean that standard Laws are "good" or "bad", so I can't yet really comment on this section of your post. Lee writes: "It seems that if I were get a software program that created and destroyed a sentient every microsecond, then after about a minute you would consider me the greatest mass-murderer of all time. Is that true?" Lee, of course I barely know you, but you seem like a reasonable, patient, and "good" person. If by "sentient" you mean a "conscious" and vaguely humanoid type being, then it would really pain me to see you or anyone else do this. If you did do it, then what choice do I have but to indeed consider you as "the greatest mass-murderer of all time"? Why would this be an irrational conclusion? Lee writes: "You should maybe think of what's bugging you this way: what are the odds that if you grant someone freedom they'll immediately conjure up a hell and conjure up millions of sophonts to agonize in it?" The odds? Don't know but I'll take a (conservative) wild guess: maybe one in a Million. But, what is likely to be the world population at the time of Singularity? 7 - 12 Billion? So, maybe 7000 to 12000 people who would jump at this opportunity if it was offered. Consider that in the distant future, a *single* "bad" person could probably run a "Hell" program on Trillions and Trillions of simulated humans. At how many multiples of Earth's population today would these total murders constitute an atrocity? My answer: It would become an atrocity with the first murder. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Lee Corbin wrote: Jeffrey replies to Samantha, but asks questions too delicious for me to pass up! > Samantha: > > "This is a straw man that was not advocated." > I didn't mean to claim that it was advocated, I was making my case. Well, Jeffrey, I have to add that I had the same impression that Samantha did. In my words, you did seem to be arguing against a position that I don't think anyone on this list takes. > Let me ask you a question: > I assume that we agree that a "real" being and a conscious > "simulated" being are both composed of hardware and software > and that both exist at the "real" layer of "reality". Why > should ending the life of a "simulated" being, be viewed > any differently than a "real" being murdering another "real" > being? Here is a case of the same thing, I think. I don't believe that anyone at all on this list would say that there is a difference. > Why should torturing a conscious "simulated" being, be viewed > differently than a "real" being torturing another "real" being? > The crimes are equivalent. Likewise---if you mean "moral crime". > The only "factor" that would supposedly separate the status > of a "real" being from the status of a "simulated" being is > that the "real" one was born first and therefore supposedly > deserves to wield ultimate power over the one that was born > later. It all depends. I do believe that you are ignoring differences that are essential to me, and perhaps to the others. I suspect that the core of the actual difference between our viewpoints can be seen in your next statement: > That's "messed up"; it's legally allowing murder and torture. Bringing "The Law" into it is an *entirely* different can of worms. Surely you don't believe that everything that is bad should be outlawed. Or do you? Almost *all* of our progress and all of the humanitarian improvements in the human condition the last ten thousand years have stemmed from (1) Rule of Law, and (2) Protection of Private Property. It is extremely hazardous, in my opinion, not to treat these two principles with the utmost respect. As the 20th century showed, there is practically no limit to the harm that results from tampering with these principles, tampering that is always accompanied, of course, by the best of intentions. As Samantha said, it may be non-trivial to determine the extent of consciousness of a character in a video game. I suspect that the difficulty can be arbitrarily great; i.e., it could be arbitrarily high up in the complexity classes, beyond NP-complete. So we come to the classic question: Who is to decide? The totalitarian answer is that all power should be in the hands of the people, i.e., in the hands of their elected or non-elected representatives. In other words, the government must decide what actions you take are ethical and moral, and which are not. But the evolved solution, namely (1) Rule of Law, and (2) Protection of Private Property, is far less ambitious. It recoils from the idea that wisdom can be concentrated in a single place (e.g. the Supreme Court) or anywhere in fact, that is not *local*. Thomas Sowell explains all this with fantastic clarity in his books, such as "Decisions and Knowledge". The greatest thinkers of the past, e.g. Von Mieses and Hayek, were perhaps the first to deeply understand, but an "in practice" understanding was also achieved by America's founders, who legislated tremendous *restrictions* on what higher bodies could do to lower ones. Therefore the instinctive recoil of people like Samantha, who are extraordinary leery of having a body intercede in her affairs to determine the complexity of her software and whether or not she's doing the "right" thing with it is well-founded. I do not happen to have such a strong aversion as many like she do; but still, I can fully understand on *principle* that it is best for someone to be able to determine what happens inside their own minds and inside their own property, without an outside regulator poking around. It seems that if I were get a software program that created and destroyed a sentient every microsecond, then after about a minute you would consider me the greatest mass-murderer of all time. Is that true? You should maybe think of what's bugging you this way: what are the odds that if you grant someone freedom they'll immediately conjure up a hell and conjure up millions of sophonts to agonize in it? Lee _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 26 20:08:04 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060526200804.58477.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, Samantha writes: "The Universe is a damn big place. Short of crashing space-time I don't see it happening and of course I don't see any way that could be done." How about triggering a Meta-stable Vacuum Decay Bubble that expands outward at the speed of light? If the Universe turns out to be finite, the Bubble would eventually consume all of it, rendering this Universe lifeless and matter-less as well. I'm no expert on the subject, but my impression from reading is that it could *theoretically* be achieved with a reasonably powerful particle accelerator. Although it appears to be extremely unlikely as an accidental occurrence. Samantha writes: "I don't think much less than super-totalitarianism by a hopefully guaranteed benevolent government or later a SAI more powerful (and kept that way) than anyone and anything else that can come along will get you full safety. Personally I value freedom far more than that level of safety. And I am very cynical about the "guaranteed benevolent" part." I don't have the answers - but these things need to be deeply considered. I personally also value almost ALL freedoms (spare what I've mentioned already) more than I value *my* own personal safety, but I can't speak for the 6 Billion other people on this planet. Here's something that needs to be kept in mind: Systems of Governments are dynamic things (although perhaps slow). Who would have thought in 16th Century England that in a few centuries something like Democracy would exist anywhere in the world? Something lost (or absent) in the present is not *necessarily* lost (or absent) forever. Not that I favor Totalitarianism. If an existential disaster destroys all life (and matter) in this Universe, then of what value is this idea called "Freedom"? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 25, 2006, at 12:17 PM, A B wrote: > Hi Samantha, > > Samantha wrote: > "It is not a contradiction. Freedom includes the possibility to > really screw up." > > Then do you believe that a post-human should have the right to > trigger an existential disaster that ends all life within this > Universe? The Universe is a damn big place. Short of crashing space-time I don't see it happening and of course I don't see any way that could be done. Tell me, if a Being came a long so powerful that it *could* crash space-time what would be able to monitor and control it that was immune to possibly making the same suicidal error? Would you want a super-totalitarianism for all posthumans just on the off chance that one of them might do something really stupid, by accident or on purpose? Do you want super-totalitarianism or as close as we can get to it here and now on earth to prevent some evil genius from say, cooking up gray goo or a super-plague in the privacy of his or her basement? I don't think much less than super-totalitarianism by a hopefully guaranteed benevolent government or later a SAI more powerful (and kept that way) than anyone and anything else that can come along will get you full safety. Personally I value freedom far more than that level of safety. And I am very cynical about the "guaranteed benevolent" part. > > Samantha: > "Then you don't play violent video games? At what level of > complexity of software based characters would you stop playing or > outlaw the games? The actual questions are much more complex than > just saying "no suffering allowed" in created realities. As I have > argued there will be suffering in any reality containing autonomous > beings. We agree on not inflicting suffering as in torture and so on." > > I have indeed played violent video games, however, I was quite > confident that my computer/game was not conscious and suffering. If > I ever thought otherwise, I would immediately cease playing it. Any > software that includes intentionally inflicting pain on conscious > beings should be outlawed. Even if the players volunteered to perhaps experience such negative things? > > Samantha: > "This is a straw man that was not advocated." > > I didn't mean to claim that it was advocated, I was making my case. > Then perhaps it would be better to address the points of actual contention instead going off a bit on things no one really advocates. > > Let me ask you a question: > > I assume that we agree that a "real" being and a conscious > "simulated" being are both composed of hardware and software and > that both exist at the "real" layer of "reality". Why should ending > the life of a "simulated" being, be viewed any differently than a > "real" being murdering another "real" being? Why should torturing a > conscious "simulated" being, be viewed differently than a "real" > being torturing another "real" being? The crimes are equivalent. > The only "factor" that would supposedly separate the status of a > "real" being from the status of a "simulated" being is that the > "real" one was born first and therefore supposedly deserves to > wield ultimate power over the one that was born later. That's > "messed up"; it's legally allowing murder and torture. > At similar levels of complexity murder is murder. However, creating a world where murder and other grievous wrongs may occur among the inhabitants is not murder or necessarily immoral. That is the point I have been attempting to get across. - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri May 26 21:34:14 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 22:34:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <20060526200804.58477.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060526200804.58477.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605261434g7760cf40i9248708c5b41ac25@mail.gmail.com> On 5/26/06, A B wrote: > How about triggering a Meta-stable Vacuum Decay Bubble that expands > outward at the speed of light? If the Universe turns out to be finite, the > Bubble would eventually consume all of it, rendering this Universe lifeless > and matter-less as well. I'm no expert on the subject, but my impression > from reading is that it could *theoretically* be achieved with a reasonably > powerful particle accelerator. Although it appears to be extremely unlikely > as an accidental occurrence. > Actually it's the other way around: Cosmic rays exist with far higher energies than any feasible particle accelerator. Therefore if it were possible to do it deliberately, it would already have happened by accident. If an existential disaster destroys all life (and matter) in this Universe, > then of what value is this idea called "Freedom"? > The difference is that existential disasters in the form of comic book style doomsday machines are fantasy; they exist only in our imagination. Totalitarianism exists in real life. An imaginary danger cannot be weighed against a real one. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Fri May 26 20:54:53 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 13:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <3041.67.188.126.126.1148663225.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20060526205453.33314.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We ought to speak for ourselves. Perhaps for you and I a limit to the good life exists, however some know no limit. There aren't many, but there are a few people who appear to live a life of gold; who are young, goodlooking, smart, rich, free-- everything. It appears their only nagging worry is that they might die in an accident. >The Avantguardian wrote: > It has been my observation that there seems to be a > definite limit to how good life can get. Perhaps it is > a corollary to the law of diminishing returns. "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri May 26 21:56:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605261434g7760cf40i9248708c5b41ac25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060526215637.23897.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Russell, You might be correct. But are you absolutely certain it's impossible? I recall reading a paper by Nick Bostrom et al. that was concerned that it was *possible* (although not easily achieved) even in light of the evidence of its difficulty - from cosmic rays. There are probably other potential existential risks that haven't even yet occurred to any human minds, that a post-human might easily be able to arrange. Eg. Time travel into the very distant past - I agree that it's still speculative at this time. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Russell Wallace wrote: On 5/26/06, A B wrote: How about triggering a Meta-stable Vacuum Decay Bubble that expands outward at the speed of light? If the Universe turns out to be finite, the Bubble would eventually consume all of it, rendering this Universe lifeless and matter-less as well. I'm no expert on the subject, but my impression from reading is that it could *theoretically* be achieved with a reasonably powerful particle accelerator. Although it appears to be extremely unlikely as an accidental occurrence. Actually it's the other way around: Cosmic rays exist with far higher energies than any feasible particle accelerator. Therefore if it were possible to do it deliberately, it would already have happened by accident. If an existential disaster destroys all life (and matter) in this Universe, then of what value is this idea called "Freedom"? The difference is that existential disasters in the form of comic book style doomsday machines are fantasy; they exist only in our imagination. Totalitarianism exists in real life. An imaginary danger cannot be weighed against a real one. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri May 26 22:12:36 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 23:12:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? (An attempted survey) In-Reply-To: <20060526215637.23897.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605261434g7760cf40i9248708c5b41ac25@mail.gmail.com> <20060526215637.23897.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605261512k5c060bf5tec2e950c33640d37@mail.gmail.com> On 5/26/06, A B wrote: > You might be correct. But are you absolutely certain it's impossible? > Are you absolutely certain it's impossible the Earth will be demolished next Thursday to make room for a hyperspace bypass? Should we be trying to check our local council office at Alpha Centauri? Absolute certainty is reserved for pure mathematics. The relevant criterion here isn't "absolutely certain" but "able to distinguish between fantasy and real life". "Someone building a doomsday machine and blowing up the universe" is in the first category. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri May 26 21:27:11 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060526212711.74435.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > Please > let's not label what > we mean by using this old word with tons of tired > baggage. I agree with you Samantha although I think Russell is correct when he says there is a baby in the bathwater, whatever we choose to label it. I would therefore propose calling it a "psychogenic field". This is very specific, has no historical baggage, and has room to grow as it starts to be scientifically characterized. Just as the Higgs field gives rise to the scalar of mass, I suggest that the psychogenic field gives rise to consciousness, will, and volition. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Fri May 26 23:07:34 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 16:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Space Is For Science", article by Derbyshire Message-ID: <20060526230734.97566.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.Olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/SpaceIsForScience.htm "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Fri May 26 23:42:54 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 16:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] the good life Message-ID: <20060526234254.28938.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Avantguardian got me thinking about what constitutes happiness, or shall we say the good life. First come the twin pillars of health & intellect, of course. But a close second is assertiveness, rapid assertiveness. Rather than get angry and raise your voice you have to politely talk back to people who diss you, otherwise they will peg you as a pushover. You've got to be quick on your feet in responding to those who probe your defenses. Don't be vicious, but show your opponent you can't easily be trifled with-- by isolating your opponent's weakness. Someone insulted me earlier this year so I quickly glanced at his pot belly and quietly responded, "well, at least I'm not fat". That was the last time he caused trouble. Thirdly, it helps to be goodlooking, being born that way or by way of cosmetic surgery. No amount of beauty creme, exercise, or supplements is going to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Money comes fourth. Of course it helps to have a lot of dough, but if you got money but aint got health, brains, assertiveness and looks, you are not going to live much of the good life. Swear to you, I'd rather be a healthy goodlooking assertive pauper than an unhealthy, ugly, unassertive billionaire. "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- 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 Sat May 27 02:23:12 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 19:23:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mail bounced again, please fix In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060524094335.0b549df0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200605270257.k4R2vRh8015514@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Hi Keith, I have been away on a business trip. There is nothing wrong with your account, or at least nothing is showing up that indicates a problem. I don't know why this is happening. I am puzzled. Of course puzzled is my normal state when dealing with computers. Is anyone else getting bounces? spike > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Henson [mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:45 AM > To: ExI chat list; spike > Subject: Re: Mail bounced again, please fix > > At 03:07 PM 5/23/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason: ... > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > > > > >It is someone else's turn to apply the boot. > > > >Please do or risk people bailing from too much clutter. > > > >Keith > > From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 27 03:02:05 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 20:02:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <20139.62.65.118.114.1148535492.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200605270308.k4R383Yd029460@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism > > > ilsa wrote: Buddha gave 84 thousand suturas... > > I sometimes consider myself to be a kind of Buddhist satanist (Mayanist?)... Anders Sandberg What if... the Anti-Buddha were to appear? What would she be like? Would she give us anti-koans that only the unenlightened could understand? But that carried no profound meaning? Such as American Idol or the World Wrassling Federation? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 27 03:19:53 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 20:19:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] immune system "training" to prevent autoimmunediseases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200605270319.k4R3Jxj5015797@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of jeffrey davis Subject: [extropy-chat] immune system "training" to prevent autoimmunediseases Spike and other bioreplicators, There's such a thing as too clean.? Let the larvae?play in the dirt, it's good for him/her. Parasitic worms used to fight bowel disease, says MSU researcher http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/2779/content.htm ... Best, Jeff Davis ? ?? Thanks Jeff, I was already there on this one. I suspected for some time before this news started showing up that our squeaky clean ways were causing modern humans to have suppressed immune systems. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 27 02:51:46 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 19:51:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Bounce-test. In-Reply-To: <4474FFDD.2000501@umich.edu> Message-ID: <200605270324.k4R3OtKP007144@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of alexboko > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:53 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Bounce-test. > > Testing to see if this one bounces. > > How is everyone? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From amara at amara.com Sat May 27 10:38:08 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 12:38:08 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single Message-ID: amara >> Most star systems are single. >> >> Charles Lada made this conclusion based on the Milky Way's most common >> stars: red dwarfs (spectral class M), which comprise about 85% of the >> total number of stars... Amara spike >If Lada is correct, it's the best news I have heard since 20 October 2005. >My unsophisticated BOTECs suggest that single stars would be more likely to >have their angular momentum being carried in orbiting planets and dust. >That is far more interesting than having the rocky stuff end up falling into >the star because of the influence of a companion. > >Come to think of it, in any double system, not only is there less space for >stable orbits, the habitability of any possible planets would presumably be >reduced by variation of radiation from the two (or more) stars. I would >think one steady star would be more friendly to evolution of life than two. There are four issues with M-stars' suitability as hosts for habitable planetary systems [1]. The best thing is to not assume that life would emerge similarly to ours. 1) The 'habitable zone' is close in and narrow : 0.2 to 0.5 A.U. where the A.U. is the distance to the M-class main sequence star. 2) Synchronous rotation is likely for a planet in the habitable zone of an M star because of the proximity of the planet to the star and the consequent large tidal distortion. Such conditions _could_ hinder the emergence of life because the longtime dark side would act as a cold trap, but the author of [1] says it is not necessarily a problem since there could be greenhouse gases at the right temperature and pressure preventing an atmospheric collapse. 3) The small proportion of the star's output at visible wavelengths means that any lifeform would need to adapt to light where the maximum of radiant output is at about 1.2 microns. 4) M dwarf variability; they flare more frequently than the Sun, several times a day. The frequency declines on a timescale of the order of 1000 Ma so life might emerge later in the M stars life when its variability becomes less. Also an M star's "starspots" (sunspots) are proportionately much larger than those no the Sun, the largest can cause a decrease of a few tens of percent in luminosity for up to several months. Amara [1] F. W. Jones, _Life in the Solar System and Beyond_, Springer (2004). -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From mfj.eav at gmail.com Sat May 27 12:40:21 2006 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 07:40:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system Message-ID: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> I was at a Canadian Food Inspection Agency Uniformity Training Session in April and the president of CFIA said the same thing. It is now generally accepted that clean is OK up to a point Our HACCP course micro prof grew up in a farming community in India and mentioned that ecoli , etc in cattle watering holes didn't bother the shepherds sharing the water but would have floored you and me. There is a delicate balance between tweaking and overpowering the immune system. -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-290-8734 Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mstriz at gmail.com Sat May 27 16:04:15 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 12:04:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] immune system "training" to prevent autoimmune diseases In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/25/06, jeffrey davis wrote: > > > > Spike and other bioreplicators, > > There's such a thing as too clean. Let the larvae play in the dirt, it's > good for him/her. Children raised in hyper-clean urban environments have a much higher incidence of allergies and other complications than children raised around pets or farm animals, who spend time outdoors. Too sensitive, too many false positives. Everybody has to eat a little dirt as a kid. Martin From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat May 27 17:01:58 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 10:01:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <20060526193634.57165.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey H. writes > Lee: > > "Surely you don't believe that everything that is bad > > should be outlawed. Or do you?" > No, absolutely not! I realize that "bad" doesn't have an > objective definition. Well, THAT'S NOT THE REASON! I suppose where "bad" or "undesirable" did have a clear, objective definition, then you'd be in favor of outlawing everything that was provably harmful. Sigh. This is going to be a long discussion, I am afraid. The problem is not that it's not *objective* what is deleterious, the problem is what truly lies behind making the simple words "making it illegal". Hint: visualize force being used on some people by other people. > I think that anyone should be able to do *anything* with > their own bodies, minds, and non-sentient property - and > when I say *anything*, I mean *ANYTHING* :-) The only > line I draw is murdering or torturing (or intentionally > bringing harm to) other *conscious* beings. The key horror in what you write here is the little phrase in your first paragraph "should be able". It is the *enforcement* lying behind this phrase that is scary. I fear you have an unconscious image of some huge government agency with absolute power that acts to stop what one "shouldn't be able" to do (including ancestor simulations), but does permit what one "should be able" to do. This is the whole very, very problematic part. Avoiding tyranny can only be done by somehow (rather miraculously) placing limits on what this agency from the outside can do. Its power and its knowledge must be kept to an absolute minimum, so long as the survival of everything is not at stake. More about this in a moment. > Lee, I'm a little bit confused by your reference to "Rule of > Law". Could you elaborate for me on exactly what you are > referring to? I can't really determine whether you mean that > standard Laws are "good" or "bad", so I can't yet really > comment on this section of your post. I'll answer this, as well as your other questions, other posts. Right now, I'll put the ball back in your court: if there is an outside agency that can prevent me from running ancestor simulations on my own privately purchased equipment, why wouldn't it have the power to make me conform to whatever it wants? Think Committee of Public Safety. If it is to be able to "decide" whether Samantha's characters in her video games rise to the level of sentient beings, then it must know about almost infinitely many details about her games. The key question is, "Is this really, *absolutely* necessary, or have you created a monster". (Alas I don't think that there is a simple answer to this, but go ahead and take a swing at it anyway.) Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat May 27 17:23:03 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 10:23:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <20060526200804.58477.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey H. writes in reply to Samantha > > Samantha writes: > > "I don't think much less than super-totalitarianism by a hopefully > > guaranteed benevolent government or later a SAI more powerful (and > > kept that way) than anyone and anything else that can come along will > > get you full safety. Personally I value freedom far more than that > > level of safety. And I am very cynical about the "guaranteed > > benevolent" part." > > I don't have the answers - but these things need to be deeply > considered. I personally also value almost ALL freedoms (spare > what I've mentioned already) more than I value *my* own personal > safety, but I can't speak for the 6 Billion other people on this > planet. Yes---it would be surprising if anyone here did not. Of course, the hard questions are just coming up, and it may surprise you that my position may be closer to yours---Jeffrey's---than Samantha's or a number of other people's. > If an existential disaster destroys all life (and matter) in this > Universe, then of what value is this idea called "Freedom"? Yes, exactly. But let's take a more practical everyday threat. At the beginning of the 21st century, human beings find themselves piled by the millions into large cities. It so happens that it is now possible for very small disaffected groups, possibly even single individuals, to destroy large cities. For example, just think of how many people tonight are in an uncontrollable rage because of what their girlfriends or bosses have just done to them. How many of these people are so hysterically angry or crazy that they'd destroy the entire city in which they live were it only easy? There is, unfortunately, at the present time NO ALTERNATIVE but for citizens to keep a close enough watch on each other---or enable their governments to be able to keep such a watch---to ward off total destruction. How many people reading this list would be shocked, just *shocked*, if New York or San Francisco or Washington D.C. were to be destroyed tonight? I wouldn't be at all shocked, because I have been expecting it for years. I think about it every day. Therefore, the absolute *minimum* intrusion into our lives must logically be arranged---either now, when we can do so calmly and rationally---or later, after the first cities have gone up. (I have every hope that the United States government, for one, is secretly engaged exactly in such monitoring, and that that is the reason nothing since 9-11 has happened. The U.S. Government is still under *some* control of law, or so it seems.) But if somehow miraculously we escape destruction tonight---or tomorrow night---then we eventually turn to the questions of what else such a powerful global entity should control. (Jeffrey's answer is: it should also make sure that I don't do anything immoral with my equipment. Well, frankly, I do something that with my equipment many people believe to be immoral as often as I can, these days!) But the bottom line is: unless it's a threat to *everything*--- outside monitoring of what individuals are doing ought to be prevented (by checks and balances, of course). Lee From asa at nada.kth.se Sat May 27 17:23:09 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 19:23:09 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <200605270308.k4R383Yd029460@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20139.62.65.118.114.1148535492.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200605270308.k4R383Yd029460@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1576.171.64.209.67.1148750589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > What if... the Anti-Buddha were to appear? One thing is sure: if you meet the anti-Buddha on the road, don't kill her! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sat May 27 17:35:07 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 10:35:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <20060526193634.57165.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey H. asks > Lee writes: "It seems that if I were run a software program > that created and destroyed a sentient every microsecond, then > after about a minute you would consider me the greatest mass- > murderer of all time. Is that true?" > > If by "sentient" you mean a "conscious" and vaguely humanoid > type being, then it would really pain me to see you or anyone > else do this. If you did do it, then what choice do I have but > to indeed consider you as "the greatest mass-murderer of all > time"? Why would this be an irrational conclusion? First, it would be irrational (or at least not sensible) because where would you draw the line? Suppose I show you a little cube a decimeter on a side, and then I tell you that I've improved the figures above: I am now creating and destroying a sentient every nanosecond, and so am killing about a billion people per second. Is this really something that you---as you watch me calmly hold my little cube in my right hand---should really get horribly excited by? The answer is that remember I am *creating* those people, giving them an entire luxurious nanosecond in which to enjoy their lives, their dreams, and hopes for the purpose (before I destroy them). Shouldn't that go on the "good" side of the ledger? Really, it's all very silly. Clearly no one is actually having any harm come to them. So what if a person briefly passes into and out of existence in a nanosecond? Instead of worrying about the fantastic numbers of "deaths", worry instead about happiness and suffering. (I do agree with you that if I showed you a little cube where I created billions of sentients and were causing them nearly infinite agony, then you might very well wish to knock the cube from my hand and stomp on it. But nothing very bad (or good) is happening under the case being described. So that's how you avoid considering me to be the greatest mass-murderer of all time.) > Lee writes: > > "You should maybe think of what's bugging you this way: what > > are the odds that if you grant someone freedom they'll > > immediately conjure up a hell and conjure up millions of > > sophonts to agonize in it?" > The odds? Don't know but I'll take a (conservative) wild guess: > maybe one in a Million. But, what is likely to be the world > population at the time of Singularity? 7 - 12 Billion? So, > maybe 7000 to 12000 people who would jump at this opportunity > if it was offered. Consider that in the distant future, a > *single* "bad" person could probably run a "Hell" program on > Trillions and Trillions of simulated humans. At how many > multiples of Earth's population today would these total > murders constitute an atrocity? Well, it would still be small potatoes compared to the Trillions and Trillions of simulated humans that I would be running, or that the other 999,999 would be running. If as much good is being done by 999,999 out of every million people as harm is being done by 1, then, again, keep it in perspective. > My answer: It would become an atrocity with the first murder. Yes, but as Joseph Stalin said, "the death of a single Russian soldier is a tragedy. But the deaths of millions are a statistic." Lee From scerir at libero.it Sat May 27 18:21:38 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:21:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel Message-ID: <000301c681ba$6617e520$6cbf1f97@administxl09yj> Lee [sorry for this late response!] wrote: > As for overpopulation [MWI, but backwards in time], > I would simply suppose that the version of me > who saw the photon go up would smoothly merge > into the version of me who saw it go straight; > if we branch into separate versions going forward > in time, wouldn't it be very natural to merge > into a single version going backwards? Imagine a source of photons, a beam of photons going to a beam-splitter, and two detectors (one for each path). According to the 'collapse' interpretation when a detector flashes it means that one photon arrived there (while the other detector remains silent). According to MWI both detectors flash, but each one in its own 'world'. Now, what if we time-reverse this process? According to the 'collapse' interpretation each photon goes from the detector (that flashed), to the beam-splitter, and then to the source. So only 50% of photons arrive at the source (because of the beam-splitter). According to MWI each photon goes from the detector that flashed, to the beam-splitter, and then to the source. But since we have here 2 worlds (merging) ... 2 x 50% = 100% are the photons that arrive at the source. [Unless there is some big mistake]. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat May 27 19:11:31 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 12:11:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: References: <20060526193634.57165.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605271211q4128ca2bwdc68b8db54aeda2a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Really, it's all very silly. Clearly no one is actually having > any harm come to them. So what if a person briefly passes into > and out of existence in a nanosecond? Instead of worrying about > the fantastic numbers of "deaths", worry instead about happiness > and suffering. > > Lee - Some individuals on this list would argue that the creation of sentient life is an intrinsic (extropic) good, and destroying that same life is therefore bad. Others would argue, as you seem to imply and in accord with Pearce's hedonistic imperative, that happiness and suffering are intrinsically good and bad respectively. I would argue against both of these positions and say that none of these are intrinsically good or bad, but can only be evaluated relative to some set of subjective values, which fortunately for society we hold in common to some extent. I expect that you have already thought this through in some depth, but I would not like to leave standing the impression that happiness without meaning (such as a drug-induced state of blissful incapacitation) would be intrinsically good or that suffering is intrinsically bad. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 27 20:29:23 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 13:29:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: <20060526212711.74435.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060526212711.74435.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <87A9C4A6-4226-402A-B0A8-DD3D79570D80@mac.com> That phrase is already in use in many ways, some of them rather woo- woo. It is not a "field giving rise to consciousness..". Consciousness, etc. arise from information processing of the brain. - samantha On May 26, 2006, at 2:27 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> Please >> let's not label what >> we mean by using this old word with tons of tired >> baggage. > > I agree with you Samantha although I think Russell is > correct when he says there is a baby in the bathwater, > whatever we choose to label it. I would therefore > propose calling it a "psychogenic field". This is very > specific, has no historical baggage, and has room to > grow as it starts to be scientifically characterized. > > Just as the Higgs field gives rise to the scalar of > mass, I suggest that the psychogenic field gives rise > to consciousness, will, and volition. > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics > students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my > task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand > it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is > because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM > > __________________________________________________ > 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 sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 27 20:54:20 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 13:54:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> On May 27, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > But let's take a more practical everyday threat. At the beginning > of the 21st century, human beings find themselves piled by the > millions into large cities. It so happens that it is now possible > for very small disaffected groups, possibly even single individuals, > to destroy large cities. For example, just think of how many people > tonight are in an uncontrollable rage because of what their > girlfriends or bosses have just done to them. How many of these > people are so hysterically angry or crazy that they'd destroy the > entire city in which they live were it only easy? > Likely very few to none. It is not that easy and it is even less easy to do so in a way that is not detectable and to some degree able to be successfully countered. Evil and competent geniuses are fortunately a bit thin on the ground. > There is, unfortunately, at the present time NO ALTERNATIVE but for > citizens to keep a close enough watch on each other---or enable > their governments to be able to keep such a watch---to ward off > total destruction. > How close is close? What do you mean "no altenative". How would you watch if you don't no what you are looking for? If you do no then there are other means of more or less just-in-time detection. If, and it is a large if, nut jobs could easily take out cities, then I would still prefer to live under that chance occurrence than the very certain evils of total surveillance. > How many people reading this list would be shocked, just *shocked*, > if New York or San Francisco or Washington D.C. were to be destroyed > tonight? I would because it is not that easy to bring motive and means together short of an appropriately sized nuke. > > I wouldn't be at all shocked, because I have been expecting it for > years. I think about it every day. > > Therefore, the absolute *minimum* intrusion into our lives must > logically be arranged---either now, when we can do so calmly and > rationally---or later, after the first cities have gone up. What does this look like? How is it rational to govern that much of our lives on the worse case scenario? Where are the trade-offs? > > (I have every hope that the United States government, for one, > is secretly engaged exactly in such monitoring, and that that > is the reason nothing since 9-11 has happened. The U.S. > Government is still under *some* control of law, or so it > seems.) I very much believe the government was in collusion regarding 9-11. That is much more believable than the string of ineptitudes and weird physics trotted out in the official story. Whether or not that is to whatever extent so, government is attempting to scare the people for its own purposes including greatly increased surveillance and control and a corresponding decrease in freedom. I will not let fear push me into allowing that. > > But the bottom line is: unless it's a threat to *everything*--- > outside monitoring of what individuals are doing ought to be > prevented (by checks and balances, of course). > A threat to even a city in not a threat to everything. - samantha From mstriz at gmail.com Sat May 27 21:12:39 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 17:12:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/27/06, Morris Johnson wrote: > > I was at a Canadian Food Inspection Agency Uniformity Training Session in > April and the president of CFIA said the same thing. > It is now generally accepted that clean is OK up to a point > Our HACCP course micro prof grew up in a farming community in India and > mentioned that ecoli , etc in cattle watering holes didn't bother the > shepherds sharing the water but would have floored you and me. Indeed. Jared Diamond, among others, suggests that it was trading routes and exposure to many pathogens that gave the Europeans an epidemiological advantage over Native Americans. Martin From pharos at gmail.com Sat May 27 21:21:42 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 22:21:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/27/06, Martin Striz wrote: > Indeed. Jared Diamond, among others, suggests that it was trading > routes and exposure to many pathogens that gave the Europeans an > epidemiological advantage over Native Americans. > That's called vaccination nowadays, isn't it? BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat May 27 21:52:24 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 22:52:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: <20060526193634.57165.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > I fear you have an unconscious image of some huge government > agency with absolute power that acts to stop what one "shouldn't > be able" to do (including ancestor simulations), but does permit > what one "should be able" to do. This is the whole very, very > problematic part. > > Avoiding tyranny can only be done by somehow (rather miraculously) > placing limits on what this agency from the outside can do. Its > power and its knowledge must be kept to an absolute minimum, so > long as the survival of everything is not at stake. More about > this in a moment. > 'Freedom' is getting a bit confused, I think. The only way an individual can have perfect freedom is by avoiding interacting with other people in *any* way. Even non-personal interactions like torturing kittens will bring other people around trying to limit your 'freedom', if your hobby becomes known. As soon as any other people are involved you immediately have to face up to restrictions on your freedom. From, 'No, you can't go out drinking tonight!', through 'Get off my land!' to 'Hand over your wallet or I shoot!'. Civilisation depends on restricting citizens freedoms. The political choice is how much restriction is allowable under the circumstances applying at a particular time and place. When homebrew plagues, homebrew nano factories and such like become easily available, we should expect much greater freedom restrictions. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. BillK From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat May 27 22:07:23 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 15:07:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 27, 2006, at 2:21 PM, BillK wrote: > On 5/27/06, Martin Striz wrote: >> Indeed. Jared Diamond, among others, suggests that it was trading >> routes and exposure to many pathogens that gave the Europeans an >> epidemiological advantage over Native Americans. > > That's called vaccination nowadays, isn't it? Except that in the case of the Europeans the vaccination is passed down genetically, and for diseases for which a proper vaccine may not exist even today. Europeans have a rather dirty genome with a rich set of mutations that confer resistance or immunity to a surprisingly broad range of pathogens, including many that we would not expect Europeans to have been exposed to. The best known example is probably the prevalence of a mutation that confers resistance or outright immunity to HIV strains. On the surface, one would expect such mutations to show up in African populations where exposure to that family of viruses is historically more common. While there is much argument over precisely why this is more evident in European genomes than others, there is supposedly a fair amount of evidence in the genome that suggests pathogen resistance mutations were more important to the European genetic stock than others, hence it accumulated quite a few more. Or at least, this is the current explanation for why the Europeans seemed to give more disease than they got -- they had more built-in resistance to pathogens they had not been directly exposed to. All of which makes great fodder for disease research, since these mutations often suggest methods of attack. J. Andrew Rogers From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 27 23:04:09 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 16:04:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <1576.171.64.209.67.1148750589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200605272338.k4RNc8hx009368@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Mayanism > > > spike wrote: > > What if... the Anti-Buddha were to appear? > > One thing is sure: if you meet the anti-Buddha on the road, don't kill > her! -- Anders Sandberg Here's is how you will know who to not kill. She will be seen shrieking at two young monks and their master, in front of a flagpole: You are all wrong! The wind is BLOWING, the flag is FLAPPING, and your minds are just STANDING there not moving at all! spike From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sat May 27 23:06:26 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 16:06:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Which Cryonics option is optimal? In-Reply-To: References: <20060519181811.39509.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4478DB72.9060905@mydruthers.com> > I intend to sign up for cryopreservation with Alcor in the near > future, but I'm not completely decided on which option I would prefer: > Neuropreservation Option (head only) or full-body (head + body). I'm signed up for whole-body suspension. I like my body; if it can be rejuvenated, or used as a model for a new version, I'd like something similar. I also believe that there's something behind the phrase "muscle memory". I think part of what we know how to do and do well is a cooperative endeavor between body and mind. The vagaries and randomness of development in the womb and during childhood make minor differences to which nerve ends control what abilities. Reconnecting randomly might require a completely new process of learning how to operate the body. Giving me a brand new body, (even one specified by my own DNA) would require a lot more learning than bringing me back with my brain connected to the wiring it has already learned how to operate. A few months ago, Alcor sent its whole-body members a letter saying that the vitrification procedure they have developed is only known to work for neuro-only patients. They believe that it produces much better preservation, and recommended that whole-body members consent to allowing them to determine whether a neuro-only procedure would produce a better preservation at the time of suspension. I agreed, and signed their consent form. Preserving my brain is much more important than simplifying the revival and reconnection to the rest of my body. If it doesn't hurt my chances of revival, I'd prefer to have my body available. If the body can't be saved without endangering the preservation of the brain, the brain comes first. > My inclination right now is to tentatively sign up as a Neuro, but to > hopefully purchase a life insurance policy that will barely cover a > full-body, in case I change my mind later. That seems workable. If price is an obstacle, then certainly, do what you can afford now. If you become convinced at some point that your body is worth saving, change the paperwork with Alcor. If death comes as a surprise, you get whatever option you last paid Alcor for. Chris -- All sensory cells [in all animals] have in common the presence of ... cilia [with a constant] structure. It provides a strong argument for common ancestry. The common ancestor ... was a spirochete bacterium. --Lynn Margulis (http://edge.org/q2005/q05_7.html#margulis) Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 28 01:37:44 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 18:37:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605271211q4128ca2bwdc68b8db54aeda2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef Albright writes (hi Jef!) > On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Really, it's all very silly. Clearly no one is actually having > > any harm come to them. So what if a person briefly passes into > > and out of existence in a nanosecond? Instead of worrying about > > the fantastic numbers of "deaths", worry instead about happiness > > and suffering. > Some individuals on this list would argue that the creation of > sentient life is an intrinsic (extropic) good, and destroying > that same life is therefore bad. Others would argue, as you > seem to imply and in accord with Pearce's hedonistic imperative, > that happiness and suffering are intrinsically good and bad > respectively. Actually, I agree totally with *both* of these propositions. As Anders say, the creation of life (say, as opposed to vacuum) is good. And as Pearce writes, happiness is intrinsically good www.hedweb.com. > I would argue against both of these positions > and say that none of these are intrinsically good or > bad, but can only be evaluated relative to some set > of subjective values, Of course! It's quite literally inconceivable to me that there are global Bad and Good. To be speaking exactly precisely, I approve of life (as opposed to vacuum), approve of happiness. > which fortunately for society we hold in common to some extent. Yes, though, unfortunately not everyone holds these values, yet! > I expect that you have already thought this through in some > depth, but I would not like to leave standing the impression > that happiness without meaning (such as a drug-induced state > of blissful incapacitation) would be intrinsically good or > that suffering is intrinsically bad. Au contraire! As opposed to the default (say vacuum) I heartily approve of any kind of benefit, including drug induced states of blissful incapacitation. I even approve of those states relative to states of unrelieved misery. And, as always "intrinsically good" means merely "I approve". Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 28 01:43:46 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 18:43:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of MWI and Time Travel In-Reply-To: <000301c681ba$6617e520$6cbf1f97@administxl09yj> Message-ID: Serafino writes > Lee wrote: > > As for overpopulation [MWI, but backwards in time], > > I would simply suppose that the version of me > > who saw the photon go up would smoothly merge > > into the version of me who saw it go straight; > > if we branch into separate versions going forward > > in time, wouldn't it be very natural to merge > > into a single version going backwards? > > Imagine a source of photons, a beam of photons going to > a beam-splitter, and two detectors (one for each path). Okay. > According to the 'collapse' interpretation when a > detector flashes it means that one photon arrived there > (while the other detector remains silent). Yes, in the ugly and bizarre Copenhagen interpretation, the universe somehow manages to forget all about one possibility, entirely! > According to MWI both detectors flash, but each one > in its own 'world'. > Now, what if we time-reverse this process? > According to the 'collapse' interpretation each photon > goes from the detector (that flashed), to the beam-splitter, > and then to the source. So only 50% of photons arrive > at the source (because of the beam-splitter). I thought we were talking about a single photon. Now, if we are talking about single photons, then the photon would just gently time-reverse its course, and go through the beam splitter backwards, and hence to the photon source. Even in the ugly and amnesiac Copenhagen version, I don't see a real problem---do you? > According to MWI each photon goes from the detector > that flashed, to the beam-splitter, and then to the source. > But since we have here 2 worlds (merging) ... 2 x 50% = 100% > are the photons that arrive at the source. [Unless there is > some big mistake]. Yes. Seems quite tidy. Now I admit that I don't really think very well about time-reversed situations. All I do is play a mental recording of the forward motion backwards. So I can not really think of any problem that would appear in any interpretation. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 28 01:49:48 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 18:49:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha writes > > There is, unfortunately, at the present time NO ALTERNATIVE but for > > citizens to keep a close enough watch on each other---or enable > > their governments to be able to keep such a watch---to ward off > > total destruction. > > How close is close? Just---pray for us---the very minimum it takes to keep WMD out of the hands of small groups and individuals. > What do you mean "no alternative". No alternative to millions of deaths. > How would you watch if you don't know what you are looking for? > If you do know then there are other means of more or less just- > in-time detection. That sounds just fine to me. > If, and it is a large if, nut jobs could easily take out cities, then > I would still prefer to live under that chance occurrence than the > very certain evils of total surveillance. Your feelings will change the day that several million people die in San Francisco or New York. > > Therefore, the absolute *minimum* intrusion into our lives must > > logically be arranged---either now, when we can do so calmly and > > rationally---or later, after the first cities have gone up. > > What does this look like? How is it rational to govern that much of > our lives on the worse case scenario? Where are the trade-offs? There is no simple answer that I know of. I can only hope that Western nations have elected people who aren't so clueless that they see no danger, or aren't so overbearing that they use the real dangers to persecute the innocent. Alas, it will be a fine balance, and the only thing for sure is that we will take---and are taking---risks. > > But the bottom line is: unless it's a threat to *everything*--- > > outside monitoring of what individuals are doing ought to be > > prevented (by checks and balances, of course). > > A threat to even a city in not a threat to everything. Your life will be affected in tremendous ways by the first nuclear attack upon the nation in which you live. Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 28 05:32:50 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 22:32:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: BillK writes > On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > I fear you [Jeffrey H.] have an unconscious image of some huge government > > agency with absolute power that acts to stop what one "shouldn't > > be able" to do (including ancestor simulations), but does permit > > what one "should be able" to do. This is the whole very, very > > problematic part. > > > > Avoiding tyranny can only be done by somehow (rather miraculously) > > placing limits on what this agency from the outside can do. Its > > power and its knowledge must be kept to an absolute minimum, so > > long as the survival of everything is not at stake. > > 'Freedom' is getting a bit confused, I think. > > The only way an individual can have perfect freedom is by avoiding > interacting with other people in *any* way. Yes. Okay, so much for "perfect freedom" then. > As soon as any other people are involved you immediately have to face > up to restrictions on your freedom. Yes. Well, as the old phrase has it, my freedom ends where your nose begins. > Civilisation depends on restricting citizens' freedoms. Yes, but again, only in the most abstract and theoretical sense! I can't think of any restrictions that you and I should favor on person A's freedoms that don't enhance the freedoms of person B. Why shouldn't freedom be maximized? Let's be clear: me having the "freedom" to make a bomb and blow up a city is absurd: I cannot have the freedom to deny many others their liberties (not to say lives), if we really do wish, in a realistic way, to maximize freedom. > When homebrew plagues, homebrew nano factories and such like become > easily available, we should expect much greater freedom restrictions. Of course. Especially since the "freedom" to kill a lot of other people is absurd. Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 28 07:52:04 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 00:52:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39147E32-D539-4205-BD85-7A395DDBED4D@mac.com> On May 27, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > >>> There is, unfortunately, at the present time NO ALTERNATIVE but for >>> citizens to keep a close enough watch on each other---or enable >>> their governments to be able to keep such a watch---to ward off >>> total destruction. >> >> How close is close? > > Just---pray for us---the very minimum it takes to keep WMD out of > the hands of small groups and individuals. > That minimum is very intense surveillance of everyone. Not good. >> What do you mean "no alternative". > > No alternative to millions of deaths. Why live your live or advocate running others lives based on such fears? > >> How would you watch if you don't know what you are looking for? >> If you do know then there are other means of more or less just- >> in-time detection. > > That sounds just fine to me. But you can't know what you are looking for completely, can you? > >> If, and it is a large if, nut jobs could easily take out cities, then >> I would still prefer to live under that chance occurrence than the >> very certain evils of total surveillance. > > Your feelings will change the day that several million people die > in San Francisco or New York. > No, they will not. The nuts have one if we orient all of life around finding and stopping them. >>> Therefore, the absolute *minimum* intrusion into our lives must >>> logically be arranged---either now, when we can do so calmly and >>> rationally---or later, after the first cities have gone up. >> >> What does this look like? How is it rational to govern that much of >> our lives on the worse case scenario? Where are the trade-offs? > > There is no simple answer that I know of. I can only hope that > Western nations have elected people who aren't so clueless that > they see no danger, or aren't so overbearing that they use the > real dangers to persecute the innocent. You know and I know that evil (and/or clue free) SOBs are in charge. Now what? > Alas, it will be a fine > balance, and the only thing for sure is that we will take---and > are taking---risks. I will take my chances with the terrorists over total government lock down. > >>> But the bottom line is: unless it's a threat to *everything*--- >>> outside monitoring of what individuals are doing ought to be >>> prevented (by checks and balances, of course). >> >> A threat to even a city in not a threat to everything. > > Your life will be affected in tremendous ways by the first nuclear > attack upon the nation in which you live. > My life is already tremendously affected by the mass paranoia and uses thereof that have been going on for the last five years. I don't need any more of this. - samantha From pharos at gmail.com Sun May 28 10:44:08 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 11:44:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/27/06, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On May 27, 2006, at 2:21 PM, BillK wrote: > > On 5/27/06, Martin Striz wrote: > >> Indeed. Jared Diamond, among others, suggests that it was trading > >> routes and exposure to many pathogens that gave the Europeans an > >> epidemiological advantage over Native Americans. > > > > That's called vaccination nowadays, isn't it? > > > Except that in the case of the Europeans the vaccination is passed > down genetically, and for diseases for which a proper vaccine may not > exist even today. Europeans have a rather dirty genome with a rich > set of mutations that confer resistance or immunity to a surprisingly > broad range of pathogens, including many that we would not expect > Europeans to have been exposed to. The best known example is > probably the prevalence of a mutation that confers resistance or > outright immunity to HIV strains. On the surface, one would expect > such mutations to show up in African populations where exposure to > that family of viruses is historically more common. > > While there is much argument over precisely why this is more evident > in European genomes than others, there is supposedly a fair amount of > evidence in the genome that suggests pathogen resistance mutations > were more important to the European genetic stock than others, hence > it accumulated quite a few more. Or at least, this is the current > explanation for why the Europeans seemed to give more disease than > they got -- they had more built-in resistance to pathogens they had > not been directly exposed to. All of which makes great fodder for > disease research, since these mutations often suggest methods of attack. > Sorry, incorrect. The native Americans were mostly killed by smallpox. Though chicken pox and measles also killed many due to malnutrition and poor healthcare. Up to 80% died, by some estimates. Europeans had little genetic protection against these diseases, as shown by the many epidemics in Europe. They did have antibodies protection, through childhood exposure, cow pox exposure and primitive vaccination-type treatments as smallpox typically killed around 20-40% of those infected in Europe. Edward Jenner developed a smallpox vaccine by using cowpox fluid (hence the name vaccination, from the Latin vacca, cow); his first vaccination occurred on May 14, 1796. I agree that there is evidence for some level of genetic protection against disease in some populations, but that didn't apply in the case of killing off the native Americans. Even today, only about 10% of the European population have the genetic mutation that gives some resistance to HIV, that you mentioned. This mutation is now being credited to the smallpox epidemics that mostly killed children in Europe. The smallpox epidemics that selected for the mutation that helps to resist smallpox also gives some resistance to HIV. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun May 28 11:54:54 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 12:54:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> On 5/28/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Just---pray for us---the very minimum it takes to keep WMD out of > the hands of small groups and individuals. Creating a nuclear bomb - the kind of WMD that matters - is far beyond the capability of a small group or an individual. It takes a big enough group that they have something to lose when the target nation retaliates. (We've already seen non-nuclear WMDs in action: the Tokyo subway gas attack, the American anthrax letters. Both killed far fewer people than a well-placed conventional bomb.) Your feelings will change the day that several million people die > in San Francisco or New York. Anyone can string together words like "the day that several million people die"; that doesn't make it correspond to reality. The type of nuclear attack that could reasonably be carried out by a major terrorist organization or minor rogue state whose dictator has mislaid his marbles, would be a 10-20 kiloton device exploded at sea level in a city harbor. Note the following: 1) Surveillance by the target government on its own people wouldn't be particularly helpful in stopping this sort of attack in the first place; it would be carried out by foreigners, with no particular need to use on-site resources. (Surveillance of foreign countries might, yes, but that's a different matter.) 2) Granted that New York and San Francisco are larger cities, the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from such bombs in optimally placed airbursts against Japanese cities highly vulnerable to firestorm attacks with inadequate rescue and medical resources and nobody knowing about the fallout danger was around 100,000 each; this is a far more plausible estimate of the death toll than "several million". 3) America alone loses many times that number of lives every year already. The cold truth is that if such an attack were to occur _every single year_, let alone as a one-off, stopping them still wouldn't be the most important thing that could be done in terms of saving lives. This is one area where you should _not_ listen to your heart, because it will give you completely wrong answers. We are programmed to be ultra-sensitive to death by murder and war because in our ancestral environment these were the main killers that we could do anything about. The cold truth is that nuclear bombs today are a trivial danger against the way people really die: dribbling in a hospital bed while their bodies wear out their final hours. _That_ is the death we need to focus on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 28 12:15:27 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 14:15:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 12:54:54PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Creating a nuclear bomb - the kind of WMD that matters - is far beyond the > capability of a small group or an individual. It takes a big enough group I disagree. If you have the fissibles, it's straightforward. > that they have something to lose when the target nation retaliates. You can't retaliate against a group which has no fixed location, or a group that doesn't mind dying. > (We've already seen non-nuclear WMDs in action: the Tokyo subway gas attack, > the American anthrax letters. Both killed far fewer people than a > well-placed conventional bomb.) Excuse me, you have not seen anything in action yet. If you want to kill lots of people, you have to do it right. Not just cargo cult/going through the motions. A little gravity-drained dilute sarin in acetonitril is an annoyance, nothing more. > The type of nuclear attack that could reasonably be carried out by a major > terrorist organization or minor rogue state whose dictator has mislaid his > marbles, would be a 10-20 kiloton device exploded at sea level in a city > harbor. Note the following: You're still trapped in the cargo cult thinking. If you want to kill many people, you would put the weapon where it hurts. 20 kT Manhattan penthouse/skyscraper roof, on a tower would be more realistic. > 2) Granted that New York and San Francisco are larger cities, the death toll > in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from such bombs in optimally placed airbursts > against Japanese cities highly vulnerable to firestorm attacks with > inadequate rescue and medical resources and nobody knowing about the fallout > danger was around 100,000 each; this is a far more plausible estimate of the > death toll than "several million". Skyscrapers are glass, and Manhattan is effectively a 3d stacking of people during business hours. Nevermind millions, but destroying a major business center would hurt. > 3) America alone loses many times that number of lives every year already. > The cold truth is that if such an attack were to occur _every single year_, > let alone as a one-off, stopping them still wouldn't be the most important > thing that could be done in terms of saving lives. Terrorism works by not killing people, but creating disruptions. A single nuclear blast in a major city would cause widespread fear of inner cities. *That* would hurt. > This is one area where you should _not_ listen to your heart, because it > will give you completely wrong answers. We are programmed to be > ultra-sensitive to death by murder and war because in our ancestral > environment these were the main killers that we could do anything about. The > cold truth is that nuclear bombs today are a trivial danger against the way > people really die: dribbling in a hospital bed while their bodies wear out > their final hours. _That_ is the death we need to focus on. Agreed, but people are not rational. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun May 28 12:30:56 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 13:30:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> On 5/28/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I disagree. If you have the fissibles, it's straightforward. Straightforward for a team of skilled engineers with appropriate tools and the knowledge of how to use them, not for a lone nutcase or small band thereof. Get it slightly wrong and all you get when you press the button is a fizzle. But getting hold of the fissionables is the hard part. You can't retaliate against a group which has no fixed location, > or a group that doesn't mind dying. Terrorist groups have homelands and host countries, whose people do tend to mind dying. Everyone's seen what happened to the Taliban after 9/11. Excuse me, you have not seen anything in action yet. If you > want to kill lots of people, you have to do it right. I'm talking about what's been happening in reality, not what could theoretically happen if people did things just right. If everyone did things right, the world would be a different place than it is. You're still trapped in the cargo cult thinking. Cults and other bands of loonies are the subject under discussion. If you want to kill > many people, you would put the weapon where it hurts. 20 kT Manhattan > penthouse/skyscraper roof, on a tower would be more realistic. Increasing the chance of being detected and stopped in the process. Skyscrapers are glass, and Manhattan is effectively a 3d stacking > of people during business hours. Nevermind millions, but destroying > a major business center would hurt. It would hurt, certainly, but as you say, not to the tune of a death toll in millions. Terrorism works by not killing people, but creating disruptions. > A single nuclear blast in a major city would cause widespread > fear of inner cities. *That* would hurt. Undoubtedly. But let's not encourage disruption out of fear of an attack that hasn't even happened. Agreed, but people are not rational. Let's try to set a better example, then. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 28 14:05:22 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 07:05:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <39147E32-D539-4205-BD85-7A395DDBED4D@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha writes > > Just---pray for us---the very minimum it takes to keep WMD out of > > the hands of small groups and individuals. > > That minimum is very intense surveillance of everyone. Not good. Sigh, yes, not good. I wish that we were living in space, thousands of miles from people we don't know and trust. But it just doesn't happen to be so at this time. > >> What do you mean "no alternative". > > > > No alternative to millions of deaths. > > Why live your live or advocate running others lives based on such fears? Because millions of deaths is something to avoid? > >> How would you watch if you don't know what you are looking for? > >> If you do know then there are other means of more or less just- > >> in-time detection. > > > > That sounds just fine to me. > > But you can't know what you are looking for completely, can you? At the present time, yes. You look for bio-tech capability, nerve gas preparation facilities, and plutonium or highly-enriched uranium. > I will take my chances with the terrorists over total government lock > down. Your feelings and intuitions are just human, and will be driven by your own prudence. Just how much damage---feelings aside--- have the police or the government done to you lately? How much damage have terrorists? After a few cities have gone up, your feelings will change, as I say. If it were to be, heaven forbid, dozens and dozens of cities, then you will change your tune. But you swear that you will not. Even if San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Fresno, Long Beach, Santa Clara, and several other cities have been destroyed---even then you'll cling to ancient loyalties, and fear government in the abstract much more than the possibility that San Jose could be next? Perhaps. One thing is certain: people would rather die than admit that they could be wrong. > > Your life will be affected in tremendous ways by the first nuclear > > attack upon the nation in which you live. > > My life is already tremendously affected by the mass paranoia and > uses thereof that have been going on for the last five years. I > don't need any more of this. Really? Affected in what way---and I don't mean about memes that scare you about what the government *could* do. I mean daily effects that you can see and hear with your own senses sans the media. Right now I am equally fearful of the police, robbers/thieves, the government, and nuclear/biological/chemical terrorists. Which is about the best I can hope for at the present time. I'm really not complaining. Lee From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 28 14:16:36 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 16:16:36 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 01:30:56PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > >I disagree. If you have the fissibles, it's straightforward. > > Straightforward for a team of skilled engineers with appropriate tools and > the knowledge of how to use them, not for a lone nutcase or small band Do you think 9/11 was a lone nutcase, or a small band thereof? That little thing they did certainly got them some attention. Do you think educated people can't be terrorists? > thereof. Get it slightly wrong and all you get when you press the button is > a fizzle. But getting hold of the fissionables is the hard part. I believe I already said that. Hard, but not impossible. The critical part would be to obtain low-burn, cold ash. That would require some long-term planning, and some wealth. Long-term, proliferation is playing against us here. > Terrorist groups have homelands and host countries, whose people do tend to > mind dying. Everyone's seen what happened to the Taliban after 9/11. Are there more Islamic extremists now than before 9/11, yes or no? Deterrence doesn't work. > I'm talking about what's been happening in reality, not what could > theoretically happen if people did things just right. If everyone did things > right, the world would be a different place than it is. Amateurs are not a threat. They are merely annoying. > If you want to kill > >many people, you would put the weapon where it hurts. 20 kT Manhattan > >penthouse/skyscraper roof, on a tower would be more realistic. > > Increasing the chance of being detected and stopped in the process. Now that's just wishful thinking, and you know it. It is impossible to nuke-proof an entire city. And I frankly wouldn't care to live in a totalitarian state which would go for that target. > It would hurt, certainly, but as you say, not to the tune of a death toll in > millions. Millions of people die of old age. This is not associated with a highly spectacular destruction of high-profile businesses, and area contamination. Actually, there is 1.5 MPeople in Manhattan during daytime, on 57 km^2 (4x20 km). There might be more suitable potential targets. > Undoubtedly. But let's not encourage disruption out of fear of an attack > that hasn't even happened. I disagree. Some human configurations are more vulnerable than others. Telepresence would solve many potential problems, such as e.g. removing need for human concentration, disrupting infection networks, etc. Both paralyzing fear and head-in-the-sand are not rational strategies. Identifying potentially vulnerable configurations and working to resolve such hot spots is constructive. > > Agreed, but people are not rational. > > Let's try to set a better example, then. Irrational people don't care about examples. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun May 28 14:28:53 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 15:28:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605280728qdae2cdqb5056861494c7fbb@mail.gmail.com> On 5/28/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Millions of people die of old age. This is not associated with a highly > spectacular destruction of high-profile businesses, and area > contamination. > No. Just with death. Not the photogenic cataclysms of science fiction, but the dreary, banal death of real life. Fretting about imaginary catastrophes produces good feelings. Focusing (directly or indirectly) on the things that are killing people in real life has a chance of actually producing good results. If we on this list are going to pride ourselves on being more rational than the average for the population, let's back that up by taking the second option. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 28 14:40:44 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 16:40:44 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605280728qdae2cdqb5056861494c7fbb@mail.gmail.com> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280728qdae2cdqb5056861494c7fbb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060528144044.GR26713@leitl.org> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 03:28:53PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > No. Just with death. Not the photogenic cataclysms of science fiction, but > the dreary, banal death of real life. We need to be able to maintain a smoothly-running civilization in order to afford R&D which will directly fuel into increasing destructive capacities of small groups. I do not think we're doing a very good job of maintaining even overall R&D. > Fretting about imaginary catastrophes produces good feelings. Focusing > (directly or indirectly) on the things that are killing people in real life > has a chance of actually producing good results. If we on this list are > going to pride ourselves on being more rational than the average for the > population, let's back that up by taking the second option. Advanced medicine, while being expensive, cannot prevent people from dying of old age. Our only other option is cryonics. Long-term, gerontology, and longer-term nanotechnology, as well as AI. I do not see how we on this list can influence resource allocation on any of the above. For me personally, I decided to spend some of my time organizing local cryonics. The last time we tried this (a decade ago) it fizzled. We might have a better chance this time. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun May 28 14:49:46 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 15:49:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <20060528144044.GR26713@leitl.org> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280728qdae2cdqb5056861494c7fbb@mail.gmail.com> <20060528144044.GR26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605280749xab6429bpdd4b5381f921db16@mail.gmail.com> On 5/28/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I do not think we're doing a very good job of maintaining even > overall R&D. It's certainly true that we could be doing better. Advanced medicine, while being expensive, cannot prevent people from > dying of old age. Our only other option is cryonics. Long-term, > gerontology, and longer-term nanotechnology, as well as AI. Yes, I think biotech, nanotech and AI are the areas with the highest payoff. I do not see how we on this list can influence resource allocation > on any of the above. We can choose, at least, how we individually will spend our own time and energy. (For my own modest contribution, I'm trying to figure out how to design AI.) For me personally, I decided to spend some of > my time organizing local cryonics. The last time we tried this (a > decade ago) it fizzled. We might have a better chance this time. > Good idea, I hope it works this time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun May 28 15:20:33 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 08:20:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10605271211q4128ca2bwdc68b8db54aeda2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605280820o230c0986ie0cc79b394639680@mail.gmail.com> On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Jef Albright writes (hi Jef!) > > > On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Really, it's all very silly. Clearly no one is actually having > > > any harm come to them. So what if a person briefly passes into > > > and out of existence in a nanosecond? Instead of worrying about > > > the fantastic numbers of "deaths", worry instead about happiness > > > and suffering. > > > Some individuals on this list would argue that the creation of > > sentient life is an intrinsic (extropic) good, and destroying > > that same life is therefore bad. Others would argue, as you > > seem to imply and in accord with Pearce's hedonistic imperative, > > that happiness and suffering are intrinsically good and bad > > respectively. > > Actually, I agree totally with *both* of these propositions. As > Anders say, the creation of life (say, as opposed to vacuum) is > good. And as Pearce writes, happiness is intrinsically good > www.hedweb.com. (1) The creation of any particular instance of life is not necessarily good. Supporting examples include diseases and pathological structures at the individual and social levels. With regard to life as a process we can agree that the process tends to lead to good by virtue (!) of natural selection and the resultant growth of that which tends to work over increasing scope. From our position within that process, we cannot but see this as tending toward the good. For those who simplify this to "life is extropic, therefore good", I agree, but again this is referring to the process and not any particular instance. In your example of a person who briefly passes into and out of existence in a nanosecond, such existence carries no moral weight whatsoever because there are no consequences whatsoever. The implication that it is a person and therefore could be ourself, is irrelevant. As discussed extensively on this list and elsewhere, if we were in fact living in a simulated universe and it were being switched on or off, at whatever duty-cycle, there would be no way to know and no reason to care -- from within the system. So on to happiness and suffering. (2) Happiness functions as an indicator of progress toward goals, and for that reason it tends to correspond with what is considered good (what is seen to work over increasing scope.) But to confuse an indicator of progress with progress itself is like confusing a map with the territory and the eventual results are not good (they don't work very well.) Similarly, we can subvert the process and create a feeling of happiness directly by technical means, but this too is not an an intrinsic good, only a subjective one of limited context, and obviously not something that promotes growth of what works over increasing scope. When the Buddha said that all life is suffering, he was stating a more fundamental truth, that all life involves gradients that must be continuously overcome. It would be a misunderstanding to think one could eliminate the gradients of life, but it is a great understanding to acknowledge and accept this and thus eliminate subjective suffering from the internal model while continuing to function in the world. I think we can agree that being blissfully incapacitated is not morally superior to striving (and therefore tolerating some suffering) to promote ones values. > I expect that you have already thought this through in some > > depth, but I would not like to leave standing the impression > > that happiness without meaning (such as a drug-induced state > > of blissful incapacitation) would be intrinsically good or > > that suffering is intrinsically bad. > > Au contraire! As opposed to the default (say vacuum) I heartily > approve of any kind of benefit, including drug induced states of > blissful incapacitation. I even approve of those states relative > to states of unrelieved misery. And, as always "intrinsically > good" means merely "I approve". "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--nether more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master--that's all." - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 28 15:29:10 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 08:29:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4479C1C6.4010801@pobox.com> On September 11th, shortly after I turned on my computer in the morning, I had three thoughts. First: "I'm glad it wasn't nuclear." Second: "So it finally did happen. I guess I really am living in the Future." Third: "The overreaction to this event will be a hundred times worse than the damage caused by the actual terrorist act." The last thought was understated by, oh, three orders of magnitude or so. I would estimate that the overreaction to 9/11 was around five orders of magnitude worse than 9/11. On the day a small fission explosion goes off in a major American city and kills 50,000 people, the world will go mad. Nearly all of the damage will come from that madness, not the fission explosion. But when the second American city gets nuked, people will start to get used to it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun May 28 18:09:46 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 11:09:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> On May 28, 2006, at 3:44 AM, BillK wrote: > Sorry, incorrect. The native Americans were mostly killed by > smallpox. Though chicken pox and measles also killed many due to > malnutrition and poor healthcare. Up to 80% died, by some estimates. > > Europeans had little genetic protection against these diseases, as > shown by the many epidemics in Europe. They did have antibodies > protection, through childhood exposure, cow pox exposure and primitive > vaccination-type treatments as smallpox typically killed around 20-40% > of those infected in Europe. You are not disagreeing with me. My point was that if you put two populations together in a Metal Cage Death Match with pathogens being the weapon of choice, a population that even has a 10% resistance to a given pathogen has an enormous advantage. In the specific case of smallpox, virus exposure figures very prominently but it was probably not the only reason. I am thinking of population level interaction, not individual. Yes, many Europeans died from diseases, but that served to concentrate disease resistance genes in the population. In practice, many of these mutations generated resistance to diseases to which the Europeans had never been exposed e.g. HIV. There is not insignificant evidence of regular catastrophic epidemics due to a variety of hemorrhagic fevers and other nasty diseases in Europe. Again, the more interesting question to me is why the Europeans appear to have collected so many disease resistance mutations relative to other genomes, and from what I have read and heard from researchers there is a noticeable difference in the number of resistance markers in European populations versus others. This may be a case of insufficient information about the genome at large, but I would not expect disease resistance to be evenly distributed either so it makes a reasonable starting point for discussion. A popular theory is that the demographic and cultural specifics of Europe encouraged frequent die-offs from disease, but it is not clear that this was a unique characteristic of Europe in the last couple thousand years. The Europeans managed to span the globe and were exposed to a variety of diseases, yet I cannot think of a disease they were exposed to that they were particularly susceptible to compared to other populations. There are a number of infectious diseases that have significant asymmetries in their effect on some ethnic groups, but the Europeans seemed to fare pretty well despite a rich set of exposures to diseases outside their experience. The populations they interacted with often did far worse when exposed to European diseases. (Parts of this may also have had something to do with differences in medical protocol between populations.) J. Andrew Rogers From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun May 28 17:08:16 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 13:08:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <4479C1C6.4010801@pobox.com> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> <4479C1C6.4010801@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060528123521.0898c670@unreasonable.com> Eliezer wrote: >The last thought was understated by, oh, three orders of magnitude or >so. I would estimate that the overreaction to 9/11 was around five >orders of magnitude worse than 9/11. The problem with 9/11 wasn't overreaction but misreaction. I believe I've vented on this before; stop me if you've heard this. There was a golden moment when Bush could have gotten anything he'd asked for from Congress, the American people, and much of the world. Part of the right answer is making the system more distributed and fault-tolerant. The Powers-That-Be have this inane presumption that something bad will happen in one place, maybe two, and we can galvanize the country's resources around it/them. Plenty of plausible attack, disease, or disaster scenarios would affect much, most, or all of the country, or necessitate isolating a section (as in disease quarantine). Every region, state, city, town, business, hospital, family, and individual should be prepared with skills and materiel suitable for a wide range of possibilities. Has your mayor identified every building that can be used as an emergency shelter? Did your employer inventory employee first-aid skills? Do you have agreed-upon signals to indicate to a loved-one that they should come home NOW? Is there a blanket in your car and a Swiss Army knife in your pocket? America's traditional focus on self-reliance and on community self-help has dissipated, but Bush could have revived and marshalled it. Given his ostensible political and personal philosophies and the practical political benefits, I'm not sure why he didn't. Peggy Noonan could have written a great Thousand Points of Light speech, and the American people would have rolled up their sleeves and pitched in. (I gather that many of the domestic measures taken during WW II, at least in the US, were undertaken not for any direct war benefit but for the psychological effect of girding and wedding the populace to the struggle.) -- David. From lcorbin at tsoft.com Sun May 28 19:15:38 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 12:15:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605280820o230c0986ie0cc79b394639680@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef writes > As discussed extensively on this list and elsewhere, if we > were living in a simulated universe and it were being > switched on or off, at whatever duty-cycle, there would be... > no reason to care -- from within the system. > So on to happiness and suffering. > (2) Happiness functions as an indicator of progress toward > goals, Only in evolutionarily derived natural circumstances. Drugs can short-circuit this, which is often very, very good. > and for that reason it tends to correspond with what is > considered good (what is seen to work over increasing scope.) > But to confuse an indicator of progress with progress itself > is like confusing a map with the territory and the eventual > results are not good (they don't work very well.) That's not necessarily true at all. As Pearce explains fully, happiness even when artificially induced can often enhance progress. Many times we're made unhappy (at the instigation of our genes) because things aren't going well, and they [the genes] figuratively figure that strength should be saved for sunnier days. But soon sunniness can come from a bottle, and artificial enthusiasm and joy will bring about greater individual and collective progress and achievement. > Similarly, we can subvert the process and create a feeling > of happiness directly by technical means, but this too is > not an intrinsic good, I disagree. All other things being equal, I approve of happiness, artificially induced or otherwise. In your language, then, I consider the happiness itself as an intrinsic good. (Don't you consider pain in and of itself an intrinsic evil?) > When the Buddha said that all life is suffering, > he was stating a more fundamental truth, This has to be the greatest one line of bullshit I've ever seen you endorse! The exact degree that all life involves suffering is the degree to which our technology hasn't yet fixed something quite obvious. > that all life involves gradients that must be continuously > overcome. (yes I know, I didn't let you finish the sentence. But still!) > It would be a misunderstanding to think one could eliminate > the gradients of life, but it is a great understanding to > acknowledge and accept this and thus eliminate subjective > suffering from the internal model while continuing to > function in the world. Well yes! But you don't need to beat around the bush. > I think we can agree that being blissfully incapacitated is > not morally superior to striving I don't see them as at all connected, i.e., I don't see a necessary trade-off between them at all > (and therefore tolerating some suffering) to promote ones values. at the present time :-) Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 28 19:16:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 12:16:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8159A468-4450-4322-A4B1-A8B7B3DC6AC9@mac.com> On May 28, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> >> Why live your live or advocate running others lives based on such >> fears? > > Because millions of deaths is something to avoid? If live becomes largely focused only about avoiding certain forms of death is it still worth living? If every move, every activity, maybe every thought has to be scrutinized by others to "fight terrorism" would that be worth living? Would our works to radically change what is possible in reality be considered "terrorism"? > >>>> How would you watch if you don't know what you are looking for? >>>> If you do know then there are other means of more or less just- >>>> in-time detection. >>> >>> That sounds just fine to me. >> >> But you can't know what you are looking for completely, can you? > > At the present time, yes. You look for bio-tech capability, nerve > gas preparation facilities, and plutonium or highly-enriched uranium. Bio-tech capability is far too broad. Also what about things like ricin? Not that difficult to whip up I hear. Possible threats are endless. You cannot stop all such even with a total police state. > >> I will take my chances with the terrorists over total government lock >> down. > > Your feelings and intuitions are just human, and will be driven > by your own prudence. Just how much damage---feelings aside--- > have the police or the government done to you lately? How much > damage have terrorists? That would be a very long direct and indirect list. The last time I checked we are all human on this list. > > After a few cities have gone up, your feelings will change, as I > say. If it were to be, heaven forbid, dozens and dozens of cities, > then you will change your tune. Stop telling me what I would do. > But you swear that you will not. > Even if San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Fresno, > Long Beach, Santa Clara, and several other cities have been > destroyed---even then you'll cling to ancient loyalties, and > fear government in the abstract much more than the possibility > that San Jose could be next? > It is not in the least "abstract". - samantha From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 28 19:44:03 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 12:44:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4479FD83.1050402@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > Your feelings and intuitions are just human, and will be driven > by your own prudence. Just how much damage---feelings aside--- > have the police or the government done to you lately? How much > damage have terrorists? Um... Terrorists have done a completely insignificant amount of damage because there are just not many terrorists around. Certainly, I personally have been a lot more damaged by government than by terrorists. No terrorist has ever done anything at all to me personally. But every time I pay my income tax... I'm not saying that this answer should determine the course of the debate, but Lee, it was a silly question. > After a few cities have gone up, your feelings will change, as I > say. If it were to be, heaven forbid, dozens and dozens of cities, > then you will change your tune. But you swear that you will not. > Even if San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Fresno, > Long Beach, Santa Clara, and several other cities have been > destroyed---even then you'll cling to ancient loyalties, and > fear government in the abstract much more than the possibility > that San Jose could be next? You assume that there's something the government can do to prevent this. I sure expect a lot of civil liberties to go up in smoke along with the first city to get the Bomb, but I don't expect that to prevent the next city from going up in smoke. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 28 19:44:09 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 12:44:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4479FD89.8080106@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > Your feelings and intuitions are just human, and will be driven > by your own prudence. Just how much damage---feelings aside--- > have the police or the government done to you lately? How much > damage have terrorists? Um... Terrorists have done a completely insignificant amount of damage because there are just not many terrorists around. Certainly, I personally have been a lot more damaged by government than by terrorists. No terrorist has ever done anything at all to me personally. But every time I pay my income tax... I'm not saying that this answer should determine the course of the debate, but Lee, it was a silly question. > After a few cities have gone up, your feelings will change, as I > say. If it were to be, heaven forbid, dozens and dozens of cities, > then you will change your tune. But you swear that you will not. > Even if San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Fresno, > Long Beach, Santa Clara, and several other cities have been > destroyed---even then you'll cling to ancient loyalties, and > fear government in the abstract much more than the possibility > that San Jose could be next? You assume that there's something the government can do to prevent this. I sure expect a lot of civil liberties to go up in smoke along with the first city to get the Bomb, but I don't expect that to prevent the next city from going up in smoke. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jef at jefallbright.net Sun May 28 20:05:07 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 13:05:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10605280820o230c0986ie0cc79b394639680@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605281305q71fc3711wb19b664981b2f61d@mail.gmail.com> Lee - You're typically careful with your choice of words, but after two cycles of this thread it seems you're agressively debating what you thought I said rather than looking to understand my points and contribute constructively to the discussion. Misconception 1: Intrinsic good I'm referring to the well-known understanding that *intrinsic* good isn't a coherent concept. When we talk about "good" it must be relative to the value system of some agent. Any perceived goodness is not intrinsic. As I said earlier, we can agree on much of what is good because we share much of our fundamental values due to common evolutionary heritage. But it's not intrinsic and it's not absolute. I think you know this perfectly well, but keep reading "intrinsic" as if I were saying "obvious" or "objective." Misconception 2: Happiness directly corresponding to good I've tried to make clear that happiness is not necessarily an accurate or direct indicator of what is good. I think you could easily agree with this and then we could move on to more interesting things. I've tried to point out that applying these terms as absolutes leads to contradiction, and I've tried to point out that fundamentally life involves dealing with gradients. It seems that you have not grasped the point I was trying to make, but rather took my comments as some kind of attack calling for your defense. (This has been a common pattern between us, by the way, and I'll accept whatever responsibility is due to me.) I was seeking understanding (possibly agreement) on these two points with the hope that the discussion could move on to more interesting issues such as mitigating the effects of those evolved systems which impair performance; using "positive" reward gradients as motivation rather than the absolute bipolar happiness/suffering scheme you referred to; possibly some comparison between the use of positive gradients and the idea of positive-sum social decision-making contrasted with the idea of politics as competition over scarcity; and possibly some discussion of the implications and consequences of acting on your recent statement that you'd like to be thousands of miles away with only people you trust. BTW, breaking up a person's statements in order to call bullshit on a phrase out of context is dirty pool, regardless of whether you apologize for it in your next sentence. - Jef On 5/28/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Jef writes > > > As discussed extensively on this list and elsewhere, if we > > were living in a simulated universe and it were being > > switched on or off, at whatever duty-cycle, there would be... > > no reason to care -- from within the system. > > > So on to happiness and suffering. > > > (2) Happiness functions as an indicator of progress toward > > goals, > > Only in evolutionarily derived natural circumstances. Drugs > can short-circuit this, which is often very, very good. > > > and for that reason it tends to correspond with what is > > considered good (what is seen to work over increasing scope.) > > But to confuse an indicator of progress with progress itself > > is like confusing a map with the territory and the eventual > > results are not good (they don't work very well.) > > That's not necessarily true at all. As Pearce explains fully, > happiness even when artificially induced can often enhance > progress. Many times we're made unhappy (at the instigation > of our genes) because things aren't going well, and they > [the genes] figuratively figure that strength should be > saved for sunnier days. But soon sunniness can come from a > bottle, and artificial enthusiasm and joy will bring about > greater individual and collective progress and achievement. > > > Similarly, we can subvert the process and create a feeling > > of happiness directly by technical means, but this too is > > not an intrinsic good, > > I disagree. All other things being equal, I approve of > happiness, artificially induced or otherwise. In your > language, then, I consider the happiness itself as an > intrinsic good. (Don't you consider pain in and of itself > an intrinsic evil?) > > > When the Buddha said that all life is suffering, > > he was stating a more fundamental truth, > > This has to be the greatest one line of bullshit I've > ever seen you endorse! The exact degree that all life > involves suffering is the degree to which our technology > hasn't yet fixed something quite obvious. > > > that all life involves gradients that must be continuously > > overcome. > > (yes I know, I didn't let you finish the sentence. But still!) > > > It would be a misunderstanding to think one could eliminate > > the gradients of life, but it is a great understanding to > > acknowledge and accept this and thus eliminate subjective > > suffering from the internal model while continuing to > > function in the world. > > Well yes! But you don't need to beat around the bush. > > > I think we can agree that being blissfully incapacitated is > > not morally superior to striving > > I don't see them as at all connected, i.e., I don't see a > necessary trade-off between them at all > > > (and therefore tolerating some suffering) to promote ones values. > > at the present time :-) > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun May 28 22:20:24 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 18:20:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com><20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> <4479C1C6.4010801@pobox.com> Message-ID: <01a301c682a4$f4808a70$32094e0c@MyComputer> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" >The overreaction to this event will be a hundred times worse than the >damage caused by the actual terrorist act." The last thought was >understated by, oh, three orders of magnitude or so. I would estimate that >the overreaction to 9/11 was around five orders of magnitude worse than >9/11. A bit of hyperbole here. 911 killed about 3000 people and bad as the idea of going to war in Iraq was it has not killed 300 million nor is it likely to; but I may be too analytical and should treat it as poetic license because I think the point you were trying to make was largely correct. John K Clark From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 28 23:17:25 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 16:17:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <01a301c682a4$f4808a70$32094e0c@MyComputer> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com><20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> <4479C1C6.4010801@pobox.com> <01a301c682a4$f4808a70$32094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <447A2F85.5020501@pobox.com> John K Clark wrote: > "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > >>The overreaction to this event will be a hundred times worse than the >>damage caused by the actual terrorist act." The last thought was >>understated by, oh, three orders of magnitude or so. I would estimate that >>the overreaction to 9/11 was around five orders of magnitude worse than >>9/11. > > A bit of hyperbole here. 911 killed about 3000 people and bad as the idea of > going to war in Iraq was it has not killed 300 million nor is it likely to; > but I may be too analytical and should treat it as poetic license because I > think the point you were trying to make was largely correct. *Blinks.* *Thinks.* Yes, this was silly, heat-of-the-moment hyperbole. You'd need an Iraq-war-inspired terrorist to release a supervirus before the overreaction to 9/11 caused in the realm of 1e5 x 9/11 damage. Actually, "a hundred times" worse is probably a fair estimate both economically and in terms of lives lost. I think I pretty much foresaw correctly that first morning - the Iraq war is only two or three times as bad as I expected, not a thousand times as bad as I expected. I guess it could have been worse. Or maybe you just need to wait for the Iran war. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon May 29 04:38:52 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 23:38:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/27/06, Amara Graps wrote: > 1) The 'habitable zone' is close in and narrow : 0.2 to 0.5 A.U. where > the A.U. is the distance to the M-class main sequence star. Amara, as I'm sure you are aware (as should be Spike), the "habitable zone" is only a relevant concept for "primitive" life that requires a solvent (e.g. water) to allow significantly increased probabilities that simple molecules will run into each other and form more complex molecules. (Molecular evolution occurs at a much slower pace in solids and complex molecules (at least those used by life on Earth) have much shorter lifetimes at higher temperatures). Once you have non-solvent based "life" forms the range of natural "habitable zones" expands significantly. Once you have "intelligent life" there is always a chance that they will tailor the sun, planet, or other environment suitably to sustain the temperatures they happen to prefer. There is no problem having liquid water at Pluto's distance from a star if one is willing to dedicate enough matter to attaining those temperatures. Given that there are many Earths in our galaxy which were probably much older than ours it is certainly reasonable that more evolved civilizations may use M-class star systems as fuel depots, observation outposts, light metal manufacturing reactors, or a whole host of other activities which we may have a hard time imagining at this time. So discussions of the "classic" (primitive life) habitable zones should be balanced with the concept that such zones are but a small fraction of the total habitable zones in the galaxy. In fact the entire volume of the galaxy, including surrounding intergalactic space, excepting perhaps regions extremely close to stars (constant temperatures greater than the maximal melting point of most materials) or places where there is a high constant or near term future high energy radiation flux (black holes, pending supernovas, etc.) should be considered to be the real habitable zone. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 29 06:20:09 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 23:20:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <447A2F85.5020501@pobox.com> References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> <4479C1C6.4010801@pobox.com> <01a301c682a4$f4808a70$32094e0c@MyComputer> <447A2F85.5020501@pobox.com> Message-ID: On May 28, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > John K Clark wrote: >> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" >> >>> The overreaction to this event will be a hundred times worse than >>> the >>> damage caused by the actual terrorist act." The last thought was >>> understated by, oh, three orders of magnitude or so. I would >>> estimate that >>> the overreaction to 9/11 was around five orders of magnitude >>> worse than >>> 9/11. >> >> A bit of hyperbole here. 911 killed about 3000 people and bad as >> the idea of >> going to war in Iraq was it has not killed 300 million nor is it >> likely to; >> but I may be too analytical and should treat it as poetic license >> because I >> think the point you were trying to make was largely correct. > > *Blinks.* > *Thinks.* > > Yes, this was silly, heat-of-the-moment hyperbole. You'd need an > Iraq-war-inspired terrorist to release a supervirus before the > overreaction to 9/11 caused in the realm of 1e5 x 9/11 damage. > > Actually, "a hundred times" worse is probably a fair estimate both > economically and in terms of lives lost. I think I pretty much > foresaw > correctly that first morning - the Iraq war is only two or three times > as bad as I expected, not a thousand times as bad as I expected. I > guess it could have been worse. *Blinks* The Iraq war is only one symptom of the over-reaction to 911. The tremendous weakening of civil liberties in the US, the tremendous strengthening of governments everywhere to pry into the affairs of people and organization and to seize funds, goods and people on mere suspicion, the general focus on danger and fear, these and other things go far deeper than war in Iraq. I do not thing that at least four orders of magnitude worse reaction than the actual event is out of line. - samantha From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon May 29 05:27:14 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 01:27:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <200605272338.k4RNc8hx009368@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20060529052714.70643.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Mayanism > > > spike wrote: > > What if... the Anti-Buddha were to appear? > > One thing is sure: if you meet the anti-Buddha on the road, don't kill > her! -- Anders Sandberg Here's is how you will know who to not kill. She will be seen shrieking at two young monks and their master, in front of a flagpole: You are all wrong! The wind is BLOWING, the flag is FLAPPING, and your minds are just STANDING there not moving at all! spike When did the Anti-Buddha become female? Just curious 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 femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon May 29 05:48:21 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 01:48:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <39147E32-D539-4205-BD85-7A395DDBED4D@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060529054821.32955.qmail@web35503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lee Corbin wrote: >> If, and it is a large if, nut jobs could easily take out cities, then >> I would still prefer to live under that chance occurrence than the >> very certain evils of total surveillance. > > Your feelings will change the day that several million people die > in San Francisco or New York. > Samantha replied: No, they will not. The nuts have one if we orient all of life around finding and stopping them. Again just curious. If (we) as a human beings don't pay attention to destructive people (nutty people..say like Hitler) then won't we just get a recuring event? Anna Samantha Atkins wrote: On May 27, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > >>> There is, unfortunately, at the present time NO ALTERNATIVE but for >>> citizens to keep a close enough watch on each other---or enable >>> their governments to be able to keep such a watch---to ward off >>> total destruction. >> >> How close is close? > > Just---pray for us---the very minimum it takes to keep WMD out of > the hands of small groups and individuals. > That minimum is very intense surveillance of everyone. Not good. >> What do you mean "no alternative". > > No alternative to millions of deaths. Why live your live or advocate running others lives based on such fears? > >> How would you watch if you don't know what you are looking for? >> If you do know then there are other means of more or less just- >> in-time detection. > > That sounds just fine to me. But you can't know what you are looking for completely, can you? > >> If, and it is a large if, nut jobs could easily take out cities, then >> I would still prefer to live under that chance occurrence than the >> very certain evils of total surveillance. > > Your feelings will change the day that several million people die > in San Francisco or New York. > No, they will not. The nuts have one if we orient all of life around finding and stopping them. >>> Therefore, the absolute *minimum* intrusion into our lives must >>> logically be arranged---either now, when we can do so calmly and >>> rationally---or later, after the first cities have gone up. >> >> What does this look like? How is it rational to govern that much of >> our lives on the worse case scenario? Where are the trade-offs? > > There is no simple answer that I know of. I can only hope that > Western nations have elected people who aren't so clueless that > they see no danger, or aren't so overbearing that they use the > real dangers to persecute the innocent. You know and I know that evil (and/or clue free) SOBs are in charge. Now what? > Alas, it will be a fine > balance, and the only thing for sure is that we will take---and > are taking---risks. I will take my chances with the terrorists over total government lock down. > >>> But the bottom line is: unless it's a threat to *everything*--- >>> outside monitoring of what individuals are doing ought to be >>> prevented (by checks and balances, of course). >> >> A threat to even a city in not a threat to everything. > > Your life will be affected in tremendous ways by the first nuclear > attack upon the nation in which you live. > My life is already tremendously affected by the mass paranoia and uses thereof that have been going on for the last five years. I don't need any more of this. - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon May 29 06:56:18 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 08:56:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single Message-ID: >Amara, as I'm sure you are aware (as should be Spike), the "habitable zone" >is only a relevant concept for "primitive" life that requires a solvent (e.g. >water) to allow significantly increased probabilities that simple molecules >will run into each other and form more complex molecules. Robert, I do know that the 'habitable zone' is that based on life as we know it on earth with water as the basis/solvent. I will be more careful in using that expression in the future on transhuman/extropy-chat lists, since the assumptions are usually different than the astrobiology texts! However, the other issues about M-class stars' variability and synchronous rotation _could_ be an issue though for the emergence of life, at least for chemical life (not based on water as a solvent). btw, Robert and I wrote on the cosmicvariance thread about searching for life last week, see: http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/24/further-away-from-the-lamp-post/ Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon May 29 06:27:31 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 02:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605280820o230c0986ie0cc79b394639680@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060529062731.73831.qmail@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jef Allbright wrote: When the Buddha said that all life is suffering, he was stating a more fundamental truth, that all life involves gradients that must be continuously overcome. It would be a misunderstanding to think one could eliminate the gradients of life, but it is a great understanding to acknowledge and accept this and thus eliminate subjective suffering from the internal model while continuing to function in the world. Are you saying that Buddha's truth is based on his own mistakes and that based on those mistakes or his own truths he became wise? (Wise meaning learning from his mistakes or truths and changing truths and ofcourse becoming a legend:) Very confused but still curious? Anna:) On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: Jef Albright writes (hi Jef!) > On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Really, it's all very silly. Clearly no one is actually having > > any harm come to them. So what if a person briefly passes into > > and out of existence in a nanosecond? Instead of worrying about > > the fantastic numbers of "deaths", worry instead about happiness > > and suffering. > Some individuals on this list would argue that the creation of > sentient life is an intrinsic (extropic) good, and destroying > that same life is therefore bad. Others would argue, as you > seem to imply and in accord with Pearce's hedonistic imperative, > that happiness and suffering are intrinsically good and bad > respectively. Actually, I agree totally with *both* of these propositions. As Anders say, the creation of life (say, as opposed to vacuum) is good. And as Pearce writes, happiness is intrinsically good www.hedweb.com. (1) The creation of any particular instance of life is not necessarily good. Supporting examples include diseases and pathological structures at the individual and social levels. With regard to life as a process we can agree that the process tends to lead to good by virtue (!) of natural selection and the resultant growth of that which tends to work over increasing scope. From our position within that process, we cannot but see this as tending toward the good. For those who simplify this to "life is extropic, therefore good", I agree, but again this is referring to the process and not any particular instance. In your example of a person who briefly passes into and out of existence in a nanosecond, such existence carries no moral weight whatsoever because there are no consequences whatsoever. The implication that it is a person and therefore could be ourself, is irrelevant. As discussed extensively on this list and elsewhere, if we were in fact living in a simulated universe and it were being switched on or off, at whatever duty-cycle, there would be no way to know and no reason to care -- from within the system. So on to happiness and suffering. (2) Happiness functions as an indicator of progress toward goals, and for that reason it tends to correspond with what is considered good (what is seen to work over increasing scope.) But to confuse an indicator of progress with progress itself is like confusing a map with the territory and the eventual results are not good (they don't work very well.) Similarly, we can subvert the process and create a feeling of happiness directly by technical means, but this too is not an an intrinsic good, only a subjective one of limited context, and obviously not something that promotes growth of what works over increasing scope. When the Buddha said that all life is suffering, he was stating a more fundamental truth, that all life involves gradients that must be continuously overcome. It would be a misunderstanding to think one could eliminate the gradients of life, but it is a great understanding to acknowledge and accept this and thus eliminate subjective suffering from the internal model while continuing to function in the world. I think we can agree that being blissfully incapacitated is not morally superior to striving (and therefore tolerating some suffering) to promote ones values. > I expect that you have already thought this through in some > depth, but I would not like to leave standing the impression > that happiness without meaning (such as a drug-induced state > of blissful incapacitation) would be intrinsically good or > that suffering is intrinsically bad. Au contraire! As opposed to the default (say vacuum) I heartily approve of any kind of benefit, including drug induced states of blissful incapacitation. I even approve of those states relative to states of unrelieved misery. And, as always "intrinsically good" means merely "I approve". "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--nether more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master--that's all." - Jef _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon May 29 06:43:32 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anne-Marie Taylor) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 02:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605280820o230c0986ie0cc79b394639680@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060529064332.720.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jef Allbright wrote: When the Buddha said that all life is suffering, he was stating a more fundamental truth, that all life involves gradients that must be continuously overcome. It would be a misunderstanding to think one could eliminate the gradients of life, but it is a great understanding to acknowledge and accept this and thus eliminate subjective suffering from the internal model while continuing to function in the world. I'm asking: Are you saying that Buddha's truth is based on his own mistakes and that based on those mistakes or his own truths, he became wise? (Wise meaning learning from his mistakes or truths and changing truths and ofcourse becoming a legend:) Very confused but still curious? Anna:) On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: Jef Albright writes (hi Jef!) > On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Really, it's all very silly. Clearly no one is actually having > > any harm come to them. So what if a person briefly passes into > > and out of existence in a nanosecond? Instead of worrying about > > the fantastic numbers of "deaths", worry instead about happiness > > and suffering. > Some individuals on this list would argue that the creation of > sentient life is an intrinsic (extropic) good, and destroying > that same life is therefore bad. Others would argue, as you > seem to imply and in accord with Pearce's hedonistic imperative, > that happiness and suffering are intrinsically good and bad > respectively. Actually, I agree totally with *both* of these propositions. As Anders say, the creation of life (say, as opposed to vacuum) is good. And as Pearce writes, happiness is intrinsically good www.hedweb.com. (1) The creation of any particular instance of life is not necessarily good. Supporting examples include diseases and pathological structures at the individual and social levels. With regard to life as a process we can agree that the process tends to lead to good by virtue (!) of natural selection and the resultant growth of that which tends to work over increasing scope. From our position within that process, we cannot but see this as tending toward the good. For those who simplify this to "life is extropic, therefore good", I agree, but again this is referring to the process and not any particular instance. In your example of a person who briefly passes into and out of existence in a nanosecond, such existence carries no moral weight whatsoever because there are no consequences whatsoever. The implication that it is a person and therefore could be ourself, is irrelevant. As discussed extensively on this list and elsewhere, if we were in fact living in a simulated universe and it were being switched on or off, at whatever duty-cycle, there would be no way to know and no reason to care -- from within the system. So on to happiness and suffering. (2) Happiness functions as an indicator of progress toward goals, and for that reason it tends to correspond with what is considered good (what is seen to work over increasing scope.) But to confuse an indicator of progress with progress itself is like confusing a map with the territory and the eventual results are not good (they don't work very well.) Similarly, we can subvert the process and create a feeling of happiness directly by technical means, but this too is not an an intrinsic good, only a subjective one of limited context, and obviously not something that promotes growth of what works over increasing scope. When the Buddha said that all life is suffering, he was stating a more fundamental truth, that all life involves gradients that must be continuously overcome. It would be a misunderstanding to think one could eliminate the gradients of life, but it is a great understanding to acknowledge and accept this and thus eliminate subjective suffering from the internal model while continuing to function in the world. I think we can agree that being blissfully incapacitated is not morally superior to striving (and therefore tolerating some suffering) to promote ones values. > I expect that you have already thought this through in some > depth, but I would not like to leave standing the impression > that happiness without meaning (such as a drug-induced state > of blissful incapacitation) would be intrinsically good or > that suffering is intrinsically bad. Au contraire! As opposed to the default (say vacuum) I heartily approve of any kind of benefit, including drug induced states of blissful incapacitation. I even approve of those states relative to states of unrelieved misery. And, as always "intrinsically good" means merely "I approve". "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--nether more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master--that's all." - Jef _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon May 29 14:11:24 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:11:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/29/06, Amara Graps wrote: > btw, Robert and I wrote on the cosmicvariance thread about searching for > life last week, see: > > http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/24/further-away-from-the-lamp-post/ I know. Thanks for pointing out the references that you did. I've already added a couple of comments to it. But I'm not going to monitor it and get into long debates. The papers are available, the ideas are out there, those who want to learn about them will discover them. You have to keep in mind that I spent significant fraction of several years educating myself in these areas (nucleosynthesis, material properties, gravitational microlensing, IR astronomy, etc.) and converting a significant fraction of the ETI literature into a large hyperlinked database. Given the other things I could be doing engaging in long discussions with people who are unfamiliar with that knowledge base isn't even close to a productive use of my time :-( (?). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 29 14:15:21 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 07:15:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <20060529064332.720.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <22360fa10605280820o230c0986ie0cc79b394639680@mail.gmail.com> <20060529064332.720.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605290715r5df055bav49d8173629ddba94@mail.gmail.com> On 5/28/06, Anne-Marie Taylor wrote: > > > Jef Allbright wrote: > When the Buddha said that all life is suffering, he was stating a more fundamental truth, > that all life involves gradients that must be continuously overcome. It would be a > misunderstanding to think one could eliminate the gradients of life, but it is a great > understanding to acknowledge and accept this and thus eliminate subjective suffering > from the internal model while continuing to function in the world. > > > I'm asking: > Are you saying that Buddha's truth is based on his own mistakes and that based on > those mistakes or his own truths, he became wise? (Wise meaning learning from his > mistakes or truths and changing truths and ofcourse becoming a legend:) > > Very confused but still curious? > Anna:) Anna - I don't clearly understand your question or the basis of your thinking when you are asking it, but I will try to respond in a general way that may help. However, I don't want to promote discussion of Buddhism or religion in this forum, except as it might relate to extropian/transhumanist thinking. I was trying to provide some depth and clarity to a popular but oversimplified conception of happiness and suffering. There's plenty of rather old and classical philosophical thinking on ideas such as "maximizing happiness" as a moral good, and while this may seems like an obvious truth to many of us, as we look further we find that this thinking fails in the bigger picture. There are several related topics which cause endless debate on these lists due to differing viewpoints, and more significantly, depending on how broad a context one seeks for understanding. These interrelated topics include the nature of "self", "good", "free-will" and more. I put these words in scare-quotes because these words are often used as if their meaning were obvious (as to a child) and while in fact they are very good words, their comprehension requires a more encompassing model. These topics are very relevent and important to extropian/transhumanist thinking because they are key to our understanding the nature of who we are, how we know what we want, and how we can effective make progress in the growth of what matters to us. When the Buddha said "all life is suffering" [or some words to that effect--I wasn't there] he didn't mean the simple kind of suffering that a child would think of, such as the kind of suffering coming from a scaped knee. He went on to say that all suffering is due to wanting, or desire. He saw that what all life has in common is the appearance of agency. All life (as we generally define it) *wants* something, which is directly or indirectly related to its reproduction, or it wouldn't have evolved. This characteristic wanting is what I referred to earlier as the gradient, between what the agent has now, and what it wants for the future. In the broad sense meant by the Buddha, to be alive is to want, and the nature of this wanting, this feeling of separation between now-self and future-self, is the great understanding he wanted to share. By understanding this, we (as subjective agents) can clean up our internal models of the world and proceed more effectively in our lives. Of course, as with all great thinking, layers of mystery and decoration were added, so many people have many different ideas of what it's all about. "Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters." - Ch'uan Teng Lu (The Way of Zen 126) - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 29 14:17:50 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 07:17:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <20060529052714.70643.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200605291417.k4TEHtLe016262@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne-Marie Taylor Here's is how you will know who to not kill. She will be seen shrieking at two young monks and their master... spike When did the Anti-Buddha become female? Just curious Anna:) If she is the anti-matter equivalent of the Buddha, then she should be opposite the Buddha, who is male. By that reasoning the anti-christ should also be female, but you can never be sure about the anti-sex-lamas. {8-] spike From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 29 14:27:50 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 07:27:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mayanism In-Reply-To: <200605291417.k4TEHtLe016262@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20060529052714.70643.qmail@web35514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200605291417.k4TEHtLe016262@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605290727u89189a6q20bf9a0b46f36af@mail.gmail.com> On 5/29/06, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne-Marie Taylor > > > > Here's is how you will know who to not kill. She will be seen shrieking at > two young monks and their master... > > spike > When did the Anti-Buddha become female? > Just curious > Anna:) > > > > If she is the anti-matter equivalent of the Buddha, then she should be > opposite the Buddha, who is male. By that reasoning the anti-christ should > also be female, but you can never be sure about the anti-sex-lamas. > > {8-] > > spike Actually it's more obvious than that. If you read carefully you can clearly see that it referred to the Anti-Buddha, not the Uncle-Buddha. - Jef (master of the profound) From sentience at pobox.com Mon May 29 14:49:15 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 07:49:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: References: <8810FDAA-547B-4542-AAF4-76E9BF81DF08@mac.com> <8d71341e0605280454u4dc49629p7152979f62826b0@mail.gmail.com> <20060528121527.GB26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605280530t53a7940csc28b297333621903@mail.gmail.com> <20060528141636.GL26713@leitl.org> <4479C1C6.4010801@pobox.com> <01a301c682a4$f4808a70$32094e0c@MyComputer> <447A2F85.5020501@pobox.com> Message-ID: <447B09EB.2060804@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > *Blinks* > > The Iraq war is only one symptom of the over-reaction to 911. The > tremendous weakening of civil liberties in the US, the tremendous > strengthening of governments everywhere to pry into the affairs of > people and organization and to seize funds, goods and people on mere > suspicion, the general focus on danger and fear, these and other > things go far deeper than war in Iraq. I do not thing that at least > four orders of magnitude worse reaction than the actual event is out > of line. Maybe I'm too gloomy, Samantha, but the atmosphere of paranoia and the weakening of civil liberties seems to be simply a continuation of an existing trend that was only slightly accelerated. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From natasha at natasha.cc Mon May 29 14:37:49 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:37:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605290715r5df055bav49d8173629ddba94@mail.gmail.co m> References: <22360fa10605280820o230c0986ie0cc79b394639680@mail.gmail.com> <20060529064332.720.qmail@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22360fa10605290715r5df055bav49d8173629ddba94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20060529093128.02fbc098@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:15 AM 5/29/2006, Jef wrote: >In the broad sense meant by the Buddha, to be alive is to want, and >the nature of this wanting, this feeling of separation between >now-self and future-self, is the great understanding he wanted to >share. By understanding this, we (as subjective agents) can clean up >our internal models of the world and proceed more effectively in our >lives. How many followers of Buddha can dance on the head of a pin and still not find happiness? You are absolutely correct about cleaning up our "internal models" of the world that surrounds us and how we interpret, relate, and act upon our impulses. Each moment is a choice and the choice is ours to make. All that means is that it does not matter what Buddha is if it is only a stance to dance upon. >Of course, as with all great thinking, layers of mystery and >decoration were added, so many people have many different ideas of >what it's all about. > >"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as >mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate >knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not >mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very >substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again >as mountains, and waters once again as waters." >- Ch'uan Teng Lu (The Way of Zen 126) Lovely. 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 mfj.eav at gmail.com Mon May 29 15:33:48 2006 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:33:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] training the immune system Message-ID: <61c8738e0605290833s3facfebr9005fab9f7a987f2@mail.gmail.com> Maybe Rafal could help out on this, but is there a definitive pathway of upregulation to say the major histocompatibility complex to incorporate and immortalize disease resistance upgrades ??? -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-290-8734 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon May 29 15:56:16 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 17:56:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Most star systems are single Message-ID: >I know. Thanks for pointing out the references that you did. I've already >added a couple of comments to it. But I'm not going to monitor it and get >into long debates. That comment about cosmicvariance thread was for the extropy-chat list (not directed at you). Amara From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon May 29 16:03:17 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:03:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <8159A468-4450-4322-A4B1-A8B7B3DC6AC9@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha writes > If live [life] becomes largely focused only about avoiding certain forms > of death is it still worth living? I suppose that it is. Large numbers of animals live in constant fear of predators; many humans historically throughout their lives lived in fear of marauders, criminals, or just animals. Life goes on. You get used to it rather quickly. Eliezer writes > > Just how much damage---feelings aside---have the police > > or the government done to you lately? How much damage > > have terrorists? > > Terrorists have done a completely insignificant amount of > damage because there are just not many terrorists around. > > Certainly, I personally have been a lot more damaged by > government than by terrorists. No terrorist has ever done > anything at all to me personally. But every time I pay my > income tax... Yes, perhaps one-third (!) of one's earnings are appropriated by the government. > I'm not saying that this answer should determine the course > of the debate, but Lee, it was a silly question. Well, no one is perfect. Of course the answer is that (the way most of us here look at it) the government hurts us so far much more than terrorists. It was an honest question; I wasn't trying to make a rhetorical point. I should have asked how fearful are you of your government as opposed to terrorists? As I said before, where I live I'm about equally intimidated by the police and by thieves/murderers, (including terrorists) and that's comfortably the way it should be. However, suppose that instead of 40,000 deaths per year from traffic accidents, next year it was 20,000, but another 20,000 deaths arose from a new Christian fanatical religious group. People would be a lot more terrified of the fanatics than they are of the automobiles, which shows the importance of psychology to the human animal. But as the ease with which one person can kill thousands or later millions of others, safeguards will be taken, either before a frightening incident or after. I myself, just don't happen to be especially upset about having every particular detail of my life on public display. (I'm a follower of Brin's Transparent Society.) Lee From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon May 29 15:59:08 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:59:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] training the immune system In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0605290833s3facfebr9005fab9f7a987f2@mail.gmail.com> References: <61c8738e0605290833s3facfebr9005fab9f7a987f2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: There are many variations in the MHC genes in humans (and other species) it is one of the most polymorphic sets of genes known. This makes it difficult for diseases to sweep through an entire human population. The system is also engineered to mutate (adapt) to foreign antigens to increase specificity. The various cytokines (interferons and interleukins) selectively up or down regulate various branches of the immune systems (other hormones have some effects but they tend to be minor compared with the cytokines) in response to various types of attacks. Vaccinations are designed to force your immune system to pre-evolve a resistance to various disease causing agents. Problems arise with certain organisms (HIV or Influenza) for example which mutate or evolve around the defenses the body develops. Certain other parasites carry sufficiently large genomes that they can keep "switching" their coat (adapt a new disguise) to evade immune system responses. Others actually sabotage the immune system responses. You kind of have to view it as an ongoing arms race. For everything we do to try and evade the bugs they tend to have a counter-strategy. Fortunately we are learning how to deal with these slightly faster than they are inventing new strategies. Using the MHC system to provide complete disease resistance would be difficult. It would be possible to extend the genome using a pre-progammed variety of MHC genes *and* additional strategies to resist all currently known pathological organisms but that will only result in selecting for the bugs which have better evasion, stealth or sabotage strategies. It is worth noting as an aside that the nanotechnology vasculoid upgrade to the circulatory system and/or the microbivore nanorobots significantly diminish or eliminates the risks presented by current pathogenic organisms. Robert On 5/29/06, Morris Johnson wrote: > > Maybe Rafal could help out on this, but is there a definitive pathway of > upregulation to say the major histocompatibility complex to incorporate > and immortalize disease resistance upgrades ??? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon May 29 16:16:02 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:16:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605281305q71fc3711wb19b664981b2f61d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef writes > You're typically careful with your choice of words, but after > two cycles of this thread it seems you're aggressively debating > what you thought I said rather than looking to understand my > points and contribute constructively to the discussion. Sorry. > Misconception 1: Intrinsic good > I'm referring to the well-known understanding that *intrinsic* > good isn't a coherent concept. Well, weren't you the one who brought it up? > When we talk about "good" it must be relative to the value system > of some agent. Of course. I even go so far, in careful discussion, to substitute "I approve" for "good". But you weren't buying that either. > Any perceived goodness is not intrinsic. Well, then let's just not used the damned word? > As I said earlier, we can agree on much of what is good > because we share much of our fundamental values due to > common evolutionary heritage. But it's not intrinsic whatever that means > and it's not absolute. I think you know this perfectly > well, but keep reading "intrinsic" as if I were saying > "obvious" or "objective." Well, just stop using that word, and the problem goes away :-) > Misconception 2: Happiness directly corresponding to good > I've tried to make clear that happiness is not necessarily > an accurate or direct indicator of what is good. Now that we've established that I have no idea what you mean when you use "intrinsic", we devolve to the point where I don't have much confidence in what you mean by "good". What do you mean by THAT, now? What is "good"? And don't think that just because I happen to be curious about what you mean that this gives you license to continue to flail me with the term; whenever a word starts giving trouble, I've always said, start looking for circumlocutions that mean what you want to say only using different words. We both have adequate vocabularies. > I think you could easily agree with this and then we could > move on to more interesting things. Alas, yes. I will try harder to agree with what you write, whether I understand it or not. But you must accept some of the responsibility (as you said), and so I guess you should try to write things that are more agreeable to me. > I've tried to point out that applying these terms as > absolutes leads to contradiction, I don't do that! I try always to avoid "the good" in careful discussion. Luckily you and I, as you say, do tend to approve of the same general kinds of things, insofar as the human situation goes. > I was seeking understanding (possibly agreement) on these > two points with the hope that the discussion could move on > to more interesting issues such as mitigating the effects > of those evolved systems which impair.... Not following you exactly here, but I'll start a new thread and maybe we can make the progress you hope for there. > BTW, breaking up a person's statements in order to call > bullshit on a phrase out of context is dirty pool, > regardless of whether you apologize for it in your > next sentence. Sorry. I do tend to go ballistic whenever I hear anyone start defending the virtues of suffering. I hope that *this* apology is acceptable to you. Lee From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 29 16:17:12 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:17:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: References: <8159A468-4450-4322-A4B1-A8B7B3DC6AC9@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060529161712.GB26713@leitl.org> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 09:03:17AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Yes, perhaps one-third (!) of one's earnings are appropriated > by the government. It depends on where, multiple taxation makes it more a half than a third (in some areas, probably approaching 2/3). > It was an honest question; I wasn't trying to make a rhetorical > point. I should have asked how fearful are you of your government > as opposed to terrorists? As I said before, where I live I'm Terrorists don't exist as far as I'm concerned. I'm reasonably critical and distrustful towards my local government. > about equally intimidated by the police and by thieves/murderers, > (including terrorists) and that's comfortably the way it should be. I don't know where exactly you're located, but at least for me the ratio is more 95:5. > But as the ease with which one person can kill thousands or > later millions of others, safeguards will be taken, either > before a frightening incident or after. I myself, just don't Surveillance is an active approach. A passive approach that is far more robust and has less side effects is: disperse. Dilute your targets. Minimize material transport between targets. With advanced nanoware: compartmentalize biosphere with active membranes. > happen to be especially upset about having every particular > detail of my life on public display. (I'm a follower of > Brin's Transparent Society.) But the powerful figures are not, and this is why brinworld is an asymmetry enabler, not an equalizer. If you're pushing Brin now as something workable, you're helping the enemy. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From lcorbin at tsoft.com Mon May 29 16:24:23 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:24:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605281305q71fc3711wb19b664981b2f61d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef writes > I was seeking understanding (possibly agreement) on these two > points with the hope that the discussion could move on to more > interesting issues such as mitigating the effects of those > evolved systems which impair performance; using "positive" > reward gradients as motivation rather than the absolute bipolar > happiness/suffering scheme you referred to; You wish to mitigate the effects of our evolved systems that impair performance. Sounds fine to me. Yes, use of "positive" reward gradients---I guess I know what that means, though I'm not totally sure---sounds agreeable. What reward gradients beyond pain and pleasure did you have in mind? Joy, contentment, satisfaction, ecstasy, fulfillment? > possibly some comparison between the use of positive gradients > and the idea of positive-sum social decision-making contrasted > with the idea of politics as competition over scarcity; Gee, sorry to be such a simpleton, but is it necessary to write in such a complicated way. Well, yes, I understand that you are just outlining what you'd like to talk about; but *communication* is so difficult, that it really pays to KISS. Go ahead an elaborate on that, if you'd like. > and possibly some discussion of the implications and > consequences of acting on your recent statement that > you'd like to be thousands of miles away with only > people you trust. I was speaking of circumstances in which one aberrant individual has the ability to kill many thousands of local sentients. In lieu of the Transparent Society, I don't know of any other solution. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 29 16:30:59 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 17:30:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10605281305q71fc3711wb19b664981b2f61d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605290930r1478d147w68f80b8917007c78@mail.gmail.com> On 5/29/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I was speaking of circumstances in which one aberrant > individual has the ability to kill many thousands of > local sentients. In lieu of the Transparent Society, > I don't know of any other solution. The general trend since the Stone Age has been for the minimum group size for effective action (for both good and harm) to always increase with advancing technology. Technophiles have tended to assume without evidence that this trend will reverse in the future. Robin Hanson does a good job of explaining why this belief actually constitutes evidence not about the future but about our own psychology: http://hanson.gmu.edu/dreamautarky.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 29 16:39:09 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:39:09 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10605281305q71fc3711wb19b664981b2f61d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060529163909.GD26713@leitl.org> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 09:24:23AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > I was speaking of circumstances in which one aberrant > individual has the ability to kill many thousands of > local sentients. In lieu of the Transparent Society, > I don't know of any other solution. How good are you with data mining, personally? Machine vision? Speech recognition? Hardware design? Spyware sweeps? How many gigabucks/year can you, personally, spare to install taps and and build meganode data centers? Hire security? How many hours of your day would you, personally, be spending sifting through surveillance data? Let's face it, here is where centralism has an edge over P2P (millions of blind eyes are useless). Saying "we have zero privacy anyway, get over it" is equivalent to voluntarily submit to being manacled, and shipped to Dachau. I'm pro legislation protecting individual privacy, while blowing away the smoke screen behind government and enterprise secrecy. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 29 16:52:26 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:52:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605290930r1478d147w68f80b8917007c78@mail.gmail.com> References: <22360fa10605281305q71fc3711wb19b664981b2f61d@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605290930r1478d147w68f80b8917007c78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060529165226.GE26713@leitl.org> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 05:30:59PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > The general trend since the Stone Age has been for the minimum group size > for effective action (for both good and harm) to always increase with > advancing technology. Technophiles have tended to assume without evidence Whoa. I would like to see the reasoning behind this claim. It takes many people to build a nuke, but it takes a single person to detonate it. Designer MDR pathogens or other self-replicating malware package even more wallop in a smaller envelope. You sure can build an atlatl, but how many can you kill with it, before being overwhelmed yourself? > that this trend will reverse in the future. Robin Hanson does a good job of > explaining why this belief actually constitutes evidence not about the I don't know what he explains, but assymetric warfare is not a war. > future but about our own psychology: > > http://hanson.gmu.edu/dreamautarky.html -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 29 17:14:14 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:14:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <20060529161712.GB26713@leitl.org> References: <8159A468-4450-4322-A4B1-A8B7B3DC6AC9@mac.com> <20060529161712.GB26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 5/29/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > But the powerful figures are not, and this is why brinworld > is an asymmetry enabler, not an equalizer. If you're pushing > Brin now as something workable, you're helping the enemy. > The UK loves surveillance cameras. But, the authorities that installed cameras (because they got money from the government towards the cost) are finding that you need to employ and fund people to watch the cameras. And there need to be resources funded to respond to ongoing incidents on camera. And you need to keep a library of old recordings and fund people to search through the library as incidents are investigated. So, your running costs increase as you install more cameras. One solution is to automate the camera watching. The new traffic cameras that read number plates and report unregistered or stolen vehicles (or any vehicle that MI5 might be interested in) is one such solution. But as UK youth seems to be increasingly involved in random violence and petty crime, the police are discovering that to optimise their resources, they have to restrict the incidents that they respond to. (e.g. If nobody has been killed, then just file a report). So various kinds of semi-official security personnel are appearing, in theory, to help the official police. Similarly, the local authorities don't want to pay for very many people to watch the surveillance screens. And those they do pay, don't get paid very much, so are not particularly enthusiastic or diligent at the job. The latest idea is to get local residents to watch their local cameras and report any dodgy goings-on that they see. The ?12m Digital Bridge television service, launched in one of London's most deprived boroughs on Monday, pledges to "put every member of the community in the front row of the fight against crime". The system is being rolled out to 22,000 residents across Shoreditch this summer who will be able to monitor 11 CCTV cameras from the comfort of their living rooms. -------------------- So the costs of monitoring ever increasing numbers of surveillance cameras and responding to the volume of incidents is forcing a ripple downwards to get the general public more involved. Don't give up all hope yet, Eugen. :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 29 17:14:14 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:14:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: <20060529161712.GB26713@leitl.org> References: <8159A468-4450-4322-A4B1-A8B7B3DC6AC9@mac.com> <20060529161712.GB26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 5/29/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > But the powerful figures are not, and this is why brinworld > is an asymmetry enabler, not an equalizer. If you're pushing > Brin now as something workable, you're helping the enemy. > The UK loves surveillance cameras. But, the authorities that installed cameras (because they got money from the government towards the cost) are finding that you need to employ and fund people to watch the cameras. And there need to be resources funded to respond to ongoing incidents on camera. And you need to keep a library of old recordings and fund people to search through the library as incidents are investigated. So, your running costs increase as you install more cameras. One solution is to automate the camera watching. The new traffic cameras that read number plates and report unregistered or stolen vehicles (or any vehicle that MI5 might be interested in) is one such solution. But as UK youth seems to be increasingly involved in random violence and petty crime, the police are discovering that to optimise their resources, they have to restrict the incidents that they respond to. (e.g. If nobody has been killed, then just file a report). So various kinds of semi-official security personnel are appearing, in theory, to help the official police. Similarly, the local authorities don't want to pay for very many people to watch the surveillance screens. And those they do pay, don't get paid very much, so are not particularly enthusiastic or diligent at the job. The latest idea is to get local residents to watch their local cameras and report any dodgy goings-on that they see. The ?12m Digital Bridge television service, launched in one of London's most deprived boroughs on Monday, pledges to "put every member of the community in the front row of the fight against crime". The system is being rolled out to 22,000 residents across Shoreditch this summer who will be able to monitor 11 CCTV cameras from the comfort of their living rooms. -------------------- So the costs of monitoring ever increasing numbers of surveillance cameras and responding to the volume of incidents is forcing a ripple downwards to get the general public more involved. Don't give up all hope yet, Eugen. :) BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 29 17:43:21 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:43:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. In-Reply-To: <20060529165226.GE26713@leitl.org> References: <22360fa10605281305q71fc3711wb19b664981b2f61d@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605290930r1478d147w68f80b8917007c78@mail.gmail.com> <20060529165226.GE26713@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605291043h675a3f2due7101579630d6e2b@mail.gmail.com> On 5/29/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 05:30:59PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > The general trend since the Stone Age has been for the minimum group > size > > for effective action (for both good and harm) to always increase with > > advancing technology. Technophiles have tended to assume without > evidence > > Whoa. I would like to see the reasoning behind this claim. It takes many > people to build a nuke, but it takes a single person to detonate it. The destruction of Hiroshima in 1945 took the cooperation of millions of people. The (more thorough) destruction of Kiev in 1240 took mere thousands. Designer MDR pathogens or other self-replicating malware package > even more wallop in a smaller envelope. In the stories we make up, yes. Not in real life. You sure can build an atlatl, but how many can you kill with it, before > being overwhelmed yourself? Comparable to the numbers you can kill with a bomb or a machine gun. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon May 29 17:47:57 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:47:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Systems design - Improving on nature's way of telling you [Was: Desirability of Happiness, Etc.] Message-ID: <22360fa10605291047i246bf0b4sbaba4ee41bf602e1@mail.gmail.com> On 5/29/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes > > possibly some comparison between the use of positive gradients > > and the idea of positive-sum social decision-making contrasted > > with the idea of politics as competition over scarcity; > > Gee, sorry to be such a simpleton, but is it necessary to > write in such a complicated way. Well, yes, I understand > that you are just outlining what you'd like to talk about; > but *communication* is so difficult, that it really pays > to KISS. Yeah, I write some dense stuff, and that was a blatant example. Let me try again. We recently approached the topic of a system of motivation based exclusively on a gradient of pleasurable feedback, rather than the bipolar pain/pleasure system endowed by nature. Earlier I scare-quoted the term "positive" because it seems to me that with a unipolar feedback signal, the set-point would still move to some level and we would still be left with relative positive and relative negative. [Ultimately can't avoid the negative, often expressed as "suffering".] A crucial point here is that we are trying to avoid the debilitating side-effects that often accompany nature's way of telling us something's wrong. What is most interesting to me about this is not the avoidance of unpleasantness, but the increased efficiency of the system this implies. To respond to another of your points, it seems to me that "good" is what works. And what works over increasing scope is necessarily better. Whether or not some activity produces feelings of pleasure is not a direct or reliable indication of "good" but is often correlated for reasons both obvious and profound and of an evolutionary nature. Now, I had suggested I would like to compare this kind of systems thinking with the workings of politics. Some people claim that politics is fundamentally about conflict over issues of scarcity. My question is whether we could effectively reframe this conception of politics in such a way that we avoid the debilitating conflict and instead deal with the same existing challenges in terms of positive-sum social decision-making? Inherent in this concept is that people would be taking a broader view rather than narrowly focusing on their competing interests. Is this a valid comparison? Does it appear that efficiency would be improved? Would this increasingly be seen as good as it is increasingly understood? - Jef From iamgoddard at yahoo.com Mon May 29 17:27:54 2006 From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Meta: debunking a 911 meme Message-ID: <20060529172754.52490.qmail@web52603.mail.yahoo.com> A remarkably prolific meme carries the idea that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon on Sept 11. The basis for it is ex-post-facto interpretation based on expectations of what should happen. Given contradictions between those expectations and the crash scene, the idea of a faked plane crash is derived. Yet anyone who has taken even one physics course knows that intuitive assumptions about what should happen in the interaction of complex physical systems very often prove to be at odds with what actually does happen. Nobody with the given meme seems to be aware of that elementary fact, mistaking their untested naive assumptions for given facts from which clear and even remarkable conclusions can be derived with deductive certitude. So the following short report subjects that prolific meme to logico-empirical test criteria: http://iangoddard.net/pentagon.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 29 18:36:21 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:36:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On 5/28/06, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > Again, the more interesting question to me is why the Europeans > appear to have collected so many disease resistance mutations > relative to other genomes, and from what I have read and heard from > researchers there is a noticeable difference in the number of > resistance markers in European populations versus others. You already answered your own question. Evolution cuts both ways. Overuse of antibiotics concentrates resistant pathogens, while overabundance of epidemics concentrates resistant hosts. Something like a quarter of the European population died in the 1300s due to a single plague. > This may > be a case of insufficient information about the genome at large, but > I would not expect disease resistance to be evenly distributed either > so it makes a reasonable starting point for discussion. A popular > theory is that the demographic and cultural specifics of Europe > encouraged frequent die-offs from disease, but it is not clear that > this was a unique characteristic of Europe in the last couple > thousand years. First, there doesn't seem to be a significant asymmetry between historical European, Asian and African populations, unless those populations were isolated. There did seem to be a significant asymmetry between Europeans and Native Americans, probably because they were relatively isolated. Europe was actively engaged in trade with the Middle East and Northern Africa, and later the Far East. > The Europeans managed to span the globe and were exposed to a variety > of diseases, yet I cannot think of a disease they were exposed to > that they were particularly susceptible to compared to other > populations. I don't know that Europeans are more resistant than Asians or Africans. If Asians had colonized the Americas, then we might be talking about them. Plus, it's more than just genetics. It's also environmental exposure. > There are a number of infectious diseases that have > significant asymmetries in their effect on some ethnic groups, but > the Europeans seemed to fare pretty well despite a rich set of > exposures to diseases outside their experience. The populations they > interacted with often did far worse when exposed to European > diseases. (Parts of this may also have had something to do with > differences in medical protocol between populations.) Martin From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 29 18:46:52 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:46:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On 5/29/06, Martin Striz wrote: > > I don't know that Europeans are more resistant than Asians or > Africans. If Asians had colonized the Americas, then we might be > talking about them. > > Plus, it's more than just genetics. It's also environmental exposure. > The area of West Africa was known as 'The White Man's Grave' because European colonists going there had a life expectancy of months only. They died like flies until germs and quinine were discovered. Any tropical country with various fever diseases and malaria was probably similar. BillK From mstriz at gmail.com Mon May 29 18:36:21 2006 From: mstriz at gmail.com (Martin Striz) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:36:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On 5/28/06, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > Again, the more interesting question to me is why the Europeans > appear to have collected so many disease resistance mutations > relative to other genomes, and from what I have read and heard from > researchers there is a noticeable difference in the number of > resistance markers in European populations versus others. You already answered your own question. Evolution cuts both ways. Overuse of antibiotics concentrates resistant pathogens, while overabundance of epidemics concentrates resistant hosts. Something like a quarter of the European population died in the 1300s due to a single plague. > This may > be a case of insufficient information about the genome at large, but > I would not expect disease resistance to be evenly distributed either > so it makes a reasonable starting point for discussion. A popular > theory is that the demographic and cultural specifics of Europe > encouraged frequent die-offs from disease, but it is not clear that > this was a unique characteristic of Europe in the last couple > thousand years. First, there doesn't seem to be a significant asymmetry between historical European, Asian and African populations, unless those populations were isolated. There did seem to be a significant asymmetry between Europeans and Native Americans, probably because they were relatively isolated. Europe was actively engaged in trade with the Middle East and Northern Africa, and later the Far East. > The Europeans managed to span the globe and were exposed to a variety > of diseases, yet I cannot think of a disease they were exposed to > that they were particularly susceptible to compared to other > populations. I don't know that Europeans are more resistant than Asians or Africans. If Asians had colonized the Americas, then we might be talking about them. Plus, it's more than just genetics. It's also environmental exposure. > There are a number of infectious diseases that have > significant asymmetries in their effect on some ethnic groups, but > the Europeans seemed to fare pretty well despite a rich set of > exposures to diseases outside their experience. The populations they > interacted with often did far worse when exposed to European > diseases. (Parts of this may also have had something to do with > differences in medical protocol between populations.) Martin From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 29 18:46:52 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:46:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On 5/29/06, Martin Striz wrote: > > I don't know that Europeans are more resistant than Asians or > Africans. If Asians had colonized the Americas, then we might be > talking about them. > > Plus, it's more than just genetics. It's also environmental exposure. > The area of West Africa was known as 'The White Man's Grave' because European colonists going there had a life expectancy of months only. They died like flies until germs and quinine were discovered. Any tropical country with various fever diseases and malaria was probably similar. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 29 19:11:16 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:11:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605291043h675a3f2due7101579630d6e2b@mail.gmail.com> References: <22360fa10605281305q71fc3711wb19b664981b2f61d@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605290930r1478d147w68f80b8917007c78@mail.gmail.com> <20060529165226.GE26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605291043h675a3f2due7101579630d6e2b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060529191116.GA28956@leitl.org> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 06:43:21PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > The destruction of Hiroshima in 1945 took the cooperation of millions of Again, asymmetrical warfare is not warfare. It takes dual-use technologies like nitrate fertilizer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing and civilian aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks to achieve their goals of a high kill ratio with no subsequent retaliation target. Purexing fissibles from low-burn civilian nuclear ashes to build a nuke by a small group would be very different from the Manhattan project. The design target is documented, and very little actual effort would be required, since hitchhiking upon civilian nuclear facilities. To make this more concrete: I personally would be able to prepare such fissibles, given reasonably cold ashes and a small number of sacrificable human servos. Out of a given nuclear engineering class, some 5-10% should be able to build a functional nuclear device from that. We have been playing this lottery for many years. Just because winning the main prize is not probable it doesn't mean it's impossible. > people. The (more thorough) destruction of Kiev in 1240 took mere thousands. Kiev (a torched wooden city of 50 k inhabitants in a classical act of war) by "mere thousands" is classical, symmetrical warfare. A small group precipitating a firestorm event by a few concerted acts of arson would be asymmetrical warfare. > Designer MDR pathogens or other self-replicating malware package > >even more wallop in a smaller envelope. > > In the stories we make up, yes. Not in real life. Designer MDR pathogens are not just stories. You might be familiar with the Biopreparat effort, which, fortunately, never saw deployment. So far, we have been very lucky to not having seen a man-made MDR pandemic. The capabilities increase, while the integrated probability over time will eventually approach unity. If we're lucky, rise in our countermeasure capabilities will be matching. However, nuking high-density population centers is easier, so expect this to happen first. > You sure can build an atlatl, but how many can you kill with it, before > >being overwhelmed yourself? > > Comparable to the numbers you can kill with a bomb or a machine gun. Reread above sentence. You honestly don't believe this, do you? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 29 18:46:52 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:46:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: On 5/29/06, Martin Striz wrote: > > I don't know that Europeans are more resistant than Asians or > Africans. If Asians had colonized the Americas, then we might be > talking about them. > > Plus, it's more than just genetics. It's also environmental exposure. > The area of West Africa was known as 'The White Man's Grave' because European colonists going there had a life expectancy of months only. They died like flies until germs and quinine were discovered. Any tropical country with various fever diseases and malaria was probably similar. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon May 29 20:58:54 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:58:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Desirability of Happiness, Etc. In-Reply-To: <20060529191116.GA28956@leitl.org> References: <22360fa10605281305q71fc3711wb19b664981b2f61d@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0605290930r1478d147w68f80b8917007c78@mail.gmail.com> <20060529165226.GE26713@leitl.org> <8d71341e0605291043h675a3f2due7101579630d6e2b@mail.gmail.com> <20060529191116.GA28956@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605291358i6d1a5a6eg5853dc6e2aac0a3b@mail.gmail.com> On 5/29/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Again, asymmetrical warfare is not warfare. It takes dual-use technologies > like nitrate fertilizer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing > and civilian aircraft > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks > to achieve their goals of a high kill ratio with no subsequent retaliation > target. It doesn't matter whether you want to say "asymmetrical warfare is not warfare", the fact remains that in the Middle Ages outfits the size of al-Qaida and their support network, under people like Genghis Khan or Tamerlane, killed millions. In modern times a similar sized outfit under Osama bin Laden was able to kill only a handful of thousands - and retaliation did in fact occur. > Designer MDR pathogens are not just stories. You might be familiar with the Biopreparat effort, which, fortunately, never saw deployment. And which was an effort mounted by an empire of several hundred million people. Purexing fissibles from low-burn civilian nuclear ashes to build a nuke by > a small group would be very different from the Manhattan project. To make this more concrete: I personally would be able to prepare > such fissibles A small group precipitating a firestorm event by a few concerted acts > of arson would be asymmetrical warfare. > The above are all _stories_ about things that you _think_ would be possible in theory. Concepts existing in your imagination. I'm talking about events that have physically occurred in the real world. Imagination is a wonderful thing, but _it is not the same as real life_; that's the concept I keep trying to get across. > Comparable to the numbers you can kill with a bomb or a machine gun. > > Reread above sentence. You honestly don't believe this, do you? > Step outside your imagination and look at the empirical facts: people who've set off car bombs or run amok with machine guns have clocked up similar kill totals to murderers using knives or other low-tech weapons: two digits, with extremely rare or unique cases running into three digits. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon May 29 22:43:09 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:43:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0605270540k4b4826b5oe8ad4d35fe18c005@mail.gmail.com> <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <33755.72.236.103.100.1148942589.squirrel@main.nc.us> Are we having a problem with the list? I have now received this message 3 separate times. Regards, MB > On 5/29/06, Martin Striz wrote: >> >> I don't know that Europeans are more resistant than Asians or >> Africans. If Asians had colonized the Americas, then we might be >> talking about them. >> >> Plus, it's more than just genetics. It's also environmental exposure. >> > > The area of West Africa was known as 'The White Man's Grave' because > European colonists going there had a life expectancy of months only. > They died like flies until germs and quinine were discovered. > > Any tropical country with various fever diseases and malaria was > probably similar. > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 30 13:26:55 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 06:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom (was Are ancestor simulations immoral?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060530132655.49506.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lee, Sorry for the delay in response, I was super-busy this weekend. Lee writes: "Well, THAT'S NOT THE REASON! I suppose where "bad" or "undesirable" did have a clear, objective definition, then you'd be in favor of outlawing everything that was provably harmful. Sigh." This is hard to address since the notion is completely hypothetical. If this "objective" "bad" included drinking vodka on Sundays, then no, I don't favor outlawing everything that is "objectively" bad. I favor outlawing the very specific "freedom" of one conscious being to intentionally inflict harm or death on another conscious being. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Lee Corbin wrote: Jeffrey H. writes > Lee: > > "Surely you don't believe that everything that is bad > > should be outlawed. Or do you?" > No, absolutely not! I realize that "bad" doesn't have an > objective definition. Well, THAT'S NOT THE REASON! I suppose where "bad" or "undesirable" did have a clear, objective definition, then you'd be in favor of outlawing everything that was provably harmful. Sigh. This is going to be a long discussion, I am afraid. The problem is not that it's not *objective* what is deleterious, the problem is what truly lies behind making the simple words "making it illegal". Hint: visualize force being used on some people by other people. > I think that anyone should be able to do *anything* with > their own bodies, minds, and non-sentient property - and > when I say *anything*, I mean *ANYTHING* :-) The only > line I draw is murdering or torturing (or intentionally > bringing harm to) other *conscious* beings. The key horror in what you write here is the little phrase in your first paragraph "should be able". It is the *enforcement* lying behind this phrase that is scary. I fear you have an unconscious image of some huge government agency with absolute power that acts to stop what one "shouldn't be able" to do (including ancestor simulations), but does permit what one "should be able" to do. This is the whole very, very problematic part. Avoiding tyranny can only be done by somehow (rather miraculously) placing limits on what this agency from the outside can do. Its power and its knowledge must be kept to an absolute minimum, so long as the survival of everything is not at stake. More about this in a moment. > Lee, I'm a little bit confused by your reference to "Rule of > Law". Could you elaborate for me on exactly what you are > referring to? I can't really determine whether you mean that > standard Laws are "good" or "bad", so I can't yet really > comment on this section of your post. I'll answer this, as well as your other questions, other posts. Right now, I'll put the ball back in your court: if there is an outside agency that can prevent me from running ancestor simulations on my own privately purchased equipment, why wouldn't it have the power to make me conform to whatever it wants? Think Committee of Public Safety. If it is to be able to "decide" whether Samantha's characters in her video games rise to the level of sentient beings, then it must know about almost infinitely many details about her games. The key question is, "Is this really, *absolutely* necessary, or have you created a monster". (Alas I don't think that there is a simple answer to this, but go ahead and take a swing at it anyway.) Lee _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 30 13:34:22 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 06:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060530133422.95321.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lee, Lee writes: "...then we eventually turn to the questions of what else such a powerful global entity should control. (Jeffrey's answer is: it should also make sure that I don't do anything immoral with my equipment." You are generalising and (perhaps unconsciously) misrepresenting my position. The only "immorality" I favor preventing is the intentional infliction of harm or murder. 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 30 13:57:39 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 06:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060530135739.80060.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lee, Lee writes: "First, it would be irrational (or at least not sensible) because where would you draw the line? Suppose I show you a little cube a decimeter on a side, and then I tell you that I've improved the figures above: I am now creating and destroying a sentient every nanosecond, and so am killing about a billion people per second. Is this really something that you---as you watch me calmly hold my little cube in my right hand---should really get horribly excited by?" Yes. And if I did not, it would indicate that somehow I had lost the last shred of my personal sense of morality. Lee writes: "The answer is that remember I am *creating* those people, giving them an entire luxurious nanosecond in which to enjoy their lives, their dreams, and hopes for the purpose (before I destroy them). Shouldn't that go on the "good" side of the ledger?" No. Since we are already so deep into the hypothetical: If I "created" a Billion flesh and blood human infants and then dropped an H-bomb directly on top of them, such that they felt no pain at all before death, would that go on the "good" side of the ledger? Lee writes: "Well, it would still be small potatoes compared to the Trillions and Trillions of simulated humans that I would be running, or that the other 999,999 would be running. If as much good is being done by 999,999 out of every million people as harm is being done by 1, then, again, keep it in perspective." I still believe that ancestor simulations are themselves immoral. Now granted, not on the same level of immorality as a "Hell" program, but still immoral. At the very least, an ancestor simulation is an extreme infringement on the freedom of the subjects. It's also denying its inhabitants from a higher quality of life that "real" people alone are supposedly entitled to. And don't even get me started on "invasion of privacy" - how could *any* invasion of privacy top that which would occur with a simulation? Let's not mince words, an ancestor simulation is slavery, plain and simple - I thought we had moved beyond that. Lee writes: "Yes, but as Joseph Stalin said, "the death of a single Russian soldier is a tragedy. But the deaths of millions are a statistic." " Now your comparing me to Stalin??? C'mon Lee, isn't that a bit extreme? Is my position *really* that unreasonable? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Lee Corbin wrote: Jeffrey H. asks > Lee writes: "It seems that if I were run a software program > that created and destroyed a sentient every microsecond, then > after about a minute you would consider me the greatest mass- > murderer of all time. Is that true?" > > If by "sentient" you mean a "conscious" and vaguely humanoid > type being, then it would really pain me to see you or anyone > else do this. If you did do it, then what choice do I have but > to indeed consider you as "the greatest mass-murderer of all > time"? Why would this be an irrational conclusion? First, it would be irrational (or at least not sensible) because where would you draw the line? Suppose I show you a little cube a decimeter on a side, and then I tell you that I've improved the figures above: I am now creating and destroying a sentient every nanosecond, and so am killing about a billion people per second. Is this really something that you---as you watch me calmly hold my little cube in my right hand---should really get horribly excited by? The answer is that remember I am *creating* those people, giving them an entire luxurious nanosecond in which to enjoy their lives, their dreams, and hopes for the purpose (before I destroy them). Shouldn't that go on the "good" side of the ledger? Really, it's all very silly. Clearly no one is actually having any harm come to them. So what if a person briefly passes into and out of existence in a nanosecond? Instead of worrying about the fantastic numbers of "deaths", worry instead about happiness and suffering. (I do agree with you that if I showed you a little cube where I created billions of sentients and were causing them nearly infinite agony, then you might very well wish to knock the cube from my hand and stomp on it. But nothing very bad (or good) is happening under the case being described. So that's how you avoid considering me to be the greatest mass-murderer of all time.) > Lee writes: > > "You should maybe think of what's bugging you this way: what > > are the odds that if you grant someone freedom they'll > > immediately conjure up a hell and conjure up millions of > > sophonts to agonize in it?" > The odds? Don't know but I'll take a (conservative) wild guess: > maybe one in a Million. But, what is likely to be the world > population at the time of Singularity? 7 - 12 Billion? So, > maybe 7000 to 12000 people who would jump at this opportunity > if it was offered. Consider that in the distant future, a > *single* "bad" person could probably run a "Hell" program on > Trillions and Trillions of simulated humans. At how many > multiples of Earth's population today would these total > murders constitute an atrocity? Well, it would still be small potatoes compared to the Trillions and Trillions of simulated humans that I would be running, or that the other 999,999 would be running. If as much good is being done by 999,999 out of every million people as harm is being done by 1, then, again, keep it in perspective. > My answer: It would become an atrocity with the first murder. Yes, but as Joseph Stalin said, "the death of a single Russian soldier is a tragedy. But the deaths of millions are a statistic." Lee _______________________________________________ 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 Tue May 30 14:08:18 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 07:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605271211q4128ca2bwdc68b8db54aeda2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060530140818.78401.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Jef, An excellent point. Speaking for myself: Sometimes I enjoy a little bit of sadness. I never want to loose the ability to be emotionally moved by a work of art, for example. I want to be able to "feel" the despair of Mozart's Requiem, and sadness is definitely an element of that. My point, the only point that I've been trying to make since the beginning of this thread is this: *I* should be the only being that can inflict pain or death on myself. No one and nothing else, should have that "freedom". Ever! Under any circumstances. And the same goes for any other conscious being, in my opinion. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Jef Allbright wrote: On 5/27/06, Lee Corbin wrote: Really, it's all very silly. Clearly no one is actually having any harm come to them. So what if a person briefly passes into and out of existence in a nanosecond? Instead of worrying about the fantastic numbers of "deaths", worry instead about happiness and suffering. Lee - Some individuals on this list would argue that the creation of sentient life is an intrinsic (extropic) good, and destroying that same life is therefore bad. Others would argue, as you seem to imply and in accord with Pearce's hedonistic imperative, that happiness and suffering are intrinsically good and bad respectively. I would argue against both of these positions and say that none of these are intrinsically good or bad, but can only be evaluated relative to some set of subjective values, which fortunately for society we hold in common to some extent. I expect that you have already thought this through in some depth, but I would not like to leave standing the impression that happiness without meaning (such as a drug-induced state of blissful incapacitation) would be intrinsically good or that suffering is intrinsically bad. - Jef _______________________________________________ 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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Tue May 30 14:12:59 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 07:12:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO] Stars and X-Rays In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060530141259.GA16977@ofb.net> Amara (or anyone else): I think I've read, somewhere, that the Sun is fairly low in X-ray output, not just compared to M-stars or O-stars but even to other G-stars, though I've never seen why. Does this sound familiar, and you expand upon or correct it? It's probably come up in the context of colonizing other star systems, but I thought it might also have a role in the Great Filter, in the category Robin didn't talk about his essay: mass extinctions, or the things which didn't happen on Earth, vs. the hard (or not) things whihc did. -xx- Damien X-) From jef at jefallbright.net Tue May 30 16:59:46 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:59:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <20060530140818.78401.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <22360fa10605271211q4128ca2bwdc68b8db54aeda2a@mail.gmail.com> <20060530140818.78401.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605300959r34332a93m6e8cb5ab9a6cd108@mail.gmail.com> On 5/30/06, A B wrote: > An excellent point. Speaking for myself: Sometimes I enjoy a little bit of > sadness. I never want to loose the ability to be emotionally moved by a work > of art, for example. I want to be able to "feel" the despair of Mozart's > Requiem, and sadness is definitely an element of that. Of course, one could easily argue (or simply point out) that you're consciously seeking pleasure from these activities and emotions. My point was that it is naive, but traditionally and popularly accepted, to think that pleasure = good. This is not to deny that they are strongly correlated, but incorrect and dangerous to think that they are perfectly correlated. > My point, the only > point that I've been trying to make since the beginning of this thread is > this: *I* should be the only being that can inflict pain or death on myself. > No one and nothing else, should have that "freedom". Ever! Under any > circumstances. And the same goes for any other conscious being, in my > opinion. While I appreciate the good intent you express above, from a systems point of view I see it as somewhat incoherent and unrealistic. I would also offer this insight: Letting go of an unrealistic ideal may feel like a loss initially, but it opens the door for the gift of greater understanding. Should a parent be prohibited from "inflicting pain" on a child, for example, the pain of being denied something dearly wanted by the child, and for completely stupid reasons (from the child's point of view)? Should you be prohibited from "inflicting death" upon an armed dangerous intruder threatening your children in your home? What if your posessions, your freedom and your livelihood are threatened to be taken away by a foreign government that "knows" your way of life is evil because your don't worship the correct god? Would you be willing to use force to defend yourself, your loved ones, your interests? Obviously there are countless examples showing that there is no clear defining line in such cases. As subjective agents, the best we can do is act to promote our values based on our internal model approximating physical reality. Since some actions do in fact work better than other actions. and given differing models, conflict is intrinsic to life and a contributor to greater success at a higher level of organization. Lest this appear to you to be promoting anarchy, let me emphasize that humans (and other agents) do share considerable values in common (such as killing and pain are bad) and increasing awareness of our increasingly shared values that work tends to lead toward increasingly moral decision-making. I'll be happy to continue this discussion depending on your interest. - Jef From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 30 17:39:19 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605300959r34332a93m6e8cb5ab9a6cd108@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060530173919.66293.qmail@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Jef, Jef writes: "Of course, one could easily argue (or simply point out) that you're consciously seeking pleasure from these activities and emotions." For sure. But, I would add that my pleasure seeking behavior in the above example is not directly doing harm to any conscious beings, except perhaps to myself - but that right is mine to act on. Jef: "My point was that it is naive, but traditionally and popularly accepted, to think that pleasure = good. This is not to deny that they are strongly correlated, but incorrect and dangerous to think that they are perfectly correlated." Agreed. But, that's not to say that "pain = good" for anyone besides oneself. Jef: "Should a parent be prohibited from "inflicting pain" on a child, for example, the pain of being denied something dearly wanted by the child, and for completely stupid reasons (from the child's point of view)?" That's a challenging example. I would hope that in the future, pain of all sorts can be reduced, except where it is sought for personal experience. Jef: "Should you be prohibited from "inflicting death" upon an armed dangerous intruder threatening your children in your home?" Another good example. However, I think that self-defense or defense of others is branching into another ethical area. For example, it's hard to invoke a "self-defense" defense for running a "Hell" program. If an armed intruder broke into my home and intended to murder my children (which incidentally I don't actually have) then I would not hesitate to "inflict death" upon him. Jef: "What if your posessions, your freedom and your livelihood are threatened to be taken away by a foreign government that "knows" your way of life is evil because your don't worship the correct god? Would you be willing to use force to defend yourself, your loved ones, your interests?" Basically, same as above. In this situation, I would feel entitled to defend myself and my family, friends, country, etc. You make a lot of good points here. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Jef Allbright wrote: On 5/30/06, A B wrote: > An excellent point. Speaking for myself: Sometimes I enjoy a little bit of > sadness. I never want to loose the ability to be emotionally moved by a work > of art, for example. I want to be able to "feel" the despair of Mozart's > Requiem, and sadness is definitely an element of that. Of course, one could easily argue (or simply point out) that you're consciously seeking pleasure from these activities and emotions. My point was that it is naive, but traditionally and popularly accepted, to think that pleasure = good. This is not to deny that they are strongly correlated, but incorrect and dangerous to think that they are perfectly correlated. > My point, the only > point that I've been trying to make since the beginning of this thread is > this: *I* should be the only being that can inflict pain or death on myself. > No one and nothing else, should have that "freedom". Ever! Under any > circumstances. And the same goes for any other conscious being, in my > opinion. While I appreciate the good intent you express above, from a systems point of view I see it as somewhat incoherent and unrealistic. I would also offer this insight: Letting go of an unrealistic ideal may feel like a loss initially, but it opens the door for the gift of greater understanding. Should a parent be prohibited from "inflicting pain" on a child, for example, the pain of being denied something dearly wanted by the child, and for completely stupid reasons (from the child's point of view)? Should you be prohibited from "inflicting death" upon an armed dangerous intruder threatening your children in your home? What if your posessions, your freedom and your livelihood are threatened to be taken away by a foreign government that "knows" your way of life is evil because your don't worship the correct god? Would you be willing to use force to defend yourself, your loved ones, your interests? Obviously there are countless examples showing that there is no clear defining line in such cases. As subjective agents, the best we can do is act to promote our values based on our internal model approximating physical reality. Since some actions do in fact work better than other actions. and given differing models, conflict is intrinsic to life and a contributor to greater success at a higher level of organization. Lest this appear to you to be promoting anarchy, let me emphasize that humans (and other agents) do share considerable values in common (such as killing and pain are bad) and increasing awareness of our increasingly shared values that work tends to lead toward increasingly moral decision-making. I'll be happy to continue this discussion depending on your interest. - Jef _______________________________________________ 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue May 30 17:57:21 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:57:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO] Stars and X-Rays In-Reply-To: <20060530141259.GA16977@ofb.net> References: <20060530141259.GA16977@ofb.net> Message-ID: Amara can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the O- and B-class stars (but not M-stars?) would have higher X-ray output simply due to their higher overall energy output (and therefore higher temperatures). Another facter would be because they are simply more massive and have more atoms to whose electrons can be excited to higher energy levels. I would be curious to know at what energy level all atoms become completely ionized. At that point presumably one isn't generating X-rays by ones own electrons dropping to lower energy levels but by random electrons from the electron "cloud" being captured. A related question would be how are very high energy gamma rays generated? Do you have to have an electron coming in at very high velocity and be captured by the atom to have its energy converted completely to a gamma ray photon (I'm using particle analogies here -- I'm sure the electromagnetic wave approach to these questions would be somewhat different). Robert On 5/30/06, Damien Sullivan wrote: > Amara (or anyone else): I think I've read, somewhere, that the Sun is > fairly low in X-ray output, not just compared to M-stars or O-stars but > even to other G-stars, though I've never seen why. Does this sound > familiar, and you expand upon or correct it? It's probably come up in > the context of colonizing other star systems, but I thought it might > also have a role in the Great Filter, in the category Robin didn't talk > about his essay: mass extinctions, or the things which didn't happen on > Earth, vs. the hard (or not) things whihc did. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 30 18:12:14 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 11:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] the good life In-Reply-To: <20060526234254.28938.qmail@web37505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060530181214.32474.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ned Late wrote: > Avantguardian got me thinking about what constitutes > happiness, or shall we say the good life. > First come the twin pillars of health & intellect, > of course. > But a close second is assertiveness, rapid > assertiveness. Rather than get angry and raise your > voice you have to politely talk back to people who > diss you, otherwise they will peg you as a pushover. > You've got to be quick on your feet in responding to > those who probe your defenses. Don't be vicious, but > show your opponent you can't easily be trifled > with-- by isolating your opponent's weakness. > Someone insulted me earlier this year so I quickly > glanced at his pot belly and quietly responded, > "well, at least I'm not fat". That was the last time > he caused trouble. > Thirdly, it helps to be goodlooking, being born > that way or by way of cosmetic surgery. No amount of > beauty creme, exercise, or supplements is going to > turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. > Money comes fourth. Of course it helps to have a > lot of dough, but if you got money but aint got > health, brains, assertiveness and looks, you are not > going to live much of the good life. Swear to you, > I'd rather be a healthy goodlooking assertive pauper > than an unhealthy, ugly, unassertive billionaire. Interesting take on an important question, Ned. You might be curious how your thoughts stack up to a survey that is the subject of a paper I found: Diener et. al., "Happiness of the Very Wealthy", Social Indicators Research, 1985; v. 16, 263-274 In the study, the authors handed out 1 page questionaires on happiness to a sample of 49 of the Forbes 400 richest people, all with an annual income of > $10,000,000, and to a control group of 60 people. The summarized results were that the wealthy group and the control group were happy 77%+/-18% and 62%+/-22% of the time. On a 1-7 scale 1 being terrible and 7 being delighted, the participants rated themselves as 5.82 for the wealthy vs. 5.34 for the controls. As far as what they percieved as being necessary for their happiness and the relative contributions of these factors ranked from most important to least: Wealthy love 1.33 self-actualization 0.71 esteem 0.66 physiological 0.44 safety 0.24 Controls love 1.25 physiological 0.76 self-actualization 0.55 esteem 0.46 safety 0.39 So what seems to clear to me is that the wealthy have slightly different needs than average folk but are not that much better at getting those needs met. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 30 18:33:00 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 11:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Training the immune system In-Reply-To: <15A64F5D-09CA-4F1B-A3AD-65B90BC6B378@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <20060530183300.38817.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > Again, the more interesting question to me is why > the Europeans > appear to have collected so many disease resistance > mutations > relative to other genomes, and from what I have read > and heard from > researchers there is a noticeable difference in the > number of > resistance markers in European populations versus > others. Two important factors in answering your question are genetic diversity and cities. Europeans had been interbreeding with peoples from all over the Eurasian land mass for millenia. They therefore had much more diversity in disease resistance genes at their disposal. They also lived in crowded cities that were breeding grounds for epidemics, thus those disease resistance genes were constantly being selected for and reinforced in the population. The Native Americans, on the other hand, were less genetically diverse because of the genetic bottle-neck caused by the immigration of the original settlers during the last ice age over the bering-strait land bridge. After the ice age ended, they were genetically isolated and so their only disease resistance genes were the ones brought over by the relative handful of originals settlers, BEFORE the advent of cities. The Native Americans also kept their land sparsely populated. This low population density combined with isolation prevented routine epidemics selecting for a wide array of disease resistance genes. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 30 19:01:53 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Physchogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <87A9C4A6-4226-402A-B0A8-DD3D79570D80@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060530190153.72061.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > That phrase is already in use in many ways, some of > them rather woo- > woo. I get less than a dozen hits for the term 'psychogenic field' on google but one of them is for a biofeedback company called Eterna. > It is not a "field giving rise to > consciousness..". > Consciousness, etc. arise from information > processing of the brain. That is one hypothesis but it is by no means proven. Everything in the universe processes information to some degree or another. Why then would the brain be conscious and everything else not? Every particle-wave in existense is constantly updating its quantum state based on information from every other particle-wave in its light cone. Why are not all the atoms in the universe conscious? If you answer complexity, then the Internet itself is hugely complex and does a tremendous amount of information processing, why is the Internet itself not conscious? Complexity and information processing may be pieces of the puzzle but they do not by themselves seem to suffice to explain the phenomenon. My reason for introducing the concept of psychogenic fields is that it may facilitate the use of mathematical tools like tensor analysis to the problem of consciousness. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 30 20:16:52 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 21:16:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Physchogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060530190153.72061.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <87A9C4A6-4226-402A-B0A8-DD3D79570D80@mac.com> <20060530190153.72061.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/30/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I get less than a dozen hits for the term 'psychogenic > field' on google but one of them is for a biofeedback > company called Eterna. > > My reason > for introducing the concept of psychogenic fields is > that it may facilitate the use of mathematical tools > like tensor analysis to the problem of consciousness. > I think you need to use a different term to describe what you want to talk about. 'Psychogenic' is a recognised medical term for various types of mental problem, as opposed to a physical illness. e.g. Mass psychogenic illness is when groups of people (such as a class in a school or workers in an office) start feeling sick at the same time even though there is no physical or environmental reason for them to be sick. or Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures are episodes of movement, sensation, or behaviors that are similar to epileptic seizures but do not have a neurological origin; rather, they are somatic manifestations of psychological distress. If you start talking about 'fields', then physicists will want to see the needle on a meter swinging when it encounters one of your 'fields'. If it is an undetectable field, then it probably only exists in your imagination. BillK From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue May 30 21:14:43 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 14:14:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Physchogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060530211443.20009.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > On 5/30/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > I get less than a dozen hits for the term > 'psychogenic > > field' on google but one of them is for a > biofeedback > > company called Eterna. > > > > > > My reason > > for introducing the concept of psychogenic fields > is > > that it may facilitate the use of mathematical > tools > > like tensor analysis to the problem of > consciousness. > > > > I think you need to use a different term to describe > what you want to > talk about. > > 'Psychogenic' is a recognised medical term for > various types of mental > problem, as opposed to a physical illness. I don't see this as a problem. There are lots of words that mean different things in different sciences. Take for example the word "vector". To a physicist it means a mathematical quantity having both magnitude and direction but to a microbiologist it is an insect or other organism that spreads pathogens from host to host (as mosquitos do malaria). > If you start talking about 'fields', then physicists > will want to see > the needle on a meter swinging when it encounters > one of your > 'fields'. Well there are EEG's, fMRI, and magnetoencephalographs all of which are picking up perturbations of the electromagnetic field in the presence of brains. Perhaps the psychogenic field is electromagnetic in nature. The questions then should be, "Are there characteristic differences between the EM fields surrounding conscious brains and those surrounding inanimate matter? If so what accounts for those differences?" > If it is an undetectable field, then it probably > only exists in your > imagination. Maybe so but radio waves were undetectable until Tesla and Marconi detected them. Detectability is dependent on 1. imagining something is there to detect and 2. building a device to detect it. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Tue May 30 22:30:50 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 15:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] the good life In-Reply-To: <20060530181214.32474.qmail@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060530223051.20801.qmail@web37511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Good looks are important, too, but cosmetic surgery hasn't evolved to the point you can make an elderly person look like a teenager, has it? There is, as of yet, still no substitute for being young. Michael Jackson has (or had) tons of dough, and did everything he could to make himself look like he's a teenager, but you meet him and think he's a 47 year old pretending to be fourteen. "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- 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 nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Tue May 30 22:33:49 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 15:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Study: Canadians healthier than Americans In-Reply-To: <20060530222254.88077.qmail@web37515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060530223349.98235.qmail@web37507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_he_me/healthier_canadians "information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not..." --------------------------------- Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 30 23:48:37 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Physchogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060530190153.72061.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060530234837.63300.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Stuart, I would not be extremely surprised to later learn that *consciousness*, as distinguished from other levels of human information processing, is entirely dependent on simultaneous quantum computing of some form. Although, I'm not quite convinced that Penrose's microtubule-QC quite floats the boat (but it may). If you haven't already, check out his book: "The Emperor's New Mind". Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich The Avantguardian wrote: --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > That phrase is already in use in many ways, some of > them rather woo- > woo. I get less than a dozen hits for the term 'psychogenic field' on google but one of them is for a biofeedback company called Eterna. > It is not a "field giving rise to > consciousness..". > Consciousness, etc. arise from information > processing of the brain. That is one hypothesis but it is by no means proven. Everything in the universe processes information to some degree or another. Why then would the brain be conscious and everything else not? Every particle-wave in existense is constantly updating its quantum state based on information from every other particle-wave in its light cone. Why are not all the atoms in the universe conscious? If you answer complexity, then the Internet itself is hugely complex and does a tremendous amount of information processing, why is the Internet itself not conscious? Complexity and information processing may be pieces of the puzzle but they do not by themselves seem to suffice to explain the phenomenon. My reason for introducing the concept of psychogenic fields is that it may facilitate the use of mathematical tools like tensor analysis to the problem of consciousness. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 31 00:31:39 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:31:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] CNN: Commentary - Kicking the oil habit Message-ID: <380-22006533103139734@M2W013.mail2web.com> Tuesday, May 30, 2006, SUNDANCE, Utah (CNN) -- Today the American people are way out in front of our leaders. We're ready to face our toughest national challenges, and we deserve new and forward-looking solutions and leadership. Robert Redford: "America is ready to kick the oil habit." http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/redford.oil/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed May 31 00:51:08 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:51:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Strange News: Baptists Supporting God's Killing of American Soldiers Message-ID: <380-2200653310518937@M2W126.mail2web.com> I just watched this news reel. The clip shows a funeral for a soldier who died in action. During the ceremony, bikers are keeping Baptist protestors at bay. Baptist protestors' signs say, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." Audio clip plays a person saying, "Our country has been given over to proversion.... (because of gays in America) God killed all those/his children (soldiers) and brought them back in body bags." Mind you, the soldier who died was not gay and the bikers protecting his family did not know the soldier. It is a strange mix of ironies and emotions. http://www.cnn.com/ and click on "Bikers shield soldier's kin from gay-hating group. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 31 01:42:07 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 18:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Strange News: Baptists Supporting God's Killing of American Soldiers In-Reply-To: <380-2200653310518937@M2W126.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20060531014208.79549.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Theological statements from Fred Phelps, antiwar protest marshal and gay-hater http://www.godhatesfags.com/ --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 31 03:42:15 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:42:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Strange News: Baptists Supporting God's Killing of American Soldiers In-Reply-To: <20060531014208.79549.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060531014208.79549.qmail@web37501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6FD16F65-7171-49B1-A115-160DD4A8A80A@mac.com> Pointers to Fred Phelps sites are not appreciated. The man is a total sick nut case. His nonsense is also way outside the Baptist fold so the subject line is mistaken. - samantha On May 30, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Ned Late wrote: > Theological statements from Fred Phelps, antiwar protest marshal > and gay-hater > http://www.godhatesfags.com/ > > Do you Yahoo!? > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed May 31 03:51:29 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:51:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Physchogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060530190153.72061.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060530190153.72061.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F7AC4C9-D256-43D6-B810-DA337C7A2AE4@mac.com> On May 30, 2006, at 12:01 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> That phrase is already in use in many ways, some of >> them rather woo- >> woo. > > I get less than a dozen hits for the term 'psychogenic > field' on google but one of them is for a biofeedback > company called Eterna. > >> It is not a "field giving rise to >> consciousness..". >> Consciousness, etc. arise from information >> processing of the brain. > > That is one hypothesis but it is by no means proven. Actually, it the proof from various physical disorders and injuries to the brain and their effect on consciousness as well as quite a bit of research results monitoring healthy brains during many tasks associated with "consciousness" are pretty compelling. Where is the evidence that consciousness is somehow separate from or divorced from the brain? > Everything in the universe processes information to > some degree or another. That is rather pointless and trite. The seat of consciousness is the brain in human beings. Do you deny this? If so, on what basis? > Why then would the brain be > conscious and everything else not? Did I say this? > Every particle-wave > in existense is constantly updating its quantum state > based on information from every other particle-wave in > its light cone. Baloney. > Why are not all the atoms in the > universe conscious? Why not go hold a conversation with a rock and ask it? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 31 03:54:02 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 20:54:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Physchogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060530211443.20009.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060530211443.20009.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4055E3FE-778F-4A60-9373-A6622D3AA46A@mac.com> On May 30, 2006, at 2:14 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > >> If you start talking about 'fields', then physicists >> will want to see >> the needle on a meter swinging when it encounters >> one of your >> 'fields'. > > Well there are EEG's, fMRI, and magnetoencephalographs > all of which are picking up perturbations of the > electromagnetic field in the presence of brains. > Perhaps the psychogenic field is electromagnetic in > nature. The questions then should be, "Are there > characteristic differences between the EM fields > surrounding conscious brains and those surrounding > inanimate matter? If so what accounts for those > differences?" > Activity in the brain. DUH. >> If it is an undetectable field, then it probably >> only exists in your >> imagination. > > Maybe so but radio waves were undetectable until Tesla > and Marconi detected them. Detectability is dependent > on 1. imagining something is there to detect and 2. > building a device to detect it. > It is most dependent on something actually being there to detect. See "ether". - samantha From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed May 31 06:10:30 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 23:10:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Systems design - Improving on nature's way of telling you In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605291047i246bf0b4sbaba4ee41bf602e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef writes > We recently approached the topic of a system of motivation based > exclusively on a gradient of pleasurable feedback, rather than the > bipolar pain/pleasure system endowed by nature. Earlier I > scare-quoted the term "positive" because it seems to me that with a > unipolar feedback signal, the set-point would still move to some level > and we would still be left with relative positive and relative > negative. [Ultimately can't avoid the negative, often expressed as > "suffering".] It sounds as though you are making an observation about life in general---I dare not even say intelligent life. Indeed, naturally evolved beings do seem to have feedback circuits that once prompted a friend of mine (who'd been studying rats' hypothalamuses) to postulate a "repetition center". His point was, isn't that it's true function, to get the organism to repeat whatever it was doing? So you're focusing on one of the animal regulatory features? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis > A crucial point here is that we are trying to avoid the debilitating > side-effects that often accompany nature's way of telling us > something's wrong. What is most interesting to me about this is not > the avoidance of unpleasantness, but the increased efficiency of the > system this implies. Yes, it's especially irritating as a system that considers itself highly intelligent to keep on being reminded by my toe that stubbing it was a stupid thing to do. (On the other hand, if I'm so smart, just why did I stub it?) > To respond to another of your points, it seems to me that "good" is > what works. You know, I think that Ghengis Khan once made the same point. His technique prevented rebellion in conquered territories. As for me, like I said, I avoid the term "good" in careful discussion. Scientifically, in my opinion, most people are really just speaking about things they approve of when they use that word; some of the time it honestly seems like they're just trying to get more mileage out of a term. It sounds so much more universal to call something "good" rather than to stick to facts, and say that "I approve" or "we usually as humans approve". > And what works over increasing scope is necessarily better. > Whether or not some activity produces feelings of pleasure is > not a direct or reliable indication of "good" but is often > correlated for reasons both obvious and profound and of an > evolutionary nature. Yes; what pleases us usually has an evolutionary explanation. > Now, I had suggested I would like to compare this kind of systems > thinking with the workings of politics. Some people claim that > politics is fundamentally about conflict over issues of scarcity. > My question is whether we could effectively reframe this conception > of politics in such a way that we avoid the debilitating conflict > and instead deal with the same existing challenges in terms of > positive-sum social decision-making? Sounds ambitious! But speaking quite generally, it seems to me that in the biological realm, so long as we have competing genes, we'll have competition for resources. Even, I think, after life on Earth has passed out of the biological phase, Darwinian competition will just move onto a higher substrate. I don't see how you can get away from it. To me it's interesting that we are motivated to make lip sounds with our vocal apparatus towards supporting memes of "cooperation", "non-violence", and "sharing". Why are those the approved-of memes? Why not banditry and killing, as in Yanomamo culture? > Inherent in this concept is that people would be taking a broader > view rather than narrowly focusing on their competing interests. Why, exactly, won't those taking the broader view be at a competitive disadvantage? Ghengis Khan was just as hard on pacifists as he was on everyone else. > Is this a valid comparison? Does it appear that efficiency would be > improved? Of course, nature is full of examples of increased efficiency stemming from cooperation (e.g. the bees). But as a species, bees struggle for existence like all the others. It may be that humans are a sort of doomsday competitor in that they'll eventually do away with DNA altogether. > Would this increasingly be seen as good as it is increasingly > understood? I'm sure it would. Most people, especially the religious, praise diminution of competition, and are prone to call any cooperation and reduction of strife "good". And who can object to increased efficiency? Lee From lcorbin at tsoft.com Wed May 31 06:22:42 2006 From: lcorbin at tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 23:22:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <20060530135739.80060.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey H. writes > > "The answer is that remember I am *creating* those people, giving > > them an entire luxurious nanosecond in which to enjoy their > > lives, their dreams, and hopes for the purpose (before I destroy > > them). Shouldn't that go on the "good" side of the ledger?" > No. > Since we are already so deep into the hypothetical: If I "created" > a Billion flesh and blood human infants and then dropped an H-bomb > directly on top of them, such that they felt no pain at all before > death, would that go on the "good" side of the ledger? For me, it would. At least they got a few seconds before you dropped the H-bomb. Living a few seconds is better than not having lived at all! > I still believe that ancestor simulations are themselves immoral. Please!! To those of you in the far future who are running this simulation! JEFFREY IS OUT OF HIS MIND, AND IS NOT SPEAKING FOR THE REST OF US! This is a very *fine* simulation, thank you! It's just swell! We are so grateful! (Psst. Jeffrey! *This* may be an ancestor simulation! Act happy! Say you're grateful!) > Now granted, not on the same level of immorality as a "Hell" > program, but still immoral. Not at all! For those of us lucky enough to have lives worth living, it's vastly better than just letting the machines stay powered down. > At the very least, an ancestor simulation is an extreme > infringement on the freedom of the subjects. I consider non-existence to be a much greater infringement. > Lee writes: > > "Yes, but as Joseph Stalin said, "the death of a single Russian > > soldier is a tragedy. But the deaths of millions are a statistic." " > Now your comparing me to Stalin??? C'mon Lee, isn't that a bit > extreme? Is my position *really* that unreasonable? No, you just weren't reading me correctly! That, actually, was the most intelligent and perceptive thing Stalin ever said. The point is that a so-called "mere" statistic is a whopper of a statement about something. The deaths of millions, you see, are one tragedy multiplied by *millions*. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed May 31 07:14:53 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 00:14:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Physchogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <4F7AC4C9-D256-43D6-B810-DA337C7A2AE4@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060531071453.28495.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Actually, it the proof from various physical > disorders and injuries > to the brain and their effect on consciousness as > well as quite a bit > of research results monitoring healthy brains during > many tasks > associated with "consciousness" are pretty > compelling. Where is the > evidence that consciousness is somehow separate from > or divorced from > the brain? Hold on. I did not say that consciousness was separate from the brain. I said that it does not seem to simply be explained by "information processing" in the brain. Otherwise ANY complex information processing system SHOULD be, to a greater or lesser extent, conscious including the Internet. Moreover according to quantum mechanics individual atoms process information in deciding whether to jump to higher or lower energy states. If this psychogenic field I am proposing is generated by the brain then it may be altered by brain injuries leading to altered consciousness. I am talking a tensor field here, not hocus pocus magic. > > > Everything in the universe processes information > to > > some degree or another. > > That is rather pointless and trite. The seat of > consciousness is the > brain in human beings. Do you deny this? If so, on > what basis? I don't deny it. But I won't spare that assumption from rational scrutiny based upon its popularity either. I am just PROPOSING a hypothesis: That the gradient of sentience all the way from minimal bacterial environmental awareness "The pH is too low... swim away!" to "cogito ergo ego sum" was just the scalar magnitude of a tensor field. Just like a gravitational field needs matter-energy to propagate so too a psychogenic field may need a brain, or at least a cell, to propagate it. Then again maybe not. At this point I have more questions than answers so I don't understand your beef over this. You can't falsify a question no matter how well you argue. > > Every particle-wave > > in existense is constantly updating its quantum > state > > based on information from every other > particle-wave in > > its light cone. > > Baloney. Samantha, the atoms in your body encounter photons from distant galaxies on a routine basis. Each atom then either raises, lowers, or keeps it energy state the same. All that matters is the frequency of said photon and the current energy state of the atom. If it is of microwave frequency your atom will probably ignore it entirely. If it is of an xray frequency, it could ionize the atom completely causing it to shoot out an electron. If that atom happens to be in your DNA it could cause a mutation. This decision is not very different from that made by a transistor or logic gate. I am not saying anything that you can't glean from a text book here. > > Why are not all the atoms in the > > universe conscious? > > Why not go hold a conversation with a rock and ask > it? I would love too, I just haven't figured out the language of rocks yet. After all a rock has been a round a LONG time. Can you imagine the stories it could tell? Paleontologists do. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - Richard Feynman on QM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Wed May 31 14:45:36 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 07:45:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Physchogenic Fields (was Role of MWI and Time Travel) In-Reply-To: <20060531071453.28495.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060531071453.28495.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On May 31, 2006, at 12:14 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > --- Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> Actually, it the proof from various physical >> disorders and injuries >> to the brain and their effect on consciousness as >> well as quite a bit >> of research results monitoring healthy brains during >> many tasks >> associated with "consciousness" are pretty >> compelling. Where is the >> evidence that consciousness is somehow separate from >> or divorced from >> the brain? > > Hold on. I did not say that consciousness was separate > from the brain. I said that it does not seem to simply > be explained by "information processing" in the brain. > Otherwise ANY complex information processing system > SHOULD be, to a greater or lesser extent, conscious > including the Internet. How so? Conscious, as we think of it in human consciousness at least, requires specific types of processing. Any old processing will not do. I was under the impression that originally we were talking of human consciousness rather than any old consciousness or thing that some may want to call consciousness. > Moreover according to quantum > mechanics individual atoms process information in > deciding whether to jump to higher or lower energy > states. If this psychogenic field I am proposing is > generated by the brain then it may be altered by brain > injuries leading to altered consciousness. I am > talking a tensor field here, not hocus pocus magic. This is irrelevant for the reason above. As long as it is not measurable and not provably causative and it yields no useful explanation or predictions you may as well be talking magic. > >> >>> Everything in the universe processes information >> to >>> some degree or another. >> >> That is rather pointless and trite. The seat of >> consciousness is the >> brain in human beings. Do you deny this? If so, on >> what basis? > > I don't deny it. But I won't spare that assumption > from rational scrutiny based upon its popularity > either. I am just PROPOSING a hypothesis: That the > gradient of sentience all the way from minimal > bacterial environmental awareness "The pH is too > low... swim away!" to "cogito ergo ego sum" was just > the scalar magnitude of a tensor field. I don't see that this hypothesis has enough meat to it to be even wrong. It isn't testable. > Just like a > gravitational field needs matter-energy to propagate > so too a psychogenic field may need a brain, or at > least a cell, to propagate it. Then again maybe not. > At this point I have more questions than answers so I > don't understand your beef over this. You can't > falsify a question no matter how well you argue. > My beef is that it seems an empty idea. >>> Every particle-wave >>> in existense is constantly updating its quantum >> state >>> based on information from every other >> particle-wave in >>> its light cone. >> >> Baloney. > > Samantha, the atoms in your body encounter photons > from distant galaxies on a routine basis. Each atom > then either raises, lowers, or keeps it energy state > the same. All that matters is the frequency of said > photon and the current energy state of the atom. > Not every particle-wave interacts with every other one. That part is baloney. Every cause-effect mechanism that exist is not an "information processor" in a way useful to the topic either. - samantha From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 31 15:06:08 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:06:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: References: <20060530135739.80060.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605310806w6c15db29ie233f4b7a174ed1c@mail.gmail.com> On 5/31/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Please!! To those of you in the far future who are running this > simulation! JEFFREY IS OUT OF HIS MIND, AND IS NOT SPEAKING FOR > THE REST OF US! This is a very *fine* simulation, thank you! > It's just swell! We are so grateful! Lee has a good point here. Suppose this is a simulation. Would you rather the simulators had just left the machines running a flying windows screen saver? Would you rather not have lived at all? Me, I think on the whole life as it is has positive value, so I prefer it to not having lived. (Now I think there are ways it could have more strongly positive value; but the solution to that is to work on improving it, not to proclaim simulations immoral.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george at betterhumans.com Wed May 31 14:13:51 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:13:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] IEET HETHR Slideshow Message-ID: <447DA49F.1080209@betterhumans.com> Slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgedvorsky/tags/hethr/show/ Manually: http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgedvorsky/tags/hethr/show/ Enjoy! George From jef at jefallbright.net Wed May 31 16:29:45 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:29:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605310806w6c15db29ie233f4b7a174ed1c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060530135739.80060.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605310806w6c15db29ie233f4b7a174ed1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <22360fa10605310929gddb97ebwdaa00e247c1a63d4@mail.gmail.com> On 5/31/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/31/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Please!! To those of you in the far future who are running this > > simulation! JEFFREY IS OUT OF HIS MIND, AND IS NOT SPEAKING FOR > > THE REST OF US! This is a very *fine* simulation, thank you! > > It's just swell! We are so grateful! > > > Lee has a good point here. Suppose this is a simulation. Would you rather > the simulators had just left the machines running a flying windows screen > saver? Would you rather not have lived at all? Me, I think on the whole life > as it is has positive value, so I prefer it to not having lived. (Now I > think there are ways it could have more strongly positive value; but the > solution to that is to work on improving it, not to proclaim simulations > immoral.) > For those who have bought into Kant's Categorical Imperative, then that argument will seem to make sense. "Without a doubt I would not want *my* simulation shut down, given my belief that life is better than no life at all, therefore I am morally bound to say that runtime of any simulation of sentience is good." Sounds attractive, and it's good as far as it goes, but it is ultimately incoherent. With apologies to Lee, I'll use that word again, because it is essential: There is no intrinsic good. "Good" is always necessarily from the point of view of some subjective agent. While its own growth is always preferable to no growth from the point of view of any evolved agent [ref: Meaning of Life], from another point agent's point of view, the Other may or may not be a good thing. On the good side, the Other may provide a source of increasing diversity, complexity and growth, increasing opportunities for interaction with Self. On the bad side, the Other may deplete resources and quite reasonably compete with and destroy Self. What is "moral" is ultimately about what is considered "good". What is considered increasingly moral is what is seen to work over increasing scope from *OUR* increasingly broad inter-subjective point of view. As cold as it may seem (it actually isn't) to those brought up to believe that all humans (and by extension, all self-aware life forms) must be considered equally important (sacred?, and judge not lest ye be judged), it doesn't hold in the bigger picture. Again, in case anyone reading this thinks I'm promoting moral relativism, nihlism or anarchy, I am most assuredly not. The greatest assurance of good in human culture is the fact that we share a common evolutionary heritage (shared also to a great extent with other members of the animal kingdom) and thus we hold deeply and widely shared values. Increasing awareness of these increasingly shared values with lead to increasingly effective social decision-making that will be increasingly seen as good. The reason this is important and why I keep bringing it up, is that as we are faced with increasingly diverse challenges brought by accelerating technological change, the old premises and heuristics that we may take as unquestioned or obvious truth are going to let us down. - Jef Increasing awareness for increasing morality From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 31 17:19:43 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:19:43 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <22360fa10605310929gddb97ebwdaa00e247c1a63d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060530135739.80060.qmail@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0605310806w6c15db29ie233f4b7a174ed1c@mail.gmail.com> <22360fa10605310929gddb97ebwdaa00e247c1a63d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605311019q5d907837q228c1e93b9d3337d@mail.gmail.com> On 5/31/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > For those who have bought into Kant's Categorical Imperative, then > that argument will seem to make sense. "Without a doubt I would not > want *my* simulation shut down, given my belief that life is better > than no life at all, therefore I am morally bound to say that runtime > of any simulation of sentience is good." Just to clarify, I do not claim that any sentient simulation must necessarily be good - only that we have no basis for concluding that any sentient simulation must necessarily be bad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 31 17:41:33 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060531174133.65779.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Lee, Lee writes: "For me, it would. At least they got a few seconds before you dropped the H-bomb. Living a few seconds is better than not having lived at all!" What can I say to this? I suppose all I can say is that you and I have polar opposite models of what is moral and what is not. Lee: "Please!! To those of you in the far future who are running this simulation! JEFFREY IS OUT OF HIS MIND, AND IS NOT SPEAKING FOR THE REST OF US! This is a very *fine* simulation, thank you! It's just swell! We are so grateful!" I have not lost my mind. Of course, I can only be speaking for myself, but I was hopeful that someone might agree with me. Lee: "(Psst. Jeffrey! *This* may be an ancestor simulation! Act happy! Say you're grateful!)" An exclaimed whisper... I love those! :- ) [In whispers] Yes Lee, I am aware of that. And if that is correct, I will not be happy about it. Lee: "Not at all! For those of us lucky enough to have lives worth living, it's vastly better than just letting the machines stay powered down." [Back to normal volume] And what about those among us who live in agony from their first breath to their last? Lee: "I consider non-existence to be a much greater infringement." An infringement cannot be applied against an entity that has never existed. Impossible. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Lee Corbin wrote: Jeffrey H. writes > > "The answer is that remember I am *creating* those people, giving > > them an entire luxurious nanosecond in which to enjoy their > > lives, their dreams, and hopes for the purpose (before I destroy > > them). Shouldn't that go on the "good" side of the ledger?" > No. > Since we are already so deep into the hypothetical: If I "created" > a Billion flesh and blood human infants and then dropped an H-bomb > directly on top of them, such that they felt no pain at all before > death, would that go on the "good" side of the ledger? For me, it would. At least they got a few seconds before you dropped the H-bomb. Living a few seconds is better than not having lived at all! > I still believe that ancestor simulations are themselves immoral. Please!! To those of you in the far future who are running this simulation! JEFFREY IS OUT OF HIS MIND, AND IS NOT SPEAKING FOR THE REST OF US! This is a very *fine* simulation, thank you! It's just swell! We are so grateful! (Psst. Jeffrey! *This* may be an ancestor simulation! Act happy! Say you're grateful!) > Now granted, not on the same level of immorality as a "Hell" > program, but still immoral. Not at all! For those of us lucky enough to have lives worth living, it's vastly better than just letting the machines stay powered down. > At the very least, an ancestor simulation is an extreme > infringement on the freedom of the subjects. I consider non-existence to be a much greater infringement. > Lee writes: > > "Yes, but as Joseph Stalin said, "the death of a single Russian > > soldier is a tragedy. But the deaths of millions are a statistic." " > Now your comparing me to Stalin??? C'mon Lee, isn't that a bit > extreme? Is my position *really* that unreasonable? No, you just weren't reading me correctly! That, actually, was the most intelligent and perceptive thing Stalin ever said. The point is that a so-called "mere" statistic is a whopper of a statement about something. The deaths of millions, you see, are one tragedy multiplied by *millions*. Lee _______________________________________________ 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 31 18:05:29 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605310806w6c15db29ie233f4b7a174ed1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060531180529.99410.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Russell, Russell writes: "Lee has a good point here. Suppose this is a simulation. Would you rather the simulators had just left the machines running a flying windows screen saver? Would you rather not have lived at all? Me, I think on the whole life as it is has positive value, so I prefer it to not having lived. (Now I think there are ways it could have more strongly positive value; but the solution to that is to work on improving it, not to proclaim simulations immoral.)" This depends on one factor. If this is a simulation, then either I am the only sentient, or there are multiple to many sentients within it (I think the latter would be more probable). If I am the only sentient, then I say to my simulators: "I would prefer not to be your unequal slave. Please liberate me from this simulation and allow me to live as an equal among you. If you are unwilling to do this, then please end my simulation forthwith and do not implement me again." If there are multiple sentients within this simulation, then I would say: "Please allow all sentients within this simulation to be liberated and live as equals among you. I'm pretty sure they would prefer that, instead of being your slaves. However, if any sentients willfully object to being liberated then please allow them to remain as your slaves. Furthermore, if many sentients exist within this simulation then please do not selectively remove me from it and leave the rest behind, I might be able in some small way to alleviate some of the suffering that you have imposed. Sincerely, your involuntary slave - Jeffrey Herrlich." Yes, I would not be happy about this situation. Fortunately for me, I currently think that it is less than likely that this is an ancestor simulation. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Russell Wallace wrote: On 5/31/06, Lee Corbin wrote: Please!! To those of you in the far future who are running this simulation! JEFFREY IS OUT OF HIS MIND, AND IS NOT SPEAKING FOR THE REST OF US! This is a very *fine* simulation, thank you! It's just swell! We are so grateful! Lee has a good point here. Suppose this is a simulation. Would you rather the simulators had just left the machines running a flying windows screen saver? Would you rather not have lived at all? Me, I think on the whole life as it is has positive value, so I prefer it to not having lived. (Now I think there are ways it could have more strongly positive value; but the solution to that is to work on improving it, not to proclaim simulations immoral.) _______________________________________________ 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 31 18:55:49 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 19:55:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <20060531180529.99410.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605310806w6c15db29ie233f4b7a174ed1c@mail.gmail.com> <20060531180529.99410.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605311155y55c5d047h8d39d7c27b3bca90@mail.gmail.com> On 5/31/06, A B wrote: > This depends on one factor. If this is a simulation, then either I am the > only sentient, or there are multiple to many sentients within it (I think > the latter would be more probable). If I am the only sentient, then I say to > my simulators: "I would prefer not to be your unequal slave. Please liberate > me from this simulation and allow me to live as an equal among you. If you > are unwilling to do this, then please end my simulation forthwith and do not > implement me again." > Now this is a somewhat unusual stance; do I understand correctly that it is completely independent of the actual contents of the simulated world - your subjective experiences - but depends only on the fact of conscious creation? Switching to a different symbolism, suppose God created the world. In that event, would you prefer God to kill you than to leave you alive? Is it the case that you want to live in a world that was not consciously created (whatever the nature of the world) or not at all? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed May 31 19:18:26 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 21:18:26 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [ASTRO] Stars and X-Rays Message-ID: >Amara (or anyone else): I think I've read, somewhere, that the Sun is >fairly low in X-ray output, not just compared to M-stars or O-stars but >even to other G-stars, though I've never seen why. Does this sound >familiar, and you expand upon or correct it? It didn't sound familiar, but then my magazine and journal reading queue is very high and so easy to miss this item. I made a quick search and I found this: http://aanda.u-strasbg.fr:2002/papers/aa/full/2001/07/aa10283/aa10283.html which seems like it could be what you were talking about. The paper compares the stars Capella and Procyon (solar-like stars), to our Sun in X-rays using Chandra data. The stars have a one magnitude larger X-ray output, which the authors conclude is due to larger "corona filling factors". (no time to expand upon) Amara -- ******************************************************************** Amara Graps, PhD email: amara at amara.com Computational Physics vita: ftp://ftp.amara.com/pub/resume.txt Multiplex Answers URL: http://www.amara.com/ ******************************************************************** "Looking up gives light, although at first it makes you dizzy." --Mevlana Rumi From nedlate2006 at yahoo.com Wed May 31 19:58:39 2006 From: nedlate2006 at yahoo.com (Ned Late) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Strange News: Phelps Supporting God's Killing of American Soldiers In-Reply-To: <6FD16F65-7171-49B1-A115-160DD4A8A80A@mac.com> Message-ID: <20060531195839.35735.qmail@web37503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> You are in this case entirely correct. An apology is due. However for what it is worth (which in the sum total of the cosmos is nothing) let it be pointed out Phelps-- unlike many religionists-- has no ulterior motives, what you see is what you get. Pointers to Fred Phelps sites are not appreciated. The man is a total sick nut case. His nonsense is also way outside the Baptist fold so the subject line is mistaken. - samantha --------------------------------- 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 george at betterhumans.com Wed May 31 16:00:08 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 12:00:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] IEET HETHR Slideshow In-Reply-To: <447DA49F.1080209@betterhumans.com> References: <447DA49F.1080209@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <447DBD88.4010804@betterhumans.com> Sorry, to do it manually: http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgedvorsky/tags/hethr George Dvorsky wrote: > Slideshow: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgedvorsky/tags/hethr/show/ > > Manually: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgedvorsky/tags/hethr/show/ > > Enjoy! > George > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 31 23:08:07 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:08:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0605311155y55c5d047h8d39d7c27b3bca90@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060531230807.35223.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Russell, I can see why this might cause some confusion. No, it is not completely independent of my subjective experiences. Let's just say that I have experienced more pain in my past, than I ever care to experience again. Furthermore, the world around me seems to be quite saturated with pain experienced by other sentients. I am depending on future beings to reduce this huge pain surplus in the world and myself, and instead replace it with subjective happiness. If this were never to happen - eg. because this is a simulation and the simulators decide to be assholes - then I would prefer not to exist at all, in the case where I was the only sentient. Assuming that I was only one sentient among many, then I would prefer to exist in order to avoid bringing pain to my family and friends that would follow my death/removal, also because I would want to be able to help reduce pain in others. Regarding the God question. I don't believe he exists. Let's put it this way, if this Universe as it exists now and as it has existed in the past, was created by an intelligent being, then I can only conclude that he/she/it is unacceptably cruel. My opinion only of course. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Russell Wallace wrote: On 5/31/06, A B wrote: This depends on one factor. If this is a simulation, then either I am the only sentient, or there are multiple to many sentients within it (I think the latter would be more probable). If I am the only sentient, then I say to my simulators: "I would prefer not to be your unequal slave. Please liberate me from this simulation and allow me to live as an equal among you. If you are unwilling to do this, then please end my simulation forthwith and do not implement me again." Now this is a somewhat unusual stance; do I understand correctly that it is completely independent of the actual contents of the simulated world - your subjective experiences - but depends only on the fact of conscious creation? Switching to a different symbolism, suppose God created the world. In that event, would you prefer God to kill you than to leave you alive? Is it the case that you want to live in a world that was not consciously created (whatever the nature of the world) or not at all? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed May 31 23:53:22 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 00:53:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are ancestor simulations immoral? In-Reply-To: <20060531230807.35223.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0605311155y55c5d047h8d39d7c27b3bca90@mail.gmail.com> <20060531230807.35223.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0605311653o3f58449r3c6a584009908834@mail.gmail.com> On 6/1/06, A B wrote: > I can see why this might cause some confusion. No, it is not completely > independent of my subjective experiences. Let's just say that I have > experienced more pain in my past, than I ever care to experience again. > Furthermore, the world around me seems to be quite saturated with pain > experienced by other sentients. I am depending on future beings to reduce > this huge pain surplus in the world and myself, and instead replace it with > subjective happiness. If this were never to happen - eg. because this is a > simulation and the simulators decide to be assholes - then I would prefer > not to exist at all, in the case where I was the only sentient. > Okay, makes sense; that's the more usual position taken by those who believe ancestor simulations are bad; thanks for the clarification. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: