From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Oct 1 01:01:02 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:01:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> Personally I find all this talk about "tyranny" to be little more than hyperbole. The Supreme Court said that Congress needed to establish the rules for treatment of terrorist suspects being detained by the United States, and so Congress did. It was not tyranny when thousands of Japanese and Germans (yes, Germans too) were interred during World War II. Was it illegal and misguided? Arguably so. But not tyranny. Not a usurpation of the government. Not an unconstitutional suspension of rights of American citizens (nothing in the article originally referenced supports the notion that ordinary Americans can be detained under this bill as far as I can tell). The right of Habeus Corpus, according to the Constitution, cannot be suspended except in times of invasion or insurrection. We have seen both of those things. Foreign terrorists attacking our shores on 9-11. Americans going to join their cause in armed militancy supporting Al Quaeda and the Taliban. I think there's a case to be made that the conditions for the suspension of Habeus Corpus have been met. Others may disagree, but it's hardly the case that it's an open-and-shut "no." If the Bush administration were determined to overthrow the rule of law, they would have started with the first Supreme Court ruling that said the military tribunals as originally composed were illegal. Talk to me about true tyranny when George W. Bush is still in the White House on January 21st, 2009. Until then, I see nothing more than a possibly over-zealous (and only possibly so), but still well-intentioned, attept to protect the United States from an enemy which is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process stifle forever the Transhumanist dream, if only incidentally as a part of its attempt to drag the world back to the 13th Century. The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be avoided at all costs. Joseph spike wrote: >>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl >>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place >> >>On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:18:48PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: >> >> >> >>>There should be massive demonstrations over this. Why isn't there?! >>> >>> >... > > >>Those who don't care about impeaching a criminal don't care >>about their country turned into a dictatorship... >> >> > > >My understanding is that it was congress that did this, not the executive >branch. I would interpret it as empty electioneering: the congressmonsters >do not want to appear soft on terrorism right before the election. >Legislative branch grandstanding is done all the time, but it is still >meaningless. What counts is if the supreme court upholds it. I predict >that the court will knock it down without a second thought. > >Regarding massive demonstrations, we have congressional elections in a few >weeks. We will see what happens there. > >spike > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Oct 1 04:01:09 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:01:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again Resend 2 In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154125.044a41d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154125.044a41d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930234518.04515d70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:49 PM 9/30/2006 +0100, you wrote: >On 9/30/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > And the *most important* element is to reduce the birth rate to below the > > growth of the economy. That's what happened in Northern Ireland and I make > > the case it is the reason for the IRA going out of business. > > > >I think you have a general claim that has a lot of substance. > >I'm just a bit worried that using Northern Ireland as your main >example may weaken your case, as many objections can be raised against >that specific example. And if someone produces strong arguments >against NI, your more general claim may be weakened. A similar terror campaign that burned out in roughly the same time frame is the Basque. Anyone have income and birth rate data for that group? While I think birth rate was the substantial factor, oil income for the UK which increased the income per capita, could have also contributed to the general brightening of future prospects and (according to the model) that ration is the key to terror or war support. >NI is one economy containing two intermingled warring groups. >Not two competing economies / nations. I think your claim would be >better demonstrated by using nations as examples. e.g. Germany and >'Lebensraum'. >(I don't know if this is a good example. I'll leave that up to you). :) > >The NI birth rate peaked in the 1961-65 period at 23 / 1000, then fell >fairly steadily in every 5yr period until 1996-2000 when it was 13.9 / >1000. This is roughly in line with the steadily falling birthrate for >the UK as a whole. >i.e. the troubles didn't cause the fall in the birth rate. I agree, the causal arrow in the model goes the other way, the falling birth rate increased income per capita, which made the future seem brighter, which reduced the support for wars and related such as terrorism >The fall >was caused by being part of a modern European state, as all European >birth rates were falling during that period. The matter of total mystery to me is *why.* I don't have the least idea of why women would restrict family size at the times they did. Any ideas would be appreciated. >And the fighting was only >in NI, not in the UK and other European states. > True. But the IRA supporters in the time frame when they were most active were (in theory) looking at a bleak future, more so than other places in the UK or other European states. As you mention discrimination is a big factor in feeling you have a bleak future. >I could make more suggestions about why the troubles have reduced, but >I doubt it really matters for the purposes of this argument. Some >claim the IRA is still there. It has just switched away from bombing >to more gangster-like criminal activities. And they are making a very >nice living from these activities, as their armoury tends to >discourage the civil police from investigating too closely. Political >changes may have stopped the Catholic IRA supporters from feeling as >persecuted as they used to be. It is a very complex situation, with no >neat 'sound-bite' solutions. Everyone is really holding their breath >and keeping their fingers crossed over there. I am sure they are. But the model predicts that as long as the future prospects are good, the IRA or some other terrorist organization will not get popular support. Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 1 04:44:50 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:44:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200610010445.k914j5lX006584@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place ... It was not tyranny when thousands of Japanese and Germans (yes, Germans too) were interred during World War II. Was it illegal and misguided? Arguably so... That depends. If they were dead when they were interred, then it was legal. If not, then not. {8^D Sorry Joseph, it was a funny typo, I couldn't resist. {8^D ... an enemy which is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process stifle forever the Transhumanist dream, if only incidentally as a part of its attempt to drag the world back to the 13th Century. The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be avoided at all costs. Joseph Ja, I often get the feeling that the radical Islamists, if they ruled the planet, would be less enthusiastic than we are about thawing frozen infidels. I suspect they might have little interest in environmental protection, nor free speech, nor free anything. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 1 04:46:41 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:46:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154125.044a41d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154125.044a41d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060930234153.0224e1c0@satx.rr.com> At 12:01 AM 10/1/2006 -0400, Keith H. wrote: > >The fall > >was caused by being part of a modern European state, as all European > >birth rates were falling during that period. > >The matter of total mystery to me is *why.* I don't have the least idea of >why women would restrict family size at the times they did. Any ideas >would be appreciated. I should have thought it's obvious: so they could do things with their lives in addition to producing and looking after one child after another after another... What's more interesting, in the context of this thread, is how Catholics raised in these two famously pious nations (Ireland and Spain) managed to find workarounds to the clamoring condemnation of birth control from their supposedly virginal prelates, not to mention the urgings of their baby-mad genes. Damien Broderick From neomorphy at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 06:09:10 2006 From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:09:10 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Why "Commandments" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060929003623.0222c358@satx.rr.com> References: <6E423681-26D3-4B74-BD4D-6B7645D5E5B5@bonfireproductions.com> <200609290525.k8T5PSFF006725@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060929003623.0222c358@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 9/29/06, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 10:08 PM 9/28/2006 -0700, spike jests > > >The ten suggestments? Somehow that just lacks the > >punch of the original. > > Yes. Getting rid of punches is a great idea. > > Getting rid of moral commands from above is a great idea. Getting rid > of the far too definite *the* and the far too limited *ten* are great > ideas. Getting rid of *Way* would be good, too, although that seems a > touch less pernicious. "Some suggestions," yes indeed. "A few > recommendations." "A mixed bunch of hints, clues and possible > shortcuts, offered IMHO; check my credentials with people who know > me." Like that? Indeed, it would be challenge enough to create a list: "Generally-agreed Extropian Ideas" --Olie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Oct 1 06:51:18 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:51:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Why "Commandments" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Damien wrote: Getting rid of moral commands from above is a great idea. Getting rid of the far too definite *the* and the far too limited *ten* are great ideas. Getting rid of *Way* would be good, too, although that seems a touch less pernicious. "Some suggestions," yes indeed. "A few recommendations." "A mixed bunch of hints, clues and possible shortcuts, offered IMHO; check my credentials with people who know me." Like that? Then Olie Lamb wrote: Indeed, it would be challenge enough to create a list: "Generally-agreed Extropian Ideas" What an improvement it would be if we changed our focus from ends (what we think our future selves would want) to instead focus on increasingly effective principles of problem-solving (the problem being how best to promote our values into the future) trusting that the outcome, whatever the particulars, is the best we could have done at that point. Then rinse, lather, repeat. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 1 07:25:23 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 00:25:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <9672F35A-2683-4ECC-86A8-218C2C0F0FAF@mac.com> On Sep 30, 2006, at 2:26 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place >> >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:18:48PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: >> >>> There should be massive demonstrations over this. Why isn't there?! > ... >> Those who don't care about impeaching a criminal don't care >> about their country turned into a dictatorship... > > > My understanding is that it was congress that did this, not the > executive > branch. What, you missed that the executive has been pushing hard for this? Every administration attempts to get Congress to play ball with its wishes. > I would interpret it as empty electioneering: the congressmonsters > do not want to appear soft on terrorism right before the election. Sorry but these laws will remain long after the election even if they are eventually successfully challenged. And this is hardly the point. The point is that so-called public servants sworn to uphold the Constitution and supposedly in office to protect the rights of the people are violating that oath and putting the people in far more jeopardy than we ever faced from the extremely unlikely scenario of dying at the hands of a terrorist. Much of the population is very tired of the whole "war on terrorism" thing in the ways it is playing out anyway. This administration is at an all time (well since 9/11) low in public approval. It is certainly not unpopular to stand up against Bush and company getting out of hand rr to stand for the people for a change. So this is a pretty lame attempt to explain this away. > Legislative branch grandstanding is done all the time, but it is still > meaningless. What counts is if the supreme court upholds it. I > predict > that the court will knock it down without a second thought. > Guess again. The court is being loaded. And again the people should never stand for a Congress that would pass such an affront in the first place. > Regarding massive demonstrations, we have congressional elections in > a few > weeks. We will see what happens there. > So what will it take for you to consider doing something more than "wait and see"? - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Sun Oct 1 08:33:25 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 10:33:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20061001083325.GF21640@leitl.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 09:01:02PM -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > Personally I find all this talk about "tyranny" to be little more than > hyperbole. Yet. But the legislation is there. As far as the law is concerned, U.S. can now be a tyranny. > The Supreme Court said that Congress needed to establish the rules for > treatment of terrorist suspects being detained by the United States, > and so Congress did. The Congress rubberstamped a president's bill. One they probably didn't even read before -- this happens quite often recently. One Conservative opposed it, and some 32 Democrats. If your representative did not oppose this bill, you might want to make your displeasure heard. It would be even better if you would protest in the streets. Fat chance. > It was not tyranny when thousands of Japanese and Germans (yes, > Germans too) were interred during World War II. Was it illegal and > misguided? Arguably so. But not tyranny. Not a usurpation of the Have you read the bill? It doesn't say anything about terrorists. As stated, it could apply to *everybody*. Read it. Who's eligible is completely open to interpretation. > The right of Habeus Corpus, according to the Constitution, cannot be > suspended except in times of invasion or insurrection. We have seen > both of those things. Foreign terrorists attacking our shores on 9-11. The U.S. has been invaded? There is an insurrection? You can't honestly believe this. > Americans going to join their cause in armed militancy supporting Al > Quaeda and the Taliban. I think there's a case to be made that the *Where*? Are you nuts? The U.S. is not Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. > conditions for the suspension of Habeus Corpus have been met. Others > may disagree, but it's hardly the case that it's an open-and-shut > "no." If the Bush administration were determined to overthrow the rule > of law, they would have started with the first Supreme Court ruling > that said the military tribunals as originally composed were illegal. > Talk to me about true tyranny when George W. Bush is still in the > White House on January 21st, 2009. Until then, I see nothing more than Now that would be a little bit too late then, don't you think. And don't get hung up on a particular person, you need to get Habeas Corpus reinstated lickety-split, or you're playing sitting duck for anyone that chooses to exploit that gaping hole. > a possibly over-zealous (and only possibly so), but still > well-intentioned, attept to protect the United States from an enemy > which is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process Poppycock. The enemy you describe is entirely fabricated. The threat is only in your mind. > stifle forever the Transhumanist dream, if only incidentally as a part > of its attempt to drag the world back to the 13th Century. > The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of > humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be avoided > at all costs. Are you truly believing what you're writing? -- 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 sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 1 08:59:03 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 01:59:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Personally I find all this talk about "tyranny" to be little more > than hyperbole. > > The Supreme Court said that Congress needed to establish the rules > for treatment of terrorist suspects being detained by the United > States, and so Congress did. > Read the rules and think through the implications. That should be enough. If it isn't then nothing I or anyone else says is likely to reach you. > It was not tyranny when thousands of Japanese and Germans (yes, > Germans too) were interred during World War II. Was it illegal and > misguided? Arguably so. But not tyranny. Not a usurpation of the > government. Not an unconstitutional suspension of rights of American > citizens (nothing in the article originally referenced supports the > notion that ordinary Americans can be detained under this bill as > far as I can tell). > Actually this bill allows anyone at all, including you and I, to be declared an "enemy combatant" by government fiat and many of our rights and protections removed simply on that basis. This is leaving the barn door wide open to unspeakable abuse. > The right of Habeus Corpus, according to the Constitution, cannot be > suspended except in times of invasion or insurrection. We have seen > both of those things. Foreign terrorists attacking our shores on > 9-11. Americans going to join their cause in armed militancy > supporting Al Quaeda and the Taliban. I think there's a case to be > made that the conditions for the suspension of Habeus Corpus have > been met. Others may disagree, but it's hardly the case that it's an > open-and-shut "no." If the Bush administration were determined to > overthrow the rule of law, they would have started with the first > Supreme Court ruling that said the military tribunals as originally > composed were illegal. > There is no invasion. 9/11 was no invasion. There is no limit in this bill that will cause it to only pertain to those who join actual terrorist groups. It is an open and shut no. The Bush administration has admitted to acting outside the rule of law and now seeks (and gets) retroactive law approving those illegal acts such as mass warrantless wiretaps. The administration has no been given new laws that allow it to do more of what it pleases outside of judicial review or any meaningful constraints. Do you not see this as dangerous? > Talk to me about true tyranny when George W. Bush is still in the > White House on January 21st, 2009. Until then, I see nothing more > than a possibly over-zealous (and only possibly so), but still well- > intentioned, attept to protect the United States from an enemy which > is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process stifle > forever the Transhumanist dream, if only How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen? Bush ossibly over-zealous but nothing more? I am rendered speechless. We are destroying our own way of life with our apparent willingness to dismantle our own freedom and protections in order to stop a few nutcase terrorist groups. If you care about preserving our way of life, as I do, then you must be on guard against this clear danger also. > incidentally as a part of its attempt to drag the world back to the > 13th Century. > Sheesh. All the Jihadists and Islamists (whatever that is) in the world haven't a tiny part of the power required to do any such thing. But rampant fear-mongering plus our own heavy increasing influence of religion based politics may destroy our way of life. > The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of > humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be > avoided at all costs. > What a silly fantasy this is. Besides, in this most powerful nation on earth there are far more in positions of great power who want all to live under Old Testament law. - samantha > Joseph > > spike wrote: >>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl >>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:18:48PM +0200, Amara Graps wrote: >>> >>> >>>> There should be massive demonstrations over this. Why isn't there?! >>>> >> ... >> >>> Those who don't care about impeaching a criminal don't care >>> about their country turned into a dictatorship... >>> >> My understanding is that it was congress that did this, not the >> executive >> branch. I would interpret it as empty electioneering: the >> congressmonsters >> do not want to appear soft on terrorism right before the election. >> Legislative branch grandstanding is done all the time, but it is >> still >> meaningless. What counts is if the supreme court upholds it. I >> predict >> that the court will knock it down without a second thought. >> >> Regarding massive demonstrations, we have congressional elections >> in a few >> weeks. We will see what happens there. >> >> spike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 12:51:45 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 08:51:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060930234153.0224e1c0@satx.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154125.044a41d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060930234153.0224e1c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > At 12:01 AM 10/1/2006 -0400, Keith H. wrote: > > I should have thought it's obvious: so they could do things with > their lives in addition to producing and looking after one child > after another after another... K-selection. Fewer offspring, more resources invested in those. I suspect as things like vaccinations, emergency room care, etc. increased the probability of children surviving women may have chosen to invest more resources in individual children. As fewer children were needed for harvesting, feeding the chickens, milking the cows, etc. the need for slave labor diminished. College is an expensive proposition, better to save so a few can go rather than none at all. It is important to keep in mind that the decline in children per family is not a Irish, Spanish, or even European or U.S. phenomena. It has taken place in Russia and Japan such an extent that the governments are providing large subsidies to have children. In both of those cases the economic/K-selection arguments appear to be playing a very large role. In Russia one cannot afford to raise more than one or two children. In Japan I believe there is a high priority placed on the mother functioning as a teacher/tutor over a much longer period (something that would be restricted by time requirements of caring for younger children). It would be interesting to speculate whether those principles would hold and as lifespans are extended one might see parents having more children but spaced over ten or fifteen year intervals rather than two or three. On 10/1/06, Damien Broderick wrote: What's more interesting, in the context of this thread, is how > Catholics raised in these two famously pious nations (Ireland and > Spain) managed to find workarounds to the clamoring condemnation of > birth control from their supposedly virginal prelates, not to mention > the urgings of their baby-mad genes. > Indeed. I suspect there would be interesting lessons here as to when local cultural practicality (perhaps even rational thought?!?) trumps indoctrinated meme sets (aka belief systems). Understanding this might give one hope that irrational belief systems are not unstoppable. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 1 14:12:38 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 07:12:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <9672F35A-2683-4ECC-86A8-218C2C0F0FAF@mac.com> Message-ID: <200610011413.k91ED0uD021532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha? Atkins ... > > ... And again the people should > never stand for a Congress that would pass such an affront in the > first place... Roger that. I will be voting against Feinstein and Honda, then at my earliest opportunity voting against Boxer. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 14:17:31 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 15:17:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again Resend 2 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930234518.04515d70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154125.044a41d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060930234518.04515d70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 10/1/06, Keith Henson wrote: > A similar terror campaign that burned out in roughly the same time frame is > the Basque. Anyone have income and birth rate data for that group? While > I think birth rate was the substantial factor, oil income for the UK which > increased the income per capita, could have also contributed to the general > brightening of future prospects and (according to the model) that ration is > the key to terror or war support. > > I agree, the causal arrow in the model goes the other way, the falling > birth rate increased income per capita, which made the future seem > brighter, which reduced the support for wars and related such as terrorism > > True. But the IRA supporters in the time frame when they were most active > were (in theory) looking at a bleak future, more so than other places in > the UK or other European states. As you mention discrimination is a big > factor in feeling you have a bleak future. > > I am sure they are. But the model predicts that as long as the future > prospects are good, the IRA or some other terrorist organization will not > get popular support. > That is why I am saying that NI is a bad example for you to use. The NI troubles were not a 'war' and killed a tiny percentage of the population. The same falling birth rates applied in many places where there were no 'troubles'. So NI is not an example that supports your theory that nations go into 'war' mode and fight until they have killed sufficient people that the survivors can live better. Even though the war itself will destroy resources that support people. Think 'scorched earth'. Terrorism never kills in sufficient numbers to fit into your theory. I don't think you really want to weaken your claim to say that sometimes small groups of people start killing when they feel a bit miserable and stop killing when they cheer up. But that seems to be the direction you are heading. That claim is correct, of course, but not of great significance. BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 15:15:44 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:15:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion In-Reply-To: <200609301633.k8UGXJ2G008697@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060930004433.021ed6b0@satx.rr.com> <200609301633.k8UGXJ2G008697@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 9/30/06, spike wrote: > > The duller, gullible and acquiescent win that race by many furlongs. > Reasoning: in modern times we speak almost constantly of wars. But if we > actually break down the numbers of those slain, 3000 American soldiers in > the past 3 years, perhaps half as many Europeans, 20 or so a day in > suicide bombings and related violence in the middle east. Spike, your numbers are slightly off. Read, the URL Eliezer posted on "Iraq: the world's first Suicide State" (quite interesting). At ~3,000/month its more like 100 a day and works out to ~35,000/year and I suspect those numbers don't include the non-public deaths carried out by militias or gangs. However, I do agree that the impact on the U.S., Europe (or Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, India or China) is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. I shake my head at the $500 billion [1] spent as a result of the deaths of ~3000 people in comparison to the 2.478 million people per year who could be saved if one really got serious about lifespan extension [2]. Particularly when the estimate I did for developing a protein based system to jump start molecular nanotechnology came out at $1+ trillion and I set the idea aside as being an "unreasonable to hope for" expenditure in our current reality [3]. Robert 1. This is equal to ~10 years of NIH expenditures on medical research. 2. Presumably the $500 billion is rationalized on the basis of it being better to sacrifice ~3000 people who are getting paid to be in "harm's way" "over there" than to have thousands (or tens of thousands) of people "over here" die who would like to continue living their fantasy that they are out of "harm's way". 3. The implicit assumption here is that if you demonstrate real molecular assembly (mechanosynthesis) as being feasible, then the leap from molecular nanoassembly to actual nanorobots capable of completely correcting or augmenting ones genetic code to eliminate natural causes of death becomes much smaller. Mind you I and some others on the list can make that "leap", but the large majority of people cannot. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Oct 1 15:47:12 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 08:47:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <049b01c6e571$16dd39e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Joseph wrote > Not an unconstitutional suspension of rights of American citizens > (nothing in the article originally referenced supports the notion that > ordinary Americans can be detained under this bill as far as I can tell). And then someone flatly contradicted this. (And before Joseph wrote someone flatly contradicted this. )Sounds like a pretty clear-cut question to me. Would someone please admit that they were incorrect, and that either the bill does or does not apply to American citizens? If it *does* apply to American citizens also, then what about American citizens serving overseas in enemy organizations? (E.g. the Taliban or Al Queda.) When things get grim enough again---and they will---I certainly won't have any problem with the latter. Thanks, Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Oct 1 15:52:29 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 08:52:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Why "Commandments" References: Message-ID: <04b201c6e571$ee1c8730$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > What an improvement it would be if we changed our focus from ends > (what we think our future selves would want) to instead focus on > increasingly effective principles of problem-solving (the problem > being how best to promote our values into the future) trusting that > the outcome, whatever the particulars, is the best we could have > done at that point. Hear, hear. Spoken like a true Hayekian. The problem in so many cases---and none so paramount as social "engineering"---is that we cannot be sure of what ends will actually obtain, and so means can rarely justify ends. Lee From jonkc at att.net Sun Oct 1 15:41:20 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:41:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again (resend 2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154103.045485a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <00c801c6e570$42501440$22084e0c@MyComputer> "Keith Henson" > It is useless to denounce religion I do not believe it is useless to denounce evil, in fact I believe it is rather despicable not to. > and it is *not* the root cause of human misery. I would never be so foolish as to say religion is the cause of all human misery, but I would say that with the exception of death itself religion has caused more misery than any other single thing. > Human reproduction in excess of what the ecosystem/economy can support > *is* the cause of misery. Human reproduction has never been in a higher gear than it is right now, so if you were right we would expect the average standard of living to be lower than its ever been. However the exact opposite is true, human beings have never had it so good. Despite what the tree huggers say the ecosystem/economy is doing quite well thank you very much. >Easter Island was a case where war a few generations earlier would have >been much better. You don't need anything as drastic as war. If the Easter Islander's religion hadn't caused them to use all their time energy recourses and imagination making all those incredibly stupid statues they would have been one hell of a lot better off. > It is truly bizarre, but I make the case that there are times when the > interest of a person and the interest of their genes diverge. I don't think it's bizarre to say that the genes interests and the individual's are not identical, I think it's a keen grasp of the obvious. After all, if it were not true the condom would never have been invented. >what situations in the stone age made those who could be infested with >religion more likely to survive (in the gene centered inclusive fitness >sense) than those who were not? I'm not at all sure that the religious meme got started because it conveyed some survival advantage, rather it may just be the result of being mortal and being intelligent. Contemplating death, especially your own death, is unpleasant. So people try to think of ways to fool themselves to reduce that unpleasantness (maybe death isn't really the end). Given that the religious meme is likely to be present, at least to some degree, in any population, an individual who knows how to exploit that meme (God speaks through me!) would have a huge reproductive advantage. And it's still true, the religious cult leader Warren Jeffs who was just arrested had 80 wives and 250 children. John K Clark From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Oct 1 15:59:44 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 08:59:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154125.044a41d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><7.0.1.0.2.20060930234153.0224e1c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <04bd01c6e572$c63e6c50$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robert writes > At 12:01 AM 10/1/2006 -0400, Keith H. wrote: > I should have thought it's obvious: so they could do things with > their lives in addition to producing and looking after one child > after another after another... No, 'twas Damien who spake thus. Robert continues > [The explanation is] K-selection. Fewer offspring, more resources > invested in those. > I suspect as things like vaccinations, emergency room care, etc. > increased the probability of children surviving women may have > chosen to invest more resources in individual children. As fewer > children were needed for harvesting, feeding the chickens, milking > the cows, etc. the need for slave labor diminished. College is an > expensive proposition, better to save so a few can go rather than > none at all. Right---that supplied the motive, and contraception provided the means. > It is important to keep in mind that the decline in children per family > is not a Irish, Spanish, or even European or U.S. phenomena... It's taken place wherever the average IQ is near 100 or over. Damien had gone on > > Indeed. I suspect there would be interesting lessons here as > > to when local cultural practicality (perhaps even rational thought?!?) > > trumps indoctrinated meme sets (aka belief systems). Understanding > > this might give one hope that irrational belief systems are not unstoppable. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Oct 1 16:20:32 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:20:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060930004433.021ed6b0@satx.rr.com><200609301633.k8UGXJ2G008697@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <04c301c6e575$b7b62620$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robert writes > Read the URL Eliezer posted on " Iraq: the world's first Suicide State" (quite interesting). > At ~3,000/month its more like 100 a day and works out to ~35,000/year I agree---it's an interesting link: Eliezer had written: "frustration - ideology = staged images of chaos for media" http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1700/ "Iraq: the world's first Suicide State" But Robert's figure seems correct also, although that's about what it was before Iraq was invaded: "Iraq, a country approximately the size of California... suffered more than a million violent deaths under Saddam Hussein's regime. That would average out at about 50,000 deaths a year in a population of 25 million before the Americans got involved. In the two years since the Americans have been fighting in Iraq, 13,650 Iraqis, have been killed, many of them by terrorist attacks by their own countrymen. Others were by military action. That averages out at 6, 825 deaths per year in a population of 25 million." But that was written in early 2005 http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/050117. Earlier I had heard that Saddam and his thugs murdered about 30,000 Iraqis a year. So what's the difference between Saddam killing them and Iraqi's killing each other? There are many. But probably the most important is indeed media related: It simply didn't matter *how* many people in Iraq were murdered each year because it wasn't in our face every night. ln exactly the same way that it simply doesn't matter *how* many people die in Sudan. The important thing in the West---and now to the rest of the world---is, for the billion or so bystanders, whether the nightly news is painful or merely interesting. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Oct 1 16:29:26 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:29:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again (resend 2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154103.045485a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <00c801c6e570$42501440$22084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <04c401c6e576$fac00e30$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> John Clark writes > I would never be so foolish as to say religion is the cause of all human > misery, but I would say that with the exception of death itself religion has > caused more misery than any other single thing. But how do you know? How do you know what history would have been like in the absense of religion? So far as *I* know, we don't have a lot of data. The 20th century did seem to indicate that the fervently anti-religious socialist regimes of the Soviet Union and Red Chinese killed people at at least the same rate if not much greater. My own suspicion is that tribal conflict (which evolves to wars when the tribes are big enough) is an ESS under primitive enough conditions, i.e. pre 19th century technology and pre 19th century democracy. Take for example the countless combative American Indian tribes whose wars were woven into their cultures, religion or no. And that there are plenty of other interesting mechanisms, as Joe and Mao discovered, for keeping people in line in modern big-government states that have nothing to do with religion, but which are very expensive in terms of human misery. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 1 16:32:51 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 11:32:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again In-Reply-To: <04bd01c6e572$c63e6c50$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154125.044a41d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060930234153.0224e1c0@satx.rr.com> <04bd01c6e572$c63e6c50$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061001113135.02245710@satx.rr.com> At 08:59 AM 10/1/2006 -0700, Lee wrote: >Damien had gone on > > > > Indeed. I suspect there would be interesting lessons here as > > > to when local cultural practicality (perhaps even rational thought?!?) > > > trumps indoctrinated meme sets (aka belief systems). Understanding > > > this might give one hope that irrational belief systems are not > unstoppable. No, 'twas Robert who spake thus. From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Oct 1 16:52:35 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:52:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060930004433.021ed6b0@satx.rr.com><200609301633.k8UGXJ2G008697@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <04c301c6e575$b7b62620$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <008f01c6e57a$00f84800$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Lee Corbin" Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 9:20 AM > >> So what's the difference between Saddam killing them and Iraqi's killing >> each other? >There are many. But probably the most important is indeed media related[:] IMO one of the crucial differences is that the blood used to be mainly on Saddam's hands. Now it is on George Bush's hands (and he's added many sons and daughters of Westerners to the pile). Another important difference is that the reputation of the USA has sunk to a very low level (Abu Ghraib: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison) Guantanamo: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1371609,00.html I needn't belabor the slide we've taken down to the "bad guys'" level, as well as the downslide our democrary is taking. > It simply didn't matter *how* many people in Iraq were murdered each year > because it wasn't in our face every night. ln exactly the same way that > it simply doesn't matter *how* many people die in Sudan. The important > thing in the West---and now to the rest of the world---is, for the billion > or so bystanders, whether the nightly news is painful or merely > interesting. No. It mattered then and it matters now. Olga From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun Oct 1 17:23:52 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 10:23:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <9672F35A-2683-4ECC-86A8-218C2C0F0FAF@mac.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <9672F35A-2683-4ECC-86A8-218C2C0F0FAF@mac.com> Message-ID: <7822F317-5D58-4D8D-B9F0-44CB1598D771@ceruleansystems.com> On Oct 1, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > On Sep 30, 2006, at 2:26 PM, spike wrote: >> My understanding is that it was congress that did this, not the >> executive branch. > > What, you missed that the executive has been pushing hard for this? > Every administration attempts to get Congress to play ball with its > wishes. The executive branch lobbies, but they often only get their way with Congress when interests intersect and particularly in the House. The wishes of the executive branch have been flatly ignored by Congress enough times even when the wishes made good sense that I would assert there is plenty of blame to go around for all. > Sorry but these laws will remain long after the election even if they > are eventually successfully challenged. And this is hardly the > point. The point is that so-called public servants sworn to uphold > the Constitution and supposedly in office to protect the rights of the > people are violating that oath and putting the people in far more > jeopardy than we ever faced from the extremely unlikely scenario of > dying at the hands of a terrorist. The idea that it is okay to pass obviously unconstitutional laws and let the Supreme Court clean up later is one of the more evil and stupid things Congress does. It amounts to taking a second pull on the trigger when playing Russian roulette -- it does not improve the odds of a good outcome. > Guess again. The court is being loaded. I guess it depends on what you mean by "loaded". There were plenty of real clowns on the SCOTUS (and still are) before the current appointments routinely making egregiously poorly reasoned decisions, and frankly the current appointments do not seem to be any worse and in some ways apparently better. I am open to revising that opinion when one of them makes a flagrantly stupid or venal decision. The only person on SCOTUS that seems to have a consistently reasonable perspective that reflects constitutional history (even when I disagree with the outcome in some fashion) is Clarence Thomas, but that may be nothing but a reflection of his personality and temperament rather than a conscious effort to do the job correctly. J. Andrew Rogers From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun Oct 1 17:55:54 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 10:55:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <8DB17411-1546-4575-94DE-A75EA8275413@ceruleansystems.com> On Oct 1, 2006, at 1:59 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Actually this bill allows anyone at all, including you and I, to be > declared an "enemy combatant" by government fiat and many of our > rights and protections removed simply on that basis. This is > leaving the barn door wide open to unspeakable abuse. It is more a new variation on the same theme. The term "enemy combatant" just gets added to a long list of other denotations and connotations that the government can apply to a person on a flimsy and/or unreasonable basis that leaves them pretty much permanently hosed. Very little about this is new in the abstract sense, they are just casting a somewhat wider net. I have limited sympathy for those who just now are having their Martin Niem?ller moment. There is very little that is new here, and many of the same people who are up in arms now tacitly supported the building of the groundwork for decades. > How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen? Oh puh-lease, tinfoil claptrap mostly argued from specious innuendo. Let's not go down this path. > Sheesh. All the Jihadists and Islamists (whatever that is) in the > world haven't a tiny part of the power required to do any such > thing. But rampant fear-mongering plus our own heavy increasing > influence of religion based politics may destroy our way of life. Very true. The Islamic Hordes(tm) were never going to be anything but a major nuisance that arguably could have been managed much more inexpensively (on many levels) than any attempt at eradication. J. Andrew Rogers From brentn at freeshell.org Sun Oct 1 20:18:13 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:18:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <049b01c6e571$16dd39e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <049b01c6e571$16dd39e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:47, Lee Corbin wrote: > And then someone flatly contradicted this. (And before Joseph wrote > someone flatly contradicted this. )Sounds like a pretty clear-cut > question > to me. Would someone please admit that they were incorrect, and that > either the bill does or does not apply to American citizens? That's the beauty of the bill in terms of trying to stealth pass the Bill of Rights: it doesn't apply to American citizens. Unless they've been declared unlawful enemy combatants by the President or his designees, a status that you can not appeal and which has no judicial review. Fabulous. :P You can dig this up on the internet in a quite a few places, including the full text of the bill. Google turned up this story as first in the list: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856 Please note, before making snide comments about NPR's coverage, that a -White House lawyer- flat out says that the President intends to use this against American citizens. Of course, the appropriate weasel words about "higher standards" are in there (which probably means 'more secrecy'), but the statement is there: the administration is prepared to violate the Constitution. I've given up hoping for impeachment. Most of our Congresscritters are too corrupt and too stupid. At this point, I can only hope that some civic minded intern will give him a blowjob so we can get rid of him. :) B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From jonkc at att.net Sun Oct 1 20:25:42 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:25:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again. References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154103.045485a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><00c801c6e570$42501440$22084e0c@MyComputer> <04c401c6e576$fac00e30$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <002801c6e598$088e21c0$07094e0c@MyComputer> "Lee Corbin" > How do you know what history would have been like in the absense of religion? It rained an hour ago and now the street is wet. I deduce that if it hadn't rained the street wouldn't be wet. True I can't go back in time one hour, stop it from raining, and then observe the results; but I still think my deduction is entirely reasonable. In a similar way I think it is entirely reasonable to deduce that without religion History would be less bloody. Much less bloody. > So far as *I* know, we don't have a lot of data. Unfortunately we have an avalanche of data, as terrifying as it is depressing. > The 20th century did seem to indicate that the fervently anti-religious > socialist regimes of the Soviet Union and Red Chinese killed people > at at least the same rate if not much greater. A good point I readily concede. But I never said religion was the root of ALL evil. I would estimate that in general about 2/3 of all mortal combat is religious based. Less than that in the 20th century in Europe because Europe is the one place on Earth where nobody takes religion very seriously anymore. I think people just got tired of killing each other over about whether you should open an egg at the big end or the small. Let us hope that happy state of affairs is contagious. John K Clark From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 21:35:06 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:35:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion In-Reply-To: <008f01c6e57a$00f84800$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060930004433.021ed6b0@satx.rr.com> <200609301633.k8UGXJ2G008697@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <04c301c6e575$b7b62620$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008f01c6e57a$00f84800$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: On 10/1/06, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > The important thing in the West---and now to the rest of the world---is, > > for the billion or so bystanders, whether the nightly news is painful or > > merely interesting. > > No. It mattered then and it matters now. If it really did matter then you would see much more on the nightly news regarding the person in the U.S. that dies every 12 seconds (4.7 a minute, 6700 a day) due to so called natural causes [1]. Those guilty of causing death due to acts of commission and those causing deaths due to acts of omission are only two letters apart. Robert 1. They remain "natural" because we haven't chosen yet to really apply ourselves to solving them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Oct 1 21:55:17 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:55:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> Samantha Atkins wrote: >> Talk to me about true tyranny when George W. Bush is still in the >> White House on January 21st, 2009. Until then, I see nothing more >> than a possibly over-zealous (and only possibly so), but still >> well-intentioned, attept to protect the United States from an enemy >> which is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process >> stifle forever the Transhumanist dream, if only > > > How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen? Bush ossibly over-zealous but nothing more? I am rendered speechless. We are destroying our own way of life with our apparent willingness to dismantle our own freedom and protections in order to stop a few nutcase terrorist groups. If you care about preserving our way of life, as I do, then you must be on guard against this clear danger also. > Don't be ridiculous. Stolen elections? Dismantling freedoms? You sound like the worst posters on dailykos... >> incidentally as a part of its attempt to drag the world back to the >> 13th Century. >> > > Sheesh. All the Jihadists and Islamists (whatever that is) in the world haven't a tiny part of the power required to do any such thing. But rampant fear-mongering plus our own heavy increasing influence of religion based politics may destroy our way of life. I am appalled at your ignorance as to what an Islamist is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism will provide a starting point. http://www.jihadwatch.org will yield a wealth of further information. And as far as their having no power to attain their ends, I direct your attention to their successful usurpation of a sovereign nation (Afghanistan), and their ongoing attempts to repeat that feat in other nations (Afghanistan again, Iraq, Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan, et al). If they can take over one nation, and have a credible shot at taking over others, then they are a threat that must be addressed. And if you don't think Iran's ongoing attempts to secure the ability to produce nuclear weapons are part of this threat, then I must conclude that you are simply so blinded by your partisanship that you will not see the threat until you are faced with a law requiring the burqa in California (if then). > >> The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of >> humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be >> avoided at all costs. >> > > > What a silly fantasy this is. Besides, in this most powerful nation on earth there are far more in positions of great power who want all to live under Old Testament law. > I hope, I truly hope, that you wake up from your Republican-hating ways to realize that this nation really does face an external threat of hitherto-unseen proportions. It's not about people in power in the U.S. And, for the record, I am well aware of, and highly concerned about, the Dominionist movement, but I daresay that a handful of well-connected Dominionists don't quite rise to the level of threat posted by millions of Islamists inspired by their ridiculous faith (as all faiths are ridiculous) to impose their vision of their faith on every single human being on this planet by deadly force, and being willing to kill themselves to advance that goal. Unless I have somehow missed the hordes of Baptist suicide bombers publically calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Democrats... Joseph From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Oct 1 23:25:20 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:25:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060930004433.021ed6b0@satx.rr.com><200609301633.k8UGXJ2G008697@andromeda.ziaspace.com><04c301c6e575$b7b62620$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><008f01c6e57a$00f84800$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <001901c6e5b0$dd5221f0$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: Robert Bradbury Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 2:35 PM >On 10/1/06, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > The important thing in the West---and now to the rest of the world---is, for the billion or so bystanders, whether the nightly news is painful or merely interesting. >> No. It mattered then and it matters now. > If it really did matter then you would see much more on the nightly news regarding the person in the U.S. that dies every 12 seconds ( 4.7 a minute, 6700 a day) due to so called natural causes [1]. [1. They remain "natural" because we haven't chosen yet to really apply ourselves to solving them.] > Those guilty of causing death due to acts of commission and those causing deaths due to acts of omission are only two letters apart. So, do you mean there is no such thing as murder? Olga I understand what you mean by "natural" death - and there are people working on -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Mon Oct 2 02:08:37 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:08:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Oct 30 - Richard Dawkins In conversation with Roy Eisenhardt Message-ID: <1159754917.4895.275.camel@localhost.localdomain> I have already bought my ticket and it appears to be more that half sold so if people want to attend they should get their tickets ASAP. Richard Dawkins - 10/30/2006, 8:00 pm Special Event Richard Dawkins In conversation with Roy Eisenhardt Monday, October 30, 2006 at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, CA. I expect that the discussion will focus on The God Delusion which is the most recent book by Richard Dawkins. The talk is part of the City Arts http://www.cityarts.net/ program. I have just received a copy of The God Delusion and have read the first chapter. I expect the arguments which Dawkins makes about the nature of religion and for atheism will be in general familiar to every one on this list. However in the first chapter I think Dawkins does a really good job of discussing the term "religion" and how it is often misused. Also Dawkins does an excellent job of explaining Einstein's use of the term and how many theists misquote or selectively quote Einstein in an effort to make him appear to be a theist. If you can not make the event in San Francisco then you might be able to hear a rebroadcast on radio http://www.cityarts.net/radio.html. Dawkins will also be at Keplers in Menlo Park on Oct 29 see: http://www.keplers.com/?sec=programs-events&subsec=calendar Fred From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 2 02:27:15 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:27:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again In-Reply-To: <451EC22D.2000304@pobox.com> References: <00ea01c6e3ee$d65b7f40$290a4e0c@MyComputer> <20060929211452.39597.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> <03ca01c6e4a3$ed3c1de0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <451EC22D.2000304@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061001212625.02282fd8@satx.rr.com> At 12:14 PM 9/30/2006 -0700, Eliezer wrote: >+1 insightful: >http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1700/ >"Iraq: the world's first Suicide State" A learned friend writes: Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Oct 2 02:37:02 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:37:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again Resend 2 In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930234518.04515d70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154125.044a41d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060930234518.04515d70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061001222218.04549908@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:17 PM 10/1/2006 +0100, you wrote: > > > > I am sure they are. But the model predicts that as long as the future > > prospects are good, the IRA or some other terrorist organization will not > > get popular support. > > >That is why I am saying that NI is a bad example for you to use. The >NI troubles were not a 'war' and killed a tiny percentage of the >population. Agreed, but I don't distinguish between war, terror, riots and other such social disruptions. >The same falling birth rates applied in many places where >there were no 'troubles'. The causal arrow is that the falling birth rates and economic growth contributed to a rising income per capita and *that's* what pulled the motivation. Obviously if there are no terror groups, then rising income per capita isn't going to shut off support for them. >So NI is not an example that supports your theory that nations go into >'war' mode and fight until they have killed sufficient people that the >survivors can live better The theory is not at all about nations and modern wars. The theory is about human psychological traits that evolved during the long time that human ancestors lived in hunter-gatherer groups. It happens that those traits still exist in humans and contribute causally to modern wars and related social disruptions. >. Even though the war itself will destroy >resources that support people. Think 'scorched earth'. Terrorism never >kills in sufficient numbers to fit into your theory. Agree on all your points. See the corn farmer example in the EP, Memes and the origin of war paper for an example of how war can be ill adapted to societies more advanced than hunter gathers. >I don't think you really want to weaken your claim to say that >sometimes small groups of people start killing when they feel a bit >miserable and stop killing when they cheer up. But that seems to be >the direction you are heading. That claim is correct, of course, but >not of great significance. It seems to me that a predictive theory of when and where wars are likely to start would be of considerable significance. If for no other reason than being able to get out of the way. Keith Henson From sentience at pobox.com Mon Oct 2 02:45:55 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:45:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061001212625.02282fd8@satx.rr.com> References: <00ea01c6e3ee$d65b7f40$290a4e0c@MyComputer> <20060929211452.39597.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> <03ca01c6e4a3$ed3c1de0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <451EC22D.2000304@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061001212625.02282fd8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45207D63.5070005@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:14 PM 9/30/2006 -0700, Eliezer wrote: > >>+1 insightful: >>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1700/ >>"Iraq: the world's first Suicide State" > > A learned friend writes: > > or colonizers, to restore the historical dominance of one ethnic or > religious group or to establish a new structure of dominance, or to impose a > particular set of religious rules--goals which are held by the various > indigenous factions who are killing people in Iraq--is hardly "fighting for > nothing in particular." There isn't one manifesto that fits everybody > toting a gun or a bomb--there are a number of contending factions--but the > fact that it can't all be summed up easily in this guy's PowerPoint > presentation doesn't make it "aimless." Different participants have > different aims. This is far from unusual--consider the various factions > involved in the South African resistance.> Fair enough. - E -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Oct 2 03:08:56 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:08:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again (resend 2) In-Reply-To: <00c801c6e570$42501440$22084e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154103.045485a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061001224012.04548038@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:41 AM 10/1/2006 -0400, you wrote: >"Keith Henson" > > > It is useless to denounce religion > >I do not believe it is useless to denounce evil, in fact I believe it is >rather despicable not to. It is like denouncing a fever. Xenophobic memes simple arise when they are called for by the situation. Think Pol Pot's version of communism, Nazi memes, Rwanda. > > and it is *not* the root cause of human misery. > >I would never be so foolish as to say religion is the cause of all human >misery, but I would say that with the exception of death itself religion has >caused more misery than any other single thing. It is just distracting to denounce something which is caused by something else. You are never going to understand what is the correct action to take that way. > > Human reproduction in excess of what the ecosystem/economy can support > > *is* the cause of misery. > >Human reproduction has never been in a higher gear than it is right now, so >if you were right we would expect the average standard of living to be lower >than its ever been. However the exact opposite is true, human beings have >never had it so good. You are dead wrong about human reproduction. Over the entire developed populations it is at near replacement rates. But read what I said, "in excess of what the ecosystem/economy can support." >Despite what the tree huggers say the >ecosystem/economy is doing quite well thank you very much. I have no problem with a solar system population of trillions of people, in fact, I think it would be a good idea. The earth could support the current and even the projected population with considerable advances in technology. But if you look at the places where the problems come from they are parts of the world with high birth rates and stagnant economies. > >Easter Island was a case where war a few generations earlier would have > >been much better. > >You don't need anything as drastic as war. If the Easter Islander's religion >hadn't caused them to use all their time energy recourses and imagination >making all those incredibly stupid statues they would have been one hell >of a lot better off. Well, please tell me what they could have done with the "time energy resources and imagination"? I have played this game a number of times and even with full scale modern knowledge I don't see how Easter Island would have played out any better. > > It is truly bizarre, but I make the case that there are times when the > > interest of a person and the interest of their genes diverge. > >I don't think it's bizarre to say that the genes interests and the >individual's are not identical, I think it's a keen grasp of the obvious. >After all, if it were not true the condom would never have been invented. A more spectacular example was that stand of the Spartans at Thermopylae. > >what situations in the stone age made those who could be infested with > >religion more likely to survive (in the gene centered inclusive fitness > >sense) than those who were not? > >I'm not at all sure that the religious meme got started because it conveyed >some survival advantage, rather it may just be the result of being mortal >and being intelligent. The psychological trait of being able to be "captured" by a religious class meme has to be either something that was directly selected or a side effect of something what was directly selected. That's your choice in EP theory. >Contemplating death, especially your own death, is >unpleasant. So people try to think of ways to fool themselves to reduce that >unpleasantness (maybe death isn't really the end). Given that the religious >meme is likely to be present, at least to some degree, in any population, an >individual who knows how to exploit that meme (God speaks through me!) >would have a huge reproductive advantage. And it's still true, the religious >cult leader Warren Jeffs who was just arrested had 80 wives and 250 >children. Interesting speculation backed up by some data is that descendents of the early Mormons are more susceptible than the rest of the population to cult class memes. What you would expect with a big genetic contribution. Keith Henson From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 2 04:51:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:51:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <45209AD2.2080002@mac.com> Joseph Bloch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>> Talk to me about true tyranny when George W. Bush is still in the >>> White House on January 21st, 2009. Until then, I see nothing more >>> than a possibly over-zealous (and only possibly so), but still >>> well-intentioned, attept to protect the United States from an enemy >>> which is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process >>> stifle forever the Transhumanist dream, if only >>> >> How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen? Bush ossibly over-zealous but nothing more? I am rendered speechless. We are destroying our own way of life with our apparent willingness to dismantle our own freedom and protections in order to stop a few nutcase terrorist groups. If you care about preserving our way of life, as I do, then you must be on guard against this clear danger also. >> >> > > Don't be ridiculous. Stolen elections? Dismantling freedoms? You sound > like the worst posters on dailykos... > > > Sigh. Now who is ignorant? >>> incidentally as a part of its attempt to drag the world back to the >>> 13th Century. >>> >>> >> Sheesh. All the Jihadists and Islamists (whatever that is) in the world haven't a tiny part of the power required to do any such thing. But rampant fear-mongering plus our own heavy increasing influence of religion based politics may destroy our way of life. >> > > > I am appalled at your ignorance as to what an Islamist is. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism will provide a starting point. > http://www.jihadwatch.org will yield a wealth of further information. > I am not ignorant at all. Just bemused about "Islamists" being the demons in every woodshed that "commies" once were. I am not at all bemused or amused by this country destroying itself through fear-mongering. I am not amused by an administration that lies shamelessly to the people, spends us to oblivion in unending war and seems bent on removing freedoms from the people and any and all checks on its power. I am not amused it takes it upon itself to largely ignore science, teach abstinence only as "sex education" and sexually transmitted disease prevention and nearly stops dead what is arguably the most important medical innovation of our generation. It does not matter that they are Republicans. I have little use for either of the major parties. It does matter to me and matter very much that they are a real danger to what I hold dear. > And as far as their having no power to attain their ends, I direct your > attention to their successful usurpation of a sovereign nation > (Afghanistan), and their ongoing attempts to repeat that feat in other > nations (Afghanistan again, Iraq, Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan, et al). > If they can take over one nation, and have a credible shot at taking > over others, then they are a threat that must be addressed. And if you > don't think Iran's ongoing attempts to secure the ability to produce > nuclear weapons are part of this threat, then I must conclude that you > are simply so blinded by your partisanship that you will not see the > threat until you are faced with a law requiring the burqa in California > (if then). > > Afghanistan? I am quaking in my tennies. One of the poorest, most miserable and strife-torn nations on earth. Iran by all respected opinions can not produce its own nukes in less than 5-10 years ever if the entire world simply paid no attention, which ain't going to happen. If that had them why would they be more likely to use them than Pakistan who already has them? How would they manage to bring the world to its knees in front of Allah even if they had a few nukes and decent delivery systems? Are you using this to excuse what is happening in the most powerful country on earth and arguably the most important for freedom and continuing technological advance? >>> The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of >>> humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be >>> avoided at all costs. >>> >>> >> What a silly fantasy this is. Besides, in this most powerful nation on earth there are far more in positions of great power who want all to live under Old Testament law. >> >> > > > I hope, I truly hope, that you wake up from your Republican-hating ways > to realize that this nation really does face an external threat of > hitherto-unseen proportions. The threat of hitherto-unseen proportions is much nearer than you think. It is a common tactic in a country headed away from freedom to focus all attention on an external enemy. If the enemy is elusive, everywhere and nowhere and can never really be defeated then all the better for the smokescreen behind which unanswerable nearly unstoppable power over its own people amasses. I hope that you and others who think likewise wake up before it is far too late. > It's not about people in power in the U.S. > And, for the record, I am well aware of, and highly concerned about, the > Dominionist movement, but I daresay that a handful of well-connected > Dominionists don't quite rise to the level of threat posted by millions > of Islamists inspired by their ridiculous faith (as all faiths are > ridiculous) to impose their vision of their faith on every single human > being on this planet by deadly force, and being willing to kill > themselves to advance that goal. > That handful has it hands on real power that those millions cannot touch. They are also far more than a handful. - s Do you really believe there is nothing about the people in power in the US to worry about? Really? Those millions of Islamists don't have a decent armed forces among them and they don't run this country. So I don't consider them the most likely threat vector to what I care about. > Unless I have somehow missed the hordes of Baptist suicide bombers > publically calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Democrats... > > Joseph > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 2 04:55:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:55:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <45209BD5.6040403@mac.com> Joseph, Before you dismiss the idea of a stolen election you might want to read a bit, perhaps starting with the following. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 2 05:04:07 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 06:04:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> On 10/1/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > I hope, I truly hope, that you wake up from your Republican-hating ways > to realize that this nation really does face an external threat of > hitherto-unseen proportions. It's not about people in power in the U.S. > But this sort of thing isn't hitherto-unseen at all. Hitler and Mussolini used the argument that they needed power to protect the people against communism. Communism was a real threat (it killed tens of millions of people, far more than the Islamic fundamentalists have) - but fascism was not the answer. It isn't the answer to Islamic fundamentalism today either. I think the threat of terrorism is greatly overstated, but I agree there is a threat and it has to be fought. It does not at all follow that we in the West should tolerate erosion of our civil liberties by our own governments. It's not just that it's not necessary - _it's also not helpful_. If you have a problem, and you try to solve it by surrendering your freedom, you now have two problems. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 2 05:36:22 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 22:36:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again. References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060930154103.045485a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><00c801c6e570$42501440$22084e0c@MyComputer> <04c401c6e576$fac00e30$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002801c6e598$088e21c0$07094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <050501c6e5e4$ccb70b10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> John Clark writes > > How do you know what history would have > > been like in the absense of religion? > > It rained an hour ago and now the street is wet. I deduce that if it hadn't > rained the street wouldn't be wet. Surely you don't think that this is a satisfactory analogy. We know the cause and effect in the case of wet streets from time immemorial. > > So far as *I* know, we don't have a lot of data. > > Unfortunately we have an avalanche of data, as terrifying as it is > depressing. Well, I wish that you'd mention some of it---in other words, for every instance that you can find that religion *may* have added extra suffering to the history of humanity, I believe that I can provide an example where just as much misery occurred with religion playing no role. For example, in Europe while the 16th and 17th centuries are well know for their religious wars, the 18th and 19th centuries for their nationalistic wars, and the 20th century for its ideological wars. Granted, on the whole there is an improvement per-capita, but I suspect that the greater ferocity of the religious era was simply due to it being further back in time. (One can easily tell many stories about ancient Rome, Mesopotamia, central Mexico, Japan, India, and China that prove the undeniable advance of the human race in this regard.) >> The 20th century did seem to indicate that the fervently anti-religious >> socialist regimes of the Soviet Union and Red Chinese killed people >> at at least the same rate if not much greater. > > A good point I readily concede. But I never said religion was the root of > ALL evil. I would estimate that in general about 2/3 of all mortal combat is > religious based. Less than that in the 20th century in Europe because Europe > is the one place on Earth where nobody takes religion very seriously > anymore. It's possible. But how do you explain, to pick a hemisphere at random :-) the wars of the western hemisphere? The worst by far was the Lopez War, fought entirely by Catholics and not at all for religious reasons. Next comes the U.S. Civil War that had only a little to do with religion. Now, let's take a breath and note that we have replaced your original claim about religion being the worst cause of humanity's trials and tribulations, with the claim that it's the cause of most of the wars. Maybe they're the same; maybe not. > I think people just got tired of killing each other over about whether > you should open an egg at the big end or the small. I simply cannot believe that---rather, you really aren't really explaining anything here. (Yes, I realize that it may have been a flippant remark.) Humanity has fewer and less ghastly wars (per capita and per century) simply because, I assert, we are so much richer now, and it is now easier and more profitable to create wealth than to seize your neighbor's. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 2 05:48:50 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 22:48:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060930004433.021ed6b0@satx.rr.com><200609301633.k8UGXJ2G008697@andromeda.ziaspace.com><04c301c6e575$b7b62620$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008f01c6e57a$00f84800$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <050801c6e5e6$7b9c2fb0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Olga writes the difference between Saddam killing Iraqis and Iraqi's killing Iraqies. > [Lee writes] > > There are many differences. But probably the most important is indeed media > > related[:] meaning to say, as I did, that we seem to want not being upset by our daily news more than we want fewer deaths and less suffering all around. > IMO one of the crucial differences is that the blood used to be mainly on > Saddam's hands. Now it is on George Bush's hands Why is it so important whose blood is on whose hands? That is, if we are interested in less suffering, everything else being equal we should applaud actions that reduce casualties. (Yes---I know that not everything else is equal.) It reminds me of the chain of reasoning pacifists use. They are disturbed, yes, by killings, but it's whether or not their own hands are clean that is to them what's crucial. > Another important difference is that the reputation of the USA has sunk to > a very low level (Abu Ghraib: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison) Please find me a major conflict without incidents of this kind (or, usually, much worse) any time in human history. Even when sociopaths are not drawn into armies and police forces---and it's estimated that about four percent of people are sociopaths---wars invariably coarsen all involved. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 2 05:58:51 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 22:58:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com><451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net><45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > I think the threat of terrorism is greatly overstated, but I agree there is a threat and it has to be fought. It does not at all > follow that we in the West should tolerate erosion of our civil liberties by our own governments. It's not just that it's not > necessary - _it's also not helpful_. If you have a problem, and you try to solve it by surrendering your freedom, you now have two > problems. < That could be true, but I believe it depends on future events. Do you almost daily think about what your reactions would be if a terrorist nuke was to go off in a large American city? Do you think that your feelings and intuitions would change at all? The glorious thing about democracy is that it seems to periodically adjust itself in terms of mood just the way that a person does. Right after 9-11, "America" as an entity behaved angrily, just as natural selection made people so act. There is less cause for anger now. There may be more cause later. Whatever happens, the choices made will be strongly criticized---which, up to a point, is exactly what should happen. Lee P.S. My apologies if you aren't an American; please pretend that you are for the sake of the questions. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 2 06:26:05 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 07:26:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> On 10/2/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > That could be true, but I believe it depends on future events. Do you > almost > daily think about what your reactions would be if a terrorist nuke was to > go > off in a large American city? > > Do you think that your feelings and intuitions would change at all? My feelings and intuitions, like yours, say anything that hints of enemy action should be assigned the highest priority. I know exactly why they say that. They evolved in conditions where intraspecies violence was the main cause of death that we could do something about. That circumstance no longer obtains, and our feelings and intuitions therefore give completely the wrong answer when we evaluate today's problems. Since we _know_ they give the wrong answer, and we know why, we should use reason instead. Look at the cold numbers: how many people worldwide have been killed by terrorists from 2001 to today? Some thousands, maybe into five digits. How many lives have been lost from all causes in that same time? Nearly _three hundred million_. Even a nuclear explosion in a major city would be a drop in the ocean on that scale. Note also that you only answered the lesser half of my argument. My primary point was that however small or large the external threat, compromising our most basic civil liberties - allowing our governments to turn inward against ourselves, not outward against the enemy - is _not effective_ as a response. It adds a second problem _without doing anything to solve the first_. Whatever happens, the choices made will be strongly criticized---which, up > to > a point, is exactly what should happen. But it is very dangerous to allow a situation to arise where criticism of certain policies is no longer permitted. P.S. My apologies if you aren't an American; please pretend that you are > for > the sake of the questions. > No apology needed; I'm not, but I am a member of Western civilization, and I believe it matters greatly - quite possibly unto the entire future of our visible universe - how well our civilization and the values it represents endure this century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 2 06:32:15 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:32:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 22:58 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Russell writes > > > I think the threat of terrorism is greatly overstated, but I agree there is a threat and it has to be fought. It does not at all > > follow that we in the West should tolerate erosion of our civil liberties by our own governments. It's not just that it's not > > necessary - _it's also not helpful_. If you have a problem, and you try to solve it by surrendering your freedom, you now have two > > problems. > < > > That could be true, but I believe it depends on future events. Do you almost > daily think about what your reactions would be if a terrorist nuke was to go > off in a large American city? > Of course not. Do you? What for? Seems like a terrible waste of emotional energy. There are much more immediate problems and much more likely dangers. > Do you think that your feelings and intuitions would change at all? > Such hypotheticals are utterly useless to the issues at hand. > The glorious thing about democracy is that it seems to periodically adjust itself > in terms of mood just the way that a person does. Right after 9-11, "America" > as an entity behaved angrily, just as natural selection made people so act. > There is less cause for anger now. There may be more cause later. > Civil rights will be every bit as important as now. Let's deal with now, shall we? > Whatever happens, the choices made will be strongly criticized---which, up to > a point, is exactly what should happen. > What do you mean "up to a point"? Criticism is always in order in a free country. - samantha From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Oct 2 09:17:47 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 05:17:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 10/1/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen? > I was puzzled by this statement as well but not enough to go investigating. As it so happened I ran across some sources for this [1,2] and it would appear there is some merit to the argument. It is interesting that this is getting to the level of discussion that there is speculation (fact?) that computerized voting machines are being "rigged" to allow back door tampering [3]. After all we *know* that software which is supposed to be secure is never faulty. When I, who probably reads more news than the average person, isn't aware of this I would suspect is a problem which the general public is clueless about [4]. Kudos to Samantha for pointing this out. Robert 1. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen 2. http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/17/1845248 3. http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/01/2141222 4. One does of course have to be careful that the primary source is a prominent Democrat. It remains to be seen whether anyone (TV news channel, the Washington Post, etc.) will be diligent enough to verify the accuracy of an article citing 208 references and determine whether it is "biased". But the fact that the references are cited does make a reasonably strong case. There is also the three books cited in [5] which make this appear that it is a reasonably well researched topic. 5. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10463875/was_the_2004_election_stolen_sources_and_commentary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alex at ramonsky.com Mon Oct 2 10:02:20 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:02:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <20060929112008.GM21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4520E3AC.1030607@ramonsky.com> Yo Eugen : ) I did LSD for an average of four days per week from 1983-84. [Despite heroic attempts, we couldn't get it to work more often than that]. I personally felt pretty blissed out in very much the same way I have on heroin. Maybe other people don't. I've only ever done heroin a couple of times, and that orally; so that may make a difference too. Drugs have very different effects on different people. I can only say what it was like for me. I do have colleagues who have done both and claim a similar experience, but perhaps the real answer here lies in one's personal semantics for the meaning of "blissed out". To me it means "Totally anxiety-free". Or these days, perhaps I should say, "Normal". Best, AR ************ Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:11:54PM +0100, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > > > >> totally blissed out and getting nothing done whatsoever, as I'm sure >> many LSD or Heroin fans would agree...but it's not as enjoyable >> >> > >From your comments, it seems that you have never tried LSD. >Calling an acid experience "blissed out" (especially, the assumption >that you could drop one hit after another for days and weeks) and >putting hallucinogens with the opiates into the same bin doesn't >strike me as informed. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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 alex at ramonsky.com Mon Oct 2 10:15:18 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:15:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> If I understand you correctly, how do you prevent eventual downgrading of dopaminergic receptors? I used to get a tedious anhedonic period after a long creative squawk. I did one month's worth of selegiline, and it stopped being a problem. I'm still trying to figure out why. : ) Best, AR ********** Anders Sandberg wrote: >Life in dopaminergic overdrive is far more fun. I still remember the very >enjoyable experience of being blissed out on opiates and some >tranquilizers before going in for surgery many years ago, but it doesn't >compare to the feeling of flow when you are up at 2 in the morning writing >your academic masterpiece using every part of your mind. Flow/eudaimonia >beats plain pleasure. > >Of course, we should be able to get that more if we can just stimulate the >right motivation subsystems. Panksepp's SEEKING and PLAY systems look like >a good place to start. >http://www.thinkbody.co.uk/papers/Panic%20Seeking%20%20play.htm >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15766890&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum > > >And I feel fantastic >And I never felt as good as how I do right now >Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day >When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now. > >(Jonathan Coulton, I Feel Fantastic, >http://www.jonathancoulton.com/lyrics/i-feel-fantastic ) > > > From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 2 10:11:11 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:11:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: <4520E3AC.1030607@ramonsky.com> References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <20060929112008.GM21640@leitl.org> <4520E3AC.1030607@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <20061002101111.GK21640@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:02:20AM +0100, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > > Yo Eugen : ) Allright, I take back that uninformed. You're definitely more informed than I. > I did LSD for an average of four days per week from 1983-84. [Despite > heroic attempts, we couldn't get it to work more often than that]. I It's amazing you could get it to work 4 days out of 7. It's more 2 days out of 7 for most people. > personally felt pretty blissed out in very much the same way I have on > heroin. Maybe other people don't. I'm hazarding that most other people don't. How's for a poll, here? Would you call it blissed out, or something else? (If yes, how would you describe it?). > I've only ever done heroin a couple of times, and that orally; so that > may make a difference too. > Drugs have very different effects on different people. I can only say > what it was like for me. I do have colleagues who have done both and > claim a similar experience, but perhaps the real answer here lies in > one's personal semantics for the meaning of "blissed out". To me it > means "Totally anxiety-free". Or these days, perhaps I should say, -- 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 Oct 2 10:16:15 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:16:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: On 10/2/06, Alex Ramonsky wrote: You do realise that anything significant that you post on extropy-chat (or anywhere on the internet) is likely to immediately update your Homeland Security Profile? Unencrypted emails probably go there as well. We live in interesting times. BillK From john.heritage at v21.me.uk Mon Oct 2 10:27:41 2006 From: john.heritage at v21.me.uk (John) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:27:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading / psychoactives References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com><20060929112008.GM21640@leitl.org> <4520E3AC.1030607@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <00b501c6e60d$69a40cc0$6d010751@heritagekd9czj> Four days a week, I'm quite impressed you haven't been sectioned by now. Magic mushroom tend to require quite a lot of recovery time afterwards to reach full potential again, most people leave it weeks before they eat anymore. I've not tried LSD, so I'm not sure just how long the recovery time on that is. One of the first things Hoffmann noted about LSD was that the day after he woke up feeling particularly sensitive to the world. This, combined with knowing that these molecules are metabolised out of the synapses and that immediately afterwards their potential for effect decreases suggests to me that they trigger an increase in the 'esterase metabolic pathways in the synapses. E.g. you take LSD, your body senses that it's become lodged in the post-synaptic boutons (atropine does this I believe, and is used to treat nerve agent exposure by 'clogging' the synapses to prevent spasmodic firing) and increases the levels of esterase to break it down. Afterwards, those level likely remain elevated for a while, allowing the synapse to carry a higher bandwidth of signals, allowing for a greater level of sensitivity. This is all pure speculation, but it seems like the most likely way these effects would emerge to me. I've noticed something similar after trying psilocybin mushrooms. Just out of interest, do you get a headache the morning after with LSD? I've often wondered about the possibility of mixing psychoactives to achieve greater effects. As you pointed out, sooner or later you reach a peak that's difficult to go beyond due to pathways being saturated / metabolism wiping out the active material etc. However, if multiple actives where used, one might expect the experience to be orders of magnitude more diverse - mescaline, psilocybin and salvinorin say, which all work on different receptor sites (off the top of my head, I think it's mainly... muscarine, serotonin and kappa opoid respectively). And finish it off with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor. Never tried Heroin. I tend not to believe too much of the anti-drugs stuff I read but there certainly does seem to be a correlation between Heroin and bin diving. In light of Bill's note, I live in the UK, where magic mushrooms were legal fodder until recently. John BullGuard Anti-virus has scanned this e-mail and found it clean. Try BullGuard for free: www.bullguard.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 2 11:05:18 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:05:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <20061002110518.GL21640@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:15:18AM +0100, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > after a long creative squawk. I did one month's worth of selegiline, and > it stopped being a problem. I'm still trying to figure out why. : ) Why did you stop with selegiline? Equivalent of 1 mg/day from 40 years upwards seems to show benefits across several animal models. -- 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 Luke.Ferris at emimusic.com Mon Oct 2 10:52:41 2006 From: Luke.Ferris at emimusic.com (Ferris, Luke) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:52:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reply to Joseph in message 2 of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "of Islamists inspired by their ridiculous faith (as all faiths are ridiculous) to impose their vision of their faith on every single human being on this planet by deadly force, and being willing to kill themselves to advance that goal." Can you please provide some citations to back up this claim? All of my research so far indicates that Islamic terrorism (and indeed terrorism in general) is a tactic used to achieve an outcome (such as troop withdrawal) in response to a particular stimulus (such as the occupation of a homeland). Certainly this is the case with Al-Qaeda, who spare no lengths to broadcast there grievances (Troops on the Arabian peninsular, troops in Iraq, the persecution of Palestinians etc.) although the Western media pays little attention to it. I am yet to find significant evidence to suggest that they want to "Islamicise" us as your statement suggests. Luke -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org Sent: 02 October 2006 11:28 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 Send extropy-chat mailing list submissions to extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org You can reach the person managing the list at extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Uses of Religion (Robert Bradbury) 2. Re: Tyranny in place (Joseph Bloch) 3. Re: Uses of Religion (Olga Bourlin) 4. Oct 30 - Richard Dawkins In conversation with Roy Eisenhardt (Fred C. Moulton) 5. Re: Islamic morons win yet again (Damien Broderick) 6. Re: Islamic morons win yet again Resend 2 (Keith Henson) 7. Re: Islamic morons win yet again (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) 8. Re: Islamic morons win yet again (resend 2) (Keith Henson) 9. Re: Tyranny in place (Samantha Atkins) 10. Re: Tyranny in place (Samantha Atkins) 11. Re: Tyranny in place (Russell Wallace) 12. Re: Islamic morons win yet again. (Lee Corbin) 13. Re: Uses of Religion (Lee Corbin) 14. Re: Tyranny in place (Lee Corbin) 15. Re: Tyranny in place (Russell Wallace) 16. Re: Tyranny in place (Samantha Atkins) 17. Re: Tyranny in place (Robert Bradbury) 18. Re: Wireheading (Alex Ramonsky) 19. Re: Wireheading (Alex Ramonsky) 20. Re: Wireheading (Eugen Leitl) 21. Re: Wireheading (BillK) 22. Re: Wireheading / psychoactives (John) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 17:35:06 -0400 From: "Robert Bradbury" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On 10/1/06, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > The important thing in the West---and now to the rest of the world---is, > > for the billion or so bystanders, whether the nightly news is painful or > > merely interesting. > > No. It mattered then and it matters now. If it really did matter then you would see much more on the nightly news regarding the person in the U.S. that dies every 12 seconds (4.7 a minute, 6700 a day) due to so called natural causes [1]. Those guilty of causing death due to acts of commission and those causing deaths due to acts of omission are only two letters apart. Robert 1. They remain "natural" because we haven't chosen yet to really apply ourselves to solving them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061001/540 1961f/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:55:17 -0400 From: Joseph Bloch Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <45203945.1030206 at goldenfuture.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Samantha Atkins wrote: >> Talk to me about true tyranny when George W. Bush is still in the >> White House on January 21st, 2009. Until then, I see nothing more >> than a possibly over-zealous (and only possibly so), but still >> well-intentioned, attept to protect the United States from an enemy >> which is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process >> stifle forever the Transhumanist dream, if only > > > How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen? Bush ossibly over-zealous but nothing more? I am rendered speechless. We are destroying our own way of life with our apparent willingness to dismantle our own freedom and protections in order to stop a few nutcase terrorist groups. If you care about preserving our way of life, as I do, then you must be on guard against this clear danger also. > Don't be ridiculous. Stolen elections? Dismantling freedoms? You sound like the worst posters on dailykos... >> incidentally as a part of its attempt to drag the world back to the >> 13th Century. >> > > Sheesh. All the Jihadists and Islamists (whatever that is) in the world haven't a tiny part of the power required to do any such thing. But rampant fear-mongering plus our own heavy increasing influence of religion based politics may destroy our way of life. I am appalled at your ignorance as to what an Islamist is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism will provide a starting point. http://www.jihadwatch.org will yield a wealth of further information. And as far as their having no power to attain their ends, I direct your attention to their successful usurpation of a sovereign nation (Afghanistan), and their ongoing attempts to repeat that feat in other nations (Afghanistan again, Iraq, Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan, et al). If they can take over one nation, and have a credible shot at taking over others, then they are a threat that must be addressed. And if you don't think Iran's ongoing attempts to secure the ability to produce nuclear weapons are part of this threat, then I must conclude that you are simply so blinded by your partisanship that you will not see the threat until you are faced with a law requiring the burqa in California (if then). > >> The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of >> humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be >> avoided at all costs. >> > > > What a silly fantasy this is. Besides, in this most powerful nation on earth there are far more in positions of great power who want all to live under Old Testament law. > I hope, I truly hope, that you wake up from your Republican-hating ways to realize that this nation really does face an external threat of hitherto-unseen proportions. It's not about people in power in the U.S. And, for the record, I am well aware of, and highly concerned about, the Dominionist movement, but I daresay that a handful of well-connected Dominionists don't quite rise to the level of threat posted by millions of Islamists inspired by their ridiculous faith (as all faiths are ridiculous) to impose their vision of their faith on every single human being on this planet by deadly force, and being willing to kill themselves to advance that goal. Unless I have somehow missed the hordes of Baptist suicide bombers publically calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Democrats... Joseph ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:25:20 -0700 From: "Olga Bourlin" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <001901c6e5b0$dd5221f0$6600a8c0 at brainiac> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Robert Bradbury Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 2:35 PM >On 10/1/06, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > > The important thing in the West---and now to the rest of the world---is, for the billion or so bystanders, whether the nightly news is painful or merely interesting. >> No. It mattered then and it matters now. > If it really did matter then you would see much more on the nightly news regarding the person in the U.S. that dies every 12 seconds ( 4.7 a minute, 6700 a day) due to so called natural causes [1]. [1. They remain "natural" because we haven't chosen yet to really apply ourselves to solving them.] > Those guilty of causing death due to acts of commission and those causing deaths due to acts of omission are only two letters apart. So, do you mean there is no such thing as murder? Olga I understand what you mean by "natural" death - and there are people working on -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061001/964 24a1c/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:08:37 -0700 From: "Fred C. Moulton" Subject: [extropy-chat] Oct 30 - Richard Dawkins In conversation with Roy Eisenhardt To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Message-ID: <1159754917.4895.275.camel at localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain I have already bought my ticket and it appears to be more that half sold so if people want to attend they should get their tickets ASAP. Richard Dawkins - 10/30/2006, 8:00 pm Special Event Richard Dawkins In conversation with Roy Eisenhardt Monday, October 30, 2006 at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, CA. I expect that the discussion will focus on The God Delusion which is the most recent book by Richard Dawkins. The talk is part of the City Arts http://www.cityarts.net/ program. I have just received a copy of The God Delusion and have read the first chapter. I expect the arguments which Dawkins makes about the nature of religion and for atheism will be in general familiar to every one on this list. However in the first chapter I think Dawkins does a really good job of discussing the term "religion" and how it is often misused. Also Dawkins does an excellent job of explaining Einstein's use of the term and how many theists misquote or selectively quote Einstein in an effort to make him appear to be a theist. If you can not make the event in San Francisco then you might be able to hear a rebroadcast on radio http://www.cityarts.net/radio.html. Dawkins will also be at Keplers in Menlo Park on Oct 29 see: http://www.keplers.com/?sec=programs-events&subsec=calendar Fred ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:27:15 -0500 From: Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061001212625.02282fd8 at satx.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:14 PM 9/30/2006 -0700, Eliezer wrote: >+1 insightful: >http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1700/ >"Iraq: the world's first Suicide State" A learned friend writes: Damien Broderick ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:37:02 -0400 From: Keith Henson Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again Resend 2 To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061001222218.04549908 at pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:17 PM 10/1/2006 +0100, you wrote: > > > > I am sure they are. But the model predicts that as long as the future > > prospects are good, the IRA or some other terrorist organization will not > > get popular support. > > >That is why I am saying that NI is a bad example for you to use. The >NI troubles were not a 'war' and killed a tiny percentage of the >population. Agreed, but I don't distinguish between war, terror, riots and other such social disruptions. >The same falling birth rates applied in many places where >there were no 'troubles'. The causal arrow is that the falling birth rates and economic growth contributed to a rising income per capita and *that's* what pulled the motivation. Obviously if there are no terror groups, then rising income per capita isn't going to shut off support for them. >So NI is not an example that supports your theory that nations go into >'war' mode and fight until they have killed sufficient people that the >survivors can live better The theory is not at all about nations and modern wars. The theory is about human psychological traits that evolved during the long time that human ancestors lived in hunter-gatherer groups. It happens that those traits still exist in humans and contribute causally to modern wars and related social disruptions. >. Even though the war itself will destroy >resources that support people. Think 'scorched earth'. Terrorism never >kills in sufficient numbers to fit into your theory. Agree on all your points. See the corn farmer example in the EP, Memes and the origin of war paper for an example of how war can be ill adapted to societies more advanced than hunter gathers. >I don't think you really want to weaken your claim to say that >sometimes small groups of people start killing when they feel a bit >miserable and stop killing when they cheer up. But that seems to be >the direction you are heading. That claim is correct, of course, but >not of great significance. It seems to me that a predictive theory of when and where wars are likely to start would be of considerable significance. If for no other reason than being able to get out of the way. Keith Henson ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:45:55 -0700 From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <45207D63.5070005 at pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:14 PM 9/30/2006 -0700, Eliezer wrote: > >>+1 insightful: >>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1700/ >>"Iraq: the world's first Suicide State" > > A learned friend writes: > > or colonizers, to restore the historical dominance of one ethnic or > religious group or to establish a new structure of dominance, or to impose a > particular set of religious rules--goals which are held by the various > indigenous factions who are killing people in Iraq--is hardly "fighting for > nothing in particular." There isn't one manifesto that fits everybody > toting a gun or a bomb--there are a number of contending factions--but the > fact that it can't all be summed up easily in this guy's PowerPoint > presentation doesn't make it "aimless." Different participants have > different aims. This is far from unusual--consider the various factions > involved in the South African resistance.> Fair enough. - E -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:08:56 -0400 From: Keith Henson Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again (resend 2) To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061001224012.04548038 at pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:41 AM 10/1/2006 -0400, you wrote: >"Keith Henson" > > > It is useless to denounce religion > >I do not believe it is useless to denounce evil, in fact I believe it is >rather despicable not to. It is like denouncing a fever. Xenophobic memes simple arise when they are called for by the situation. Think Pol Pot's version of communism, Nazi memes, Rwanda. > > and it is *not* the root cause of human misery. > >I would never be so foolish as to say religion is the cause of all human >misery, but I would say that with the exception of death itself religion has >caused more misery than any other single thing. It is just distracting to denounce something which is caused by something else. You are never going to understand what is the correct action to take that way. > > Human reproduction in excess of what the ecosystem/economy can support > > *is* the cause of misery. > >Human reproduction has never been in a higher gear than it is right now, so >if you were right we would expect the average standard of living to be lower >than its ever been. However the exact opposite is true, human beings have >never had it so good. You are dead wrong about human reproduction. Over the entire developed populations it is at near replacement rates. But read what I said, "in excess of what the ecosystem/economy can support." >Despite what the tree huggers say the >ecosystem/economy is doing quite well thank you very much. I have no problem with a solar system population of trillions of people, in fact, I think it would be a good idea. The earth could support the current and even the projected population with considerable advances in technology. But if you look at the places where the problems come from they are parts of the world with high birth rates and stagnant economies. > >Easter Island was a case where war a few generations earlier would have > >been much better. > >You don't need anything as drastic as war. If the Easter Islander's religion >hadn't caused them to use all their time energy recourses and imagination >making all those incredibly stupid statues they would have been one hell >of a lot better off. Well, please tell me what they could have done with the "time energy resources and imagination"? I have played this game a number of times and even with full scale modern knowledge I don't see how Easter Island would have played out any better. > > It is truly bizarre, but I make the case that there are times when the > > interest of a person and the interest of their genes diverge. > >I don't think it's bizarre to say that the genes interests and the >individual's are not identical, I think it's a keen grasp of the obvious. >After all, if it were not true the condom would never have been invented. A more spectacular example was that stand of the Spartans at Thermopylae. > >what situations in the stone age made those who could be infested with > >religion more likely to survive (in the gene centered inclusive fitness > >sense) than those who were not? > >I'm not at all sure that the religious meme got started because it conveyed >some survival advantage, rather it may just be the result of being mortal >and being intelligent. The psychological trait of being able to be "captured" by a religious class meme has to be either something that was directly selected or a side effect of something what was directly selected. That's your choice in EP theory. >Contemplating death, especially your own death, is >unpleasant. So people try to think of ways to fool themselves to reduce that >unpleasantness (maybe death isn't really the end). Given that the religious >meme is likely to be present, at least to some degree, in any population, an >individual who knows how to exploit that meme (God speaks through me!) >would have a huge reproductive advantage. And it's still true, the religious >cult leader Warren Jeffs who was just arrested had 80 wives and 250 >children. Interesting speculation backed up by some data is that descendents of the early Mormons are more susceptible than the rest of the population to cult class memes. What you would expect with a big genetic contribution. Keith Henson ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:51:30 -0700 From: Samantha Atkins Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <45209AD2.2080002 at mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Joseph Bloch wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > >>> Talk to me about true tyranny when George W. Bush is still in the >>> White House on January 21st, 2009. Until then, I see nothing more >>> than a possibly over-zealous (and only possibly so), but still >>> well-intentioned, attept to protect the United States from an enemy >>> which is determined to eradicate our way of life and in the process >>> stifle forever the Transhumanist dream, if only >>> >> How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen? Bush ossibly over-zealous but nothing more? I am rendered speechless. We are destroying our own way of life with our apparent willingness to dismantle our own freedom and protections in order to stop a few nutcase terrorist groups. If you care about preserving our way of life, as I do, then you must be on guard against this clear danger also. >> >> > > Don't be ridiculous. Stolen elections? Dismantling freedoms? You sound > like the worst posters on dailykos... > > > Sigh. Now who is ignorant? >>> incidentally as a part of its attempt to drag the world back to the >>> 13th Century. >>> >>> >> Sheesh. All the Jihadists and Islamists (whatever that is) in the world haven't a tiny part of the power required to do any such thing. But rampant fear-mongering plus our own heavy increasing influence of religion based politics may destroy our way of life. >> > > > I am appalled at your ignorance as to what an Islamist is. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism will provide a starting point. > http://www.jihadwatch.org will yield a wealth of further information. > I am not ignorant at all. Just bemused about "Islamists" being the demons in every woodshed that "commies" once were. I am not at all bemused or amused by this country destroying itself through fear-mongering. I am not amused by an administration that lies shamelessly to the people, spends us to oblivion in unending war and seems bent on removing freedoms from the people and any and all checks on its power. I am not amused it takes it upon itself to largely ignore science, teach abstinence only as "sex education" and sexually transmitted disease prevention and nearly stops dead what is arguably the most important medical innovation of our generation. It does not matter that they are Republicans. I have little use for either of the major parties. It does matter to me and matter very much that they are a real danger to what I hold dear. > And as far as their having no power to attain their ends, I direct your > attention to their successful usurpation of a sovereign nation > (Afghanistan), and their ongoing attempts to repeat that feat in other > nations (Afghanistan again, Iraq, Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan, et al). > If they can take over one nation, and have a credible shot at taking > over others, then they are a threat that must be addressed. And if you > don't think Iran's ongoing attempts to secure the ability to produce > nuclear weapons are part of this threat, then I must conclude that you > are simply so blinded by your partisanship that you will not see the > threat until you are faced with a law requiring the burqa in California > (if then). > > Afghanistan? I am quaking in my tennies. One of the poorest, most miserable and strife-torn nations on earth. Iran by all respected opinions can not produce its own nukes in less than 5-10 years ever if the entire world simply paid no attention, which ain't going to happen. If that had them why would they be more likely to use them than Pakistan who already has them? How would they manage to bring the world to its knees in front of Allah even if they had a few nukes and decent delivery systems? Are you using this to excuse what is happening in the most powerful country on earth and arguably the most important for freedom and continuing technological advance? >>> The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate which places all of >>> humanity under strict Islamic law, is a scenario which must be >>> avoided at all costs. >>> >>> >> What a silly fantasy this is. Besides, in this most powerful nation on earth there are far more in positions of great power who want all to live under Old Testament law. >> >> > > > I hope, I truly hope, that you wake up from your Republican-hating ways > to realize that this nation really does face an external threat of > hitherto-unseen proportions. The threat of hitherto-unseen proportions is much nearer than you think. It is a common tactic in a country headed away from freedom to focus all attention on an external enemy. If the enemy is elusive, everywhere and nowhere and can never really be defeated then all the better for the smokescreen behind which unanswerable nearly unstoppable power over its own people amasses. I hope that you and others who think likewise wake up before it is far too late. > It's not about people in power in the U.S. > And, for the record, I am well aware of, and highly concerned about, the > Dominionist movement, but I daresay that a handful of well-connected > Dominionists don't quite rise to the level of threat posted by millions > of Islamists inspired by their ridiculous faith (as all faiths are > ridiculous) to impose their vision of their faith on every single human > being on this planet by deadly force, and being willing to kill > themselves to advance that goal. > That handful has it hands on real power that those millions cannot touch. They are also far more than a handful. - s Do you really believe there is nothing about the people in power in the US to worry about? Really? Those millions of Islamists don't have a decent armed forces among them and they don't run this country. So I don't consider them the most likely threat vector to what I care about. > Unless I have somehow missed the hordes of Baptist suicide bombers > publically calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Democrats... > > Joseph > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:55:49 -0700 From: Samantha Atkins Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <45209BD5.6040403 at mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Joseph, Before you dismiss the idea of a stolen election you might want to read a bit, perhaps starting with the following. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_st olen ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 06:04:07 +0100 From: "Russell Wallace" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On 10/1/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > I hope, I truly hope, that you wake up from your Republican-hating ways > to realize that this nation really does face an external threat of > hitherto-unseen proportions. It's not about people in power in the U.S. > But this sort of thing isn't hitherto-unseen at all. Hitler and Mussolini used the argument that they needed power to protect the people against communism. Communism was a real threat (it killed tens of millions of people, far more than the Islamic fundamentalists have) - but fascism was not the answer. It isn't the answer to Islamic fundamentalism today either. I think the threat of terrorism is greatly overstated, but I agree there is a threat and it has to be fought. It does not at all follow that we in the West should tolerate erosion of our civil liberties by our own governments. It's not just that it's not necessary - _it's also not helpful_. If you have a problem, and you try to solve it by surrendering your freedom, you now have two problems. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061002/356 f5a91/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 22:36:22 -0700 From: "Lee Corbin" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again. To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <050501c6e5e4$ccb70b10$6701a8c0 at homeef7b612677> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response John Clark writes > > How do you know what history would have > > been like in the absense of religion? > > It rained an hour ago and now the street is wet. I deduce that if it hadn't > rained the street wouldn't be wet. Surely you don't think that this is a satisfactory analogy. We know the cause and effect in the case of wet streets from time immemorial. > > So far as *I* know, we don't have a lot of data. > > Unfortunately we have an avalanche of data, as terrifying as it is > depressing. Well, I wish that you'd mention some of it---in other words, for every instance that you can find that religion *may* have added extra suffering to the history of humanity, I believe that I can provide an example where just as much misery occurred with religion playing no role. For example, in Europe while the 16th and 17th centuries are well know for their religious wars, the 18th and 19th centuries for their nationalistic wars, and the 20th century for its ideological wars. Granted, on the whole there is an improvement per-capita, but I suspect that the greater ferocity of the religious era was simply due to it being further back in time. (One can easily tell many stories about ancient Rome, Mesopotamia, central Mexico, Japan, India, and China that prove the undeniable advance of the human race in this regard.) >> The 20th century did seem to indicate that the fervently anti-religious >> socialist regimes of the Soviet Union and Red Chinese killed people >> at at least the same rate if not much greater. > > A good point I readily concede. But I never said religion was the root of > ALL evil. I would estimate that in general about 2/3 of all mortal combat is > religious based. Less than that in the 20th century in Europe because Europe > is the one place on Earth where nobody takes religion very seriously > anymore. It's possible. But how do you explain, to pick a hemisphere at random :-) the wars of the western hemisphere? The worst by far was the Lopez War, fought entirely by Catholics and not at all for religious reasons. Next comes the U.S. Civil War that had only a little to do with religion. Now, let's take a breath and note that we have replaced your original claim about religion being the worst cause of humanity's trials and tribulations, with the claim that it's the cause of most of the wars. Maybe they're the same; maybe not. > I think people just got tired of killing each other over about whether > you should open an egg at the big end or the small. I simply cannot believe that---rather, you really aren't really explaining anything here. (Yes, I realize that it may have been a flippant remark.) Humanity has fewer and less ghastly wars (per capita and per century) simply because, I assert, we are so much richer now, and it is now easier and more profitable to create wealth than to seize your neighbor's. Lee ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 22:48:50 -0700 From: "Lee Corbin" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <050801c6e5e6$7b9c2fb0$6701a8c0 at homeef7b612677> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Olga writes the difference between Saddam killing Iraqis and Iraqi's killing Iraqies. > [Lee writes] > > There are many differences. But probably the most important is indeed media > > related[:] meaning to say, as I did, that we seem to want not being upset by our daily news more than we want fewer deaths and less suffering all around. > IMO one of the crucial differences is that the blood used to be mainly on > Saddam's hands. Now it is on George Bush's hands Why is it so important whose blood is on whose hands? That is, if we are interested in less suffering, everything else being equal we should applaud actions that reduce casualties. (Yes---I know that not everything else is equal.) It reminds me of the chain of reasoning pacifists use. They are disturbed, yes, by killings, but it's whether or not their own hands are clean that is to them what's crucial. > Another important difference is that the reputation of the USA has sunk to > a very low level (Abu Ghraib: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison) Please find me a major conflict without incidents of this kind (or, usually, much worse) any time in human history. Even when sociopaths are not drawn into armies and police forces---and it's estimated that about four percent of people are sociopaths---wars invariably coarsen all involved. Lee ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 22:58:51 -0700 From: "Lee Corbin" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0 at homeef7b612677> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Russell writes > I think the threat of terrorism is greatly overstated, but I agree there is a threat and it has to be fought. It does not at all > follow that we in the West should tolerate erosion of our civil liberties by our own governments. It's not just that it's not > necessary - _it's also not helpful_. If you have a problem, and you try to solve it by surrendering your freedom, you now have two > problems. < That could be true, but I believe it depends on future events. Do you almost daily think about what your reactions would be if a terrorist nuke was to go off in a large American city? Do you think that your feelings and intuitions would change at all? The glorious thing about democracy is that it seems to periodically adjust itself in terms of mood just the way that a person does. Right after 9-11, "America" as an entity behaved angrily, just as natural selection made people so act. There is less cause for anger now. There may be more cause later. Whatever happens, the choices made will be strongly criticized---which, up to a point, is exactly what should happen. Lee P.S. My apologies if you aren't an American; please pretend that you are for the sake of the questions. ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 07:26:05 +0100 From: "Russell Wallace" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On 10/2/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > That could be true, but I believe it depends on future events. Do you > almost > daily think about what your reactions would be if a terrorist nuke was to > go > off in a large American city? > > Do you think that your feelings and intuitions would change at all? My feelings and intuitions, like yours, say anything that hints of enemy action should be assigned the highest priority. I know exactly why they say that. They evolved in conditions where intraspecies violence was the main cause of death that we could do something about. That circumstance no longer obtains, and our feelings and intuitions therefore give completely the wrong answer when we evaluate today's problems. Since we _know_ they give the wrong answer, and we know why, we should use reason instead. Look at the cold numbers: how many people worldwide have been killed by terrorists from 2001 to today? Some thousands, maybe into five digits. How many lives have been lost from all causes in that same time? Nearly _three hundred million_. Even a nuclear explosion in a major city would be a drop in the ocean on that scale. Note also that you only answered the lesser half of my argument. My primary point was that however small or large the external threat, compromising our most basic civil liberties - allowing our governments to turn inward against ourselves, not outward against the enemy - is _not effective_ as a response. It adds a second problem _without doing anything to solve the first_. Whatever happens, the choices made will be strongly criticized---which, up > to > a point, is exactly what should happen. But it is very dangerous to allow a situation to arise where criticism of certain policies is no longer permitted. P.S. My apologies if you aren't an American; please pretend that you are > for > the sake of the questions. > No apology needed; I'm not, but I am a member of Western civilization, and I believe it matters greatly - quite possibly unto the entire future of our visible universe - how well our civilization and the values it represents endure this century. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061002/a73 2a588/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:32:15 -0700 From: Samantha Atkins Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place To: Lee Corbin , ExI chat list Message-ID: <1159770735.13119.4.camel at localhost> Content-Type: text/plain On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 22:58 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Russell writes > > > I think the threat of terrorism is greatly overstated, but I agree there is a threat and it has to be fought. It does not at all > > follow that we in the West should tolerate erosion of our civil liberties by our own governments. It's not just that it's not > > necessary - _it's also not helpful_. If you have a problem, and you try to solve it by surrendering your freedom, you now have two > > problems. > < > > That could be true, but I believe it depends on future events. Do you almost > daily think about what your reactions would be if a terrorist nuke was to go > off in a large American city? > Of course not. Do you? What for? Seems like a terrible waste of emotional energy. There are much more immediate problems and much more likely dangers. > Do you think that your feelings and intuitions would change at all? > Such hypotheticals are utterly useless to the issues at hand. > The glorious thing about democracy is that it seems to periodically adjust itself > in terms of mood just the way that a person does. Right after 9-11, "America" > as an entity behaved angrily, just as natural selection made people so act. > There is less cause for anger now. There may be more cause later. > Civil rights will be every bit as important as now. Let's deal with now, shall we? > Whatever happens, the choices made will be strongly criticized---which, up to > a point, is exactly what should happen. > What do you mean "up to a point"? Criticism is always in order in a free country. - samantha ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 05:17:47 -0400 From: "Robert Bradbury" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On 10/1/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > How about when the election of 2004 was quite possibly stolen? > I was puzzled by this statement as well but not enough to go investigating. As it so happened I ran across some sources for this [1,2] and it would appear there is some merit to the argument. It is interesting that this is getting to the level of discussion that there is speculation (fact?) that computerized voting machines are being "rigged" to allow back door tampering [3]. After all we *know* that software which is supposed to be secure is never faulty. When I, who probably reads more news than the average person, isn't aware of this I would suspect is a problem which the general public is clueless about [4]. Kudos to Samantha for pointing this out. Robert 1. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_st olen 2. http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/17/1845248 3. http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/01/2141222 4. One does of course have to be careful that the primary source is a prominent Democrat. It remains to be seen whether anyone (TV news channel, the Washington Post, etc.) will be diligent enough to verify the accuracy of an article citing 208 references and determine whether it is "biased". But the fact that the references are cited does make a reasonably strong case. There is also the three books cited in [5] which make this appear that it is a reasonably well researched topic. 5. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10463875/was_the_2004_election_st olen_sources_and_commentary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061002/67d 4cad6/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:02:20 +0100 From: Alex Ramonsky Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Wireheading To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <4520E3AC.1030607 at ramonsky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yo Eugen : ) I did LSD for an average of four days per week from 1983-84. [Despite heroic attempts, we couldn't get it to work more often than that]. I personally felt pretty blissed out in very much the same way I have on heroin. Maybe other people don't. I've only ever done heroin a couple of times, and that orally; so that may make a difference too. Drugs have very different effects on different people. I can only say what it was like for me. I do have colleagues who have done both and claim a similar experience, but perhaps the real answer here lies in one's personal semantics for the meaning of "blissed out". To me it means "Totally anxiety-free". Or these days, perhaps I should say, "Normal". Best, AR ************ Eugen Leitl wrote: >On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:11:54PM +0100, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > > > >> totally blissed out and getting nothing done whatsoever, as I'm sure >> many LSD or Heroin fans would agree...but it's not as enjoyable >> >> > >From your comments, it seems that you have never tried LSD. >Calling an acid experience "blissed out" (especially, the assumption >that you could drop one hit after another for days and weeks) and >putting hallucinogens with the opiates into the same bin doesn't >strike me as informed. > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >_______________________________________________ >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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061002/b2b 5d982/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:15:18 +0100 From: Alex Ramonsky Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Wireheading To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <4520E6B6.8020901 at ramonsky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed If I understand you correctly, how do you prevent eventual downgrading of dopaminergic receptors? I used to get a tedious anhedonic period after a long creative squawk. I did one month's worth of selegiline, and it stopped being a problem. I'm still trying to figure out why. : ) Best, AR ********** Anders Sandberg wrote: >Life in dopaminergic overdrive is far more fun. I still remember the very >enjoyable experience of being blissed out on opiates and some >tranquilizers before going in for surgery many years ago, but it doesn't >compare to the feeling of flow when you are up at 2 in the morning writing >your academic masterpiece using every part of your mind. Flow/eudaimonia >beats plain pleasure. > >Of course, we should be able to get that more if we can just stimulate the >right motivation subsystems. Panksepp's SEEKING and PLAY systems look like >a good place to start. >http://www.thinkbody.co.uk/papers/Panic%20Seeking%20%20play.htm >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do pt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15766890&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum > > >And I feel fantastic >And I never felt as good as how I do right now >Except for maybe when I think of how I felt that day >When I felt the way that I do right now, right now, right now. > >(Jonathan Coulton, I Feel Fantastic, >http://www.jonathancoulton.com/lyrics/i-feel-fantastic ) > > > ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:11:11 +0200 From: Eugen Leitl Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Wireheading To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Message-ID: <20061002101111.GK21640 at leitl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:02:20AM +0100, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > > Yo Eugen : ) Allright, I take back that uninformed. You're definitely more informed than I. > I did LSD for an average of four days per week from 1983-84. [Despite > heroic attempts, we couldn't get it to work more often than that]. I It's amazing you could get it to work 4 days out of 7. It's more 2 days out of 7 for most people. > personally felt pretty blissed out in very much the same way I have on > heroin. Maybe other people don't. I'm hazarding that most other people don't. How's for a poll, here? Would you call it blissed out, or something else? (If yes, how would you describe it?). > I've only ever done heroin a couple of times, and that orally; so that > may make a difference too. > Drugs have very different effects on different people. I can only say > what it was like for me. I do have colleagues who have done both and > claim a similar experience, but perhaps the real answer here lies in > one's personal semantics for the meaning of "blissed out". To me it > means "Totally anxiety-free". Or these days, perhaps I should say, -- 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: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061002/0ae 5baad/attachment-0001.bin ------------------------------ Message: 21 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:16:15 +0100 From: BillK Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Wireheading To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 10/2/06, Alex Ramonsky wrote: You do realise that anything significant that you post on extropy-chat (or anywhere on the internet) is likely to immediately update your Homeland Security Profile? Unencrypted emails probably go there as well. We live in interesting times. BillK ------------------------------ Message: 22 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:27:41 +0100 From: "John" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Wireheading / psychoactives To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <00b501c6e60d$69a40cc0$6d010751 at heritagekd9czj> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Four days a week, I'm quite impressed you haven't been sectioned by now. Magic mushroom tend to require quite a lot of recovery time afterwards to reach full potential again, most people leave it weeks before they eat anymore. I've not tried LSD, so I'm not sure just how long the recovery time on that is. One of the first things Hoffmann noted about LSD was that the day after he woke up feeling particularly sensitive to the world. This, combined with knowing that these molecules are metabolised out of the synapses and that immediately afterwards their potential for effect decreases suggests to me that they trigger an increase in the 'esterase metabolic pathways in the synapses. E.g. you take LSD, your body senses that it's become lodged in the post-synaptic boutons (atropine does this I believe, and is used to treat nerve agent exposure by 'clogging' the synapses to prevent spasmodic firing) and increases the levels of esterase to break it down. Afterwards, those level likely remain elevated for a while, allowing the synapse to carry a higher bandwidth of signals, allowing for a greater level of sensitivity. This is all pure speculation, but it seems like the most likely way these effects would emerge to me. I've noticed something similar after trying psilocybin mushrooms. Just out of interest, do you get a headache the morning after with LSD? I've often wondered about the possibility of mixing psychoactives to achieve greater effects. As you pointed out, sooner or later you reach a peak that's difficult to go beyond due to pathways being saturated / metabolism wiping out the active material etc. However, if multiple actives where used, one might expect the experience to be orders of magnitude more diverse - mescaline, psilocybin and salvinorin say, which all work on different receptor sites (off the top of my head, I think it's mainly... muscarine, serotonin and kappa opoid respectively). And finish it off with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor. Never tried Heroin. I tend not to believe too much of the anti-drugs stuff I read but there certainly does seem to be a correlation between Heroin and bin diving. In light of Bill's note, I live in the UK, where magic mushrooms were legal fodder until recently. John BullGuard Anti-virus has scanned this e-mail and found it clean. Try BullGuard for free: www.bullguard.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061002/a74 e30b1/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 ******************************************* - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Music from EMI This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error please advise the sender immediately by return email and then delete it from your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795 7000. This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc. Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW Registered in England No 229231. - -------------------------------------------------------------------- From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 2 11:21:23 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:21:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <20061002112123.GN21640@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:16:15AM +0100, BillK wrote: > You do realise that anything significant that you post on extropy-chat > (or anywhere on the internet) is likely to immediately update your > Homeland Security Profile? Really? Does this supposed to make us afraid enough to start self-censoring? What next, kauft nicht bei Juden? > Unencrypted emails probably go there as well. Encrypted, especially. I recommend doing everything through VPN initialized with a preshared secret. The sheer volume of it makes storing it all prohibitive. > We live in interesting times. Not nearly lousy enough, if some people get what they want. -- 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 Oct 2 12:06:29 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:06:29 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reply to Joseph in message 2 of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20061002120629.GO21640@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:52:41AM +0100, Ferris, Luke wrote: Ferris, please trim your posts. You included the entire digest in your reply. > I am yet to find significant evidence to suggest that they want to > "Islamicise" us as your statement suggests. Do you agree that those Muslims who're living in Western socities are not particularly tolerant of their hosts' values? I'm not particularly keen to live a society regulated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariat At currently 6.6%/year increase (mostly through higher birth rate and immigration) of Muslim population in Germany alone that possibility is not at all far-fetched (2045 would be a break-even point, the pending integration of Turkey into EU not considered). The strict separation of believers and a secular society is a fiction. This worked more or less for for established, nonexpansive (shrinking actually, and good riddance) "native" religions like Christianity, Judaism, etc. But Islam at this stage in history is an expansive, politically active religion. A religion with core values which are frankly incompatible with transhumanism. -- 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 sentience at pobox.com Mon Oct 2 15:51:50 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:51:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45213596.2010608@pobox.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > > That circumstance no longer obtains, and our feelings and intuitions > therefore give completely the wrong answer when we evaluate today's > problems. Since we _know_ they give the wrong answer, and we know why, > we should use reason instead. Look at the cold numbers: how many people > worldwide have been killed by terrorists from 2001 to today? Some > thousands, maybe into five digits. How many lives have been lost from > all causes in that same time? Nearly _three hundred million_. Even a > nuclear explosion in a major city would be a drop in the ocean on that > scale. I agree with Wallace. Death doesn't wear a turban. The only thing terrorists could conceivably do that would cause any significant amount of direct damage - as opposed to autoimmune disorders - would be designing a planetary pandemic. And fighting in Iraq is not an effective strategy for stopping that. > Note also that you only answered the lesser half of my argument. My > primary point was that however small or large the external threat, > compromising our most basic civil liberties - allowing our governments > to turn inward against ourselves, not outward against the enemy - is > _not effective_ as a response. It adds a second problem _without doing > anything to solve the first_. Indeed so. Politicians who want to appear effective will make great sacrifices, so that people reason: surely we must buy something, if we pay the cost of all our liberties. Of course this is a non-sequitur. Competent people sacrifice less. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hibbert at mydruthers.com Mon Oct 2 17:33:08 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:33:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again In-Reply-To: <45207D63.5070005@pobox.com> References: <00ea01c6e3ee$d65b7f40$290a4e0c@MyComputer> <20060929211452.39597.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> <03ca01c6e4a3$ed3c1de0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <451EC22D.2000304@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061001212625.02282fd8@satx.rr.com> <45207D63.5070005@pobox.com> Message-ID: <45214D54.8090206@mydruthers.com> Damien cites "A learned friend" thusly: > or colonizers, to restore the historical dominance of one ethnic or > religious group or to establish a new structure of dominance, or to impose a > particular set of religious rules--goals which are held by the various > indigenous factions who are killing people in Iraq--is hardly "fighting for > nothing in particular." There isn't one manifesto that fits everybody > toting a gun or a bomb--there are a number of contending factions--but the > fact that it can't all be summed up easily in this guy's PowerPoint > presentation doesn't make it "aimless." Different participants have > different aims. This is far from unusual--consider the various factions > involved in the South African resistance.> Eliezer's response was "Fair enough.", but I don't agree. In the South African resistance, even though there were various factions and many voices, one could easily hear over the general uproar a cry to stop the policies that made the blacks second class citizens in their own native country. Some wanted socialist solutions while others looked for tribal solutions, some voices may have called for the death or expulsion of all whites while others looked for a pluralist outcome, but a common underlying theme was coherent. In Iraq, when you can get official spokesmen or the results of credible polling, there aren't any coherent themes. Sometimes you hear "all westerners out", and other times "the Americans must stay until we can stabilize our nation". Some call for a strict imposition of Sharia law, others for a non-secular state. But most important of all, the factions committing the violence, for the most part, aren't talking at all. We don't hear anyone taking responsibility for dropping 9 severed heads out of the back of a car, for killing police recruits en masse, for killing worshipers in mosques or people waiting in line to buy gas. They are killed and no message is delivered. No actors are identified. No one takes responsibility and says "until *our* demands are met, we will continue to make Iraq unlivable". We don't know what the demands are, or who wants to be appeased. The people who talk in public (various clerics and politicians) don't take responsibility for the violence. (They often refuse to denounce it, but that doesn't tell us which factions are committing it.) This is unlike South Africa. I can't think of another conflict in which the aggrieved parties were so scattered, so violent, and so silent. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org http://zocalo.sourceforge.net Prediction Market Software From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Oct 2 23:21:45 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 01:21:45 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <3305.130.237.122.245.1159831305.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Alex Ramonsky wrote: > If I understand you correctly, how do you prevent eventual downgrading > of dopaminergic receptors? I used to get a tedious anhedonic period > after a long creative squawk. Ah, yes, that could be a problem. Hmm, do you think your anhedonia was due to dopaminergic receptor changes or just regression towards the mean? I have the feeling that preventing downregulation or upregulation would be pretty pharmacologically useful, anybody know how well we have learned to control such functions? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Oct 3 00:19:34 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:19:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reply to Joseph in message 2 of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4521AC96.8000307@goldenfuture.net> Ferris, Luke wrote: >"of Islamists inspired by their ridiculous faith (as all faiths are >ridiculous) to impose their vision of their faith on every single human >being on this planet by deadly force, and being willing to kill >themselves to advance that goal." > >Can you please provide some citations to back up this claim? > >All of my research so far indicates that Islamic terrorism (and indeed >terrorism in general) is a tactic used to achieve an outcome (such as >troop withdrawal) in response to a particular stimulus (such as the >occupation of a homeland). >Certainly this is the case with Al-Qaeda, who spare no lengths to >broadcast there grievances (Troops on the Arabian peninsular, troops in >Iraq, the persecution of Palestinians etc.) although the Western media >pays little attention to it. > >I am yet to find significant evidence to suggest that they want to >"Islamicise" us as your statement suggests. > >Luke > A quick scan of only the most recent stories on this subject yields the following (this is of course only representative; I'll leave it to others to provide a complete list of citations, for they are simply too numerous). The quote by Ahmadinejad is particularly direct and all the more chilling therefor. Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/15648243.htm): ""The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a cease-fire agreement, Sykes-Picot borders, national zeal, or disputed borders," Ayman al-Zawahiri explained this year. "It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established." ... "Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proclaimed in 2005: "[We] will soon experience a world without the United States, and Zionism and will breathe in the brilliant time of Islamic sovereignty over today's world."" SITE Institute (http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=publications215406&Category=publications&Subcategory=0): "On the pope's comments directly, Zawahiri adds: "if Benedict attacked us, we will respond to his insults with good things. We will call upon him, and all of the Christians to become Muslims who do not recognize the Trinity or the crucifixion, and say that Allah united with the human."" The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/alqaeda-chiefs-reveal-world-domination-design/2005/08/23/1124562861654.html?oneclick=true): "THE al-Qaeda master plan to take over the world and turn it into an Islamic state has been revealed for the first time. For a new book, Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein interviewed top lieutenants of the terrorist network, including the mastermind of many atrocities in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. ... "Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "One-and-a-half billion Muslims", the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war should not last longer than two years." Joseph From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Oct 3 01:22:50 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:22:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4521BB6A.2030403@goldenfuture.net> Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/1/06, *Joseph Bloch* > wrote: > > I hope, I truly hope, that you wake up from your Republican-hating > ways > to realize that this nation really does face an external threat of > hitherto-unseen proportions. It's not about people in power in the > U.S. > > > But this sort of thing isn't hitherto-unseen at all. Hitler and > Mussolini used the argument that they needed power to protect the > people against communism. Communism was a real threat (it killed tens > of millions of people, far more than the Islamic fundamentalists have) > - but fascism was not the answer. It isn't the answer to Islamic > fundamentalism today either. > > I think the threat of terrorism is greatly overstated, but I agree > there is a threat and it has to be fought. It does not at all follow > that we in the West should tolerate erosion of our civil liberties by > our own governments. It's not just that it's not necessary - _it's > also not helpful_. If you have a problem, and you try to solve it by > surrendering your freedom, you now have two problems. I disagree with the false dichotomy you have presented. Fascism and Communism were not opposites. Rather, they were both merely forms of Totalitarianism with the window-dressing changed. In allying themselves with the Soviet Union against the Axis, the Allies were merely using one form of Totalitarianism to help defeat another. They could just as easily have reversed the process, allying themselves with Nazi Germany against the USSR, and then fought the Axis thereafter. Islamist totalitarianism is no different in its goal and broad form than either Naziism or Soviet Communism. It seeks global domination, and does through through the totalitarian control of the populace (in this specific case, that control is achieved through politico-religious, rather than purely political ideology). The West managed to tolerate "erosion of our civil liberties" during both World War II and the Cold War, in the name of survival. We managed to escape with those liberties relatively unscathed. It is indeed a conundrum. The very civil liberties we hold dear are used as a weapon against the societies which embrace them, with the goal of using the forms of Western civilization to cause its downfall. History has shown us that as the threats to Western civilization by those who would use its institutions to destroy it grows, the freedoms granted by those institutions are restricted, lessening the threat. Once the threat is removed, the restrictions are loosened. I see no reason to believe that same self-correcting mechanism is not still in operation. Joseph From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 01:37:55 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 02:37:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4521BB6A.2030403@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <4521BB6A.2030403@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610021837s45da7e4ek62481f7057ac4a72@mail.gmail.com> On 10/3/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > I disagree with the false dichotomy you have presented. Fascism and > Communism were not opposites. Rather, they were both merely forms of > Totalitarianism with the window-dressing changed. My point precisely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Oct 3 01:48:58 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:48:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> Samantha Atkins wrote: >What do you mean "up to a point"? Criticism is always in order in a >free country. > >- samantha > Indeed! One wonders if the activities of the German-American Bund should not have been allowed after Germany declared war on the United States in 1941. Or the various Japanese "patriotic" organizations. And yet, innumerable individuals and organizations make all manner of excuses and lend support to the Islamists who would see Sharia law imposed on the entire world, with never a word of condemnation for bombings, hijackings, beheadings, burnings, and outright murders. (How many Muslim organizations condemned the slaying of that Italian nun a week or two ago, compared to the number who condemned the Pope for quoting some obscure Byzantine source in a highly complex philosophical argument?) All in the name of those civil liberties you claim are being taken away. If your hypothesis were true, surely there would be mass arrests of Muslims and Democrats by now. You are allowing your hatred of the current administration to blind you to the force which really wants to destroy the Western way of life. What do you think would be more conducive to seeing the Transhumanist vision come to fulfillment? A Taliban-like state imposed over all the peoples of the world? Or a stridently pro-business Western democracy? Joseph From brentn at freeshell.org Tue Oct 3 02:17:21 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 22:17:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2006, at 21:48, Joseph Bloch wrote: > You are allowing your hatred of the current administration to blind > you > to the force which really wants to destroy the Western way of life. > What > do you think would be more conducive to seeing the Transhumanist > vision > come to fulfillment? A Taliban-like state imposed over all the peoples > of the world? Or a stridently pro-business Western democracy? I think the point that is being made here is that you are letting your love of the current administration blind you to the force that really wants to destroy the Western way of life; that is, an out of control right-wing administration bent on destroying the rule of law and our civil liberties in the name of political gain and Christian fundamentalism, amongst other things. If what the current government was working toward was, as you say, a "pro-business Western democracy," then I think most of us wouldn't be as up in arms as we are. I don't think that anyone alive is smart enough to predict the exact path to Singularity, but I'll place a large wager that the anti- rationalism of religious fundamentalism and dictatorial rule are not on the high-probability paths. Given thatI personally see no real difference between insanity of Islamic fundamentalism and the insanity of Christian fundamentalism. You do, apparently, and on that we'll have to disagree. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Oct 3 02:33:37 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:33:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> Brent Neal wrote: >I think the point that is being made here is that you are letting >your love of the current administration blind you to the force that >really wants to destroy the Western way of life; that is, an out of >control right-wing administration bent on destroying the rule of law >and our civil liberties in the name of political gain and Christian >fundamentalism, amongst other things. > I will thank you to not attempt to ascribe motives to me, nor try to divine my loves and hates. I have no "love" for the current adminitration. I have many staunch disagreements with current policy across a broad spectrum. However, I do agree with them on one overriding point; that the threat posed by Islamist extremists is one which threatens the very existence of the United States and Western culture as a whole, and I find that ensuring the overall survival of Western civilization, which I believe to be the most conducive to achieving a PostHuman future, is paramount. Joseph From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Oct 3 03:01:13 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 20:01:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Uses of Religion References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060930004433.021ed6b0@satx.rr.com><200609301633.k8UGXJ2G008697@andromeda.ziaspace.com><04c301c6e575$b7b62620$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><008f01c6e57a$00f84800$6600a8c0@brainiac> <050801c6e5e6$7b9c2fb0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <028201c6e698$30331770$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "Lee Corbin" Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 10:48 PM > Olga writes the difference between Saddam killing Iraqis and Iraqi's > killing Iraqies. >> Saddam's hands. Now it is on George Bush's hands > Why is it so important whose blood is on whose hands? That is, if we are > interested in less suffering, everything else being equal we should > applaud actions that reduce casualties. (Yes---I know that not everything > else is equal.) Doesn't integrity count for something? And isn't a good reputation important? How can the USA hope to hold on to any respect it may have with other countries in the world - unless it acts honorably? The importance is that before the war in Iraq Saddam was considered the "bad guy." Now - by many more people in many more countries than before the war in Iraq - the USA is considered the "bad guy." It is not clear that the Iraqi war will show a reduction in casualties - the conflict seems far from over, and who knows over how many borders the blood will keep spilling? The USA went to "free" the Iraqis ... but ended up "freeing" a lot of Iraqis from ... their lives. > It reminds me of the chain of reasoning pacifists use. They are > disturbed, yes, by killings, but it's whether or not their own hands are > clean that is to them what's crucial. I don't think you'll find all that much agreement among pacifists, and there are degrees of pacifism even among so-called pacifists. >> Another important difference is that the reputation of the USA has sunk >> to a very low level (Abu Ghraib: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison) > > Please find me a major conflict without incidents of this kind (or, > usually, much worse) any time in human history. Even when sociopaths are > not drawn into armies and police forces---and it's estimated that about > four percent of people are sociopaths---wars invariably coarsen all > involved. If that's the problem, then that scenario would have needed to be placated in advance - call it a "defensive strategy." Because the bottom line is ... the USA cannot lead by example if we are not exemplary ourselves. Olga From brentn at freeshell.org Tue Oct 3 03:04:21 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 23:04:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <5A00360A-2453-48AC-8388-7498CC95E5B1@freeshell.org> On Oct 2, 2006, at 22:33, Joseph Bloch wrote: > However, I do agree with them on one overriding point; that the threat > posed by Islamist extremists is one which threatens the very existence > of the United States and Western culture as a whole, Ahh, but once you've paid that Danegeld.... B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Oct 3 03:24:50 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:24:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again (send 2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061002232431.04560eb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:33 AM 10/2/2006 -0700, Chris wrote: snip >The people who talk in public (various clerics and politicians) don't >take responsibility for the violence. (They often refuse to denounce >it, but that doesn't tell us which factions are committing it.) This is >unlike South Africa. I can't think of another conflict in which the >aggrieved parties were so scattered, so violent, and so silent. Unfortunately, from an EP model viewpoint senseless violence makes sense. :-( Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 3 03:35:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 20:35:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610030335.k933ZMMx029845@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brent Neal > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place > > > On Oct 2, 2006, at 21:48, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > You are allowing your hatred of the current administration to blind > > you to the force which really wants to destroy ... > > ... you are letting > your love of the current administration blind you to the force that > really wants to destroy ... This is a paradox that we cannot solve with our usual tools. Logic simply fails. What happens when a society of religious freedom is confronted by a religion that does not allow religious freedom? Does universal tolerance mean we tolerate intolerance? spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 03:37:18 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 23:37:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 10/2/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > However, I do agree with them on one overriding point; that the threat > posed by Islamist extremists is one which threatens the very existence > of the United States and Western culture as a whole, and I find that > ensuring the overall survival of Western civilization, which I believe > to be the most conducive to achieving a PostHuman future, is paramount. Given that we are within a generation of a "real" posthuman future I would like to see someone propose *any* scenario through which external actions of any group with the possible exception of Russia could bring about the downfall of either the United States or Western culture. The only scenarios I can imagine are completely shooting ourselves in our feet (which the recent executive and legislative actions seem to be *slightly* leaning towards) or completely sticking our heads in the sand and not taking the necessary actions when things may be really serious. Yes, there are tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people who are or could be brainwashed to take action against us -- but they *do not* currently have and as far as I can run forward scenarios, *cannot* develop, the means to do "us" serious harm before we are *well* into or past the rapid change phase of the singularity. I believe, as Eliezer points out, that only a global pandemic due to an engineered bioweapon with significantly greater ill effects than the 1918 influenza epidemic could cause such a problem. It would be very difficult to engineer a weapon with that kind of lethality and impossible to engineer it in such a way that it would not come back and cause significant harm to ones own "tribe" [1]. I is a case, as MC Hammer once put it, of "You can't touch this." Robert 1. It is one thing to send in 1 in 100 as suicide bombers, its entirely another to sacrifice 50, 60, or 70% of ones own population to take down 70, 80, or 90% of another population. Particularly when the people left standing are likely to respond with overwhelming force. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Oct 3 03:57:28 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 20:57:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200610030335.k933ZMMx029845@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <02a801c6e6a0$0c29a710$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: "spike" Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:35 PM > This is a paradox that we cannot solve with our usual tools. Logic simply > fails. What happens when a society of religious freedom is confronted by > a religion that does not allow religious freedom? Does universal > tolerance mean we tolerate intolerance? Freedom of religion in the USA only guarantees that one can believe in a religion of one's choosing or one's ethnic background - that is not to say that the religions themselves are necessarily very "free" (as their devotees may voluntarily subject themselves to a host of privations - sexual abstinence, fasts, prohibition on eating certain foods, etc.). It is our freedom of speech that allows for tolerating intolerance, e.g.: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html However, respecting one's right to a particular view does not mean we necessarily must respect that - or any particular - view. Olga From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 3 04:19:01 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:19:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <02a801c6e6a0$0c29a710$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200610030419.k934JJGU000171@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place > > From: "spike" > ... Does universal tolerance mean we tolerate intolerance? > ... > > It is our freedom of speech that allows for tolerating intolerance, e.g.: > > http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html > > However, respecting one's right to a particular view does not mean we > necessarily must respect that - or any particular - view. Olga Thanks Olga, this is indeed a strange and interesting case. The ACLU defended the Nazis! Perhaps it was a trap. When a bunch of the brown-shirts are marching down a public street, one of the holocaust surviving Jews could sit up in the woods a mile away with a high powered scoped rifle. Heeeere nazi nazi nazi... spike From moulton at moulton.com Tue Oct 3 09:29:21 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:29:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <200610030419.k934JJGU000171@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610030419.k934JJGU000171@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1159867761.4892.96.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 21:19 -0700, spike wrote: > Thanks Olga, this is indeed a strange and interesting case. The ACLU > defended the Nazis! The stand by the ACLU was very controversial at the time and the news reports of the time mentioned the internal strife that this caused the ACLU as an organization. There are differences between the positions that I hold and those of the ACLU but in general the stand of the ACLU improved my opinion of the organization. The ACLU is not perfect but they are useful on some issues. Fred From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Oct 3 14:44:36 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:44:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <1159867761.4892.96.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200610030419.k934JJGU000171@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200610030419.k934JJGU000171@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061003104213.044dc210@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:29 AM 10/3/2006 -0700, you wrote: >On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 21:19 -0700, spike wrote: > > Thanks Olga, this is indeed a strange and interesting case. The ACLU > > defended the Nazis! > >The stand by the ACLU was very controversial at the time and the news >reports of the time mentioned the internal strife that this caused the >ACLU as an organization. There are differences between the positions >that I hold and those of the ACLU but in general the stand of the ACLU >improved my opinion of the organization. The ACLU is not perfect but >they are useful on some issues. And utterly useless on any issue that even remotely involves the scientology cult. Also it eventually came out why the ACLU didn't support any of the tobacco litigation. ($) Keith Henson From brentn at freeshell.org Tue Oct 3 16:15:57 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:15:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061003104213.044dc210@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200610030419.k934JJGU000171@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200610030419.k934JJGU000171@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061003104213.044dc210@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On Oct 3, 2006, at 10:44, Keith Henson wrote: > Also it eventually came out why the ACLU didn't support any of the > tobacco > litigation. ($) I'm curious how the tobacco lawsuits had anything to do with civil liberties? B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From user at dhp.com Tue Oct 3 15:53:59 2006 From: user at dhp.com (Ensel Sharon) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] clarifications RE: CR and free-rad theory of aging... Message-ID: As you may have guessed from my recent postings, I am delving into the free-rad theory of aging and calorie restriction. I have some basic questions that I am not finding clear answers for: 1. What accounting does CR and CR theory take of physical output in relation to calories consumed ? Is it an absolute reduction in calories that is pursued, or relative to ones activity ? Does a large person that maintains "healthy CR'd bodyweight" get the same benefit as a small person that maintains "healthy CR'd bodyweight" ? If so, wouldn't that suggest that an athlete burning a CR'd 2000 calories per day would get the same benefit as a lightly active or inactive person burning a CR'd 1200 calories per day ? (assuming that a comparable athlete not doing CR would consume something like 2800-3200, and a comparable non-athlete would consume something like 2000) 2. What about the age issue ? The claim that CR benefits "only the young" is very interesting, but always very vague. Define young. On the wikipedia page, it cites that rats that started CR at age 18 months showed no benefit. Let's assume that this is true - what is the human age equivalent for 18 rat months ? If I am 31 years old, is it too late ? Is it binary, as in, if you get it young enough you get full benefits, but if you don't you get none OR is it on a scale wherein you can get some benefit if you start late (beyond the simple benefit of simply being healthier at that period) All comments/suggestions appreciated. I realize this is not a CR list - I just like the quality of discussion here. From sentience at pobox.com Tue Oct 3 17:40:01 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:40:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <200610030335.k933ZMMx029845@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610030335.k933ZMMx029845@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4522A071.7090607@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > This is a paradox that we cannot solve with our usual tools. Logic simply > fails. Heinlein had a sympathetic character say, in one of his stories: "Logic is a fine thing, but I have seen a perfectly logical proof that 2 = 1." (If anyone remembers which story this is from, please let me know.) Heinlein was probably thinking of this: x = y = 1 x = y x^2 = xy x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 (x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y) x+y = y 2 = 1 Now you could look at that, shrug, and say, like Heinlein, "See, I told you logic doesn't always work." Or, if you felt that math had justly earned a bit more credibility than that over the last three thousand years, you might suspect that the flaw lay in your use of math, rather than Math Itself. You might suspect, perhaps, that the proof was not "perfectly logical". The novice goes astray and says: "The Art failed me." The expert goes astray and says: "I failed my Art." > What happens when a society of religious freedom is confronted by a > religion that does not allow religious freedom? Does universal tolerance > mean we tolerate intolerance? Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself? Who says there's such a thing as "universal tolerance"? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Oct 3 21:56:14 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:56:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <4522DC7E.3020503@goldenfuture.net> Robert Bradbury wrote: > Given that we are within a generation of a "real" posthuman future I > would like to see someone propose *any* scenario through which > external actions of any group with the possible exception of Russia > could bring about the downfall of either the United States or Western > culture. The only scenarios I can imagine are completely shooting > ourselves in our feet (which the recent executive and legislative > actions seem to be *slightly* leaning towards) or completely sticking > our heads in the sand and not taking the necessary actions when things > may be really serious. I see us, as a collective culture with obvious exceptions, as doing just that. Sticking out heads in the sands. Whether or not we will be _able_ to take the necessary actions once things get really serious is another question entirely. > > Yes, there are tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people who are or > could be brainwashed to take action against us -- but they *do not* > currently have and as far as I can run forward scenarios, *cannot* > develop, the means to do "us" serious harm before we are *well* into > or past the rapid change phase of the singularity. I disagree. I can think of many scenarios by which a hundred million people willing to kill themselves to take out a number of the enemy (which in this scenario is us) could completely devastate Europe and North America without the benefit of any sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. As the Iranians proved against the Iraqis during the (truly) first Gulf War, a large enough force of amateurs can at the very least hold a more capable but less numerous opponent to a standstill. > > I believe, as Eliezer points out, that only a global pandemic due to > an engineered bioweapon with significantly greater ill effects than > the 1918 influenza epidemic could cause such a problem. It would be > very difficult to engineer a weapon with that kind of lethality and > impossible to engineer it in such a way that it would not come back > and cause significant harm to ones own "tribe" [1]. Engineering isn't necessary. Get a few (or not so few) volunteers infected with smallpox (or something equally virulent and deadly) and have them wander around the main concourses of a score or so major air travel hubs, coughing. You don't need any fancy genetic engineering to get a devastating effect out of THAT (and I am frankly shocked, although pleasantly so, that they haven't thought of it yet). Remember, these are people keenly adept at using low-tech means to achieve great destructive ends. A handful of $1.99 box cutters are leveraged into devices capable of killing 3,000 or so innocent people, in the right hands. You don't need fancy labs and technology to inflict great damage. That's been proven over and over again. > > I is a case, as MC Hammer once put it, of "You can't touch this." > > Robert > > 1. It is one thing to send in 1 in 100 as suicide bombers, its > entirely another to sacrifice 50, 60, or 70% of ones own population to > take down 70, 80, or 90% of another population. Particularly when the > people left standing are likely to respond with overwhelming force. That, of course, is a different matter, and one dealt with in George R.R. Martin's short story "Call Him Moses." In it, the main character re-creates the Biblical plagues on an enemy, and only threatens to inflict the death of the first-born. It turns out that his solution is somewhat less surgical than that of the God of the Old Testament, in that it does indeed kill the first born, but everybody else as well. The enemy surrenders. I think that a fanatical enough adversary wouldn't care about such things, or would see them as a further proof of the protection of their god, who would doubtless protect the faithful against the plague. (The fact that the architects of such a scheme would doubtless be hold up in very isolated regions where the threat of the plague would be far less than, say, Boston or Rome, would of course not be lost upon them.) Some, indeed, such as Iranian President Ahmadinejad, are said to actively _seek_ a catastrophic confrontation, believing that worldly chaos will usher in the return of the Twelfth Imam, who will set the world to rights. I wouldn't count on the squeamishness of the Islamists to inflict casualities on their own side, to prevent them from doing something like that. Joseph From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Oct 3 21:31:36 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:31:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place (resend 1) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061003173126.045e7e58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:22 PM 10/2/2006 -0400, Joseph wrote: >Russell Wallace wrote: snip > > But this sort of thing isn't hitherto-unseen at all. Hitler and > > Mussolini used the argument that they needed power to protect the > > people against communism. Communism was a real threat (it killed tens > > of millions of people, far more than the Islamic fundamentalists have) I take a different view of such ideologies, considering them to be window dressing on a deeper problem. But even so, the original Islamic expansion resulted in an awful lot of deaths on a considerably smaller population base. > > - but fascism was not the answer. It isn't the answer to Islamic > > fundamentalism today either. If there is a perceived need to kill vast numbers of people, some "justification," rationalization will be found. It's the human way, we can't go fully into war mode madness without it. > > I think the threat of terrorism is greatly overstated, but I agree > > there is a threat and it has to be fought. The problem being that darn near nobody understands the cause or what to do about it. > > It does not at all follow > > that we in the West should tolerate erosion of our civil liberties by > > our own governments. It's not just that it's not necessary - _it's > > also not helpful_. If you have a problem, and you try to solve it by > > surrendering your freedom, you now have two problems. Yep. >I disagree with the false dichotomy you have presented. Fascism and >Communism were not opposites. Rather, they were both merely forms of >Totalitarianism with the window-dressing changed. And what is "Totalitarianism" and what are the conditions in which it arises? Put another way, Hitler would have stayed a watercolor painter if _________. >In allying themselves >with the Soviet Union against the Axis, the Allies were merely using one >form of Totalitarianism to help defeat another. They could just as >easily have reversed the process, allying themselves with Nazi Germany >against the USSR, and then fought the Axis thereafter. Not possible unless the USSR had attacked. And though there was lots of noise about it, and fighting around the edges, in the post WWII years USSR (with its expansionist communist memes) never attacked. I think I know the reason. Anyone else want to state it? >Islamist totalitarianism is no different in its goal and broad form than >either Naziism or Soviet Communism. It seeks global domination, and does >through through the totalitarian control of the populace (in this >specific case, that control is achieved through politico-religious, >rather than purely political ideology). Ok. Why is this happening *now* rather than say 40 years ago? I.e., what has changed? snip Keith Henson From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Tue Oct 3 23:06:53 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:06:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place (resend 1) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061003173126.045e7e58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061003173126.045e7e58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <4522ED0D.2000708@goldenfuture.net> Keith Henson wrote: >At 09:22 PM 10/2/2006 -0400, Joseph wrote: > > >>In allying themselves >>with the Soviet Union against the Axis, the Allies were merely using one >>form of Totalitarianism to help defeat another. They could just as >>easily have reversed the process, allying themselves with Nazi Germany >>against the USSR, and then fought the Axis thereafter. >> >> > >Not possible unless the USSR had attacked. > >And though there was lots of noise about it, and fighting around the edges, >in the post WWII years USSR (with its expansionist communist memes) never >attacked. I think I know the reason. Anyone else want to state it? > > Hitler beat him to it. Stalin would've invaded Germany within months if not sooner. See Viktor Suvorov, ?Who was Planning to Attack Whom in June 1941, Hitler or Stalin?? /Journal of the Royal United Services Institute/ (June 1985), and /Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War/ (London: 1990). > > >>Islamist totalitarianism is no different in its goal and broad form than >>either Naziism or Soviet Communism. It seeks global domination, and does >>through through the totalitarian control of the populace (in this >>specific case, that control is achieved through politico-religious, >>rather than purely political ideology). >> >> > >Ok. Why is this happening *now* rather than say 40 years ago? I.e., what >has changed? > > I am rather embarassed that it needs to be spelled out. The USSR collapsed, the Cold War ended, the threat of nuclear annihilation (temporarily) was withdrawn, and the dampening effect of the global quasi-military/political/economic struggle between communism and capitalsm was removed. One cannot under-estimate the effect of the Cold War on all the nations of the world, especially those who were proxies of one side or another. There were no _major_ conflicts during that period (Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, El Salvador, etc. not rising anywhere close, even collectively, to the level of a World War II or I-- hence the term "Cold War"). In that context, the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq may be seen as a prelude to the new "major" conflict between Islamist extremism and the West, in the same way that the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, or the Japanese invasion of China was seen as the prelude to World War II. I can find very little to add to the discussion at this point, so barring some super-repliable comment, I will consider my points made and get back to working on the new project. Joseph From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Oct 3 18:28:15 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 14:28:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place Message-ID: <380-22006102318281578@M2W030.mail2web.com> From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky >spike wrote: >>This is a paradox that we cannot solve with our usual tools. Logic simply >>fails. >Heinlein had a sympathetic character say, in one of his stories: "Logic >is a fine thing, but I have seen a perfectly logical proof that 2 = 1." >(If anyone remembers which story this is from, please let me know.) >Heinlein was probably thinking of this: >x = y = 1 >x = y >x^2 = xy >x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 >(x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y) >x+y = y >2 = 1 Proof that 2 equals 1 1) Given: X=Y 2) Multiply both sides by X: X^2=XY 3) Subtract Y^2 from both sides: X^2-Y^2=XY-Y^2 4) Factorise: (X+Y)(X-Y)=Y(X-Y) 5) Cancel out (X-Y) term: X+Y=Y 6) Substitute X for Y, by equation 1 2Y=Y 7)Divide both sides by Y 2=1 ? "Omni" Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Oct 4 01:41:06 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:41:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <45209BD5.6040403@mac.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <45209BD5.6040403@mac.com> Message-ID: <45231132.6050007@goldenfuture.net> Oh, I've read it, and others like it. I still dismiss it. In regards to the first point, which is the most potentially damning in an objective sense, I can speak as an expert in the field, being Manager of Election Polling for one of the largest (and most accurate in the 2004 election cycle) public opinion polling companies in the country. The argument that exit polls in 2004 bespoke of any wrongdoing is completely inaccurate. It completely misses the point of what exit polls are supposed to do; not predict winners and losers, but give insight into the characteristics of the supporters of each candidate. Indeed, the man in charge of the exit polling in 2004 made a spectacularly public mia culpa at an AAPOR conference, where he admitted that the exit polls were dead wrong. See: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/05/aapor_exit_poll.html The rest I dismiss as the same sort of partisan wrangling that one sees in any election. I can put forth accusations of Democrats bussing in homeless people into Ohio, and bribing them to vote Democratic. I can cite instances where military personnel (who traditionally vote more Republican than Democratic) were systematically denied their vote in places controlled by Democratic operatives. Ad nauseum. It is the usual partisan nonsense, and one sees that particular Medusa's head raised after every election, where the losing side cannot possibly believe that they couldn't have _really_ lost. If you persist in such feelings, though, you might find this of use: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ Quite done with this particular conversation. Joseph Samantha Atkins wrote: >Joseph, > >Before you dismiss the idea of a stolen election you might want to read >a bit, perhaps starting with the following. > >http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From moulton at moulton.com Wed Oct 4 05:03:04 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:03:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert Anton Wilson is ill Message-ID: <1159938184.4890.169.camel@localhost.localdomain> Per this: http://www.rushkoff.com/2006/10/robert-anton-wilson-needs-our-help.php and http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/02/robert_anton_wilson_.html and http://www.rawilson.com/ RAW is in bad health and needs some financial support. I expect that many of you have read and enjoyed his books over the years. I remember reading each volume of the Illuminatus Trilogy as they were published and enjoying them deeply. It is easy to use use PayPal (that is what I did). Use the info given on the URLs above. Fred From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 4 03:20:28 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 20:20:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] clarifications RE: CR and free-rad theory of aging... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610040331.k943VWZX023808@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ensel Sharon > Subject: [extropy-chat] clarifications RE: CR and free-rad theory of > aging... > > > As you may have guessed from my recent postings, I am delving into the > free-rad theory of aging and calorie restriction. I have some basic > questions that I am not finding clear answers for:... > All comments/suggestions appreciated. I realize this is not a CR list - I > just like the quality of discussion here. No apologies necessary Ensel. Many of us here are all about surviving to see the singularity, or if not that, living long enough to see some waaay cool new technologies that promise to make our final years more comfortable, more fun, and more numerous. CR is apparently in first place for current known life extension techniques. The following is not a direct answer to any of your questions, but rather a commentary or theory I would like to toss into extro-space for the cluey ones to devour. Fat cells need to form from stem cells, right? And stem cells that are used up forming flab are not available for more health-restoring purposes, such as repairing damaged organs and such. So perhaps one of the reasons CR results in life extension is that it keeps more stem cells available. I expect this effect to be second to the more obvious advantage: if one does CR, one is thin, so one can walk more easily, therefore one is more likely to do more the form of exercise that is most available to the elderly: walking. Consider that you don't many see really old geezers pumping iron down at the gym, not many of them playing soccer or skating, but plenty of them (or 'us' depending on one's point of view) out walking the trails, and nearly all of those elderly walkers are thin. This observation tempts one to theorize that CR isn't what actually extends life, but rather the immediate and direct side effect: thinness, resulting in more exercise, along with all the well known side benefits, such a protection from the long list of flab-related diseases that we have come to know so very well in these well-fed and sedentary times. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 4 03:30:18 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 20:30:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4522A071.7090607@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200610040350.k943opg1015419@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky ... > > Heinlein had a sympathetic character say, in one of his stories: "Logic > is a fine thing, but I have seen a perfectly logical proof that 2 = 1." > (If anyone remembers which story this is from, please let me know.) > > Heinlein was probably thinking of this: > > x = y = 1 > x = y > x^2 = xy > x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 > (x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y) > x+y = y > 2 = 1 > > Now you could look at that, shrug, and say, like Heinlein, "See, I told > you logic doesn't always work."... Eliezer S. Yudkowsky Thanks Mr. Heinlein, love your stories, and I agree that logic does not always work. But logic worked perfectly in the example you provided: x = y = 1 x = y x^2 = xy x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 (x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y) (2)*(0)= (1)*(0) 0=0 QED. Or if you insist on dividing by zero in step 6, then undefined = undefined. QED spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Oct 4 03:56:11 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:56:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place (resend 1) In-Reply-To: <4522ED0D.2000708@goldenfuture.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061003173126.045e7e58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061003173126.045e7e58@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061003235115.04608fe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:06 PM 10/3/2006 -0400, you wrote: >Keith Henson wrote: snip > >And though there was lots of noise about it, and fighting around the edges, > >in the post WWII years USSR (with its expansionist communist memes) never > >attacked. I think I know the reason. Anyone else want to state it? > > > >Hitler beat him to it. Stalin would've invaded Germany within months if >not sooner. > >See Viktor Suvorov, "Who was Planning to Attack Whom in June 1941, >Hitler or Stalin?" /Journal of the Royal United Services Institute/ >(June 1985), and /Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War/ (London: >1990). You utterly miss the point. The reason the USSR didn't go to war was that easy birth control (mostly abortion) kept the population growth in reasonable bounds--even given poor economic growth. > >>Islamist totalitarianism is no different in its goal and broad form than > >>either Naziism or Soviet Communism. It seeks global domination, and does > >>through through the totalitarian control of the populace (in this > >>specific case, that control is achieved through politico-religious, > >>rather than purely political ideology). > >> > >Ok. Why is this happening *now* rather than say 40 years ago? I.e., what > >has changed? > > >I am rather embarassed that it needs to be spelled out. The USSR >collapsed, the Cold War ended, the threat of nuclear annihilation >(temporarily) was withdrawn, and the dampening effect of the global >quasi-military/political/economic struggle between communism and >capitalsm was removed. Fluff. The real problem is the growth of the Islamic population without much economic growth. Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 4 04:00:09 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 21:00:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <45231132.6050007@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <200610040400.k9440HgS026867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch ... > > The rest I dismiss as the same sort of partisan wrangling that one sees > in any election. I can put forth accusations of Democrats bussing in > homeless people into Ohio, and bribing them to vote Democratic... Joseph Joseph this comment reminds me of the dilemma the exit pollsters face. Those areas in which most of the voters are likely to vote to the left are often too dangerous for pollster to enter alone. (Think outskirts of Washington DC for instance.) Should the pollster carry along sufficient armed protection to ensure a reasonable degree of safety, a significant fraction of the local voters would be frightened away from the polls by the presence of the police. I would be interested to hear if it works that way in Europe too. spike From moulton at moulton.com Wed Oct 4 08:54:30 2006 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:54:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <200610040400.k9440HgS026867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610040400.k9440HgS026867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1159952070.4890.245.camel@localhost.localdomain> Spike Do you have any hard data or references that the scenario that you describe actually occurs? If so how frequently? Out of how many pollsters? Please provide the references. Thanks. Fred On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 21:00 -0700, spike wrote: > Joseph this comment reminds me of the dilemma the exit pollsters face. > Those areas in which most of the voters are likely to vote to the left are > often too dangerous for pollster to enter alone. (Think outskirts of > Washington DC for instance.) Should the pollster carry along sufficient > armed protection to ensure a reasonable degree of safety, a significant > fraction of the local voters would be frightened away from the polls by the > presence of the police. > > I would be interested to hear if it works that way in Europe too. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From scerir at libero.it Wed Oct 4 06:15:17 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:15:17 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200610040400.k9440HgS026867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001901c6e77c$773300b0$64b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> > I would be interested to hear > if it works that way in Europe too. > spike In Italy police controls every voting station. And every citizen has a pre-assigned voting station (in general close to home). From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Oct 4 14:32:06 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:32:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> On 10/2/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > However, I do agree with them on one overriding point; that the threat > posed by Islamist extremists is one which threatens the very existence > of the United States and Western culture as a whole, and I find that > ensuring the overall survival of Western civilization, which I believe > to be the most conducive to achieving a PostHuman future, is paramount. > ### I don't see it this way. Islamic extremists a just a bunch of, to use a racist term, despicable, stupid ragheads who couldn't stare down a brigade of Marines, much less destroy Western civilization. In terms of firepower they are not in the same league as the SS or the Red Army, by orders of magnitude. They are a trifle. However, dismantling the legal devices that protect the freedom of the Americans may result in severe disruption of our way of life without ever making the slightest difference in reducing the jihadist threat. The Vingean singularity may occur within the next 30 years, and I am genuinely curious if it will be delayed, or worse, perverted by the rise of the security state. How is the likelihood of the rise of an unfriendly AI impacted by increased secrecy, and out-of-control spending on nefarious projects? We know that the opportunity to exercise unbridled control over others attracts the most vicious humans - will therefore our guardians (now less guarded by judges and citizens) become more vicious on average? What will be the AI like, if its makers are psychopaths with unlimited budgets in a black project? Current scuffles in distant and unsavory parts of the world do not worry me directly. What worries me is their possible indirect impact, through inducing deleterious changes in our political culture, on the course of AI research. Rafal From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 4 14:47:05 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 07:47:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <1159952070.4890.245.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200610041447.k94ElCXO002804@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Fred, it was a commentary I saw in the Mercury News last election cycle, don't know where it referred. You and I live near San Jose. Can you think of any areas, such as just south of Commercial and east of the freeway, that you would be reluctant to enter alone? I can assure you that my home town of Titusville Florida contains areas waaay more dangerous than that one. Now in those areas, how do you suppose the locals will vote? My notion is that typically any election is nearly balanced, with voters 45-55-ish split. But some areas will go 80 to 90 percent one way (think DC again). Those areas are highly influential in the balance, because they also tend to be very densely packed. If pollsters are afraid to go in there, they don't get counted in exit polls. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:55 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place > > Spike > > Do you have any hard data or references that the scenario that you > describe actually occurs? If so how frequently? Out of how many > pollsters? > > Please provide the references. Thanks. > > Fred > > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 21:00 -0700, spike wrote: > > Joseph this comment reminds me of the dilemma the exit pollsters face. > > Those areas in which most of the voters are likely to vote to the left > are > > often too dangerous for pollster to enter alone. (Think outskirts of > > Washington DC for instance.) Should the pollster carry along sufficient > > armed protection to ensure a reasonable degree of safety, a significant > > fraction of the local voters would be frightened away from the polls by > the > > presence of the police. > > > > I would be interested to hear if it works that way in Europe too. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 4 14:48:24 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 07:48:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <001901c6e77c$773300b0$64b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <200610041448.k94EmUGr010489@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir ... > > In Italy police controls every voting station. > And every citizen has a pre-assigned voting > station (in general close to home)... If that is done here, there are accusations of one party scaring away voters with cops. spike From john.heritage at v21.me.uk Wed Oct 4 16:03:27 2006 From: john.heritage at v21.me.uk (John) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 17:03:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nanobatteries References: <200610041448.k94EmUGr010489@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <00c401c6e7ce$a703c840$c02b0751@heritagekd9czj> Don't know if anyone else has noticed this yet but there's an article here; http://www.physorg.com/news3539.html It's not nanosized batteries, it's a regular lithium-ion prismatic battery with nano particles on the cathode that soak up the lithium ions and prevent the cell from loosing electrolyte during heating. What's impressive is the performance you can achieve with the enhanced cathode. Recharge times of 1 minute! 1% cell degradation after 1,000 charge cycles, that's twenty times better than NiMH if my memory is right (seriously impressive - that would realistically mean one battery per product lifetime). If you've ever considered the practicalities of designing high quality, portable electronics, you'll know how good these specifications are. I'd be interested to know more about the pulse performance of these. If they're better than regular lithium-ions, it could be a good challenge for the supercapacitor enhanced regular cells (supercapacitors leak charge from the cell during storage) - especially where volume is an issue. Pulse performance is particularly important if the cell is powering a switch mode supply, where amp sized pulsing transients can be drawn to drive the magnetics for supplies outputting much lower currents. In that example, the battery has a tendancy to go 'flat' as soon as the impedance increases just enough to reduce the pulses below the regulation cutoff point. Or in electric cars where you need the huge pulse to produce interia during acceleration. I think these will almost certainly contend with fuel cells in lots of portable applications. Reminds me of computer games. Being able to plug into wall mounted chargers whilst you're out and about and juice your PDA up for 10p. Very cool. John BullGuard Anti-virus has scanned this e-mail and found it clean. Try BullGuard for free: www.bullguard.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 4 16:02:52 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:02:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <200610041447.k94ElCXO002804@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1159952070.4890.245.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200610041447.k94ElCXO002804@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061004105920.0213c5b0@satx.rr.com> At 07:47 AM 10/4/2006 -0700, Spike wrote: >My notion is that typically any election is nearly balanced, with voters >45-55-ish split. But some areas will go 80 to 90 percent one way (think DC >again). Those areas are highly influential in the balance, because they >also tend to be very densely packed. If pollsters are afraid to go in >there, they don't get counted in exit polls. And this explains the *under*-representation of voters for "rightist" candidates in such exit polls? (Or have I misunderstood your claim?) Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 4 16:25:56 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:25:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <200610041447.k94ElCXO002804@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1159952070.4890.245.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200610041447.k94ElCXO002804@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061004162556.GF21640@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 07:47:05AM -0700, spike wrote: > My notion is that typically any election is nearly balanced, with voters > 45-55-ish split. But some areas will go 80 to 90 percent one way (think DC > again). Those areas are highly influential in the balance, because they > also tend to be very densely packed. If pollsters are afraid to go in > there, they don't get counted in exit polls. Of course black voters intercepted by the police in the electoral dysfunction states and active vote manipulation in papertrailless fake-your-vote Diebolds could be another explanation for the phenomenon. -- 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 sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 4 18:01:38 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:01:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > How is the likelihood of the rise of an unfriendly AI impacted by > increased secrecy, and out-of-control spending on nefarious projects? > We know that the opportunity to exercise unbridled control over others > attracts the most vicious humans - will therefore our guardians (now > less guarded by judges and citizens) become more vicious on average? > What will be the AI like, if its makers are psychopaths with unlimited > budgets in a black project? Paperclips are paperclips, whether the AI is built by terrorists trying to create a Sharia enforcer, or eager idealistic researchers who don't understand the concept of "back off until you know what you're doing". No one gives a damn about AI research, and until that changes, changes in other government policies aren't going to affect anything one way or the other. Save your strength for things that (a) matter and (b) you can make a personal difference on. Some things are just not relevant to the Singularity, people. Get over it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Oct 4 19:30:07 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:30:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> On 10/4/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > No one gives a damn about AI research, and until that changes, changes > in other government policies aren't going to affect anything one way or > the other. ### You are right here, but you may dismiss my worries a bit too early: One day in the not-too-distant future some high-level government officers will approve major funding for a general AI, and today's changes in political culture are likely to have an impact on the moral and intellectual qualities of these officers. As you note, even the best intentions of idealistic researchers may backfire horribly, but the intellectual offspring of evil functionaries is simply guaranteed to fry us all. Rafal From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 4 21:04:04 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:04:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 10/4/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >>No one gives a damn about AI research, and until that changes, changes >>in other government policies aren't going to affect anything one way or >>the other. > > ### You are right here, but you may dismiss my worries a bit too > early: One day in the not-too-distant future some high-level > government officers will approve major funding for a general AI, and > today's changes in political culture are likely to have an impact on > the moral and intellectual qualities of these officers. It really doesn't matter whether an improperly shaped intelligence explosion is set off by altruistic idealists, or patriots, or bureaucrats, or terrorists. A galaxy turned into paperclips is just as much of a tragedy either way. > As you note, > even the best intentions of idealistic researchers may backfire > horribly, but the intellectual offspring of evil functionaries is > simply guaranteed to fry us all. Not "may" backfire horribly. Rafal, you work in biology. You know from experience that biology is difficult. You've probably also met people who think that biology is easy enough for them to make up cool-sounding theories about it. Think about what behavior you've witnessed from most AGI wannabes. Ask yourself if they seem to understand intelligence as solidly as you understand biology. Now imagine someone with that degree of understanding of biology, trying to build something really wonderful and exotic - say, a retrovirus that reverses Alzheimer's disease. It doesn't matter if they're motivated by the will to heal, or pure greed - they can't do it at that level of understanding, end of story. If some high-level government officers approve major funding for a general AI, they'll find a prestigious AI researcher, someone who's been failing at the problem longer than anyone else, and appoint a blue-ribbon committee containing not a single researcher under the age of 40 to oversee the project. Google might be worrisome someday. But for now, Google's founders apparently believe that it is Google's destiny to become an AI and this will happen by magic, when their databases grow large enough to be blessed by the Emergence Fairy. I am more worried about a single one of Google's resident geniuses spending their days off on an AI project. Partial understanding is dangerous; great big computer clusters are not. Which would you be more afraid of, Rafal, an environmental extremist with a grade school education and a multibillion dollar state-of-the-art medical research lab, or an environmental extremist with a Ph.D. and a hundred thousand dollars? Newton wasted much of his life on Christian mysticism, so it's possible to make great discoveries and still not understand how to think. But the art of an FAI creator is thought itself - to see cognition as an engine which accomplishes work. I cannot visualize someone discovering the basic organizing principles of intelligence, in a scientific field presently full of confusion and dismay, without their having an *intuitive* appreciation of how rationality works. It would be like Newton not being able to see mathematics incarnate in a falling apple. It would be like Carnot not being able to visualize heat flows. Maybe someday there'll be textbooks that teach idiots how to build AI, but to discover it yourself, you need an *intuitive* appreciation of the results achieved by cognitive workflows. You cannot master that art *from scratch* and afterward still be so poor a rationalist as Newton. No Sharia zombie could get one tenth of the way to independently discovering how to build and shape an AGI, and still remain a Sharia zombie. A genius fool might stumble over powerful forces they can't control. A genius fool might build something that sorta works, in a poorly understood way, but works just well enough to cross the threshold of recursive self-improvement. A genius fool might spend their days working with evolutionary algorithms, knowing nothing of Bayescraft. After all, natural selection originally built humans using no abstract understanding whatsoever. So, yes, genius fools are dangerous - but not because they might decide to shape a Sharia enforcer. Genius fools are dangerous because they can't shape minds at all. It doesn't matter whether their intentions are good or bad, because the outcome bears no relation to their intentions for it. It requires a precise understanding to master the shaping art, to set off an intelligence explosion that relates *at all* to your original intentions. If there is any recognizable resemblance you must have known a very great deal indeed. It requires considerably *less* understanding than that, to appreciate how powerful the forces are which you intend to mess with. No one can know how to build a nuclear reactor that operates in a state of controlled criticality, without being able to calculate the doubling time of a chain reaction. No one can understand intelligence and still think of an intelligence explosion as a weapon in short-term political squabbles. An astrophysicist knows the power output of a star, and that a star is brighter than a campfire. An astrophysicist is not going to say, "Hey, let's set off a supernova to bust in that terrorist bunker." Maybe the astrophysicist's superiors fail to comprehend anything about a supernova except that it makes a bang - but the astrophysicist can't help but know what would happen. If the astrophysicist is ordered to do it anyway, told to set off a supernova or face a court martial, the astrophysicist is not going to shrug and go ahead with it. Imagine this as a *literal* scenario, not a metaphor. If you want to keep your job, you might try all sorts of dodges, but you wouldn't actually set off a supernova - not when you knew damned well that the Earth would end up as not-even-vapor. So can we have enough of this silly scenario where someone creates *and successfully shapes* an intelligence explosion, while simultaneously not noticing that they are messing with powers vast enough to reconfigure galaxies? Can we stop pretending that someone might build *and shape* an AGI, by the exercise of their precise understanding, for the sake of a cute little toy weapons system? A genius fool might accidentally fry the planet, turn our galaxy into paperclips. But no genius fool could accomplish any specific purpose, anything with a nonzero correlation to what they originally had in mind. Paperclips are paperclips - whether that outcome is brought about by terrorists or patriots, universities or Google, idealists or villains. All you're arguing about is whose logo will look the prettiest on the tombstone. This is a counterintuitive point, I know. It is much more satisfying to cheer the Blues, or boo the Greens, or whatever your accustomed chariot-racing allegiance may be. But this problem is more difficult than that, and old habits will not solve it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Oct 5 01:27:05 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:27:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday Message-ID: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> Anyone have thoughts on this? http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7877.html Natasha Natasha Vita-More http://www.natasha.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From neomorphy at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 02:10:19 2006 From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:10:19 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> Message-ID: Oh, that was comic gold. *Snork* Just one point, tho: On 10/5/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > No Sharia zombie could get one tenth of the way to independently > discovering how to build and shape an AGI, and still remain a Sharia > zombie. The key word there being _independent_ Otherwise, I wouldn't share quite so much... uh... "optimism". The emergence fairy might not do much with raw data, but I can't prove that {AGI can't be built from lots of separate (incomplete) tools/narrow AI bits / other stuff}, and that an idiot with only dodgy rationality might try to do just that. Possibly not a problem for now, but maybe a problem in a decade or several. That's the idiot-at-Google.Inc scenario that I worry about. --Olie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 5 02:07:39 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 19:07:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061004105920.0213c5b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] exit polls > > At 07:47 AM 10/4/2006 -0700, Spike wrote: > > >... If pollsters are afraid to go in > >there, they don't get counted in exit polls. > > And this explains the *under*-representation of voters for "rightist" > candidates in such exit polls? (Or have I misunderstood your claim?) > > Damien Broderick I need to review what I posted, but my intention was that this mechanism would account for under-representation of voters in the exit polls for left-leaning candidates. I am thinking of a list of factors that account for inaccuracies in exit polls. There were factors on both sides, but this one looked like a biggie to me, or perhaps my view is being influenced by the bad section of town where I grew up. My memory is vague, it is entirely possible that the list I am referring to was partly derived on ExI. Did we discuss this before? spike From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Oct 5 02:40:41 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:40:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> Bear in mind that exit polls are _not_ designed to predict winners, but rather to determine demographics and attitudes of voters (which is why objections that exit polls don't match vote counts are nonsense; they are not meant to measure the same thing). Traditionally, the precincts which are subjected to exit polls are very carefully selected so that in aggregate they represent a viable cross-section of the voting population. Just because one particular precinct isn't exit polled doesn't mean that the voters in that precinct are not represented in the exit poll; there is an intricate means of determining which precincts to poll, so that the entire electorate is represented. See http://www.exit-poll.net/ for some more info. Joseph spike wrote: > > >>bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick >>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] exit polls >> >>At 07:47 AM 10/4/2006 -0700, Spike wrote: >> >> >> >>>... If pollsters are afraid to go in >>>there, they don't get counted in exit polls. >>> >>> >>And this explains the *under*-representation of voters for "rightist" >>candidates in such exit polls? (Or have I misunderstood your claim?) >> >>Damien Broderick >> >> > >I need to review what I posted, but my intention was that this mechanism >would account for under-representation of voters in the exit polls for >left-leaning candidates. I am thinking of a list of factors that account >for inaccuracies in exit polls. There were factors on both sides, but this >one looked like a biggie to me, or perhaps my view is being influenced by >the bad section of town where I grew up. My memory is vague, it is entirely >possible that the list I am referring to was partly derived on ExI. Did we >discuss this before? > >spike > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Oct 5 02:28:59 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 19:28:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] edison's experimentation In-Reply-To: <20061004162556.GF21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200610050248.k952mgqp012253@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Here's a number of Thomas Edison stories that had me ROTFLing: {8^D http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/edison/index.html From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 5 02:49:15 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 19:49:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200610050249.k952nMgU012777@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com > Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday > > > Anyone have thoughts on this? > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7877.html > > > Natasha I have difficulty imagining that instant messages would have very much memetic content. You wouldn't bother thinking out and typing your deepest ideas into a medium so evanescent, gone like a wisp of vapor in an instant. I can easily imagine however, content such as "how r u?" followed by whatever is the mod hip appropriate response to that profound inquiry. I expect that our own conversations were not terribly deep when we were teenagers. It was all about mating at that age, a mostly unsuccessful and pointless exercise I might add. This is one way being an adult really is better than being a teen. Friends I have no issues at all with being considered an old geezer. Give me my email, use groups, my fovorite websites, and I will cheerfuly let the younger set how-r-u each other's brains out with no interference, objection, or trace of envy. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 03:02:54 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:02:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> On 10/4/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Anyone have thoughts on this? > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7877.html > my thought is that convergence isn't happening quickly enough. We don't need to distinguish between IM and Email. We need only to express an idea towards a recipient. If you are available via IM, we should be communicating with a low latency of about every 5 words to a full sentence. If you are not available, my entire stream of IM idea-a-grams should automatically coalesce into the notion of an email which you catch up on when you return to availability. If I then want that message to be consumed by a group, the thoughts should be tagged in a way that authenticates the group members to have access to the content. If I want no access restrictions, then my IM/email/blog is world-readable. I want a Wiki-style page that I can grant R/W/RW access to nobody/one friend/all friends/everybody or any combination. The same slow convergence trend is in personal electronics too. Why do I have to decide if I want the 40Gb or 60Gb iPod - If you put wi-fi in it then I wouldn't need more than 2Gb and my media could live on a server and stage the 'next 3' songs on the device for playback. Caching software is smart enough to anticipate my playlist requirements. If you network enable the music player, why not put a phone in it? Oh yeah, that's already been done. But then why doesn't that device have a good camera? 1.3megapixels? that's not good, that's pre-Y2K. Let's start with a 5MP camera and add phone, no lets add PDA, no music, etc. Why can't we have one device that has all these things in it? Because people keep spending their money to get the next cooler gadget in an effort to stay on the cutting edge. I'm sure this is similar to "kids" adoption of the telephone 60+ years ago. Or radio however many more years ago, or any technology that was once unavailable until it became ubiquitous. the only people who worry about being "old" because they haven't adopted the "hip" thing are already hopelessly uncool anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Thu Oct 5 03:48:50 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:48:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> Message-ID: <452480A2.4020502@pobox.com> Olie Lamb wrote: > Oh, that was comic gold. *Snork* > > Just one point, tho: > > On 10/5/06, *Eliezer S. Yudkowsky* > wrote: > > No Sharia zombie could get one tenth of the way to independently > discovering how to build and shape an AGI, and still remain a Sharia > zombie. > > The key word there being _independent_ > > Otherwise, I wouldn't share quite so much... uh... "optimism". Well, yes, if someone else does the geniusing and then writes it up as a textbook, odd things might happen. > The emergence fairy might not do much with raw data, but I can't prove > that {AGI can't be built from lots of separate (incomplete) tools/narrow > AI bits / other stuff}, and that an idiot with only dodgy rationality > might try to do just that. Possibly not a problem for now, but maybe a > problem in a decade or several. > > That's the idiot-at-Google.Inc scenario that I worry about. That's the point I was trying to make - the key phrase above is "build *and shape*", that is, solve FAI not just AGI. That's what you can't do and remain a Sharia zombie, because to do that, you have to understand what you're doing, not just throw around a bunch of tools. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 5 04:10:07 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:10:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061004105920.0213c5b0@satx.rr.com> <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061004230738.02133088@satx.rr.com> At 07:07 PM 10/4/2006 -0700, Spike wrote: >I need to review what I posted, but my intention was that this mechanism >would account for under-representation of voters in the exit polls for >left-leaning candidates. I am thinking of a list of factors that account >for inaccuracies in exit polls. Yes, but isn't the usual complaint quite the reverse: that exit polls suggested a *larger* number of votes for the left than appeared in the final count? Why else would the left cry stinking fish (aka "we wuz robbed") on this basis? Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 5 04:56:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:56:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061004230738.02133088@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200610050456.k954uHCe002824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > > Yes, but isn't the usual complaint quite the reverse: that exit polls > suggested a *larger* number of votes for the left than appeared in > the final count? Why else would the left cry stinking fish (aka "we > wuz robbed") on this basis? > > Damien Broderick Hmmm, that I don't know, but would guess that the side that complains depends on which way the elections go. spike From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 06:13:39 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:43:39 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0610042313i4cf115b3ne2da835c6117dc4f@mail.gmail.com> I find that Skype is pretty much like this. We've got ongoing multi-person chat sessions for our dev team in Skype, and I find that if I miss a day or two, when I come back it's all automagically available in the chat history (which is all available inline anyway). Our day to day trivial "water cooler" stuff happens in IM. More complex ideas get communicated in email. If I'm really forced to, I might actually use Word to write something up, but pretty much only when required by external forces (eg: a client wants a "document"). When people need to really interact, we use voip + gotomeeting (for voice communication + shared desktop). Emlyn On 05/10/06, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On 10/4/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > > Anyone have thoughts on this? > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7877.html > > > > my thought is that convergence isn't happening quickly enough. We don't > need to distinguish between IM and Email. We need only to express an idea > towards a recipient. If you are available via IM, we should be > communicating with a low latency of about every 5 words to a full sentence. > If you are not available, my entire stream of IM idea-a-grams should > automatically coalesce into the notion of an email which you catch up on > when you return to availability. If I then want that message to be consumed > by a group, the thoughts should be tagged in a way that authenticates the > group members to have access to the content. If I want no access > restrictions, then my IM/email/blog is world-readable. I want a Wiki-style > page that I can grant R/W/RW access to nobody/one friend/all > friends/everybody or any combination. > > The same slow convergence trend is in personal electronics too. Why do I > have to decide if I want the 40Gb or 60Gb iPod - If you put wi-fi in it then > I wouldn't need more than 2Gb and my media could live on a server and stage > the 'next 3' songs on the device for playback. Caching software is smart > enough to anticipate my playlist requirements. If you network enable the > music player, why not put a phone in it? Oh yeah, that's already been > done. But then why doesn't that device have a good camera? 1.3megapixels? > that's not good, that's pre-Y2K. Let's start with a 5MP camera and add > phone, no lets add PDA, no music, etc. Why can't we have one device that > has all these things in it? Because people keep spending their money to get > the next cooler gadget in an effort to stay on the cutting edge. > > > > I'm sure this is similar to "kids" adoption of the telephone 60+ years > ago. Or radio however many more years ago, or any technology that was once > unavailable until it became ubiquitous. the only people who worry about > being "old" because they haven't adopted the "hip" thing are already > hopelessly uncool anyway. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 eugen at leitl.org Thu Oct 5 06:50:38 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:50:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: References: <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20061005065038.GM21640@leitl.org> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:10:19PM +1000, Olie Lamb wrote: > The key word there being _independent_ > Otherwise, I wouldn't share quite so much... uh... "optimism". > The emergence fairy might not do much with raw data, but I can't prove > that {AGI can't be built from lots of separate (incomplete) > tools/narrow AI bits / other stuff}, and that an idiot with only dodgy I'm pretty certain that a heap of man-made blocks which weren't designed for emergence will never remain anything but a random pile of legos. > rationality might try to do just that. Possibly not a problem for > now, but maybe a problem in a decade or several. > That's the idiot-at-Google.Inc scenario that I worry about. The only advantage of Google is lots of hardware, and the 20% rule. -- 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 Oct 5 06:59:34 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:59:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <200610050456.k954uHCe002824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061004230738.02133088@satx.rr.com> <200610050456.k954uHCe002824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061005065934.GN21640@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:56:11PM -0700, spike wrote: > Hmmm, that I don't know, but would guess that the side that complains > depends on which way the elections go. It would be pretty hard to bully WASPs that way: http://www.alternet.org/story/10589/ -- 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 sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 07:05:30 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:05:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: <4520E3AC.1030607@ramonsky.com> References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <20060929112008.GM21640@leitl.org> <4520E3AC.1030607@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <50F7DCAC-C0D2-4EB7-AA8B-A45A3692ABB4@mac.com> On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:02 AM, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > Yo Eugen : ) > I did LSD for an average of four days per week from 1983-84. > [Despite heroic attempts, we couldn't get it to work more often than > that]. Hmm. Every few days was about the max as I remember it from my a lost period in my youth long past and then only if you ate reasonably well and took vitamins. No more than once a week for a relatively good trip. Once every two - four weeks was better still. > I personally felt pretty blissed out in very much the same way I > have on heroin. Bliss is only a small corner of what can/does happen with acid. It usually happens, if it happens, about 2-3 hours in but sometimes on the way back down. With acid a lot depends on "set and setting" and of course on dosage. Never took heroin but as the mechanism is *very* different I would expect they aren't that similar generally. I have never heard of heroin having set and setting dependencies either. > Maybe other people don't. > I've only ever done heroin a couple of times, and that orally; so > that may make a difference too. > Drugs have very different effects on different people. I can only > say what it was like for me. I do have colleagues who have done both > and claim a similar experience, but perhaps the real answer here > lies in one's personal semantics for the meaning of "blissed out". > To me it means "Totally anxiety-free". That is hardly "bliss" in my book. Bliss is more than absence of anxiety. > Or these days, perhaps I should say, "Normal". Bliss is not normal. Or perhaps I should say that what is generally, and the word implies/invokes generality, "normal" is not bliss. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 07:08:33 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:08:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <855ECAFE-AF01-4893-8EA7-1DB3D2B867B2@mac.com> On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:16 AM, BillK wrote: > On 10/2/06, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > > > You do realise that anything significant that you post on extropy-chat > (or anywhere on the internet) is likely to immediately update your > Homeland Security Profile? The day I live in fear of these meat heads and their silly profiles is the day I disappear completely. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 07:12:05 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:12:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reply to Joseph in message 2 of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:52 AM, Ferris, Luke wrote: > "of Islamists inspired by their ridiculous faith (as all faiths are > ridiculous) to impose their vision of their faith on every single > human > being on this planet by deadly force, and being willing to kill > themselves to advance that goal." > > Can you please provide some citations to back up this claim? > > All of my research so far indicates that Islamic terrorism (and indeed > terrorism in general) is a tactic used to achieve an outcome (such as > troop withdrawal) in response to a particular stimulus (such as the > occupation of a homeland). Not quite. At least Islam in particular encourages its followers to react violently to any perceived slight to the faith, even from those who do not share it. This is malignant and must be stopped. - samantha > From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 07:23:49 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:23:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4521BB6A.2030403@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <4521BB6A.2030403@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <024847E8-1102-43C6-9187-2C3ED54388B2@mac.com> On Oct 2, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > The West managed to tolerate "erosion of our civil liberties" during > both World War II and the Cold War, in the name of survival. We > managed > to escape with those liberties relatively unscathed. > That was against much more clear enemies and dangers with a much clearer notion of what winning meant in the case of WWI. Even with that we see some things done then as very much wrong today. Today we are also putting into place mechanisms not used then and freedom to be left alone by the government is much deteriorated compared to what it was then. Actually, except for the commie witch hunt period we didn't lose much in the way of civil liberties in the Cold War afaik. What do you have in mind? Besides, saying they were restricted back then and we did ok does not make it right and/or not dangerous then or now. > It is indeed a conundrum. The very civil liberties we hold dear are > used > as a weapon against the societies which embrace them, with the goal of > using the forms of Western civilization to cause its downfall. If we give them up then the downfall has already occurred. So this cannot be an option. > History > has shown us that as the threats to Western civilization by those who > would use its institutions to destroy it grows, the freedoms granted > by > those institutions are restricted, lessening the threat. Once the > threat > is removed, the restrictions are loosened. I see no reason to believe > that same self-correcting mechanism is not still in operation. > As the machinery for utterly ubiquitous monitoring of the population is much refined now I think it is much more dangerous to flirt with such restrictions on freedom and much more difficult to correct, if necessary by force, run away excesses of restriction in the direction of tyranny. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 07:37:09 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:37:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Brent Neal wrote: > >> I think the point that is being made here is that you are letting >> your love of the current administration blind you to the force that >> really wants to destroy the Western way of life; that is, an out of >> control right-wing administration bent on destroying the rule of law >> and our civil liberties in the name of political gain and Christian >> fundamentalism, amongst other things. >> > > I will thank you to not attempt to ascribe motives to me, nor try to > divine my loves and hates. So what is good for the goose does not apply to you eh? You have gone out of your way repeatedly to ascribe motives and loves and hates to me. You have done so despite having known me online long enough to realize I am not the simpleton you make me out to be. Nor am I wearing the cartoonish blinders you keep attempting to paint on me. Apply the golden rule please. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 07:40:48 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:40:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <200610030335.k933ZMMx029845@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610030335.k933ZMMx029845@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5CA8F39E-55DB-43C8-B261-E0FB5854FF03@mac.com> On Oct 2, 2006, at 8:35 PM, spike wrote: > > This is a paradox that we cannot solve with our usual tools. Logic > simply > fails. What happens when a society of religious freedom is > confronted by a > religion that does not allow religious freedom? Does universal > tolerance > mean we tolerate intolerance? > We do not tolerate the initiation of force. We tolerate all matter of wanky opinions but not physical attacks or the serious threat of such attacks. It isn't all that complicated. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 07:57:34 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:57:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <380-22006102318281578@M2W030.mail2web.com> References: <380-22006102318281578@M2W030.mail2web.com> Message-ID: x = y => (x-y) = 0 so division by zero is being done when dividing by (x - y) x + y = y => x = 0 On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:28 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > >> spike wrote: >>> This is a paradox that we cannot solve with our usual tools. >>> Logic simply >>> fails. > >> Heinlein had a sympathetic character say, in one of his stories: >> "Logic >> is a fine thing, but I have seen a perfectly logical proof that 2 = >> 1." >> (If anyone remembers which story this is from, please let me know.) > >> Heinlein was probably thinking of this: >> x = y = 1 >> x = y >> x^2 = xy >> x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 >> (x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y) >> x+y = y >> 2 = 1 > > Proof that 2 equals 1 > > 1) Given: > X=Y > 2) Multiply both sides by X: > X^2=XY > 3) Subtract Y^2 from both sides: > X^2-Y^2=XY-Y^2 > 4) Factorise: > (X+Y)(X-Y)=Y(X-Y) > 5) Cancel out (X-Y) term: > X+Y=Y > 6) Substitute X for Y, by equation 1 > 2Y=Y > 7)Divide both sides by Y > 2=1 > > ? "Omni" > > Natasha > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 08:08:31 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 01:08:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <45231132.6050007@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <45209BD5.6040403@mac.com> <45231132.6050007@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <6DBA145C-18B6-4B90-A475-FFED2224BFDA@mac.com> On Oct 3, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Oh, I've read it, and others like it. > > I still dismiss it. > > In regards to the first point, which is the most potentially damning > in > an objective sense, I can speak as an expert in the field, being > Manager > of Election Polling for one of the largest (and most accurate in the > 2004 election cycle) public opinion polling companies in the country. > The argument that exit polls in 2004 bespoke of any wrongdoing is > completely inaccurate. It completely misses the point of what exit > polls > are supposed to do; not predict winners and losers, but give insight > into the characteristics of the supporters of each candidate. Indeed, > the man in charge of the exit polling in 2004 made a spectacularly > public mia culpa at an AAPOR conference, where he admitted that the > exit > polls were dead wrong. See: > http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/05/aapor_exit_poll.html Well that is a problem because the exit polls historically and statistically are not so dead wrong. So why this time? That is the problem. This statement without explaining the discrepancy this time adequately is not evidence that the polls were wrong. Also the use of the exit polls is not limited in the way you claim. > > The rest I dismiss as the same sort of partisan wrangling that one > sees > in any election. Fine. You are not competent by reason of obvious prejudice to judge the matter. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 08:14:03 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 01:14:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <200610040400.k9440HgS026867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610040400.k9440HgS026867@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Oct 3, 2006, at 9:00 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > ... >> >> The rest I dismiss as the same sort of partisan wrangling that one >> sees >> in any election. I can put forth accusations of Democrats bussing in >> homeless people into Ohio, and bribing them to vote Democratic... >> Joseph > > Joseph this comment reminds me of the dilemma the exit pollsters face. > Those areas in which most of the voters are likely to vote to the > left are > often too dangerous for pollster to enter alone. Left???? Voting against Bush in 2004 took being way out on the left somewhere or likely living in a bad part of town? Sounds like cheap classist argumentation to me. The polls are not in particularly unsafe places by design. Last I checked exit pollsters worked at the polling places. The race was extremely close so it certainly cannot be that predominantly Democrats were found in very dangerous places. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 08:15:45 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 01:15:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hear, hear! Well said. - s On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:32 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 10/2/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > >> >> However, I do agree with them on one overriding point; that the >> threat >> posed by Islamist extremists is one which threatens the very >> existence >> of the United States and Western culture as a whole, and I find that >> ensuring the overall survival of Western civilization, which I >> believe >> to be the most conducive to achieving a PostHuman future, is >> paramount. >> > ### I don't see it this way. Islamic extremists a just a bunch of, to > use a racist term, despicable, stupid ragheads who couldn't stare down > a brigade of Marines, much less destroy Western civilization. In terms > of firepower they are not in the same league as the SS or the Red > Army, by orders of magnitude. They are a trifle. > > However, dismantling the legal devices that protect the freedom of the > Americans may result in severe disruption of our way of life without > ever making the slightest difference in reducing the jihadist threat. > The Vingean singularity may occur within the next 30 years, and I am > genuinely curious if it will be delayed, or worse, perverted by the > rise of the security state. > > How is the likelihood of the rise of an unfriendly AI impacted by > increased secrecy, and out-of-control spending on nefarious projects? > We know that the opportunity to exercise unbridled control over others > attracts the most vicious humans - will therefore our guardians (now > less guarded by judges and citizens) become more vicious on average? > What will be the AI like, if its makers are psychopaths with unlimited > budgets in a black project? > > Current scuffles in distant and unsavory parts of the world do not > worry me directly. What worries me is their possible indirect impact, > through inducing deleterious changes in our political culture, on the > course of AI research. > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 08:33:41 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 01:33:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Oct 4, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> >> How is the likelihood of the rise of an unfriendly AI impacted by >> increased secrecy, and out-of-control spending on nefarious projects? >> We know that the opportunity to exercise unbridled control over >> others >> attracts the most vicious humans - will therefore our guardians (now >> less guarded by judges and citizens) become more vicious on average? >> What will be the AI like, if its makers are psychopaths with >> unlimited >> budgets in a black project? > > Paperclips are paperclips, whether the AI is built by terrorists > trying > to create a Sharia enforcer, or eager idealistic researchers who don't > understand the concept of "back off until you know what you're doing". > Below you say that research into AI matters and not much else does. Sharia enforcers are not very likely to do AI research. An ultra- secretive full-bore paranoid US military is very likely to do advanced AI research. Both would likely be deadly. > No one gives a damn about AI research, and until that changes, changes > in other government policies aren't going to affect anything one way > or > the other. > False. Changes in government policies could make it impossible to even have the choice to do such research. Changes in government policy could so impoverish the nation that funds dry up. > Save your strength for things that (a) matter and (b) you can make a > personal difference on. > Most of us can make a personal difference at anything we consider important enough and have enough brains and determination to tackle and enough persuasiveness to enroll others in. So the above boils down to determining what is really important. > Some things are just not relevant to the Singularity, people. Get > over it. > If certain types of mistakes are made widely enough there will not be a Singularity. Get over that. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Thu Oct 5 10:41:37 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:41:37 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061005104137.GQ21640@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:02:54PM -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On 10/4/06, [1]nvitamore at austin.rr.com <[2]nvitamore at austin.rr.com> > wrote: > > Anyone have thoughts on this? > [3]http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7877.html Not really a recent trend. What to do depends on whether a new medium offers advantages and/or the community around a legacy medium declines (should I personally adopt it?) or whether you're interested in outreach to new audiences (should I adopt new comm stuff in order to talk to the new kids? -- I must admit I don't, they just have nothing worthwhile to say). > my thought is that convergence isn't happening quickly enough. We > don't need to distinguish between IM and Email. We need only to The convergence doesn't happen at all, it's a bunch of protocols and according implementations completely lacking glue. Until somebody sets out to build it, roll it out in a wide enough scale to get people interested. Are you trying to do that? > express an idea towards a recipient. If you are available via IM, we > should be communicating with a low latency of about every 5 words to a If I was available via IM I couldn't get anything done because of constant interruptions. I banish email if I have to do something requiring some concentration. > full sentence. If you are not available, my entire stream of IM > idea-a-grams should automatically coalesce into the notion of an email > which you catch up on when you return to availability. If I then want Realtime and email don't mix. > that message to be consumed by a group, the thoughts should be tagged > in a way that authenticates the group members to have access to the > content. If I want no access restrictions, then my IM/email/blog is > world-readable. I want a Wiki-style page that I can grant R/W/RW > access to nobody/one friend/all friends/everybody or any combination. You can't get anything done on a blog. Wikis are reasonably useful. > The same slow convergence trend is in personal electronics too. Why > do I have to decide if I want the 40Gb or 60Gb iPod - If you put wi-fi I don't have to decide. I just don't need overpriced mp3 players. I can't afford to insulate myself from the environment when riding a bike, and my hearing survived in a reasonably good shape, which I'd rather like to keep. Whenever I use audio I just use a radio news-only channel, to keep in touch with mundanes. > in it then I wouldn't need more than 2Gb and my media could live on a > server and stage the 'next 3' songs on the device for playback. > Caching software is smart enough to anticipate my playlist I don't have a playlist. I rarely listen to music at all anymore. > requirements. If you network enable the music player, why not put a > phone in it? Oh yeah, that's already been done. But then why doesn't > that device have a good camera? 1.3megapixels? that's not good, I have such a thing, but the trouble isn't megapixels. The trouble is getting decent optics in a small and short-focus enough package. That's optics, which you can't fix well with megapixels. > that's pre-Y2K. Let's start with a 5MP camera and add phone, no lets > add PDA, no music, etc. Why can't we have one device that has all Thanks, I already wear a brick at my belt with a short enough battery lifetime (less than a week) as is. > these things in it? Because people keep spending their money to get > the next cooler gadget in an effort to stay on the cutting People don't. Some novelty-seekers with disposable income do. > edge. > > I'm sure this is similar to "kids" adoption of the telephone 60+ years > ago. Or radio however many more years ago, or any technology that was > once unavailable until it became ubiquitous. the only people who > worry about being "old" because they haven't adopted the "hip" thing > are already hopelessly uncool anyway. Oh yeah, how we all are worried about peer pressure and always trying so hard to emulate whatever hip is these days. Or not. -- 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 Oct 5 11:42:16 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:42:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: <855ECAFE-AF01-4893-8EA7-1DB3D2B867B2@mac.com> References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> <855ECAFE-AF01-4893-8EA7-1DB3D2B867B2@mac.com> Message-ID: On 10/5/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:16 AM, BillK wrote: > > You do realise that anything significant that you post on extropy-chat > > (or anywhere on the internet) is likely to immediately update your > > Homeland Security Profile? > > The day I live in fear of these meat heads and their silly profiles is > the day I disappear completely. > That is an admirable political posture to take, but back in the real world a higher level of caution is more advisable. You don't seem to appreciate the power of surveillance and information gathering available to the authorities now or in the very near future. Advances in DNA analysis are now expected to solve tens of thousands of crimes from many years ago and many more future crimes. Advances in data-mining accumulate people's online incriminating history so that it is available at the press of a key. In the 'war on terror' environment, self-censorship seems just common sense to avoid attracting unnecessary attention from officialdom. You certainly don't want to get on the list for special attention by airport security. Obviously the authorities cannot send the hit squads after every member of the population. Posting on the web won't get your door kicked in at 4 am by police in riot gear. Not unless you are *very* criminal in your postings. But just in case the police ever call me in for an 'interview', or I am caught dropping litter someday, I would prefer that their computer file on me didn't display lots of stuff about x, y or z. For some activities, running a computer security check is now standard. Working with children is a hot button issue at present in the UK. As security checks become easier and more detailed, getting the job you want will get more difficult. Like getting a political appointment, or on a School Board, or a local government post, or helping with kids holidays or school trips, etc. They don't have to tell you why you don't get the job, either. You will just find more doors being closed to you. I think a lot of the kids on MySpace are going to have some growing-up pains when all the personal stuff they dump there comes back to haunt them. Government security people are not the only ones who can run web searches. Employers, lawyers, press, finance companies, banks, you name it. Searching someone's history will soon become standard procedure. Google knows (nearly) everything. And Echelon (or whatever they call it now) has access to much more than Google. I am not saying that you have to redesign your whole lifestyle to become Mr Average in all opinions and activities. Just be careful and think before you self-incriminate yourself. Take the Fifth. Your mother was right. Never, ever, put something in writing unless you would be happy to see it as front page news. BillK From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Oct 5 11:07:12 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <200610050456.k954uHCe002824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061004230738.02133088@satx.rr.com> <200610050456.k954uHCe002824@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <33959.72.236.103.90.1160046432.squirrel@main.nc.us> I've never *answered* an exit poll. I walk on past and tell them it's not their business, it's a secret ballot. Which, IMHO, it is supposed to be. Perhaps more libertarian or conservative voters feel that way? Regards, MB >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > ... >> >> Yes, but isn't the usual complaint quite the reverse: that exit polls >> suggested a *larger* number of votes for the left than appeared in >> the final count? Why else would the left cry stinking fish (aka "we >> wuz robbed") on this basis? >> >> Damien Broderick > > Hmmm, that I don't know, but would guess that the side that complains > depends on which way the elections go. > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 5 14:06:19 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:06:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reply to Joseph in message 2 of extropy-chatDigest, Vol 37, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610051406.k95E6O4O005439@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins ... > > At least Islam in particular encourages its followers to > react violently to any perceived slight to the faith, even from those > who do not share it. This is malignant and must be stopped. > > - samantha How? From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 5 14:11:00 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:11:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610051411.k95EB6Dw015856@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 ... > > Left???? Voting against Bush in 2004 took being way out on the left > somewhere or likely living in a bad part of town? ... > > - s The other way around Samantha. Voting left does not mean living in a dangerous part of town. But dangerous parts of town are likely to vote predominantly to the left. Example: Washington DC. spike From eugen at leitl.org Thu Oct 5 15:42:48 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:42:48 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reply to Joseph in message 2 of extropy-chatDigest, Vol 37, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <200610051406.k95E6O4O005439@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610051406.k95E6O4O005439@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061005154248.GS21640@leitl.org> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:06:19AM -0700, spike wrote: > > who do not share it. This is malignant and must be stopped. > > How? By a number of unpopular decisions. I could make a list here, but it would draw flak towards this community, even if I declare them as private ideas. (Preemptively: none of this involves violence towards minorities, just policy changes). -- 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 sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 16:52:32 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:52:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> References: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Bear in mind that exit polls are _not_ designed to predict winners, > but > rather to determine demographics and attitudes of voters (which is why > objections that exit polls don't match vote counts are nonsense; they > are not meant to measure the same thing). Repeating a lie does not make it so. Exit polls have worked really well here and abroad to predict winners in *fair* elections. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 16:55:45 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:55:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0610042313i4cf115b3ne2da835c6117dc4f@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0610042313i4cf115b3ne2da835c6117dc4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <391B2A37-A95B-4F84-9A3B-88B18D129280@mac.com> On Oct 4, 2006, at 11:13 PM, Emlyn wrote: > I find that Skype is pretty much like this. We've got ongoing multi- > person chat sessions for our dev team in Skype, and I find that if I > miss a day or two, when I come back it's all automagically available > in the chat history (which is all available inline anyway). > > Our day to day trivial "water cooler" stuff happens in IM. More > complex ideas get communicated in email. If I'm really forced to, I > might actually use Word to write something up, but pretty much only > when required by external forces (eg: a client wants a "document"). > When people need to really interact, we use voip + gotomeeting (for > voice communication + shared desktop). > I have noticed an unfortunate trend that companies seem to have less and less corporate memory because not much is committed to documents. Email is often either not kept on not formally archived and made fully searchable. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 5 17:05:14 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:05:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> <855ECAFE-AF01-4893-8EA7-1DB3D2B867B2@mac.com> Message-ID: <47F15B6D-ABDC-443B-936E-EDFB0381C158@mac.com> On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:42 AM, BillK wrote: > On 10/5/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:16 AM, BillK wrote: >>> You do realise that anything significant that you post on extropy- >>> chat >>> (or anywhere on the internet) is likely to immediately update your >>> Homeland Security Profile? >> >> The day I live in fear of these meat heads and their silly profiles >> is >> the day I disappear completely. >> > > That is an admirable political posture to take, but back in the real > world a higher level of caution is more advisable. > I don't think so. > You don't seem to appreciate the power of surveillance and information > gathering available to the authorities now or in the very near future. I appreciate it quite fully but I refuse to be cowed by it. If I am doing something actually illegal I will take countermeasures but not for mere opinion posts. At least not yet. > Advances in DNA analysis are now expected to solve tens of thousands > of crimes from many years ago and many more future crimes. What does that have to do with what I write online? > > Advances in data-mining accumulate people's online incriminating > history so that it is available at the press of a key. > So? > In the 'war on terror' environment, self-censorship seems just common > sense to avoid attracting unnecessary attention from officialdom. You > certainly don't want to get on the list for special attention by > airport security. > I will not live in that much fear of my own government without more provocation that to date. YMMV. With sufficient provocation I would be more cautious. Screw TAS. I don't need to fly enough to censor myself. > Obviously the authorities cannot send the hit squads after every > member of the population. Posting on the web won't get your door > kicked in at 4 am by police in riot gear. Not unless you are *very* > criminal in your postings. > > But just in case the police ever call me in for an 'interview', or I > am caught dropping litter someday, I would prefer that their computer > file on me didn't display lots of stuff about x, y or z. > So you are already accepting lost freedom. What are you getting in exchange? > For some activities, running a computer security check is now > standard. Working with children is a hot button issue at present in > the UK. As security checks become easier and more detailed, getting > the job you want will get more difficult. Like getting a political > appointment, or on a School Board, or a local government post, or > helping with kids holidays or school trips, etc. They don't have to > tell you why you don't get the job, either. You will just find more > doors being closed to you. > Again I refuse to live in fear of nameless strangers. > I think a lot of the kids on MySpace are going to have some growing-up > pains when all the personal stuff they dump there comes back to haunt > them. Government security people are not the only ones who can run web > searches. Employers, lawyers, press, finance companies, banks, you > name it. Searching someone's history will soon become standard > procedure. Google knows (nearly) everything. And Echelon (or whatever > they call it now) has access to much more than Google. > As surveillance becomes deeper and more pervasive we must pass laws to severely restrain how the growing information pool may be used against us. We also must repeal a lot of laws whose effects would be extremely pernicious if more widely enforced as improved surveillance makes possible. Without that we are in deep danger. But self- censorship is not a viable solution. - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Oct 5 17:17:27 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:17:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <391B2A37-A95B-4F84-9A3B-88B18D129280@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha wrote: > > I have noticed an unfortunate trend that companies seem to have less > and less corporate memory because not much is committed to > documents. > Email is often either not kept on not formally archived and > made fully searchable. Very few companies invest the resources necessary to properly structure their various sources of "tribal" knowledge. It's very difficult to satisfy stakeholders interested in near-term gain, and at the same time put significant resources into something as long-term and ephemeral as "information." Also, unstructured information such as employee emails can be a huge liability to a company that might be sued, however frivolous the motivation might be. Theses observations highlight that there's something paradoxical about the structure of our society and its support and promotion of enterprise. - Jef From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 18:50:33 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:50:33 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/4/06, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On 10/4/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > > Anyone have thoughts on this? > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7877.html > > > > my thought is that convergence isn't happening quickly enough. We don't > need to distinguish between IM and Email. We need only to express an idea > towards a recipient. If you are available via IM, we should be > communicating with a low latency of about every 5 words to a full sentence. > If you are not available, my entire stream of IM idea-a-grams should > automatically coalesce into the notion of an email which you catch up on > when you return to availability. If I then want that message to be consumed > by a group, the thoughts should be tagged in a way that authenticates the > group members to have access to the content. If I want no access > restrictions, then my IM/email/blog is world-readable. I want a Wiki-style > page that I can grant R/W/RW access to nobody/one friend/all > friends/everybody or any combination. Have you tried gmail? It does at least the first part of what you describe, integrating IM and email. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alex at ramonsky.com Thu Oct 5 19:47:42 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:47:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> <3305.130.237.122.245.1159831305.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <4525615E.7020603@ramonsky.com> Anders Sandberg wrote: > do you think your anhedonia was due >to dopaminergic receptor changes or just regression towards the mean? > There was a bit too much 'teeter-totter' for it to be an homeostasis attempt -I actually got physical motor problems too for the first couple days. After that everything was just 'flat' -there was no depression, but no inspiration either -an advert for the local window cleaner was just as interesting as New Scientist magazine or a good novel. I ate the entire contents of my fridge based on 'best-before' dates as I had no idea what I'd prefer to eat, and couldn't find any aesthetic difference between Mozart, Mendelsohn or Marilyn Manson. >I have the feeling that preventing downregulation or upregulation would be >pretty pharmacologically useful, anybody know how well we have learned to >control such functions? > > > Well if 'we' means 'the scientific community' I have no idea. If 'we' means the neurohackers community there are various approaches including using biofeedback, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and 'pacing' [you take serotonin on the way up, for a slower takeoff and softer landing]. A lot seems to depend on sleep regulation too. Ha! Discipline! : ) Best, AR ************ From alex at ramonsky.com Thu Oct 5 19:30:32 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:30:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> <20061002110518.GL21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <45255D58.9000409@ramonsky.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: >Why did you stop with selegiline? Equivalent of 1 mg/day from 40 years upwards >seems to show benefits across several animal models. > > > Because in some ways I am a slow, methodical, tediously suspicious sort of creature who likes to try things out for a short time in various different circumstances before taking them on board for long term trials. This does not work for me with relationships involving people, but with drugs it seems a fairly reliable method, so I will no doubt return to selegiline for a long term relationship after I'm satisfied that our flings had no strings attached : ) Best, AR ******** From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Oct 5 19:43:44 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:43:44 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction Message-ID: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> For my cognition enhancement project, I have decided to not just put together a bibliography of research papers and ethics papers, but also fiction that deals with cognition enhancement - improved memory, attention, intelligence, creativity etc - in an intelligent way. So I would be interested in what novels and short stories (and poems for that matter) deals with the subject of technologically enhanced cognition. In particular discussion of the social effects in a nontrival way is intesting. Hopefully I can turn it into something like the nanotech in sf bibliography at http://www.geocities.com/asnapier/nano/n-sf/ Any suggestions? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From alex at ramonsky.com Thu Oct 5 19:57:46 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:57:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> <855ECAFE-AF01-4893-8EA7-1DB3D2B867B2@mac.com> Message-ID: <452563BA.8020602@ramonsky.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: >The day I live in fear of these meat heads and their silly profiles is >the day I disappear completely. > I did this twice [disappeared completely], and can thoroughly recommend it. Reappearing is a lot of fun too, especially after a decade or so when nobody remembers you from the last time. There are still meat heads, but they are young, fresh meat heads who have no memory of what happened to their predecessors or how people used to file things. I'm currently working on being apparently in two places at the same time, which is quite a lot more challenging than just disappearing but could have even greater amusement potential. Anyway, it keeps them off the streets. Stay cool : ) AR ***************** > >- 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 sentience at pobox.com Thu Oct 5 19:59:40 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:59:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> References: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> Message-ID: <4525642C.1000905@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Repeating a lie does not make it so. Exit polls have worked really > well here and abroad to predict winners in *fair* elections. Hm. Don't want to get involved in this, but I do see a potential experimental-design flaw in the above statement. What gold standard did you use to decide whether the election was fair, aside from the exit poll itself? By the way, I'm quite willing to believe that the 2004 US election was broken, that most US elections have been broken, that both parties cheated, that the 2004 election was the worst yet in the series, that things will keep getting worse, that electronic voting marks a qualitative line of demarcation, and that there's nothing I can do about it *directly* and I probably shouldn't even have spent the seconds writing this sentence. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Oct 5 20:41:23 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:41:23 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: <4525615E.7020603@ramonsky.com> References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> <3305.130.237.122.245.1159831305.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4525615E.7020603@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <4330.163.1.72.91.1160080883.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Alex Ramonsky wrote: >>I have the feeling that preventing downregulation or upregulation would >> be >>pretty pharmacologically useful, anybody know how well we have learned to >>control such functions? > > Well if 'we' means 'the scientific community' I have no idea. If 'we' > means the neurohackers community there are various approaches including > using biofeedback, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and 'pacing' [you > take serotonin on the way up, for a slower takeoff and softer landing]. > A lot seems to depend on sleep regulation too. Ha! Discipline! : ) Hmm, while sleep and biofeedback likely are healthy it seems more efficient to directly try to prevent the receptors from going into the cytosol, being proteased and all that happens to them. This paper suggests that at least in some cases other drugs can prevent downregulaton (in this case of adrenergic receptors): "Prevention by theophylline of beta-2-receptor down regulation in healthy subjects." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11420887&dopt=Abstract -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From alex at ramonsky.com Thu Oct 5 20:57:07 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:57:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction References: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <452571A3.2000808@ramonsky.com> Would you wish to include humor in this collection? AR ******** Anders Sandberg wrote: >For my cognition enhancement project, I have decided to not just put >together a bibliography of research papers and ethics papers, but also >fiction that deals with cognition enhancement - improved memory, >attention, intelligence, creativity etc - in an intelligent way. So I >would be interested in what novels and short stories (and poems for that >matter) deals with the subject of technologically enhanced cognition. In >particular discussion of the social effects in a nontrival way is >intesting. > >Hopefully I can turn it into something like the nanotech in sf >bibliography at http://www.geocities.com/asnapier/nano/n-sf/ > >Any suggestions? > > > From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Oct 5 21:12:18 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:12:18 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading Message-ID: <4332.163.1.72.91.1160082738.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> BillK wrote: > On 10/5/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:16 AM, BillK wrote: >> > You do realise that anything significant that you post on extropy-chat >> > (or anywhere on the internet) is likely to immediately update your >> > Homeland Security Profile? >> >> The day I live in fear of these meat heads and their silly profiles is >> the day I disappear completely. >> > > That is an admirable political posture to take, but back in the real > world a higher level of caution is more advisable. I think it is better to err on the side of being too open and radical than being too cautious. Sure, it increases the risk of being logged in various lists of 'subversives' and maybe getting uncomfortable employment interviews. But do we really want to work for companies that can't stand our true persona? Do we want to make it easier for the Powers That Be to scan the subversive lists, or do we salt them with lots of not-quite-subversives? The chilling effects of self-censorship are nasty. When nobody else expresses your view you will not dare speak it either, either because you think there is something wrong with it or because you will be noticed by nasties. And the more areas nobody dares to talk about the more fearful we will be. I think part of the self-censorship we see among some people about Islam right now was primed by the self-censorship due to political correctness. Once you internalise the idea that one should never say anything that might upset some group (either because they might get sad or violent or because others might criticise oneself) you become a force for instilling this meme in others. > Your mother was right. Never, ever, put something in writing unless > you would be happy to see it as front page news. Exactly. And I think this is reason to dare to be radical, because that is the only way to spread the counter-memes of open, sometimes noisy, debate. I'd gladly admit on this list that I had used illegal drugs, but to my embarrasment I haven't. But I have indeed mocked Allah (and most other deities and religions I have ever heard of), questioned the democratic system, the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the EU farming subsidies and the Swedish Model. I have dreamt erotic dreams about blue anodized zinc cubes. As well as squeezed past the (Swedish) Queen in a doorway somewhat rudely. So there! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Oct 5 21:21:55 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:21:55 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <452571A3.2000808@ramonsky.com> References: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <452571A3.2000808@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <4365.163.1.72.91.1160083315.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Alex Ramonsky wrote: > Would you wish to include humor in this collection? As long as the enhancement angle is reasonably there. I guess Gyro Gearloose's thinking cap belongs on the list. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 22:58:23 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:58:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> On 10/4/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: ### I do think we are talking past each other to some extent. Above you thoroughly discuss the notion that given widespread lack of understanding of the art of rationality, most attempts at building a GAI will either fizzle, or produce an UFAI, independently of the motives of the would-be builders. I do not take issue with this claim. You also seem to assume (but not say so explicitely) that the sets "all people capable of independently shaping a GAI so as to act according to their wishes" and "all evil people (i.e. people whose goal is a net loss of utility)" are non-intersecting. This is where I disagree with you. I can visualize the mind with an excellent intuitive grasp of rationality, a mind that understands itself, knows where its goals came from, knows where it is going, and yet wishes nothing but to fulfill the goals of dominance, and destruction. I am not talking about the Sharia zombie, who may have benign goals (personal happiness with virgins, etc.) perverted by ignorance and lack of understanding. I am referring to people who are evil, know it, and like it so. Of course, I may be wrong. Perhaps there is a cognitive sieve that separates GAI builders and Dr. Evil. I also think that present understanding of the issue is generally insufficient to allow confident prediction. Therefore, until proven otherwise, the prospect of truly evil geniuses with large AI budgets will continue to worry me, more than the dangers of asteroid impacts but less than a flu pandemic. Rafal From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Oct 5 23:17:33 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:17:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <4525928D.40604@goldenfuture.net> Just off the top of my head... "Supermen: Tales of the Posthuman Future". Gardner Dozois (ed.) "Iron Sunrise", "Singularity Sky", "Accelerando". Charles Stross. "Revelation Space", "Chasm City", "Redemption Ark", "Absolution Gap". Alastair Reynolds. Dune Series. Frank Herbert. (Mentats, Guild Navigators, and the Bene Gesserit) Not much, but it's a start. Joseph Anders Sandberg wrote: >For my cognition enhancement project, I have decided to not just put >together a bibliography of research papers and ethics papers, but also >fiction that deals with cognition enhancement - improved memory, >attention, intelligence, creativity etc - in an intelligent way. So I >would be interested in what novels and short stories (and poems for that >matter) deals with the subject of technologically enhanced cognition. In >particular discussion of the social effects in a nontrival way is >intesting. > >Hopefully I can turn it into something like the nanotech in sf >bibliography at http://www.geocities.com/asnapier/nano/n-sf/ > >Any suggestions? > > > From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Oct 5 23:58:31 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:58:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> References: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> Message-ID: <45259C27.6020706@goldenfuture.net> A "lie"? If so, it's a lie perpetrated by the guy who actually _does_ the exit polls! See http://www.exit-poll.net/ , but no doubt you'll think that's just part of the conspiracy. You are just so twisted by your hatred of everything Republican as to make all attempts at civil and rational discussion impossible. Therefore, I will cease to make the attempt. Joseph Samantha Atkins wrote: >On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > >>Bear in mind that exit polls are _not_ designed to predict winners, >>but >>rather to determine demographics and attitudes of voters (which is why >>objections that exit polls don't match vote counts are nonsense; they >>are not meant to measure the same thing). >> >> > >Repeating a lie does not make it so. Exit polls have worked really >well here and abroad to predict winners in *fair* elections. > >- s >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 00:14:47 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:44:47 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <391B2A37-A95B-4F84-9A3B-88B18D129280@mac.com> References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0610042313i4cf115b3ne2da835c6117dc4f@mail.gmail.com> <391B2A37-A95B-4F84-9A3B-88B18D129280@mac.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0610051714p355d446by1cf7b1a0b6ae954b@mail.gmail.com> > I have noticed an unfortunate trend that companies seem to have less > and less corporate memory because not much is committed to documents. > Email is often either not kept on not formally archived and made fully > searchable. > > - samantha You are right about email. Our company uses Outlook + Exchange, which effectively means you lose your entire email history every so often ;-) That's why I use gmail. I don't want to be trapped by a corporate email account ever again. I redirect everything into my gmail, and my ongoing email memory is my concern from then on, excellently searchable, accessible everywhere. If only I could pay google some pittance to ensure that my email was going to stick around into the long term, or at least have an archiving mechanism to give me some insurance. But the app is so good, I'm willing to keep taking that chance. Emlyn From sentience at pobox.com Fri Oct 6 00:28:13 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:28:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4525A31D.6080002@pobox.com> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 10/4/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > You also seem to assume (but not say so explicitely) that the sets > "all people capable of independently shaping a GAI so as to act > according to their wishes" and "all evil people (i.e. people whose > goal is a net loss of utility)" are non-intersecting. This is where I > disagree with you. I think it is likely that the intersection is small - bear in mind, set 1 is damned small to begin with - but I do not claim that it is zero summed up over all Everett branches. It's probably zero in any given Everett branch. But the point is that the set of people capable of building and shaping an AGI, who are going to do it on command from their military superiors to blow up a terrorist bunker somewhere, is "essentially zero". > I can visualize the mind with an excellent intuitive grasp of > rationality, a mind that understands itself, knows where its goals > came from, knows where it is going, and yet wishes nothing but to > fulfill the goals of dominance, and destruction. A *human* mind? I think most people in this set would not be running on strictly normal brainware; but maybe you could, for example, have a genuine genius psychopath. I do not deny the possibility, but it seems to have a low frequency. > I am not talking > about the Sharia zombie, who may have benign goals (personal happiness > with virgins, etc.) perverted by ignorance and lack of understanding. > I am referring to people who are evil, know it, and like it so. That's pretty damn rare at IQ140+. Evil people who know they're evil and like being evil are far more rare than evil people. Most famous super-evil people are not in that small set. > Of course, I may be wrong. Perhaps there is a cognitive sieve that > separates GAI builders and Dr. Evil. I also think that present > understanding of the issue is generally insufficient to allow > confident prediction. Therefore, until proven otherwise, the prospect > of truly evil geniuses with large AI budgets will continue to worry > me, more than the dangers of asteroid impacts but less than a flu > pandemic. Well, yes, but: Problem of truly evil geniuses who can build and shape AGI << problem of misguidedly altruistic geniuses who pick the wrong F << problem of genius-fools who turn their future light cones into paperclips where << is the standard "much less than" symbol. In my experience thus far, the notion of someone deliberately building an evil AGI, is much appealed to by genius-fools searching for a plausible-sounding excuse not to slow down: "We've got to beat those bastards in the military! We don't have time to perfect our AI theory!" Now this is a nonzero risk but the risk of genius-fools is far greater, in the sense that I expect most AI-blasted Everett branches to be wiped out by genius-fools, not truly evil supergeniuses. Because of the vastly larger base prior favoring the former catastrophe scenario, the partial derivative of dead Everett branches with respect to caution, is negative with respect to a policy change that makes it even a tiny bit easier to be an altruistic genius-fools, no matter how much harder it makes it to be a truly evil supergenius. In fact, I expect (with lower confidence) that many more dead Everett branches are wiped out by genius-fool AI programmers than by nanotech or superviruses. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pj at pj-manney.com Fri Oct 6 00:30:33 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:30:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction Message-ID: <27171205.1279621160094633534.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> I may take your technological enhancement definition a little broadly, but you can decide what works for you: Man Plus - Frederick Pohl Flowers for Algernon - Daniel Keyes Lord of Light - Zelazny (an enhanced society gets to play at gods) Nova Express -- William S. Burroughs (the promise of enhancement with addiction) Brain Wave - Poul Anderson (although the enhancement is not really 'technological' and not of our own making...) Gap Series - Stephen R. Donaldson (I think Angus Thermopyle is enhanced by the 2nd book) Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell (although the enhancement of the clone was not planned...) Camp Concentration - Thomas Disch Wm. Gibson, generally What about uplift of non-human creatures? There's a bunch of those. Does that topic fit your mandate? As I think of more, I'll send them on. PJ >So I >would be interested in what novels and short stories (and poems for that >matter) deals with the subject of technologically enhanced cognition. In >particular discussion of the social effects in a nontrival way is >intesting. > From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Oct 6 00:41:26 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:41:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <4525642C.1000905@pobox.com> References: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> <4525642C.1000905@pobox.com> Message-ID: On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: >> >> Repeating a lie does not make it so. Exit polls have worked really >> well here and abroad to predict winners in *fair* elections. > > Hm. Don't want to get involved in this, but I do see a potential > experimental-design flaw in the above statement. What gold standard > did > you use to decide whether the election was fair, aside from the exit > poll itself? Generally there is no 'gold standard' to be had in such situations of course. But the evidence, which is certainly not limited to exit polls, is pretty damning. But in the above I was referring to the lie that exit polls are not used to predict election outcomes. They have been used for such purposes, usually with high accuracy, for some time. > > By the way, I'm quite willing to believe that the 2004 US election was > broken, that most US elections have been broken, that both parties > cheated, that the 2004 election was the worst yet in the series, that > things will keep getting worse, that electronic voting marks a > qualitative line of demarcation, and that there's nothing I can do > about > it *directly* and I probably shouldn't even have spent the seconds > writing this sentence. > I don't believe it was just business as usual and I do believe the problem is getting much worse. As to what to do about I confess I haven't much clue except to demand a better and much more trustworthy voting system than what we have. I don't think it wise to remain silent about everything I don't know how to fix. Nor would it be wise to squawk about all of them. We have to pick our battles. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Oct 6 00:48:36 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:48:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 5, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > I can visualize the mind with an excellent intuitive grasp of > rationality, a mind that understands itself, knows where its goals > came from, knows where it is going, and yet wishes nothing but to > fulfill the goals of dominance, and destruction. I am not talking > about the Sharia zombie, who may have benign goals (personal happiness > with virgins, etc.) perverted by ignorance and lack of understanding. > I am referring to people who are evil, know it, and like it so. > Perhaps they aren't even evil. Perhaps they are so disgusted with human foibles that they really don't care much anymore whether much brighter artificial minds are particularly friendly to humanity or not. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Oct 6 00:51:00 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:51:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <45259C27.6020706@goldenfuture.net> References: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> <45259C27.6020706@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > You are just so twisted by your hatred of everything Republican as to > make all attempts at civil and rational discussion impossible. > Therefore, I will cease to make the attempt. There you go again with the same tired accusation. You may as well stop as you aren't making much of an attempt. - samantha From ben at goertzel.org Fri Oct 6 01:14:33 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:14:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> > Perhaps they aren't even evil. Perhaps they are so disgusted with > human foibles that they really don't care much anymore whether much > brighter artificial minds are particularly friendly to humanity or not. > > - samantha Well put. I asked a friend recently what he thought about the prospect of superhuman beings annihilating humans to make themselves more processing substrate... His response: "It's about time." When asked what he meant, he said simply, "We're not so great, and we've been dominating the planet long enough. Let something better have its turn." I do not see why this attitude is inconsistent with a deep understanding of the nature of intelligence, and a profound rationality. -- Ben G From sentience at pobox.com Fri Oct 6 01:52:02 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:52:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> Ben Goertzel wrote: >>Perhaps they aren't even evil. Perhaps they are so disgusted with >>human foibles that they really don't care much anymore whether much >>brighter artificial minds are particularly friendly to humanity or not. >> >>- samantha > > Well put. > > I asked a friend recently what he thought about the prospect of > superhuman beings annihilating humans to make themselves more > processing substrate... > > His response: "It's about time." > > When asked what he meant, he said simply, "We're not so great, and > we've been dominating the planet long enough. Let something better > have its turn." > I do not see why this attitude is inconsistent with a deep > understanding of the nature of intelligence, and a profound > rationality. Hell, Ben, you aren't willing to say publicly that Arthur T. Murray is a fool. In general you seem very reluctant to admit that certain things are inconsistent with rationality - a charity level that *I* think is inconsistent with rationality. But anyway: "In addition to standard biases, I have personally observed what look like harmful modes of thinking specific to existential risks. The Spanish flu of 1918 killed 25-50 million people. World War II killed 60 million people. 107 is the order of the largest catastrophes in humanity's written history. Substantially larger numbers, such as 500 million deaths, and especially qualitatively different scenarios such as the extinction of the entire human species, seem to trigger a different mode of thinking - enter into a "separate magisterium". People who would never dream of hurting a child hear of an existential risk, and say, "Well, maybe the human species doesn't really deserve to survive." There is a saying in heuristics and biases that people do not evaluate events, but descriptions of events - what is called non-extensional reasoning. The extension of humanity's extinction includes the death of yourself, of your friends, of your family, of your loved ones, of your city, of your country, of your political fellows. Yet people who would take great offense at a proposal to wipe the country of Britain from the map, to kill every member of the Democratic Party in the U.S., to turn the city of Paris to glass - who would feel still greater horror on hearing the doctor say that their child had cancer - these people will discuss the extinction of humanity with perfect calm. "Extinction of humanity", as words on paper, appears in fictional novels, or is discussed in philosophy books - it belongs to a different context than the Spanish flu. We evaluate descriptions of events, not extensions of events. The clich? phrase end of the world invokes the magisterium of myth and dream, of prophecy and apocalypse, of novels and movies. The challenge of existential risks to rationality is that, the catastrophes being so huge, people snap into a different mode of thinking. Human deaths are suddenly no longer bad, and detailed predictions suddenly no longer require any expertise, and whether the story is told with a happy ending or a sad ending is a matter of personal taste in stories." -- "Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks" I seriously doubt that your friend is processing that question with the same part of his brain that he uses to decide e.g. whether to deliberately drive into oncoming traffic or throw his three-year-old daughter off a hotel balcony. I've seen plenty of half-skilled rationalists fail by adopting separate magisteria for different questions; they hold "spiritual" questions to a different standard than they would use when writing a journal article. Your friend, I suspect, is carrying out a form of non-extensional reasoning which consists of reacting to verbal descriptions of events quite differently than how he would react to witnessing even a small sample of the human deaths involved. This entire class of mistakes is harder to make, or at least much harder to endorse in principle, if you have translated mathematics into intuition, and now see thought processes as engines for achieving work - once you reach this level, it does not seem as plausible to you that you can get good models by various spiritual means, because this is analogous to being able to draw a good map of a distant city by sitting in your living room with your blinds drawn - there's no causal explanation for how you are drawing a map by interacting with the territory, which is how a properly functioning cognitive engine works. When you understand intelligence properly, you will not deliberately endorse separate magisteria, because you know in principle that divisions separating e.g. biology from physics, are divisions that humans make in academic subjects, not divisions in the things themselves; Bayes's Theorem is not going to operate any differently in the two cases. Or as Richard Feynman put it: "A poet once said, "The whole universe is in a glass of wine." We will probably never know in what sense he said that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look in glass of wine closely enough we see the entire universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflections in the glass, and our imagination adds the atoms. The glass is a distillation of the earth's rocks, and in its composition we see the secrets of the universe's age, and the evolution of the stars. What strange array of chemicals are in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization: all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it! If in our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts - physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on - remember that nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let us give one more final pleasure: drink it and forget it all!" Highly skilled rationalists who understand intelligence are going to be on guard against: Separate magisteria; Extensional neglect; Scope neglect; Inconsistent evaluations of different verbal descriptions of the same events; not to mention, Failure to search for better third alternatives; Fatuous philosophy that sounds like deep wisdom; and Self-destructive impulses. As usual, people who don't understand the above and have already committed such mistakes, may be skeptical that modes of reasoning committing these mistakes could be justifiably rejected by a more skilled rationalist, just as creationists are skeptical that a more skilled rationalist could justifiably reject creationism. But a skilled rationalist who knows about extensional neglect is not likely to endorse the destruction of Earth unless they also endorse the death of Human_1, Human_2, Human_3, ... themselves, their mother, ... Human_6e9. Also I expect that your friend is making a mistake of simple fact, with respect to what kind of superhumans these are likely to be - he thinks they'll be better just because they've got more processing power, an old old mistake I once made myself. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Fri Oct 6 01:59:34 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:59:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4525B886.6010102@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Perhaps they aren't even evil. Perhaps they are so disgusted with > human foibles that they really don't care much anymore whether much > brighter artificial minds are particularly friendly to humanity or not. Sounds to me like an affective evaluation by respect to biased recall and biased search on particular, negative characteristics, with a few exemplars dominating the affective evaluation of the whole - in other words, carrying out a biased search for negative examples, then remembering a few outstanding negative examples rather than attending to the vast statistical majority of cases. Anyone who knows about heuristics and biases is going to be on their guard against that. Then the reaction is more of an instinctive expression of disgust, not an attempt to solve anything or optimize anything. If you were trying to seriously search for a plan, you wouldn't stop after deciding that exterminating humanity was superior to leaving it exactly as it is now (itself a rather unlikely conclusion!) but would continue your search for a third alternative. Also a rationalist would know about the Bayesian value of information, so they'd be willing to spend some time thinking about the problem, rather than reacting in 0.5 seconds. "Disgusted with human foibles" makes a nice little snappy phrase. But someone seriously capable of building and shaping an AGI would know better, I suspect. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 6 02:09:35 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 19:09:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0610051714p355d446by1cf7b1a0b6ae954b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200610060209.k9629xNE004545@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn ... > > You are right about email. Our company uses Outlook + Exchange, which > effectively means you lose your entire email history every so often > ;-) ... > Emlyn Ja Emlyn there is a way to rig Exchange + Lookout to dump all your email into an archive on your hard drive. I don't know how to do it myself, but I have my IT guru fix it for me. We get along fine: I don't know from computers, he doesn't know from rocket science. {8^] spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 6 02:22:02 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 19:22:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610060222.k962MFO4026197@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] exit polls > > > On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote: > > > > You are just so twisted by your hatred of everything Republican as to > > make all attempts at civil and rational discussion impossible. > > Therefore, I will cease to make the attempt. > > There you go again with the same tired accusation. You may as well > stop as you aren't making much of an attempt. > > - samantha My friends, do let us maintain civil discourse in political topics in this election season. These difficult and contentious subjects should be handled with care, doing as the chessplayers say: play the board, not the human. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 02:36:29 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:36:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240610051936u56876b88mcd1f7f3221a1566f@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/06, Neil H. wrote: > > > Have you tried gmail? It does at least the first part of what you > describe, integrating IM and email. > Yes. I am using gmail now. Gmail is sill beta. It probably always will be. Not because it isn't good enough, but because to leave beta would require the tedious part of finishing a project. So as long as Gmail, chat, etc are all 'open' and in beta status, they new features do not have to be impact tested before deployment. I think this is bad because google has enough influence to set the standard for others to follow. I don't believe this is good behavior. Those who defend Google do not want to here anything negative, and those who would likely agree with me just don't really care that much about it. (As I myself do not care much past pointing out the observation with no intention of making it my 'cause') As Eugen pointed out, none of it really matters that much. Do what you want to do. Use the right tool for the job. It doesn't matter if someone else likes their tool more. It reminds me of the PC vs Mac dichotomy. Mac is trying to defend their superiority in a war that PC users have mostly stopped fighting 10 years ago. Computers are consumer appliances much like TV, microwaves or air conditioners. When the one you have doesn't work like you think it should, you replace it - probably with whatever is the best 'deal' you can find that week. Beyond the question of whether or not the machine provides the service you want, it makes no difference who produces it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 02:57:29 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:57:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <62c14240610051957j6ceaf5bbn694e6fd7496a384c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > For my cognition enhancement project, I have decided to not just put > together a bibliography of research papers and ethics papers, but also > fiction that deals with cognition enhancement - improved memory, > attention, intelligence, creativity etc - in an intelligent way. So I > would be interested in what novels and short stories (and poems for that > matter) deals with the subject of technologically enhanced cognition. In > particular discussion of the social effects in a nontrival way is > intesting. > Julian May's "Galactic Milieu" Trilogy (wikipedia ) Even if it doesn't make your list, check out the wikipedia link. Julian May is one of my favorite authors. an this excerpt (chapter one) of Greg Egan's "Diaspora" (Hopefully this chapter convinces you to read the others, or buy the book) Also check out "Permutation City" - Greg Egan may BE my favorite author. You do plan on posting your compilation here, right? Anything you can do to isolate the gems from the great pile of rubbish that is available would be a veritable service to humanity. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 03:23:26 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:53:26 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: References: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> <4525642C.1000905@pobox.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0610052023qa5abcd7h1335fed74a713373@mail.gmail.com> > > By the way, I'm quite willing to believe that the 2004 US election was > > broken, that most US elections have been broken, that both parties > > cheated, that the 2004 election was the worst yet in the series, that > > things will keep getting worse, that electronic voting marks a > > qualitative line of demarcation, and that there's nothing I can do > > about > > it *directly* and I probably shouldn't even have spent the seconds > > writing this sentence. > > > > I don't believe it was just business as usual and I do believe the > problem is getting much worse. As to what to do about I confess I > haven't much clue except to demand a better and much more trustworthy > voting system than what we have. I don't think it wise to remain > silent about everything I don't know how to fix. Nor would it be > wise to squawk about all of them. We have to pick our battles. > > - samantha > Open Source Electronic Voting System. Emlyn From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 03:25:11 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:25:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> Message-ID: <62c14240610052025h39989898v332ede91108ed484@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Highly skilled rationalists who understand intelligence are going to be > on guard against: > > Separate magisteria; > Extensional neglect; > Scope neglect; > Inconsistent evaluations of different verbal descriptions of the same > events; > not to mention, > Failure to search for better third alternatives; > Fatuous philosophy that sounds like deep wisdom; and > Self-destructive impulses. > > I do not claim to be a highly skilled rationalist. So I will only ask a question. What if the superior processing power was something similar to the Star Trek Borg? I know, this is "science [sic] fiction" but the concept is akin to forced upload into a Matrioshka Brain. Would we collectively be "better off" in terms of escaping the zero-sum life experience? Each individual in the collective could feasibly believe they were at the top of the hierarchy. Rather than fighting amongst ourselves over the limited biochemicals contained on this rock called Earth, we could simulate the misery of earthly existence for the nostalgic masochists who refuse to move on. I know the 'Borg' were depicted as horrible enemies of humanity - but once you get over the serialization-upload-deserialization procedure, "life" as the uploaded are concerned could be at least equal if not infinitely easier. If this is an amusing enough thought to point out which of the above enumerated rational failures were employed, I would actually appreciate the insight. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Fri Oct 6 03:38:13 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:38:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <62c14240610052025h39989898v332ede91108ed484@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> <62c14240610052025h39989898v332ede91108ed484@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4525CFA5.8070704@pobox.com> Mike Dougherty wrote: > > I do not claim to be a highly skilled rationalist. So I will only ask a > question. > > What if the superior processing power was something similar to the Star > Trek Borg? I know, this is "science [sic] fiction" but the concept is > akin to forced upload into a Matrioshka Brain. Would we collectively be > "better off" in terms of escaping the zero-sum life experience? Each > individual in the collective could feasibly believe they were at the top > of the hierarchy. Rather than fighting amongst ourselves over the > limited biochemicals contained on this rock called Earth, we could > simulate the misery of earthly existence for the nostalgic masochists > who refuse to move on. I know the 'Borg' were depicted as horrible > enemies of humanity - but once you get over the > serialization-upload-deserialization procedure, "life" as the uploaded > are concerned could be at least equal if not infinitely easier. I don't understand your "what if". What if what? What if the above is the actual outcome? (Answer: it's a complex scenario with no specific support given so it's very improbable a priori.) What about the above as an optimal solution from a humane standpoint? (Answer: it seems easier to conceive of third alternatives which are better.) -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From riel at surriel.com Fri Oct 6 03:46:58 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:46:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <4525D1B2.40904@surriel.com> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Anyone have thoughts on this? > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7877.html It really depends. IRC is a lot better for some discussions than email, while email works better when you have more complex arguments to explain. Neither really works for collaborative creation, though. Discussion has its place, but we tend to discuss the same few things over and over again without making real progress. Wikis are great for collaborative content creation. They mostly work when people know what they're writing about... I'm hosting public wikis on http://wikiwall.org/ some of which are turning out successful. Deepamehta looks like it should work even when people do not exactly know yet what they're thinking about. http://www.deepamehta.de/ has information on the program. Collaborative mindmapping could fill in a nice gap between email / chat and wikis. I want to set up a public Deepamehta server soon to see if that works better for collaborative brainstorming. -- Who do you trust? The people with all the right answers? Or the people with the right questions? From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Oct 6 06:07:41 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:07:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1159770735.13119.4.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <059901c6e90d$be9c9fa0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha wrote (Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:32 PM) > Lee Corbin wrote: > >> That could be true, but I believe it depends on future events. Do you almost >> daily think about what your reactions would be if a terrorist nuke was to go >> off in a large American city? > > Of course not. Do you? What for? Seems like a terrible waste of > emotional energy. Thank you for your generous interest in how I spend my time. It's nice when you know that others care; and I'll be sure to consult you whenever I begin to feel unable to manage my time sensibly. For your information, I try to confine such thinking to odd moments. Actually, there are dozens of items like this that I ponder any number of times each week. Even more often I mentally prepare myself for The Big One, or (!) if it turns out that Elvis Is Still Alive. >> Do you think that your feelings and intuitions would change at all? > > Such hypotheticals are utterly useless to the issues at hand. No, they're not. They're the only insurance against panic. No guarantee, of course, but it helps. Please also see my remarks to Russell. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Oct 6 06:03:01 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:03:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com><451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net><45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net><8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com><051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell wrote (Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:26 PM) [Lee wrote] > > what [would be] your reactions would be if a terrorist nuke was to go > > off in a large American city? Do you think that your feelings and intuitions > > would change at all? > > My feelings and intuitions, like yours, say anything that hints of enemy action > should be assigned the highest priority. I know exactly why they say that. > They evolved in conditions where intraspecies violence was the main cause > of death that we could do something about. That is correct. > That circumstance no longer obtains, With the faint-hearted, sickening, and virulent memes you're peddling, that circumstance [we revert to barbarism] is made more likely. > and our feelings and intuitions therefore give completely the wrong answer > when we evaluate today's problems. Since we _know_ they give the wrong > answer, Begging the question. > and we know why, we should use reason instead. Hmm. Well, lessee..... on the one hand we can use our rational faculties..., or abandon reason and be like the beasts we were before. I wonder which choice should be made...? Rationality is extremely complicated---or rather, attempts to be fully rational are *not* simple. It's absurd to believe that you can instantly apply a numbers calculus in the easy way you propose. Please take a look at "The Robot's Rebellion" if you've not already read it. Even though written by a non-libertarian (choke, a socialist!), it splendidly assays the difficulties. > Look at the cold numbers: how many people worldwide have been > killed by terrorists from 2001 to today? Some thousands, maybe into > five digits. How many lives have been lost from all causes in that same > time? Nearly _three hundred million_. You are, of course, referring (in a most praiseworthy way) to the Deathoid Holocaust. Yes indeed: some 50-100 million die each year unfrozen, and with no hope whatsoever. > Even a nuclear explosion in a major city would be a drop in the ocean on > that scale. Yass..., of course it would. I am sure that *you* at least and your sympathizers on this list would react most calmly say, if that nuclear bomb devastated central London. Even were 100,000 people killed, that's on the order of one-tenth of one percent of the Deathoid Holocaust's yearly ravage. (And besides, like 9-11, it's not likely to recur every year.) Well... okay, so you wouldn't? You'd panic, most likely, and unlike me your emotions would be a cauldron that'd probably entirely interfere with rational thought. I know exactly how I'd feel; I daresay you don't. And I know what I'd think and what I'd advise. > Note also that you only answered the lesser half of my argument. Sorry I don't have time for everything I'd like to opine on. Returning to the above argument, failure to recognize enemies for what they are, and failure to make personal sacrifices (call them irrational for your vehicle if you like) will be the death of civilization. Would you really be willing to in any way to hazard your honor, your fortune, and your sacred life to come to the aid of your country? (The order there, sad to say, is different today.) No, I'm sure you would not. That, after all, would be patriotic. Okay, then what about coming to the aid of your civilization instead? Same answer? Some people thought it wasn't rational in 1938 to "fight for King and country" and look what happened next. There is causality, and you *are* making the West weak, both in appearance and reality. Lee P.S. My apologies if you aren't British; please pretend that you are for the sake of the questions. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 6 06:39:41 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 08:39:41 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0610051714p355d446by1cf7b1a0b6ae954b@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> <62c14240610042002k6bebc6dbha1681a9a9029fb36@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0610042313i4cf115b3ne2da835c6117dc4f@mail.gmail.com> <391B2A37-A95B-4F84-9A3B-88B18D129280@mac.com> <710b78fc0610051714p355d446by1cf7b1a0b6ae954b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061006063941.GW21640@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:44:47AM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > That's why I use gmail. I don't want to be trapped by a corporate > email account ever again. I redirect everything into my gmail, and my You've only swapped one corporate jail for another. (And one with a company that has a history of playing fast and loose with privacy). If you want email done right, you have to do it yourself. There might be no IM/mail integration, but there are open source solutions you can run on your own servers. > ongoing email memory is my concern from then on, excellently > searchable, accessible everywhere. If only I could pay google some So is http://www.zimbra.com/products/hosted_demo.php > pittance to ensure that my email was going to stick around into the > long term, or at least have an archiving mechanism to give me some > insurance. But the app is so good, I'm willing to keep taking that > chance. My main beef with Google is surrendering privacy. It's the one-stop shop for any TLA on the information superhighway. And anyone who trusts a corporation with anything not related to maximizing revenue is walking on very thin ice. -- 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 ben at goertzel.org Fri Oct 6 07:15:39 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 03:15:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150610060015m13485a37kf435ddaaa136ea88@mail.gmail.com> Eli wrote: > > I do not see why this attitude is inconsistent with a deep > > understanding of the nature of intelligence, and a profound > > rationality. > > Hell, Ben, you aren't willing to say publicly that Arthur T. Murray is a > fool. In general you seem very reluctant to admit that certain things > are inconsistent with rationality - a charity level that *I* think is > inconsistent with rationality. Heh.... Eli, this is a very humorous statement about me, and one that definitely would not be written by anyone who knew me well in person !!!! I have to say that making this kind of generalization about me, based on your very limited knowledge of me as a human being, is rather irrational on your part ;-) ... My ex-wife would **really** get a kick out of the idea that I am "reluctant to admit that certain things are inconsistent with rationality" ;-) I think there are a LOT of things that are inconsistent with rationality ... though it's also true that some humans can be highly rational in some domains and highly irrational in others, and effectively maintain a strict separation between the domains. (For example, I know some excellent scientists who are also deeply religious, but separate the two domains verrry strictly so their rationality in science is not pragmatically affected by their irrationality in personal and spiritual life.) However, I don't think that advocating the creation of superhuman AI even in the face of considerable risk that it will annihilate humanity, is **irrational**. It is simply a choice of goals that is different from your, Eliezer's, currently preferred choice. > -- "Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks" > > I seriously doubt that your friend is processing that question with the > same part of his brain that he uses to decide e.g. whether to > deliberately drive into oncoming traffic or throw his three-year-old > daughter off a hotel balcony. No, but so what? The part of his mind that decides whether to throw someone off a balcony or to drive into traffic is his EMOTIONS ... the part of his mind that decides whether a potentially dangerous superhuman AI should be allowed to be created is his REASON which is more dispassionately making judgments based on less personal and emotional aspects of his value system... It is not logically inconsistent to a) value being alive more than being dead b) value a superhuman AI's life more than the human race's life > Your friend, I suspect, is carrying out a form of non-extensional > reasoning which consists of reacting to verbal descriptions of events > quite differently than how he would react to witnessing even a small > sample of the human deaths involved. Well, but why do you consider it irrational for someone to make a considered judgment that contradicts their primal emotional reactions? In this case, the person may just be making a decision to adopt a supergoal that contradicts their emotional reactions, even though they are not able to actually extinguish their emotional reactions... > But a skilled rationalist who knows about extensional neglect is not > likely to endorse the destruction of Earth unless they also endorse the > death of Human_1, Human_2, Human_3, ... themselves, their mother, ... > Human_6e9. But it is quite consistent to endorse the destruction of all these humans (individually or en masse) IN EXCHANGE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE PERCEIVED AS BETTER, but not to endorse the destruction of all these humans FOR NO REASON AT ALL ... > Also I expect that your friend is making a mistake of simple fact, with > respect to what kind of superhumans these are likely to be - he thinks > they'll be better just because they've got more processing power, an old > old mistake I once made myself. No, he is not making this mistake. He thinks they'll be better because he thinks our evolutionary "design" sucks and appropriately engineered AI systems can be ethically as well as intellectually superior by design... Ben From sentience at pobox.com Fri Oct 6 07:46:25 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:46:25 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610060015m13485a37kf435ddaaa136ea88@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060015m13485a37kf435ddaaa136ea88@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <452609D1.5090709@pobox.com> Ben Goertzel wrote: > Eli wrote: > >>>I do not see why this attitude is inconsistent with a deep >>>understanding of the nature of intelligence, and a profound >>>rationality. >> >>Hell, Ben, you aren't willing to say publicly that Arthur T. Murray is a >>fool. In general you seem very reluctant to admit that certain things >>are inconsistent with rationality - a charity level that *I* think is >>inconsistent with rationality. > > Heh.... Eli, this is a very humorous statement about me, and one that > definitely would not be written by anyone who knew me well in person > !!!! I have to say that making this kind of generalization about me, > based on your very limited knowledge of me as a human being, is rather > irrational on your part ;-) ... My ex-wife would **really** get a kick > out of the idea that I am "reluctant to admit that certain things are > inconsistent with rationality" ;-) Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of things which you admit are inconsistent with rationality. Arthur T. Murray is apparently not one of them, which suggests your standards are a bit lax. You are too charitable, and this is also a flaw. > I think there are a LOT of things that are inconsistent with > rationality ... though it's also true that some humans can be highly > rational in some domains and highly irrational in others, and > effectively maintain a strict separation between the domains. (For > example, I know some excellent scientists who are also deeply > religious, but separate the two domains verrry strictly so their > rationality in science is not pragmatically affected by their > irrationality in personal and spiritual life.) > > However, I don't think that advocating the creation of superhuman AI > even in the face of considerable risk that it will annihilate > humanity, is **irrational**. It is simply a choice of goals that is > different from your, Eliezer's, currently preferred choice. Heh. Considerable risk? Your friend spoke of the *desirability* of such an outcome, not the risk of it. Both of these are foolishness but they are foolish in different ways. In the former case it is a moral error, pure and simple. In the latter case, it is a result of vague ideas leading you to not know the rigorous reasons which show why rigor, i.e., theories strong enough to formally calculate extremely low failure probabilities, is required in order to succeed. If you don't know the rules, you don't know the rule whereby you could see that not knowing the rules definitely kills you. But that's a separate issue. >> -- "Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks" >> >>I seriously doubt that your friend is processing that question with the >>same part of his brain that he uses to decide e.g. whether to >>deliberately drive into oncoming traffic or throw his three-year-old >>daughter off a hotel balcony. > > No, but so what? > > The part of his mind that decides whether to throw someone off a > balcony or to drive into traffic is his EMOTIONS ... the part of his > mind that decides whether a potentially dangerous superhuman AI should > be allowed to be created is his REASON which is more dispassionately > making judgments based on less personal and emotional aspects of his > value system... The comfort of cynicism is an emotion, though it is mistaken by many for rationality. "The second virtue is relinquishment. P. C. Hodgell said: "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." Do not flinch from experiences that might destroy your beliefs. The thought you cannot think controls you more than thoughts you speak aloud. Submit yourself to ordeals and test yourself in fire. Relinquish the emotion which rests upon a mistaken belief, and seek to feel fully that emotion which fits the facts. If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is hot, and it is cool, the Way opposes your fear. If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is cool, and it is hot, the Way opposes your calm. Evaluate your beliefs first and then arrive at your emotions. Let yourself say: "If the iron is hot, I desire to believe it is hot, and if it is cool, I desire to believe it is cool." Beware lest you become attached to beliefs you may not want." > It is not logically inconsistent to > > a) value being alive more than being dead > b) value a superhuman AI's life more than the human race's life What kind of AI? How hard is it to build this kind of AI? Is that kind of AI likely to wipe out humans in the first place? But this of course is a dispute of fact. >>Your friend, I suspect, is carrying out a form of non-extensional >>reasoning which consists of reacting to verbal descriptions of events >>quite differently than how he would react to witnessing even a small >>sample of the human deaths involved. > > Well, but why do you consider it irrational for someone to make a > considered judgment that contradicts their primal emotional reactions? That depends on the *why* of the considered judgment. We form deliberative moral principles through an essentially emotional process, even though those principles may later override other emotions. If the moral principle itself is formed through flawed reasoning - reasoning which could be destroyed by some particular truth - then the process as a whole is irrational. "A chain of a thousand links will arrive at a correct conclusion if every step is correct, but if one step is wrong it may carry you anywhere. In mathematics a mountain of good deeds cannot atone for a single sin. Therefore, be careful on every step." > In this case, the person may just be making a decision to adopt a > supergoal that contradicts their emotional reactions, even though they > are not able to actually extinguish their emotional reactions... And Arthur T. Murray *may* be secretly a genius, but it is not likely. I once constructed an incorrect moral ontology (Eliezer_1996-1999) that forced me to consider a similar tradeoff, but I never thought it was *likely* that a nice superintelligence would kill people because it was the right thing to do. In those days I thought it was a serious possibility, because in those days I didn't understand how I was evaluating "right thing to do", so for all I knew it would end up anywhere. But I never thought murder was a *likely* good deed. That, to me, suggests a different category of mistake. > No, he is not making this mistake. He thinks they'll be better > because he thinks our evolutionary "design" sucks So it does. For example, it leads people to try to solve problems by murder, without even looking for a third alternative. > and appropriately > engineered AI systems can be ethically as well as intellectually > superior by design... I believe the children are our future, but only if they're very carefully designed; I believe I'm more ethical than my own parents, and somehow, I don't want to kill them because of that; And if I did want to kill my parents for the crime of still having things yet to learn, then I would have gone wrong, and certainly my life would not be worth more than theirs, or so my present self judges. Anyway. I'm not interested in arguing with your friend secondhand. Say what you yourself think is *optimal* reasoning, and I may be interested in disputing it. As for what you think *may* be rational, that's a class large enough to include Mentifex, so I may have to say that we have different standards for what "may" be "rational" and close it at that. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 6 08:03:31 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:03:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0610052023qa5abcd7h1335fed74a713373@mail.gmail.com> References: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> <4525642C.1000905@pobox.com> <710b78fc0610052023qa5abcd7h1335fed74a713373@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061006080331.GX21640@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:53:26PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > Open Source Electronic Voting System. No computers. Just plain pencil and paper. I don't trust any electronic system with anything as important as the decision which clowns run the asylum next. There is some limited use for smart-card based *very well designed and debugged system which are under constant public scrutiny* for a direct democracy, especially local-scale. There must be a law that this channel must invalid for top-level decision, effectively irreversibly so. If you think I'm going overboard, then you probably less familiar with the problem space than you think. -- 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 ben at goertzel.org Fri Oct 6 08:10:48 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:10:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <452609D1.5090709@pobox.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060015m13485a37kf435ddaaa136ea88@mail.gmail.com> <452609D1.5090709@pobox.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150610060110x60a929a5m78c1e944d50ec89b@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > Anyway. I'm not interested in arguing with your friend secondhand. Say > what you yourself think is *optimal* reasoning, and I may be interested > in disputing it. As for what you think *may* be rational, that's a > class large enough to include Mentifex, so I may have to say that we > have different standards for what "may" be "rational" and close it at that. I do not know what is optimal reasoning, and I don't believe you know either, nor does any human.... I definitely do not find your own reasoning optimal... For instance, you have repeatedly claimed quite confidently that "any AI not provably Friendly is very very likely to wind up extremely unFriendly", without ever presenting any remotely convincing reasoning in favor of this contention ;-) As for my friend's reasoning, I know him pretty well and find his reasoning and attitudes quite rational. However, it may be that I am using the word "rational" differently than you are. It is definitely the case that his emotional reactions to many situations do not agree with his considered evaluations of these situations. In this sense he is an inconsistent system: there are many situations to which parts of his mind react positively but parts react negatively. However, he does not seem to maintain any statements that are logically contradictory to each other, nor does he seem to mis-estimate odds of events in a systematic or extreme way. I am not sure in what sense you are claiming his attitude is "irrational." As for Mentifex, I see no purpose to draw him into this discussion extensively. I must state that although Mentifex has made many claims I don't believe, and has sometimes irritated me by excessive spamming, I do find I have some odd affection for the chap ;-) ... If I ever start drinking alcohol again (it's been a few years) perhaps I will invite him out for a beer! And generally: I have not found that my emotional affection for an individual is anywhere near proportional to my perception of their rationality.... (if this were the case, my love-life would have gone quite differently in many instances!!) -- Ben G From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 6 08:23:59 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:23:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:14:33PM -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote: > I asked a friend recently what he thought about the prospect of > superhuman beings annihilating humans to make themselves more > processing substrate... > > His response: "It's about time." Not quite, I hope. I'd like my kids to grow up. > When asked what he meant, he said simply, "We're not so great, and Not so great in comparison to what? > we've been dominating the planet long enough. Let something better Better in which sense? Fitter doesn't mean better, especially if you're at the receiving end. > have its turn." I understand Moravec is of a similiar persuasion. Well, it's an opinion, and I'm glad people with that opinion are not in charge of the world. > I do not see why this attitude is inconsistent with a deep > understanding of the nature of intelligence, and a profound > rationality. I don't know what profound rationality is, but your brand of it seems to exclude such basic fare like self-preservation. -- 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 Fri Oct 6 08:40:27 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:40:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610060110x60a929a5m78c1e944d50ec89b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060015m13485a37kf435ddaaa136ea88@mail.gmail.com> <452609D1.5090709@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060110x60a929a5m78c1e944d50ec89b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061006084027.GA21640@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 04:10:48AM -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote: > I do not know what is optimal reasoning, and I don't believe you know > either, nor does any human.... I definitely do not find your own > reasoning optimal... The word optimal is meaningless without context and a metric. > For instance, you have repeatedly claimed quite confidently that "any > AI not provably Friendly is very very likely to wind up extremely > unFriendly", without ever presenting any remotely convincing reasoning > in favor of this contention ;-) The point is that a population of uncaring high-fitness beings will cause extinctions on a very large scale. We do. I wouldn't call it unfriendly, because unfriendly means to actually seek out and terminate with extreme prejudice. If you're missing reasoning for that, then I suggest you look into evolutionary biology and human history, and take a look out of your window. > As for my friend's reasoning, I know him pretty well and find his > reasoning and attitudes quite rational. However, it may be that I am > using the word "rational" differently than you are. Again, rational doesn't mean much without further decoration. > I am not sure in what sense you are claiming his attitude is "irrational." Most people tend to value life. I would call a person who's indifferent or hostile to his own well-being at least slightly pathological. I don't see why you're so fixated on that rational thing, whatever that is. -- 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 mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Oct 6 10:45:41 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 06:45:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] exit polls In-Reply-To: <20061006080331.GX21640@leitl.org> References: <200610050220.k952KJBu000921@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <452470A9.3080502@goldenfuture.net> <43AB14C8-0878-433E-91AD-E791008FDF31@mac.com> <4525642C.1000905@pobox.com> <710b78fc0610052023qa5abcd7h1335fed74a713373@mail.gmail.com> <20061006080331.GX21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <34399.72.236.103.244.1160131541.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > No computers. Just plain pencil and paper. > Thank you, Eugen! :) It goes counter to my desire, but sometimes an old tried and true way works best. At least for the time being. It's easier for ordinary folks (most of the people overseeing elections and polling places) to deal with - and to see when things aren't right. Elections must aim for being clear, plain, obvious, open-for-all-to-see, that there is no "funny stuff"... At this place in time, pencil and paper seem the best fit to me. Regards, MB From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 12:42:46 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 08:42:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <4525CFA5.8070704@pobox.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> <62c14240610052025h39989898v332ede91108ed484@mail.gmail.com> <4525CFA5.8070704@pobox.com> Message-ID: <62c14240610060542y17c4e7cfkd89b5c5685983813@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > I don't understand your "what if". What if what? What if the above is > the actual outcome? (Answer: it's a complex scenario with no specific > support given so it's very improbable a priori.) What about the above > as an optimal solution from a humane standpoint? (Answer: it seems > easier to conceive of third alternatives which are better.) > in response to: > I asked a friend recently what he thought about the prospect of > superhuman beings annihilating humans to make themselves more > processing substrate... > > His response: "It's about time." > > When asked what he meant, he said simply, "We're not so great, and > we've been dominating the planet long enough. Let something better > have its turn." true the scenario is unlikely - as much as superhuman beings would ever annihilate humans. There is a much greater likelihood that we will annihilate ourselves first. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Fri Oct 6 15:48:17 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:48:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <20061006084027.GA21640@leitl.org> References: <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060015m13485a37kf435ddaaa136ea88@mail.gmail.com> <452609D1.5090709@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060110x60a929a5m78c1e944d50ec89b@mail.gmail.com> <20061006084027.GA21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <638d4e150610060848l1ee07f4bi6e536c90221aca9f@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > > For instance, you have repeatedly claimed quite confidently that "any > > AI not provably Friendly is very very likely to wind up extremely > > unFriendly", without ever presenting any remotely convincing reasoning > > in favor of this contention ;-) > > The point is that a population of uncaring high-fitness beings will cause > extinctions on a very large scale. We do. I wouldn't call it unfriendly, > because unfriendly means to actually seek out and terminate with extreme > prejudice. If you're missing reasoning for that, then I > suggest you look into evolutionary biology and human history, > and take a look out of your window. You are missing my point ... there is a difference between a) not provably caring and b) uncaring I agree that a superhuman AI that doesn't give a shit about us is reasonably likely to be dangerous. What I don't see is why Eliezer thinks an AI that is apparently not likely to be dangerous, but about whose benevolence it's apparently formidably different to construct a formal proof, is highly likely to be dangerous. I also think that looking to evolutionary biology for guidance about superhuman AI's is a mistake, BTW. > Most people tend to value life. I would call a person who's indifferent > or hostile to his own well-being at least slightly pathological. > I don't see why you're so fixated on that rational thing, whatever that is. This thread began as a discussion of whether or not rationality rules out a certain attitude toward the preservation of human life. I don't find it accurate to say that I'm fixated on rationality, though I do consider it important. -- Ben From ben at goertzel.org Fri Oct 6 15:53:30 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:53:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> References: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <638d4e150610060853o76ed64f8lace4c32fcaebb4bb@mail.gmail.com> > > I do not see why this attitude is inconsistent with a deep > > understanding of the nature of intelligence, and a profound > > rationality. > > I don't know what profound rationality is, but your brand > of it seems to exclude such basic fare like self-preservation. No... it just doesn't GUARANTEE a value being placed on self-preservation... Ben From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 6 16:10:34 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:10:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610060853o76ed64f8lace4c32fcaebb4bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <638d4e150610060853o76ed64f8lace4c32fcaebb4bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061006161034.GL21640@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 11:53:30AM -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > I don't know what profound rationality is, but your brand > > of it seems to exclude such basic fare like self-preservation. > > No... it just doesn't GUARANTEE a value being placed on self-preservation... Then it would tend to be really fragile long-term, no? -- 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 Fri Oct 6 16:12:16 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:12:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > With the faint-hearted, sickening, and virulent memes you're peddling, > that > circumstance [we revert to barbarism] is made more likely. What you're doing here is reading my words for their affect value. I quite carefully formulated a number of paragraphs in an attempt to say precisely what I meant and not what I didn't mean, and you're using only a single bit: good guy vs bad guy. As it happens, you have tagged my sympathies entirely incorrectly; if you look at what I actually wrote, you'll note that I specifically stated the likes of al-Qaida are our enemies and have to be fought. What I am opposed to is autoimmune disease: allowing our supposed protectors to turn inwards and target us instead of our enemies. Perhaps more fundamentally, I'm arguing precisely against making decisions by affect value. Not every proposal that wraps itself in stirring words about fighting the bad guys is actually going to be helpful against said bad guys. (Reader's home exercise: think of 57 historical examples.) Well... okay, so you wouldn't? You'd panic, most likely, and unlike me your > emotions would be a cauldron that'd probably entirely interfere with > rational > thought. I know exactly how I'd feel; I daresay you don't. And I know > what > I'd think and what I'd advise. As it happens, I do know what I would feel, think and advocate in that event, though I don't spend time contemplating it every day; I think it better to spend my mental energy on things that have a significant chance of being actually helpful. Returning to the above argument, failure to recognize enemies for what they > are, and failure to make personal sacrifices (call them irrational for > your > vehicle if you like) will be the death of civilization. Would you really > be willing > to in any way to hazard your honor, your fortune, and your sacred life to > come > to the aid of your country? (The order there, sad to say, is different > today.) > > No, I'm sure you would not. That, after all, would be patriotic. Okay, > then > what about coming to the aid of your civilization instead? Same answer? I'm afraid you are entirely incorrect. I could claim (and happen to believe) that if the primary threat today came from armed men speaking a foreign language, I would have volunteered for military service, but boasts are wind and deeds are hard, so I will note instead what I have chosen to spend my life, fortune and sacred honor on: attempting to figure out how to develop AI. It's not glamorous, it doesn't earn the respect of my fellow man, it's a very long way past the difficulty level at which it stopped being fun, and an objective assessment of the probability of success indicates that I'm going to die trying, but as far as I can see it has a higher expected (success probability times value if successful) contribution to the survival and welfare of my country, civilization and species than anything else I could do. Some people thought it wasn't rational in 1938 to "fight for King and > country" > and look what happened next. There is causality, and you *are* making the > West weak, both in appearance and reality. > If you're looking to criticize someone for trying to make the West weak, you've got the wrong guy I'm afraid. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Fri Oct 6 16:22:23 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:22:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <20061006161034.GL21640@leitl.org> References: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <638d4e150610060853o76ed64f8lace4c32fcaebb4bb@mail.gmail.com> <20061006161034.GL21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <638d4e150610060922g3a82094qc553dd39efb4df67@mail.gmail.com> Rationality, as I see it, is not intrinsically correlated with either fragility or stability. Coupled with a goal of self-preservation, rationality can of course lead to highly effective self-preservation... ?? ben On 10/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 11:53:30AM -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > > I don't know what profound rationality is, but your brand > > > of it seems to exclude such basic fare like self-preservation. > > > > No... it just doesn't GUARANTEE a value being placed on self-preservation... > > Then it would tend to be really fragile long-term, no? > > -- > 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 > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFFJn/6dbAkQ4sp9r4RAqpoAJ9zfx13xGnllxK4swVWGB7oI8KnRgCfYa0L > NmRyD7Pv1HqRPHN57/AyMYg= > =TYrz > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 17:24:23 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:24:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> References: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610061024v22985852j1f7cb68b58eb9643@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I understand Moravec is of a similiar persuasion. > Well, it's an opinion, and I'm glad people with that > opinion are not in charge of the world. > I agree completely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at gmail.com Mon Oct 2 03:12:29 2006 From: femmechakra at gmail.com (Anna Taylor) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 20:12:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Islamic morons win yet again In-Reply-To: <45207D63.5070005@pobox.com> References: <00ea01c6e3ee$d65b7f40$290a4e0c@MyComputer> <20060929211452.39597.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> <03ca01c6e4a3$ed3c1de0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <451EC22D.2000304@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061001212625.02282fd8@satx.rr.com> <45207D63.5070005@pobox.com> Message-ID: <11cc03d50610012012t1c1b41c6x75f0d0431734c5d9@mail.gmail.com> Damien wrote: they could do things with their lives in addition to producing and looking after one child after another after another...The Somebody wrote: matter of total mystery to me is *why.* I don't have the least idea of why women would restrict family size at the times they did. Any ideas would be appreciated. Anna writes: I think that's a good beginning:) Why is it that man or woman would not want to reproduce? Just curious Anna:) On 10/1/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 12:14 PM 9/30/2006 -0700, Eliezer wrote: > > > >>+1 insightful: > >>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1700/ > >>"Iraq: the world's first Suicide State" > > > > A learned friend writes: > > > > invaders > > or colonizers, to restore the historical dominance of one ethnic or > > religious group or to establish a new structure of dominance, or to impose > a > > particular set of religious rules--goals which are held by the various > > indigenous factions who are killing people in Iraq--is hardly "fighting > for > > nothing in particular." There isn't one manifesto that fits everybody > > toting a gun or a bomb--there are a number of contending factions--but the > > fact that it can't all be summed up easily in this guy's PowerPoint > > presentation doesn't make it "aimless." Different participants have > > different aims. This is far from unusual--consider the various factions > > involved in the South African resistance.> > > Fair enough. > > - E > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From nlbarna at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 17:04:03 2006 From: nlbarna at gmail.com (Nathan Barna) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:04:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610060922g3a82094qc553dd39efb4df67@mail.gmail.com> References: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <638d4e150610060853o76ed64f8lace4c32fcaebb4bb@mail.gmail.com> <20061006161034.GL21640@leitl.org> <638d4e150610060922g3a82094qc553dd39efb4df67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <761b6df90610061004i5e8f25bo3ddc4ba565152094@mail.gmail.com> Ben Goertzel wrote: > Rationality, as I see it, is not intrinsically correlated with either > fragility or stability. Right. My own understanding, so far, of rationality is that it's intrinsically correlated with coherence, though. Given an explicit willingness to be rational, it would be hard to be willfully incoherent. Then given this bare-bones presupposition, it's hard to be coherent and be selective about knowledge, when you should want to know it all (or outsource to entities that can), which I believe underlies Eliezer's points in guarding against, specifically, /separate magisteria/ and /scope neglect/. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 6 17:58:35 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:58:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610060853o76ed64f8lace4c32fcaebb4bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <638d4e150610060853o76ed64f8lace4c32fcaebb4bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061006175835.GM21640@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 11:53:30AM -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote: > No... it just doesn't GUARANTEE a value being placed on self-preservation... I still don't know what you mean when you use 'rational'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality says several things, some of them being "In economics, sociology, and political science, a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals. Thus one speaks, for example, of a rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. In this concept of "rationality", the individual's goals or motives are taken for granted and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise. Thus rationality simply refers to the success of goal attainment, whatever those goals may be. Sometimes, in this context, rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish. Sometimes rationality implies having complete knowledge about all the details of a given situation. It might be said that because the goals are not important in definition of rationality, it really only demands logical consistency in choice making. See rational choice theory. Debates arise in these three fields about whether or not people or organizations are "really" rational, as well as whether it make sense to model them as such in formal models. Some have argued that a kind of bounded rationality makes more sense for such models. Others think that any kind of rationality along the lines of rational choice theory is a useless concept for understanding human behavior; the term homo economicus (economic man: the imaginary logically consistent but amoral being assumed in economic models) was coined largely in honor of this view. Sociologist Max Weber's writing can be interpreted as suggesting an increasing irrationality of rationality. Rationality is a central principle in artificial intelligence, where a rational agent is specifically defined as an agent which always chooses the action which maximises its expected performance, given all of the knowledge it currently possesses." Perhaps you want to define your use of the term. -- 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 benboc at lineone.net Fri Oct 6 18:01:59 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:01:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45269A17.109@lineone.net> Anders asked: > Any suggestions? Well, here's a tentative one (tentative because i haven't finished reading it yet): Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War" (and i think "Marooned in Realtime" as well, that's next on my list) The protagonist uses IA to beat the baddies (or not. Maybe i should say 'fight the baddies'). Uses rather a poor concept of using scalp electrodes, rather than proper neural interfacing, but the idea's there. ben zaiboc From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 6 18:43:05 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:43:05 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610060848l1ee07f4bi6e536c90221aca9f@mail.gmail.com> References: <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060015m13485a37kf435ddaaa136ea88@mail.gmail.com> <452609D1.5090709@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060110x60a929a5m78c1e944d50ec89b@mail.gmail.com> <20061006084027.GA21640@leitl.org> <638d4e150610060848l1ee07f4bi6e536c90221aca9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061006184305.GN21640@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote: > You are missing my point ... there is a difference between > > a) not provably caring Sorry, proofs don't work at all in the real physical world. They work more or less in the formal domain, where their reach is still very limited (but also very flattening). Since AIs have to operate in the physical domain to be of any use (even theoretical physics is not very theoretical, being grounded in constraints from empirical observations) I don't see how proofs are of any use there. You certainly can't prove your way of a literal (brown, wrinkled, slightly soggy) paper bag. > and > > b) uncaring > > I agree that a superhuman AI that doesn't give a shit about us is > reasonably likely to be dangerous. What I don't see is why Eliezer It's never a single being, it's always a population. Given the speed of evolution in the solid state, it's going to be a highly diverse population of agents, very soon. Of all levels of complexity and motivations. What a single (especially superhuman) agent is going to do can't be predicted at all. What a population of diverse critters with metabolism roaming the countryside can do of that we do have at least some slight idea. We've been soaking in it for quite some time now, and the results are entirely rational and quite deadly to anything not on two legs, and a few war profiteers. > thinks an AI that is apparently not likely to be dangerous, but about How can an artificial species (especially, a superintelligent one) suddenly operating in the here and now not be dangerous? Even conventional invasive species wreck havoc to select parts of the ecosystem. The most invasive species of them all, us, makes much less distinctions. It crashes biodiversity without discrimination, and regresses entire ecosystem under human impact stress. We could end up at the receiving end of it quite suddenly, if bigger players than us were to burst upon the scene. > whose benevolence it's apparently formidably different to construct a > formal proof, is highly likely to be dangerous. Since you can't define benevolence formally, it's not possible to build a chain of logic giving information about benevolence in any meaningful way. (Even in a really limited formal system like chess proofs are pure toilet paper). > I also think that looking to evolutionary biology for guidance about > superhuman AI's is a mistake, BTW. I'm never arguing about motivations of superhuman AIs but only deriving some very loose constraints upon a population of postbiological beings emerged locally, and then radiated/speciated, some of them superhuman, some dumb as dirt, operating in this solar system, using physical laws as we know them. Having this said, evolutionary biology does give us some answers. Unless you're proposing an alternative theory with a better success track, there's yet no point in abandoning this particular (cracked, blind, astigmatic) crystall ball. I'm curious why you think evolutionary theory (a superset of game theory) and usual physics are not applicable to a population of postbiological critters. You must have reasons for your position. > This thread began as a discussion of whether or not rationality rules > out a certain attitude toward the preservation of human life. My flavor of rationality does. Perhaps I should switch to Coke, though. > I don't find it accurate to say that I'm fixated on rationality, > though I do consider it important. I'm considering it very important personally; but also only one strategy of many. -- 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 neuronexmachina at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 19:11:18 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:11:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <45269A17.109@lineone.net> References: <45269A17.109@lineone.net> Message-ID: Of course, there's also Vinge's "True Names." Vinge's "Deepness in the Sky" also had those monomaniacal "Focus" slaves. On 10/6/06, ben wrote: > > Anders asked: > > > Any suggestions? > > Well, here's a tentative one (tentative because i haven't finished > reading it yet): > > Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War" (and i think "Marooned in Realtime" as > well, that's next on my list) > > The protagonist uses IA to beat the baddies (or not. Maybe i should say > 'fight the baddies'). > > Uses rather a poor concept of using scalp electrodes, rather than proper > neural interfacing, but the idea's there. > > ben zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > 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 michaelanissimov at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 19:59:10 2006 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:59:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: <20061002101111.GK21640@leitl.org> References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <20060929112008.GM21640@leitl.org> <4520E3AC.1030607@ramonsky.com> <20061002101111.GK21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <51ce64f10610061259v6fa373dfnebea5f5203f09aff@mail.gmail.com> On 10/2/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I'm hazarding that most other people don't. How's for a poll, here? > Would you call it blissed out, or something else? (If yes, how would > you describe it?). Borderline overrevelatory... momentarily confusing... unavoidably microanalyzing... ego fade... perceptual embellishments... melty and twisty. Snazzle frazzle zip woop. Definitely not 'blissed out'... Changing the mind makes things more different than spatial displacement ever could. Once you have the two points of reference you can draw a line and imagine all the other possibilities. On 10/2/06, BillK wrote: > > You do realise that anything significant that you post on extropy-chat > (or anywhere on the internet) is likely to immediately update your > Homeland Security Profile? JIHAD!!!! -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 6 20:14:39 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 22:14:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10610061259v6fa373dfnebea5f5203f09aff@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <20060929112008.GM21640@leitl.org> <4520E3AC.1030607@ramonsky.com> <20061002101111.GK21640@leitl.org> <51ce64f10610061259v6fa373dfnebea5f5203f09aff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061006201439.GR21640@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:59:10PM -0700, Michael Anissimov wrote: > JIHAD!!!! Hey, don't give away all my Google searches (it was jihad about 10 min ago, and just prior to that it was fedaykin). -- 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 michaelanissimov at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 20:55:39 2006 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:55:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200610451275281@M2W024.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <51ce64f10610061355k462b7936t8581aeb9883c39a2@mail.gmail.com> On 10/4/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Anyone have thoughts on this? > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7877.html My thought is, why don't extropians have chats on IRC ever? If we're all best buds like we're supposed to be, we ought to chat in realtime rather than just this touch-and-go email shiz. The only problem is getting the time-synch in order... and also finding a suitable topic. And also making it so that the more talkative types don't totally dominate the conversation. And encourage the un-IM-inclined types to log on. You know, the people who are "too busy" to get acquainted with IMing even though they spend hours a day on email. I propose Thursday evenings, America-ish time, as a general time for people to go on #extropians and hang out for chatting... I know that Keith Henson is frequently on, for example. There's also a WTA-SL chapter forming, though of course extropians and WTA-ians are not necessarily the same thing. Because of differences in politics and history. That can be fun to talk about because it's controversial, by the way. On 10/4/06, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com > > I have difficulty imagining that instant messages would have very much > memetic content. You wouldn't bother thinking out and typing your deepest > ideas into a medium so evanescent, gone like a wisp of vapor in an instant. > I can easily imagine however, content such as "how r u?" followed by > whatever is the mod hip appropriate response to that profound inquiry. Hardly gone in an instant... as Florida's beloved congressman discovered this week. Your above comments could easily have been put into IM form. In fact, I think that IM form can be superior in certain contexts. Sending out emails is like preaching to a captive audience - I get no feedback, so I can't be sure if I'm pissing people off, boring them, confusing them, or whatever. With IMing, you get the feedback. It's somewhere between F2F and mailing lists. Personal experience with Friendly AI: I read 'Creating Friendly AI' three times from beginning to end, but still kept asking, "how can you predict the actions of an AI after it modifies itself a billion times over?", and other questions-missing-the-point. *Only* after a long IM convo with Eli did it all really sink in, the short answer being, "the point is not about predicting its exact actions way off in the future, but sparking the Singularity in the most beneficial way possible". > I expect that our own conversations were not terribly deep when we were > teenagers. It was all about mating at that age, a mostly unsuccessful and > pointless exercise I might add. This is one way being an adult really is > better than being a teen. Because of reliable access to a mate? Seriously though, I was deep as a teenager because I wanted to be, and got plenty of respect as a result. In some ways I wish I were still a teenager. Most of my present-day intellectual activity is actually just embellishment on fundamental concepts I picked up as a teen. The teens nowadays get laid more, and think more, and are more mature than they were back in your time. This is an unequivocally good thing, it's a worldwide trend, and is particularly powerful in the area where we live. Google Ben Casnocha if you want an example of the type of kid Bay Area schools can produce. The funny thing about most adults is that they're slaves to their paychecks. I believe the way you once put it was "busting our asses to buy a tract shack". It's hilarious how adults 1) look around for a job to get money, 2) join up and work hard, 3) see their company as important just because it happens to be THEIR company now. But if they joined a different company, they could have just as easily had the same experience there, which dispels the so-called importance and uniqueness of the place where they actually are working. Egocentric bias at its finest. > Friends I have no issues at all with being considered an old geezer. Give > me my email, use groups, my fovorite websites, and I will cheerfuly let the > younger set how-r-u each other's brains out with no interference, objection, > or trace of envy. You seem to have some negative stereotypes regarding instant messaging in your head! Just because inarticulate people use a technology doesn't mean that that technology is inherently useless. Inarticulate people use email too, doesn't mean that email is useless. On 10/5/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Not really a recent trend. What to do depends on whether a new > medium offers advantages and/or the community around a legacy medium > declines (should I personally adopt it?) or whether you're interested in > outreach to new audiences (should I adopt new comm stuff in order > to talk to the new kids? -- I must admit I don't, they just have > nothing worthwhile to say). The new kids in transhumanism have nothing worthwhile to say? Or new kids in general? > My main beef with Google is surrendering privacy. It's the > one-stop shop for any TLA on the information superhighway. > And anyone who trusts a corporation with anything not related > to maximizing revenue is walking on very thin ice. Haven't you heard? Privacy is dead. Participatory Panopticon, baby! http://lifeboat.com/ex/security.preserver -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 21:37:34 2006 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:37:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/06, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > I asked a friend recently what he thought about the prospect of > superhuman beings annihilating humans to make themselves more > processing substrate... > > His response: "It's about time." > > When asked what he meant, he said simply, "We're not so great, and > we've been dominating the planet long enough. Let something better > have its turn." I hope you're not talking about Hugo de Garis here... > I do not see why this attitude is inconsistent with a deep > understanding of the nature of intelligence, and a profound > rationality. It isn't inconsistent with those things, but neither are a lot of attitudes. I can have a deep understanding of the nature of intelligence, and a profound rationality, and still spend my days as a pedophile stalking grade school children... or work on a mathematical problem with zero expected value when there are other opportunities with great value...or whatever. The problem with rationality and understanding is that they can be coupled to something like 2^10^17 goal systems/attitudes, or more, sometimes making them meaningless in the context of examining goals. The problem is that the phrases "understanding" and "rationality" are frequently value-loaded, when to make things simpler we should use them just to describe the ability to better predict the next blip of perceptual input. A better question might be, "as rationality increases asymptotically, does a generic human goal system have the urge to eliminate humans by replacing them with something better?" If the answer is "yes", then CEV, if implemented, would wipe everyone out, as would a human upload, and as might a Joyous Growth AI (not that I understand the last one too well...) In which case, it would be prudent to try a different approach. I personally happen to think that the position of your friend is inconsistent with profound rationality and understanding of intelligence. Genocide is genocide, even if you replace the victims with ubervariants. Justify mass murder in the name of global improvement, and you might as well be practicing your seig heils in public. Part of the problem with discouraging people to build UFAIs is that no one will be around to hold them responsible if they actually do it. -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 21:47:15 2006 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:47:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <51ce64f10610061447h7eeb2dc5yefee6246db97a79@mail.gmail.com> On 10/5/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > Any suggestions? "Understand" by Ted Chiang is a real winner. http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/under.htm And the following is not about cognition enhancement per se, because the main character already starts off with extreme rationality... but it does brush on many of the subjects you'd typically see in a story about intelligence enhancement: "On Self-Delusion and Bounded Rationality" by Scott Aaronson http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/selfdelusion.html -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From nlbarna at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 21:52:08 2006 From: nlbarna at gmail.com (Nathan Barna) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:52:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <20061006175835.GM21640@leitl.org> References: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <638d4e150610060853o76ed64f8lace4c32fcaebb4bb@mail.gmail.com> <20061006175835.GM21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <761b6df90610061452w5d793373ic70514ed615d92ec@mail.gmail.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 11:53:30AM -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > No... it just doesn't GUARANTEE a value being placed on self-preservation... > > I still don't know what you mean when you use 'rational'. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality says several things http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ArchiveFolder/Research%20Group/Publications/Reason/ReasonRationality.htm Additionally, this seems like a good paper, nicely reflective of the conflict. While it's slightly more sympathetic to Ben's position, the other side is raised to the bar if we assume that existential threats are involved and that technology as decision-making assistance and agency, to accommodate human handicaps against the Standard Picture, is plausible. In other words, if this were 1900 and hopeless, this paper would be more relevant to its purpose. Not that it isn't relevant to its purpose, it just would be more so if it had enlarged the context. I doubt anyone's believing that it's possible to predict eternity. No one we know can or is processing reality, after all. The question is about rationality's maximum effectiveness, presuming 2006 and prospective techniques ? the awareness of which could make it /incoherent/ to deny normative ideals such as SP, and their potential power for either sensical stability or nonsensical danger ? and whether it's exclusively better to account for it as a genius or genius-fool, as it were. From riel at surriel.com Fri Oct 6 22:56:43 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:56:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <200610050249.k952nMgU012777@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610050249.k952nMgU012777@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4526DF2B.1020203@surriel.com> spike wrote: > I have difficulty imagining that instant messages would have very much > memetic content. Email has a lot less memetic content than books, but we still write them. The smaller the message, the faster we can read and reply and the faster a conversation can go. For some discussions, IRC does work better than email. -- Who do you trust? The people with all the right answers? Or the people with the right questions? From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Oct 7 01:09:42 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 03:09:42 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <27171205.1279621160094633534.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <27171205.1279621160094633534.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <4238.163.1.72.81.1160183382.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Great! Keep on posting! pjmanney wrote: > What about uplift of non-human creatures? There's a bunch of those. Does > that topic fit your mandate? Good question. I think the proper answer is "not really", but as an eminent philosopher criticized our current project outlook as being too antropocentric at an workshop, I think it is a good complement. That will of course immediately add Vinge's "Run, Bookworm, Run!" and Sterlings "Our Neural Chernobyl" to the list. "Mike Dougherty" msd001 at gmail.com >You do plan on posting your compilation here, right? Anything you can do >to isolate the gems from the great pile of rubbish that is available would > be a veritable service to humanity. :) Sure! Of course, gems in this case means novels with interesting ideas and treatments rather than being great reads. Ah, that reminded me of Stanislaw Lem's _Golem XIV_ ;-) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Oct 7 01:34:56 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:34:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610061024v22985852j1f7cb68b58eb9643@mail.gmail.com> References: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <8d71341e0610061024v22985852j1f7cb68b58eb9643@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0A02AB6B-B4D9-4130-97C8-07D8B0524F66@mac.com> Actually what I know of his opinion in simply that when AGI arrives humans, even uploaded and augmented post- but former humans, will eventually not be competitive in comparison. He has said that if humanity is to disappear someday then he would much rather that it be because it is replaced by something more intelligent. He has said that in his opinion this would not be such a bad outcome. I don't see anything all that objectionable in that. Nor do I see much room to challenge his conclusion about humans relative to AIs in competitiveness. - samantha On Oct 6, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/6/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > I understand Moravec is of a similiar persuasion. > Well, it's an opinion, and I'm glad people with that > opinion are not in charge of the world. > > I agree completely. > _______________________________________________ > 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Oct 7 01:41:26 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 02:41:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <0A02AB6B-B4D9-4130-97C8-07D8B0524F66@mac.com> References: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <8d71341e0610061024v22985852j1f7cb68b58eb9643@mail.gmail.com> <0A02AB6B-B4D9-4130-97C8-07D8B0524F66@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610061841i13d8b688sdf1d8a318c83bb00@mail.gmail.com> On 10/7/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > Actually what I know of his opinion in simply that when AGI arrives humans, even uploaded and augmented post- but former humans, will eventually not be competitive in comparison. He has said that if humanity is to disappear someday then he would much rather that it be because it is replaced by something more intelligent. He has said that in his opinion this would not be such a bad outcome. I don't see anything all that objectionable in that. Nor do I see much room to challenge his conclusion about humans relative to AIs in competitiveness. > I see plenty of room to challenge it, starting with, even if you postulate the existence of superintelligent AI in some distant and unknowable future, why would anyone program it to start exterminating humans? I'm certainly not going to do any such thing in the unlikely event my lifespan extends that long. Then there's the whole assumption that more intelligence keeps conferring more competitive ability all the way up without limit, for which there is no evidence. There are various arguments from game theory and offense versus defense. There are a great many reasons to doubt the conclusion, even based on what I can think of in 2006, let alone what else will arise that nobody has thought of yet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Oct 7 03:12:47 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 23:12:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <4238.163.1.72.81.1160183382.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <27171205.1279621160094633534.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <4238.163.1.72.81.1160183382.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <62c14240610062012q705da9f2h942e9cd375bbc126@mail.gmail.com> On 10/6/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > "Mike Dougherty" msd001 at gmail.com > >You do plan on posting your compilation here, right? Anything you can do > >to isolate the gems from the great pile of rubbish that is available > would > be a veritable service to humanity. :) > > Sure! Of course, gems in this case means novels with interesting ideas and > treatments rather than being great reads. Ah, that reminded me of > Stanislaw Lem's _Golem XIV_ ;-) > Doesn't one imply the other? :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Sat Oct 7 03:25:58 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 23:25:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <20061006175835.GM21640@leitl.org> References: <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <638d4e150610060853o76ed64f8lace4c32fcaebb4bb@mail.gmail.com> <20061006175835.GM21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <638d4e150610062025u39e754a4i436c2f45fdc32701@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > "In economics, sociology, and political science, a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals. Acting optimally in pursuit of one's goals is a decent interpretation of the "rationality" concept. At least, it makes clear that rationality is not tied to any particular goal system (e.g. individual survival). I would temper it though to "Acting optimally in pursuit of one's goals, where the optimization takes into account one's intrinsic computational constraints." Another sense of rationality could be defined in terms of logic: If a person is rational, and they accept a set of premises, they should accept all logical conclusions of those premises, if the proofs of these conclusions are short OR if they are explicitly shown the proofs. This logic-based definition of rationality also is not tied to any particular goal system... -- Ben From ben at goertzel.org Sat Oct 7 03:32:16 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 23:32:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > > When asked what he meant, he said simply, "We're not so great, and > > we've been dominating the planet long enough. Let something better > > have its turn." > > I hope you're not talking about Hugo de Garis here... No, the person I was referring to is not Hugo, is not famous. and has not published his views on the Singularity... > > I do not see why this attitude is inconsistent with a deep > > understanding of the nature of intelligence, and a profound > > rationality. > > It isn't inconsistent with those things, but neither are a lot of > attitudes. I can have a deep understanding of the nature of > intelligence, and a profound rationality, and still spend my days as a > pedophile stalking grade school children... or work on a mathematical > problem with zero expected value when there are other opportunities > with great value...or whatever. > > The problem with rationality and understanding is that they can be > coupled to something like 2^10^17 goal systems/attitudes, or more, > sometimes making them meaningless in the context of examining goals. > The problem is that the phrases "understanding" and "rationality" are > frequently value-loaded, when to make things simpler we should use > them just to describe the ability to better predict the next blip of > perceptual input. Thanks. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. > A better question might be, "as rationality increases asymptotically, > does a generic human goal system have the urge to eliminate humans by > replacing them with something better?" I don't really believe in the idea of a "generic human goal system." It seems that some human goal systems, if pursued consistently, would have this conclusions, whereas others would not... > I personally happen to think that the position of your friend is > inconsistent with profound rationality and understanding of > intelligence. Can you explain why you think this? This statement seems inconsistent with your own discussion of rationality, above. I stress that I am opposed to the annihilation of humanity! I am just pointing out the very basic point that a value judgement like this has nothing to do with rationality... rationality is about logical consistency and optimal goal pursuit, not about what one's values and goals are. So long as one's goals are not logically inconsistent, they are consistent with rationality... -- Ben From ben at goertzel.org Sat Oct 7 03:36:18 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 23:36:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <20061006184305.GN21640@leitl.org> References: <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <4525B6C2.5050003@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060015m13485a37kf435ddaaa136ea88@mail.gmail.com> <452609D1.5090709@pobox.com> <638d4e150610060110x60a929a5m78c1e944d50ec89b@mail.gmail.com> <20061006084027.GA21640@leitl.org> <638d4e150610060848l1ee07f4bi6e536c90221aca9f@mail.gmail.com> <20061006184305.GN21640@leitl.org> Message-ID: <638d4e150610062036k5a7939casfa081187b45cbd5b@mail.gmail.com> > I'm curious why you think evolutionary theory (a superset of game theory) > and usual physics are not applicable to a population of postbiological > critters. You must have reasons for your position. Usual physics, if it is correct, will of course apply to postbiological critters. I have little faith that current physics is completely correct, and expect radical physics discoveries in future once we have superhuman AI's, but that's another story... Evolutionary theory applies to populations of critters that reproduce or survive differentially based on some fitness criterion ... but it doesn't help much in understanding a hard takeoff scenario where one AI becomes superpowerful before a population of other approximate-equals can come about. Physics, if current physics is correct, is universal ... evolutionary theory only applies to certain kinds of situations, which may not be the ones that obtain post-Singularity... ben From sentience at pobox.com Sat Oct 7 04:11:57 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:11:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4527290D.6090207@pobox.com> Ben Goertzel wrote: >> >>The problem with rationality and understanding is that they can be >>coupled to something like 2^10^17 goal systems/attitudes, or more, >>sometimes making them meaningless in the context of examining goals. >>The problem is that the phrases "understanding" and "rationality" are >>frequently value-loaded, when to make things simpler we should use >>them just to describe the ability to better predict the next blip of >>perceptual input. > > Thanks. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. I was talking about humans. So was Rafal. Plans interpretable as consistent with rationality for at least one mind in mindspace may be, for a human randomly selected from modern-day Earth, *very unlikely* to be consistent with that human's emotions and morality. Especially if we interpret "consistency" as meaning "satisficing" or "at least not being antiproductive" with respect to a normalization of the human's emotions and morality, i.e., the morality they would have if their otherwise identical emotions were properly aggregative over extensional events rather than suffering from scope neglect and fast evaluation by single salient features, etc. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From amara at amara.com Sat Oct 7 09:07:24 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 11:07:24 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FRA security theatre Message-ID: Well well. After passing through the US Security Theatre at Frankfurt Airport.. Each time I travel to the US, I think that the security checks can not possibly become more ridiculous (and humiliating). The next time I discover that indeed it can, and it is. Here (at FRA), there seems to be a focus on a particular plastic bag that indicates to all that your item is approved, so if your toothpaste is already inside of a plastic bag, then it must be bagged again (the handler was laughing while double-bagging, so I'm glad he could see the humor). He seemed impressed that I drank my bottle-of-water-bought-Rome inside of putting it inside of the liquid bin. And for some reason the vendor selling food and drinks cannot sell the (identical-to-my_Rome) bottle of the water displayed in their case. Apparently they are for display only, but if you want to _drink_ the water, well, then they can only pour some fraction from the bottle into a styrofoam cup for you. from your embedded airport reporter, Amara From alex at ramonsky.com Sat Oct 7 15:26:47 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 16:26:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Wireheading References: <200609290452.k8T4qWMP001849@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451CFF7A.8030608@ramonsky.com> <2589.163.1.72.81.1159541656.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4520E6B6.8020901@ramonsky.com> <3305.130.237.122.245.1159831305.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <4525615E.7020603@ramonsky.com> <4330.163.1.72.91.1160080883.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <4527C737.9000100@ramonsky.com> Well, dive in anywhere : ) http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309064015/html/193.html [Go to the actual page snap] And you'll notice there is a lot going on here; I have the feeling it's another area where "scientific opinion" may be strongly in transition -actual experiments exploring exactly what you propose are on the go...but there's not much funding there, y'know : ) The main [funded] exploration is still looking at downregulation in the context of stopping people becoming addicted to "illegal substances" or sleeping tablets [benzodiazepines]. If you're into this idea though, it's a great opportunity to go fishing. We've both got labs at our disposal so how about let's look for our own answer? : ) Best, AR *********** PS you play 'Homeworld' at all? : ) Anders Sandberg wrote: >Alex Ramonsky wrote: > > >>>I have the feeling that preventing downregulation or upregulation would >>>be >>>pretty pharmacologically useful, anybody know how well we have learned to >>>control such functions? >>> >>> >>Well if 'we' means 'the scientific community' I have no idea. If 'we' >>means the neurohackers community there are various approaches including >>using biofeedback, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and 'pacing' [you >>take serotonin on the way up, for a slower takeoff and softer landing]. >>A lot seems to depend on sleep regulation too. Ha! Discipline! : ) >> >> > >Hmm, while sleep and biofeedback likely are healthy it seems more >efficient to directly try to prevent the receptors from going into the >cytosol, being proteased and all that happens to them. > >This paper suggests that at least in some cases other drugs can prevent >downregulaton (in this case of adrenergic receptors): >"Prevention by theophylline of beta-2-receptor down regulation in healthy >subjects." >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11420887&dopt=Abstract > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Oct 7 19:31:47 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 12:31:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610061841i13d8b688sdf1d8a318c83bb00@mail.gmail.com> References: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <8d71341e0610061024v22985852j1f7cb68b58eb9643@mail.gmail.com> <0A02AB6B-B4D9-4130-97C8-07D8B0524F66@mac.com> <8d71341e0610061841i13d8b688sdf1d8a318c83bb00@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <053B837A-AADB-44B7-8AC4-4505885B2A44@mac.com> On Oct 6, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/7/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Actually what I know of his opinion in simply that when AGI arrives > humans, even uploaded and augmented post- but former humans, will > eventually not be competitive in comparison. He has said that if > humanity is to disappear someday then he would much rather that it > be because it is replaced by something more intelligent. He has > said that in his opinion this would not be such a bad outcome. I > don't see anything all that objectionable in that. Nor do I see > much room to challenge his conclusion about humans relative to AIs > in competitiveness. > > I see plenty of room to challenge it, starting with, even if you > postulate the existence of superintelligent AI in some distant and > unknowable future, why would anyone program it to start > exterminating humans? I'm certainly not going to do any such thing > in the unlikely event my lifespan extends that long. Then there's > the whole assumption that more intelligence keeps conferring more > competitive ability all the way up without limit, for which there is > no evidence. There are various arguments from game theory and > offense versus defense. There are a great many reasons to doubt the > conclusion, even based on what I can think of in 2006, let alone > what else will arise that nobody has thought of yet. > Russell, I am very surprised at you. Almost no one here believes that AGI is in some unknowably distant future. I am certain you know full well that it is not what the humans program the AGI to do that is likely the concern. Hell, if it was just matter of rot programming the AGI to exterminate humans explicitly there would be nothing to worry about and FAI would be easy! In any field where success is largely a matter of intelligence, information and its timely application the significantly faster, brighter and more well informed will exceed what can be done by others. And that doesn't even touch on the depth of Moravec's argument which you could easily read for yourself. What is this blunt denial of the obvious about? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Oct 7 20:42:16 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 21:42:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <053B837A-AADB-44B7-8AC4-4505885B2A44@mac.com> References: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <8d71341e0610061024v22985852j1f7cb68b58eb9643@mail.gmail.com> <0A02AB6B-B4D9-4130-97C8-07D8B0524F66@mac.com> <8d71341e0610061841i13d8b688sdf1d8a318c83bb00@mail.gmail.com> <053B837A-AADB-44B7-8AC4-4505885B2A44@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610071342q2150dcbcg85112cd4ec0ee0e5@mail.gmail.com> On 10/7/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Russell, I am very surprised at you. Almost no one here believes that AGI is in some unknowably distant future. I am certain you know full well that it is not what the humans program the AGI to do that is likely the concern. Hell, if it was just matter of rot programming the AGI to exterminate humans explicitly there would be nothing to worry about and FAI would be easy! In any field where success is largely a matter of intelligence, information and its timely application the significantly faster, brighter and more well informed will exceed what can be done by others. And that doesn't even touch on the depth of Moravec's argument which you could easily read for yourself. > Samantha, recall that you are talking to one of the people who's been actually working on this stuff. The idea that human-equivalent AI is just around the corner was a story we told ourselves because we wanted it to be true and we didn't know enough about the problem to come up with any form of realistic estimate, like the eighteenth century artisans who made mechanical animals and imagined all the functionality of a real animal might be just a little harder to do. In reality human-equivalent AI is not one but several technological generations away, each generation requiring a set of major related breakthoughs and the development of an industry to follow through on them; and we'll need to cover most of that distance before we know enough to do more than philosophize about what might make an AI Friendly or Unfriendly. This is not, mind you, a counsel of despair, nor a call to retreat to narrow-AI projects of the kind we already know how to do. Smart-tool AI in particular is, I think, only one generation away; it will be harder to create than I once dreamed a Transcendent Power might be, but _if_ we approach it in the right way, it looks just barely doable. And smart-tool AI would suffice for a great deal; it looks to me both necessary and sufficient for radical advances in nanotechnology, life extension, space colonization. What is this blunt denial of the obvious about? > It's about my opinion that real progress will be assisted if we acknowledge reality and face up to the full complexity of the tasks ahead of us, neither contenting ourselves with small narrow-AI projects nor needing to believe in the modern-day equivalent of the shoemaker's elves. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sat Oct 7 22:02:35 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 15:02:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FRA security theatre In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6854C64D-7254-45E5-9A3D-52D0172C6BA5@ceruleansystems.com> On Oct 7, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > Well well. After passing through the US Security Theatre at Frankfurt > Airport.. Each time I travel to the US, I think that the security > checks > can not possibly become more ridiculous (and humiliating). The next > time > I discover that indeed it can, and it is. For whatever it is worth, a few European countries (e.g. the UK, and from what I hear, Belgium) have more asinine rules and restrictions than the US. Not many, but a few. The US is very sensitive to business travels and does seem to change the rules to accommodate them. Unfortunately, the most restrictive hop of a flight apparently determines what you have to do for the whole trip. For example, my upcoming business trip from the US to Switzerland passes through Heathrow, which means that I have to comply with the pathologically stupid UK rules that make travel very unpleasant for business travelers that neither the US nor Switzerland employ. If I had more time, I would have avoided the UK altogether which over the long term is going to impact economies. I do not find US air travel significantly worse than other countries most times these days, partly because the US has gotten more efficient at it and the rest of the world has gotten worse. I pine for the pre-9/11 days when flying was like riding a bus more often than not. To think I had complaints about the hassles then... J. Andrew Rogers From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 8 06:41:51 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 23:41:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610071342q2150dcbcg85112cd4ec0ee0e5@mail.gmail.com> References: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <8d71341e0610061024v22985852j1f7cb68b58eb9643@mail.gmail.com> <0A02AB6B-B4D9-4130-97C8-07D8B0524F66@mac.com> <8d71341e0610061841i13d8b688sdf1d8a318c83bb00@mail.gmail.com> <053B837A-AADB-44B7-8AC4-4505885B2A44@mac.com> <8d71341e0610071342q2150dcbcg85112cd4ec0ee0e5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8906BEBC-8F5E-4559-8F73-E52F93634C72@mac.com> On Oct 7, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/7/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Russell, I am very surprised at you. Almost no one here believes > that AGI is in some unknowably distant future. I am certain you > know full well that it is not what the humans program the AGI to do > that is likely the concern. Hell, if it was just matter of rot > programming the AGI to exterminate humans explicitly there would be > nothing to worry about and FAI would be easy! In any field where > success is largely a matter of intelligence, information and its > timely application the significantly faster, brighter and more well > informed will exceed what can be done by others. And that doesn't > even touch on the depth of Moravec's argument which you could easily > read for yourself. > > Samantha, recall that you are talking to one of the people who's > been actually working on this stuff. Precisely why I was surprised to say the least. I do not remember you being such a naysayer on the subject. > The idea that human-equivalent AI is just around the corner was a > story we told ourselves because we wanted it to be true and we > didn't know enough about the problem to come up with any form of > realistic estimate, like the eighteenth century artisans who made > mechanical animals and imagined all the functionality of a real > animal might be just a little harder to do. In reality human- > equivalent AI is not one but several technological generations away, > each generation requiring a set of major related breakthoughs and > the development of an industry to follow through on them; and we'll > need to cover most of that distance before we know enough to do more > than philosophize about what might make an AI Friendly or Unfriendly. > That is one opinion. I very much doubt it is that difficult. Also did you factor in accelerating change fully in these "generations"? In some fields a generation is about a month long. > This is not, mind you, a counsel of despair, nor a call to retreat > to narrow-AI projects of the kind we already know how to do. Smart- > tool AI in particular is, I think, only one generation away; it will > be harder to create than I once dreamed a Transcendent Power might > be, but _if_ we approach it in the right way, it looks just barely > doable. And smart-tool AI would suffice for a great deal; it looks > to me both necessary and sufficient for radical advances in > nanotechnology, life extension, space colonization. > > What is this blunt denial of the obvious about? > > It's about my opinion that real progress will be assisted if we > acknowledge reality and face up to the full complexity of the tasks > ahead of us, neither contenting ourselves with small narrow-AI > projects nor needing to believe in the modern-day equivalent of the > shoemaker's elves. > Eh, it is fun to attempt to build elves. But I was talking there about denying that whether the AGI is "friendly" or not is a bit more difficult than merely refraining from explicitly programming in the goal of exterminating humanity. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Oct 8 07:03:03 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 08:03:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <8906BEBC-8F5E-4559-8F73-E52F93634C72@mac.com> References: <4521C18A.1010907@goldenfuture.net> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <20061006082359.GZ21640@leitl.org> <8d71341e0610061024v22985852j1f7cb68b58eb9643@mail.gmail.com> <0A02AB6B-B4D9-4130-97C8-07D8B0524F66@mac.com> <8d71341e0610061841i13d8b688sdf1d8a318c83bb00@mail.gmail.com> <053B837A-AADB-44B7-8AC4-4505885B2A44@mac.com> <8d71341e0610071342q2150dcbcg85112cd4ec0ee0e5@mail.gmail.com> <8906BEBC-8F5E-4559-8F73-E52F93634C72@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610080003r3c8b8d36vc59ff432a5317f3c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/8/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Precisely why I was surprised to say the least. I do not remember you being such a naysayer on the subject. > My assessment has become more realistic over the last few years :) Though I don't think I'm being that much of a naysayer - I'm not writing off the enterprise, after all, merely noting that it's going to take a lot longer than we'd hoped. That is one opinion. I very much doubt it is that difficult. Also did you factor in accelerating change fully in these "generations"? In some fields a generation is about a month long. > By "generation" here I mean the period of time in which a major advance is invented, polished, widely deployed and integrated as part of the overall technology base, so that it becomes a routine building block for future advances. Things like structured programming, microcomputers, the Internet. Now, timescale is a different matter. Human-level AGI will take several generations of technological advance from where we are now, not just one - you can take that prediction to the bank, because it's not a prediction per se, it's about the nature of the problem itself. For what that translates to in calendar years... well, that's getting into foretelling the future, which like non-psychic people in general I have some difficulty with :) It seems to me that a typical ballpark figure is a couple of decades per technological generation, with the speed at which people can think and learn being the rate-limiting step, and I'm skeptical that the rate of change is actually accelerating. However, I'm not certain of this; you could claim it might come down to one decade or less per generation, and I can't be sure it won't. Eh, it is fun to attempt to build elves. But I was talking there about denying that whether the AGI is "friendly" or not is a bit more difficult than merely refraining from explicitly programming in the goal of exterminating humanity. > > My position isn't "we need merely refrain from explicitly programming such a goal" (presumably things will be more complicated than that - they always are), but "it will be a long while yet before we know enough about AGI to do more about Friendliness than make up stories". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfj.eav at gmail.com Sun Oct 8 15:58:08 2006 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:58:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place and AGI / the "Military Commissions Act" of 2006 Message-ID: <61c8738e0610080858u31c26e15p13d50f48ddfe0f50@mail.gmail.com> Yes I agree that the new war to end war is the race to develop autonomous general artificial intelligence (AGI). Like any child, the mores of the parents may be critical to an AGI's juvenile developing years. So, the source code and other methods that can give it a positive worldview are critical to its handling of its human relations in a pro-human manner. It appears to me that each major nation state will ramp up programs to develop an AGI which incorporates their societies cultural worldview. Given our great reliance on electronic mediated communication an AGI could carefully manipulate individual life outcomes if it deemed that to be useful towards accomplishing a larger plan. The key to friendly AGI staying friendly is to keep its thought processes and actions as transparent as technically feasible. Security and secrecy firewalls in place today allow every one privacy, except those who are deemed ultra vires of this requirement. If only a handful of military , government, and corporate persons are going to have a transparent window of oversight and communication with the AGI , this group becomes societies trustees. If power corrupts and ultimate power ultimately corrupts, one solution is to eliminate privacy and secrecy to eliminate potential tyranny. The other factor with AGI's is whether like in the 1970's movie "Collosus, the Forbin Project" individual AGI's will collaborate and rationally manage human differences or whether they will retain the desire for terrritorialism and domination which has caused their human creators to make war. As we create AGI in our own image, let us not allow human history to repeat itself. Morris &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Habeas Fascismus: The Terrorists Win By Michael I Niman ArtVoice (etc.) 10/5/06 Last week was one that will go down in infamy as one of the most important and shameful weeks in western history. While future Americans might not be allowed to freely discuss such subversive topics as history, school children in other countries will learn what happened in the last week of September, 2006. A mere five years after a band of razor wielding two-bit terrorists declared war on America by destroying the World Trade Center, both houses of the US Congress finished their job and voted to end all pretenses of democracy and begin the transition to an imperial form of governance backed by state terror. Habeas Corpus: 1215-2006 On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of last week, while most Americans were busy discussing the possibilities of the new football season, the US Senate and Congress voted on and passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Of course, unless you're reading The Christian Science Monitor or Al Jazeerah, you probably weren't even privy to the proper name of the bill that ended our 791 year-old British-American legal tradition of Habeas Corpus ? the foundation of all human rights legislation since before the Magna Carta. Habeas Corpus, which is Latin for "you may have the body," is, according to the US Supreme Court, "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." It is the basic requirement, formerly at least rhetorically respected, by almost every legal system on earth, that states that people who are arrested must be charged with a crime, and eventually have their day in court to defend themselves. The British Parliament adopted Habeas Corpus as the law of the land across the empire in 1679, while historians trace the first appearance of Habeas Corpus in British law to 1215. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 ends all of that, placing the United States at the bottom of the dung heap when it comes to legal protections of the most basic of human rights ? the right not to be "disappeared" by one's own government. On the subject of disappearances, it seems all references to The Military Commissions Act of 2006 were preemptively disappeared before the bill was voted on. Talk about obfuscation ? according to a Lexis/Nexis database search of all major US newspapers, only five articles mentioned the bill by name, and of the five, only two mentioned it before it was voted on. Quisling Genuflection to Fascism Bill of 2006 The rest of the US press, according to another Lexis/Nexis search, made up euphemistically loaded names for the bill, such as The Detainee Bill, Interrogation Legislation, or the Terror Bill, as if this law would only affect "terrorists." Of course, all this confusion made it quite difficult to locate a copy of the actual bill before it was voted on, and to locate a roll call for the vote after it was passed. It shouldn't require a sleuth to find out something as simple as the name of the bill that essentially ends our pretenses toward democracy. In any event, I'll join the rest of the press corps and rename the bill for my own purposes as well, hereon in calling it the Quisling Genuflection to Fascism Bill of 2006, which I'll simply gloss as the "Quisling Act." According to the New York Times, the Quisling Act (s3930) creates an undefined category of people called "enemy combatants," a designation which can be arbitrarily doled out by the Bush administration or their minions. According to The Times, once designated as an enemy combatant, a person can be subjected "to arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal." The bill strips the legislative branch of government of any oversight over disappearances ordained by an imperial presidency. According to The Times, All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him [sic.] an illegal combatant . . ." With the elimination of Habeas Corpus, the Times points out, the disappeared "would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment." And while in prison, the Quisling Act allows for the disappeared to be tortured and gives the Bush administration the legal authority to decide what does and does not constitute torture, while drawing the line only at rape, murder, waterboarding and a few other of the more vile acts American interrogators have recently been accused of. Of course, if someone else, say the "democratic" government of Iraq, waterboards a prisoner, the Quisling Act states that any testimony obtained can be used as evidence in American courts. The bill doesn't specifically mention beating detainees with pikes, stretching them on racks, or feeding them to lions ? so the ultimate determination as to whether those forms of interrogation would be prohibited lies with the imperial president. A Law to Negate the Rule of Law The Quisling Act brings the US into uncharted legal territory. It essence, it is a law to negate the rule of law. According to legal scholars, the Bush administration can designate US citizens as enemy combatants using purposely vague guidelines under which someone can be disappeared for lending an undefined sort of material aid to a group or person unilaterally determined by the Bush administration to fall under the "terrorism" rubric. The Bush administration can also determine someone to be an enemy combatant for "purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States." Of course, this term is not defined. And if you are disappeared for allegedly providing such support, you will not have the right to argue that you didn't. It gets worse. Recent laws have attempted to define terrorism in corporate friendly terms so that anyone protesting against commercial activities could be designated a terrorist. Utah, for example, passed a "commercial terrorism" bill that identified anyone picketing a business with the intent of discouraging people from entering it, as engaging in terrorism. Under this law, for instance, the now celebrated 1960 sit-in at a segregated North Carolina Woolworth's lunch counter would be considered terrorism. If that law and the new Quisling Act were in place in 1960, the four black civil rights heroes who demanded their right to be served lunch along with white patrons would have simply been disappeared off to gulags. A federal court struck down Utah's law in 2001 and many people are certain that the Supreme Court will strike down the Quisling Act. But, in case you haven't noticed, the courts are a changing. The Supreme Court has nine members. Four of them, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Bush appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, have already shown themselves to line up with the Bush junta even when this meant undermining the rule of law. One more Bush appointee, and this could happen if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, and the Supreme Court could swing to becoming a 5-4 rubber stamp for whatever insanity the Bush administration sends their way. Predictive Assassination So lets go back and revisit what constitutes a terrorist supporter ? someone who, under the laws passed this week, can be disappeared into a system of secret Gulags. Journalist Robert Parry points out that in a recent speech given by George W. Bush in the lead-up to the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, he blamed the Russian revolution and the rise of the Nazis on the fact that no one took out Lenin when he first stated publishing pamphlets on communism, or Hitler, when he first started writing about Nazism. Hence, it appears, Bush is now advocating preemptive strikes against speech ? what Parry calls, the end of free speech and free thought. According to Parry, Bush's fantasy of "wiping out some future Lenin or Hitler would require killing or imprisoning anyone who wrote about political change in a way that rulers considered objectionable at that time." Such "predictive assassination," Parry argues, might kill, along with a Hitler or a Lenin, a Mandela or a Jefferson. And if you're wondering who the new targets for predictive assassination might be, you don't have to look too far. In the same September 5 th speech (available at whitehouse.gov), Bush warns that intelligence evidence shows "al Qaeda intends to [launch], in [bin Laden's] words, 'a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.'" Bush goes on to explain that such a campaign would paint the War on Terror as causing financial losses and casualties, ultimately, with the aim of ? and he explains that these are bin Laden's words ? "creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan." Duck and Cover Get it. It's the free press, reporting ridiculous notions about the costs of war, and perhaps its ineffectiveness at making us safer from anything, that are out there supporting hostilities against the United States by spreading what Bush deems as al Qaeda propaganda ? or more accurately, by reporting the news of the day. How much more clear does the writing on the wall have to be? Why were we supposed to think it was a joke when Bush, early in his judicially imposed presidency, said that things would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as he was the dictator. The Quisling Act isn't about locking up terrorists. We've always done that. It's about locking up innocent people. People who can't be convicted of a crime because there's no evidence that they committed a crime. This is the only new class of people who will be detained under this new law ? people who were never, nor would they likely ever be, convicted of a crime. This is a bill about locking up innocent people and terrorizing the population by holding the threat of disappearance and torture over our heads. The Senate approved the Quisling Act 65-34, with 12 Democrats joining in with an almost unanimous pack of Republicans. The Congress approved it 250-170, with 34 Democrats supporting the Republican mob. Among them was Buffalo's own Brian Higgins. Shame on us. -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Sun Oct 8 17:16:34 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:16:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45293272.3060409@lineone.net> "Russell Wallace" wrote: > What I am opposed to is autoimmune disease: allowing our supposed > protectors to turn inwards and target us instead of our enemies. This raises an idea that i think is very relevant, and leads to some rather depressing conclusions. Biology has 'solved' (or is in an ever-ongoing process of solving), many of the same types of problems we face in the realms of communications/IT, and these same solutions are probably applicable not only to tackling computer viruses etc., but also to facing threats from terrorists. Strategies for defence against computer viruses are tending towards the same sort of solutions that our immune systems use, and those strategies could probably be applied to societies as well. The depressing part is that biology seems to indicate that the most effective solutions centre on identifying what's friendly ('self'), and regarding everything else ('not-self') as an enemy, and treating it accordingly (i.e. destroy it if it gets too close), rather than the other way round (identify what's harmful, and regard that as the enemy. Tolerate everything else). Actually, i just realised something. I've recently switched from a 'black list' strategy to a 'white list' one for dealing with spam, and find it much more effective. That's exactly the same thing. I find this worrying. How long will it be before we have to prove 'friendliness' in order to travel about? Autoimmune disease, unfortunately, is part of the price you have to pay for an effective immune system. I'm just grateful my surname's not Buttle. ben zaiboc From benboc at lineone.net Sun Oct 8 17:37:22 2006 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:37:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reproducing (was: Islamic morons) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45293752.8000705@lineone.net> Anna writes: > Why is it that man or woman would not want to reproduce? You're joking, surely? Do you know how much it costs to bring up a kid? Have you ever seen a baby? Have you ever HEARD a baby? I can think of much better things to do with 18 years of my life, thanks. OK, i don't want to insult the breeders on this list, i'm sure there are plenty of them, and i'm sure that some of them, at least, get a blast out of having kids and bringing them up, but i really think it's a matter of asking "Why _would_ you want to reproduce?", rather than why wouldn't you. I suppose it's a bit like asking why would you sign up for the military. You're doing society a service at the expense of your own well-being (yeah, i know we are programmed to 'feel good' about the whole baby thing, but that doesn't mean it actually is good for you). We all know the real reason why most people have babies, so your question boils down to "Why would somebody want to rebel against the dictates of nature?". I think the name of this list adequately answers that. Ask the question again when reproduction is a matter of data-processing. ben zaiboc From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Oct 8 18:30:23 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:30:23 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FRA security theatre In-Reply-To: <6854C64D-7254-45E5-9A3D-52D0172C6BA5@ceruleansystems.com> References: <6854C64D-7254-45E5-9A3D-52D0172C6BA5@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <1734.163.1.72.81.1160332223.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Amara is right, this is theatre rather than security. Or maybe ritual: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2004/08/sacred_airports.html The purpose of airport security is to make sure everybody gets into the right paranoid, "travel is a privilege and not a right" mindset that convinces them that it is safe and worthwhile. I have been thinking of writing a paper on airport security ethics for a while now, in particular how it pertains to enhancements like wearables and implanted magnets. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Oct 8 19:02:55 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 12:02:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com><451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net><45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net><8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com><051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <064501c6eb0c$8c1fd870$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell had written > Note also that you only answered the lesser half of my argument. My primary > point was that however small or large the external threat, compromising our > most basic civil liberties - allowing our governments to turn inward against > ourselves, not outward against the enemy - is _not effective_ as a response. > It adds a second problem _without doing anything to solve the first_. First, let me apologize to you and to Samantha for the highly sarcastic tone I took in my last missive. (I haven't yet read your reply; which is probably why I'm calm right now :-) Second, I readily admit that I pay too little attention to your "primary point" above. I am ready to learn, and there are probably other readers too who are ready to learn. Isn't it a question of balancing risks? I.e., threats from "enemies" within (our governments) must be weighed against threats from, say, Islamic terrorists, right? Is the point that the two western governments (the U.S. and the U.K.) have now adopted policies which pose a danger to their own citizens that surpasses ourside threats to their societies? But neither the Blair government nor the Bush administration is likely to declare their internal political opponents "enemy combattants", or are they? What is the chance that a citizen of one of those two countries (who, say, is inside the country) will be so prosecuted? (Frankly, I consider the probability to be near zero that any particular citizen is at risk from either terrorists or from his government; do you agree?) Thanks for your ready replies to people's posts, Russell. (Of course, I appreciate careful and reasoned explanation from anybody.) Lee P.S. > But it is very dangerous to allow a situation to arise where criticism > of certain policies is no longer permitted. Oh, well, sorry, but I'm lost here too. Have many people been arrested for so doing? Or is it just that it appears that things could dramatically change soon, and that the arrests could begin? What prohibitions against criticism are you talking about, anyway? From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 8 22:28:23 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:28:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061008172043.03020878@pop-server.austin.rr.com> A week ago I was reading an article online about new research and findings concerning further steps toward teleportation. It covered a couple of scientists working with non-biological matter and their ability to transport it to another environment and how this could one day possibly apply to biological matter. Does anyone know about this? If not, does anyone have any information about the state of the art in teleportation? Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Oct 8 23:59:41 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 00:59:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <064501c6eb0c$8c1fd870$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <064501c6eb0c$8c1fd870$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610081659m443aa0aaof95b7dfdc651a81@mail.gmail.com> On 10/8/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > First, let me apologize to you and to Samantha for the highly sarcastic > tone > I took in my last missive. (I haven't yet read your reply; which is > probably > why I'm calm right now :-) No worries; please do read my reply, hopefully it will help make my position clearer. Second, I readily admit that I pay too little attention to your "primary > point" > above. I am ready to learn, and there are probably other readers too who > are ready to learn. Isn't it a question of balancing risks? I.e., threats > from > "enemies" within (our governments) must be weighed against threats from, > say, Islamic terrorists, right? Partly it is (which is why I quoted the numbers to put the actual magnitude of the terrorism threat in perspective), but partly it isn't - some "antiterrorism" measures harm us _without_ doing anything to defend us against terrorism. As Eliezer remarked, there's a tendency to assume that because we're making sacrifices, we must be getting something of commensurate value in return - and this assumption can be very far from true. Is the point that the two western governments (the U.S. and the U.K.) have > now adopted policies which pose a danger to their own citizens that > surpasses > ourside threats to their societies? Well what started this thread was the US government overturning habeas corpus (the foundation of civil rights since medieval times). Europe has its own problems - you can now be imprisoned for "hate speech", which can mean pretty much anything the government wants it to mean, and in practice means being sufficiently politically incorrect to attract notice. But neither the Blair government nor the Bush administration is likely to > declare their internal political opponents "enemy combattants", or are > they? What is the chance that a citizen of one of those two countries > (who, say, is inside the country) will be so prosecuted? (Frankly, I > consider the probability to be near zero that any particular citizen is > at risk from either terrorists or from his government; do you agree?) As yet, the vast majority of people haven't been on the receiving end of this sort of thing, or even seriously threatened with it - and the reason for that is that there are established principles of law and civil rights that protect us. But once those protections are eroded, history shows unchecked power is _always_ abused sooner or later, and usually sooner. It's too late to protest after you've been thrown into a concentration camp. The time to speak out is when you see civil rights being eroded, not when you've been hit with the consequences. Thanks for your ready replies to people's posts, Russell. Welcome! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Oct 9 00:41:16 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:41:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian party on October 21 Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20061008203859.10854150@unreasonable.com> Another party coming up. If you are going to be in the Boston area, you're welcome to attend. There's crash-space here, if you need it. You may be able to get a ride from NYC or other parts south; ask me if you need assist. My house. Hudson, New Hampshire. A couple miles from the MA border and the Nashua malls. Roughly 20 minutes north of Rt. 128. Saturday, October 21. 2 PM until the last person not me leaves. OK to arrive late if you have other commitments; most everyone will still be here. Anyone on this list is specifically invited. If you have someone else in mind, run it by me. It will probably be okay, whether you're able to come or not. I also invite friends-of-extropy, such as sf writers, nano, LP, MIT, Alcor types. Bring to augment existing: food, drink; musical instruments; interesting stuff to show people. We'll order Chinese food at some point. The next two parties will be January 20 and April 21.We'll wiggle the dates further as needed. If you are interested in attending either of these, let me know as your other commitments make one weekend in those vicinities better or worse than another. If you're not around but coming to town in the future, let us know. We can usually lure a quorum of Bostropians. RSVP. -- David Lubkin. lubkin at unreasonable.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 9 01:59:57 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 18:59:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goldbach's Conjecture Resolved! A Story Message-ID: <065301c6eb46$9fcdf1b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> The singularity happened all right. Everyone got uploaded, even the dead people, and lived happily ever after. Only that *wasn't* the end of the story. The vast superhuman intelligences whose influence had radiated out from the Milky Way had other things on their minds besides keeping tiny patterns of ancient life alive and happy. There was still the vexing problem of unifying forces and particles. And somehow, despite millions of years, mysteries yet remained about black holes. Finally, however, there was progress, and an ultimate explanation uncovered. As had been guessed by even the primitive parental life forms at the dawn of time, our entire infinite cosmos itself is just the grown-up version of a little baby universe. Moreover, our universe was no accident, but the contrivance of a yet larger mother universe. Specifically, entities perhaps not unlike the intelligences of our universe had deliberately spawned Bruno. (Our universe had always been called "Bruno" in the honor of the spot of dawn-life protoplasm which had first suspected its infinitude). The values of the physical constants were unambiguous, and there was, after all, a reason for our universe to exist. A very specific reason: our mission was to settle Goldbach's conjecture. This numerical conjecture was formulated in our universe in 1742 by one Christian Goldbach, an amateur mathematician who occasionally corresponded with Euler. The peculiarity he'd noticed is that every even number beyond 2 seems to be the sum of two primes. 4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 3 + 5, and so on. (The interested reader should find the primes that add up to 98.) Despite some mathematicians, like Lev Landau who snorted "prime numbers are meant to be multiplied, not added!", the problem remained tantalizing. Somehow, often just barely, the proof, if there was one, evaded all attempts to find it ever since the first day Goldbach and Euler had sought it. Not even the local-cluster superintelligences circa ten million A.D. had been able to crack it. Still, it was terribly shocking---if it can be said that such august intelligences can undergo anything like shock---to find that the physical constants from a whole range of interweaving theories actually coded up a request from the laboratory of the sentients who created our universe! The request was simple. Determine whether the particular number 428 08791 39342 94963 22581 56917 17541 83578 75376 65202 30935 79270 91986 99286 45236 44720 81915 70881 45886 43213 49789 97081 16075 20517 69980 25310 91953 01759 67635 88933 54558 18395 73375 62251 58871 09870 70538 48936 07757 90374 70335 18884 54411 23218 12023 05189 70669 55571 78420 44007 97817 88202 06270 36316 53840 91881 16009 21247 22901 38941 58239 27805 49141 57583 96679 43990 11760 58746 35093 08313 72354 56592 67977 51532 61668 96711 41036 71134 71509 10799 51406 57480 08102 60459 24867 28134 75408 07101 68550 79511 59551 94957 92832 00848 71220 64809 08250 76660 36595 80118 50816 25608 19626 95631 55333 85186 93223 20588 05216 04250 61353 76722 80519 48499 26442 15542 34664 37800 65787 71306 65777 22276 33654 29778 40999 46652 97751 17836 51838 37896 04227 00830 16324 19256 33927 15039 50507 69866 98133 86990 61439 63020 57279 11017 62260 12829 34206 75441 39698 81813 72912 44241 61421 17920 22848 68700 71139 87233 02937 69048 35630 08745 94170 61178 16545 95515 60049 13814 80083 97215 27350 06826 70114 17405 69154 64851 57318 16358 46942 59186 34226 06427 73694 77673 33441 20156 34436 31512 24280 73615 59712 38780 62647 40933 49338 91831 49401 29600 33633 94829 11705 37774 43834 86045 54417 56377 23385 77367 55138 85611 82640 36179 42736 61012 34102 12296 56058 91195 75411 07815 16789 86115 49187 12812 55606 44925 73938 74517 78859 73627 15945 35118 79582 03377 29331 61615 09411 26993 53856 86440 60411 82745 33726 31970 84558 02325 18014 26638 75442 09328 27453 34357 01020 13765 77838 05223 90178 99824 36756 18708 38180 65976 45518 23708 00000 56319 38851 68670 74234 55867 06495 01958 87811 29618 61051 77381 96741 38997 38430 84260 12366 99757 06711 97604 36860 72720 38282 23614 76723 10217 76292 07219 97214 69233 44691 01597 13884 31217 90811 08935 16527 92701 25590 65111 05580 56461 08618 10462 07467 32005 40944 46299 34679 25340 94871 30861 84123 95728 76596 27683 08719 92930 19326 76049 82379 98582 77499 68297 56203 26289 42185 22528 84434 83676 36579 48079 08317 23567 90955 92648 19977 84374 56968 81569 95674 23876 52827 33131 52802 82397 77050 18678 58735 55448 13527 23499 28271 64870 19095 05899 35087 45698 16275 72819 79894 23004 15926 53589 79323 84600 56631 88862 30487 38794 36079 32712 11130 55451 25137 38785 83558 31960 69473 45950 18225 09871 88502 75179 11551 75664 74321 67351 27703 83717 18913 42470 08816 37627 14288 62831 44047 67612 72738 26995 50933 63758 50003 43693 52661 55852 52372 59042 37595 04931 73622 68387 86478 40997 05245 75300 24902 59609 35653 15970 37681 69365 22236 86374 65550 00343 98377 35354 65770 15365 41422 71356 16630 40044 19290 66449 53629 79452 71674 30260 97303 06487 62789 13005 70152 22501 49867 89294 59232 31776 54919 99851 05438 01096 72269 50486 16719 06144 82041 38332 64452 31840 99287 59928 25503 08407 46970 45907 99238 74547 19704 72035 26542 54600 79172 58779 35747 78956 11478 41195 58135 63856 33037 45753 60159 25193 71838 07526 07985 60714 88627 75790 38454 96110 39237 19792 34534 70169 24805 63215 38175 38784 38855 24826 50917 25147 17082 26997 32295 10894 21805 65245 85407 37926 69214 38579 84721 23544 88548 65626 75517 69737 55626 52175 21697 19453 16908 82841 24060 40285 19195 80281 89322 15232 70043 60691 86370 91949 19017 83846 77869 14321 95102 87073 71467 31305 64677 80358 52629 79419 22359 87867 48296 50141 46807 82184 95812 84665 74511 59914 04146 90417 58508 62875 17630 21868 09199 30322 33352 43374 25473 04119 63086 14147 14863 38020 44757 98628 57916 22199 11865 42911 62651 78290 09392 77294 63168 21043 17409 13786 27475 75979 89668 43596 74316 84489 54941 95992 45445 41059 55142 15214 42903 16799 88254 95984 48575 77822 21067 57238 35352 96779 89564 23797 99937 46379 27119 16060 30302 95327 12849 38111 97090 07598 78473 63079 18570 72803 70040 91385 96436 96263 17368 56188 85999 50026 36050 73736 13351 48321 28357 51718 65636 72903 21584 21060 39829 15564 04716 14594 22363 97639 65937 17802 31535 42767 98761 30987 57657 33398 63053 25926 20944 19306 81727 02695 97479 79172 72764 66446 78864 12698 15812 97209 38827 91016 91281 57875 45228 49211 69755 99224 43999 62879 08879 80015 74396 57146 64665 31159 06980 79069 37409 75037 69977 85919 42826 06974 61063 97640 13433 92528 91311 08440 38840 22362 93929 01836 36590 75052 89475 15437 65648 99012 70236 12307 83585 00414 62851 48787 28447 21702 57033 29633 44760 34165 27548 37516 24343 63046 02081 20378 19510 42226 97134 68739 32982 56455 53129 77693 25022 55534 99375 30086 98001 07432 67126 76656 29347 28492 43108 64736 32278 84816 80440 30461 00818 09136 01952 48442 91058 92590 10443 05195 34009 32141 62209 43740 54102 76895 98172 31583 04155 66492 58981 16591 11331 06838 03818 77063 12523 45570 68970 70055 77751 73743 71732 04704 61384 57343 66682 44500 89745 10436 67202 36455 42467 88801 91280 01056 27534 81619 79004 25824 66362 33280 20706 31929 57422 18730 96197 22101 47592 02180 18287 82310 60430 59627 26471 07794 60475 76713 45427 89654 14370 81674 41246 98416 08669 48883 77154 09806 94015 60347 20027 08405 33150 27368 53375 70181 59431 66642 is the sum is the sum of two primes, or not! If it is the sum of two primes, then execute plan A. If, on the other hand, it is not the sum of two primes, go to plan B. On Plan A, quadrillions of years from now simply arrange the collapse parameters of our universe so that after the sentients have all had infinite run time, our universe ends in such a way that the one-bit answer "True" is embedded in the final limit curvature. It's fun to think about how that actually works, there being no "last" baby-universe involved. On Plan B---the case that the Conjecture is false---then spawn a new sub- universe that instructs the new baby universe to consider the next number which is 2 greater than the one above. And for them as well there is to be a corresponding Plan A and Plan B. As you can see by induction, this may ultimately involve infinitely many nested baby universes. The above number is really pitifully small (as are almost all numbers) and of course didn't require much work to determine that yes, it is the sum of two primes. Now, do you suppose that the hyper-intelligences of the local cluster were insulted by this request from the mother universe? Or dismayed that the entire point of our existence had been to make a trivial computation? Not in the least, because millions of years earlier they had fully intended to do the very same thing thing themselves if only they could figure out how. With bated-breath---or whatever passes for bated-breath among hyper- intelligences---the "subroutine call" to the baby universe was made. A tiny little micro universe was born, grew, collapsed and died, all in less than a second of local time. And as it died, it embedded The Answer to the final quest around which our entire existence is predicated. And in this way it became known: Goldbach's Conjecture is... false! Not only was the one-bit answer returned, but---as instructed---the number on which it failed was returned as well. Unfortunately, this medium is too small to record the answer. For it's a number larger than ten to the ten to the ten to the ten to the ten... , iterated altogether 42 times! And that *was* the end of the story. From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Oct 9 03:39:09 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:39:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <4527290D.6090207@pobox.com> References: <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061008233356.046aecf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:11 PM 10/6/2006 -0700, Eliezer wrote: snip >I was talking about humans. So was Rafal. > >Plans interpretable as consistent with rationality for at least one mind >in mindspace may be, for a human randomly selected from modern-day >Earth, *very unlikely* to be consistent with that human's emotions and >morality. Unless the mind was designed to be consistent with that random human mind or grew out of a human upload of that mind. >Especially if we interpret "consistency" as meaning "satisficing" or "at >least not being antiproductive" with respect to a normalization of the >human's emotions and morality, i.e., the morality they would have if >their otherwise identical emotions were properly aggregative over >extensional events rather than suffering from scope neglect and fast >evaluation by single salient features, etc. Hmm. Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Oct 9 03:31:22 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:31:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs (was: Tyranny in place) In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.co m> References: <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061008220434.04675008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:32 PM 10/6/2006 -0400, Ben wrote: >Hi, snip > > A better question might be, "as rationality increases asymptotically, > > does a generic human goal system have the urge to eliminate humans by > > replacing them with something better?" > >I don't really believe in the idea of a "generic human goal system." >It seems that some human goal systems, if pursued consistently, would >have this conclusions, whereas others would not... > > > I personally happen to think that the position of your friend is > > inconsistent with profound rationality and understanding of > > intelligence. > >Can you explain why you think this? This statement seems inconsistent >with your own discussion of rationality, above. > >I stress that I am opposed to the annihilation of humanity! I am just >pointing out the very basic point that a value judgement like this has >nothing to do with rationality... rationality is about logical >consistency and optimal goal pursuit, not about what one's values and >goals are. So long as one's goals are not logically inconsistent, >they are consistent with rationality... I sincerely doubt anyone who has passing familiarity of the subject would give an AI the goal "eliminate human misery." Or even minimize human misery. Keith Henson From sentience at pobox.com Mon Oct 9 05:07:50 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 22:07:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061008233356.046aecf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061008233356.046aecf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <4529D926.4040902@pobox.com> Keith Henson wrote: > At 09:11 PM 10/6/2006 -0700, Eliezer wrote: > >>I was talking about humans. So was Rafal. >> >>Plans interpretable as consistent with rationality for at least one mind >>in mindspace may be, for a human randomly selected from modern-day >>Earth, *very unlikely* to be consistent with that human's emotions and >>morality. > > Unless the mind was designed to be consistent with that random human mind > or grew out of a human upload of that mind. I think the thread of argument is getting lost here. The thread was as follows (my summary): Ben: "My friend thinks the human species *should* die." EY: "Then your friend doesn't strike me as a frontrunner for World's Clearest Thinker." Ben: "But that plan *could* be consistent with rationality, given different goals." EY: "We're not talking about an arbitrary nonhuman mind, we're talking about your friend." -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jonkc at att.net Mon Oct 9 08:06:38 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 04:06:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] North Korea has the bomb References: <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4521CC01.3020805@goldenfuture.net> <7641ddc60610040732i19cf7542h38708cae3635c037@mail.gmail.com> <4523F702.6050107@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com><5.1.0.14.0.20061008233356.046aecf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <4529D926.4040902@pobox.com> Message-ID: <00e501c6eb79$ed0bc6e0$c2084e0c@MyComputer> Well sort of. More than sixty years after the first nuclear bomb exploded with a force of 15,000 tons of TNT, North Korea just tested a nuclear bomb equivalent to 550 tons of TNT. That's a dud. Still, this is not a happy day. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Mon Oct 9 12:09:42 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 08:09:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs In-Reply-To: <4529D926.4040902@pobox.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061008233356.046aecf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <4529D926.4040902@pobox.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150610090509g3e4acd99ua0c2e18459e6c684@mail.gmail.com> > I think the thread of argument is getting lost here. Agree >The thread was as > follows (my summary): The thread has been beaten far enough into the ground IMO but I will offer a clarification... > Ben: "My friend thinks the human species *should* die." This is not a fair paraphrase. The opinion expressed was more along the lines that it is correct and appropriate for the human race to be replaced with something superior. Not that a priori the human species should die.... > EY: "Then your friend doesn't strike me as a frontrunner for World's > Clearest Thinker." > Ben: "But that plan *could* be consistent with rationality, given > different goals." > EY: "We're not talking about an arbitrary nonhuman mind, we're talking > about your friend." I still believe my friend, under discussion here, is a clear thinker and simply has a goal system that doesn't place extremely high value on the perpetuation of the human race. I see nothing inconsistent nor surprising here. Human nature is diverse in spite of its common evolutionary underpinnings. -- Ben From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Oct 9 18:20:04 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:20:04 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Goldbach's Conjecture Resolved! A Story In-Reply-To: <065301c6eb46$9fcdf1b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <065301c6eb46$9fcdf1b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1264.163.1.72.81.1160418004.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> What a wonderful story. Reminds me of Brin's _Stones of Significance_, although that protagonist didn't have an equally well-defined problem. Would it be OK to include it in the transhuman humour collection later on? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Oct 9 18:51:39 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:51:39 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs Message-ID: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs for transhuman technologies: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/warning_signs_for_tomorrow.html (as well as make graphs of who influenced who: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/colorful_academic_genealogies.html - maybe we should make a similar kind of graph for transhumanism?) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:57:47 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:57:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goldbach's Conjecture Resolved! A Story In-Reply-To: <065301c6eb46$9fcdf1b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <065301c6eb46$9fcdf1b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610091157r5ddf0d9bqdd9a3148dbef27ca@mail.gmail.com> ...and people accuse us 00s programmers of writing inefficient code :) Good story! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Mon Oct 9 19:42:09 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:42:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <452AA611.4050001@pobox.com> Anders Sandberg wrote: > I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs for transhuman > technologies: > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/warning_signs_for_tomorrow.html This reminds me of some signs I made up for SIAI's future lab: http://yudkowsky.net/humor/ptb.pdf http://yudkowsky.net/humor/nfts.pdf -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From alex at ramonsky.com Mon Oct 9 20:14:00 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:14:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <452AAD88.4000801@ramonsky.com> Class humor; thankyou : ) ...Where I work there is a room containing a divider disguised as a wall. When it's up, the room looks half its actual size. People get used to this and then come in one day and find the room is twice as large. There is a consequently a sign on the door that reads "Warning -This facility is subject to sudden changes in scale". ...Whatever icon could we use for that, I wonder? AR ************** Anders Sandberg wrote: >I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs for transhuman >technologies: >http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/warning_signs_for_tomorrow.html > >(as well as make graphs of who influenced who: >http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/colorful_academic_genealogies.html >- maybe we should make a similar kind of graph for transhumanism?) > > > From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 20:15:12 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:15:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 10/9/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > (as well as make graphs of who influenced who: > > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/colorful_academic_genealogies.html > - maybe we should make a similar kind of graph for transhumanism?) Interesting stuff. A few things I wonder about: * If you use the "influences" and "influenced by" information in the Wikipedia templates, does it have similar results? * How similar are the results if you simply rely on which person articles have wiki links to each other? -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From estropico at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 21:22:05 2006 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:22:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExtroBritannia's October event - Aubrey de Grey on the Mprize and SENS research Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90610091422t46d6d567xf162708a386791b0@mail.gmail.com> ExtroBritannia's October event - Aubrey de Grey on the Mprize and SENS research Saturday the 21st of October 2006 at 2pm, Conway Hall (Bertrand Russell's Room) in Holborn, London. The event is free and everyone is welcome. This month, Aubrey de Grey will update us on progress on the Mprize and on new developments in SENS research. From the Mprize's website: "The Mprize is the premiere effort of the Methuselah Foundation and is being offered to the scientific research team which develops the longest living Mus musculus, the breed of mouse most commonly used in scientific research. Developing interventions which work in mice is a critical precursor to the development of human anti-aging techniques, for once it is demonstrated that aging in mice can be effectively delayed or reversed, popular attitudes towards aging as 'inevitable' will no longer be possible. When aging in mice is shown to be 'treatable' the funding necessary for a full-line assault on the aging process will be made available. This is the true power of the Mprize, to demonstrate a proof of principle, and give hope to the world that decline in function and age-related disease are no longer guarantees, for us, or for future generations, if we work together now." And if you want to meet before the event, we'll be at the Penderel's Oak from 12.30 for lunch (we also move back to the pub for drinks and conversation after the event). If it is your first time at an ExtroBritannia event, look out for a copy of Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near" at our table (picture: http://tinyurl.com/eejgx) CONWAY HALL 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL tel 020 7242 8032 www.conwayhall.org.uk Nearest tube: Holborn MAP: http://tinyurl.com/8syus The Penderel's Oak 283-288 High Holborn London WC1V 7HJ Tel: 0207 242 5669 Nearest tube: Holborn MAP: http://tinyurl.com/29swq --- The ExtroBritannia mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia The ExtroBritannia Blog: http://www.extrobritannia.blogspot.com ExtroBritannia is the monthly public event of the UK Transhumanist Association: http://www.transhumanist.org.uk From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Oct 9 22:21:29 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:21:29 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intellectual influence In-Reply-To: References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <2995.163.1.72.81.1160432489.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Neil H. wrote: > > Interesting stuff. A few things I wonder about: > > * If you use the "influences" and "influenced by" information in the > Wikipedia templates, does it have similar results? I didn't know the Big W had that feature, and now I'm itching to try. Just simple pattern matching in a python script and I could make a crawler to harvest the graph. I just have to figure out the best way of download a copy of the Wikipedia to play with locally. Anybody who has done it? > * How similar are the results if you simply rely on which person articles > have wiki links to each other? My guess is that the influence links will have a higher signal-to-noise ratio, especially since many person references relate more to interactions and family than intellectual links. It also depends on how well you can disambiguate persons from other articles. I didn't see any "person" category, which means it is likely that it will be tricky to automatically determine whether a link is another person (I'd love to have a good named entity reference detector for English to integrate in my software - in Swedish capitalisation can do a surprisingly decent job, but it fails for English). Even if we just accept philosopher category pages it will be somewhat messy. Still, in the long run every link is sacred: it contains a deliberate relation to another document we can mine if we can just dig out enough context around it. Why am I looking at this problem in the first place? Let's just say the Future of Humanity Institute has a few empty walls screaming for beautiful visualisations of the world and our understanding of it. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Oct 9 20:34:51 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:34:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs Message-ID: <380-220061019203451390@M2W009.mail2web.com> From: Anders Sandberg >I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs for transhuman >technologies: >http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/warning_signs_for_tomorrow.html >... Another excellent body of creative work Anders! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Oct 10 01:13:44 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:13:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] JURY DUTY SCAM Message-ID: <002801c6ec09$54e01430$6600a8c0@brainiac> This has been validated at http://www.snopes..com/crime/fraud/juryduty.asp Please pass this on to everyone in your email address book. It is spreading fast, so be prepared should you get this call. Most of us take those summons for jury duty seriously, but enough people skip out on their civic duty, that a new and ominous kind of scam has surfaced. Fall for it and your identity could be stolen, reports CBS. In this con, someone calls pretending to be a court official who threateningly says a warrant has been issued for your arrest because you didn't show up for jury duty. The caller claims to be a jury coordinator. If you protest that you never received a summons for jury duty, the scammer asks you for your Social Security number and date of birth so he or she can verify the information and cancel the arrest warrant. Sometimes they even ask for credit card numbers. Give out any of this information and bingo! Your identity just got stolen. The scam has been reported so far in 11 states. This (scam) is particularly insidious because they use intimidation over the phone to try to bully people into giving information by pretending they're with the court system. The FBI and the federal court system have issued nationwide alerts on their web sites, warning consumers about the fraud. Please. Pass this! on! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 10 02:32:20 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:32:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20061008172043.03020878@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________________ ...bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question A week ago I was reading an article online about new research and findings concerning further steps toward teleportation.? ... Does anyone know about this?? If not, does anyone have any information about the state of the art in teleportation? Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Natasha that article made the mainstream media, but it was nothing profound as far as I could tell from what they actually said, no profound breakthroughs. Scotty won't be beaming us aboard any time soon. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 10 02:54:18 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:54:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <452AA611.4050001@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200610100307.k9A37nVx022386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 12:42 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs > > Anders Sandberg wrote: > > I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs for transhuman > > technologies: > > > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/warning_signs_for_tomorrow.htm > l > > This reminds me of some signs I made up for SIAI's future lab: > > http://yudkowsky.net/humor/ptb.pdf > http://yudkowsky.net/humor/nfts.pdf > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky Thanks guys! This reminds me of that sign at the Singularity Summit this past May at Stanford. As I entered the campus I saw someone had made up a nice professional-looking sign that read "SINGULARITY AHEAD" with an arrow pointing up, indicating the appropriate parking lot. I have always considered myself an honest man, but temptation gnawed at me until my sense of moral behavior collapsed under the strain. I decided I would go out at the first intermission and steal that sign, then get the local cognoscenti to autograph it. So I ran out there, but to my utter dismay, the sign was gone! I have but one message to the lowlife thief who got to that sign before I did: have you no decency, sir or madam? Do you think that you are morally justified in this blatant and reprehensible act of larceny? What part of THOU SHALT NOT STEAL do you not understand? If you auction the sign on eBay, would you consider allowing me to bid on it before it goes public? spike From transcend at extropica.com Tue Oct 10 02:34:24 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:34:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <452AAD88.4000801@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <200610100317.k9A3H3oe006947@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Does this mean when I join up with a group-mind, I'm going to have to wear one of your warning signs like a star of david? Feh! Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ramonsky Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:14 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs Class humor; thankyou : ) ...Where I work there is a room containing a divider disguised as a wall. When it's up, the room looks half its actual size. People get used to this and then come in one day and find the room is twice as large. There is a consequently a sign on the door that reads "Warning -This facility is subject to sudden changes in scale". ...Whatever icon could we use for that, I wonder? AR ************** Anders Sandberg wrote: >I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs for transhuman >technologies: >http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/warning_signs_for_tomorrow.html > >(as well as make graphs of who influenced who: >http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/colorful_academic_genealogies.h tml >- maybe we should make a similar kind of graph for transhumanism?) > > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 10 03:27:46 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:27:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10610061355k462b7936t8581aeb9883c39a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200610100338.k9A3cpDr018741@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Michael Anissimov ... > > > > I expect that our own conversations were not terribly deep when we were > > teenagers. It was all about mating at that age, a mostly unsuccessful > and > > pointless exercise I might add... > > ... Seriously though, I was deep as > a teenager because I wanted to be, and got plenty of respect as a > result... Ja I can relate. Michael, you are an exception to many rules. I was too. {8-] Of course I was not smart or rich enough to make the rank of eccentric, so I had to settle for weird. ... > > The teens nowadays get laid more, and think more, and are more mature > than they were back in your time... WHAT? Whaddya mean "back in your time"? Now is my time. Anyone who thinks otherwise, why I'll just whack em with my walker. {8^D ... > > The funny thing about most adults is that they're slaves to their > paychecks. I believe the way you once put it was "busting our asses > to buy a tract shack"... Ja, and as you know from living around here, those tract shacks are dear indeed. I gaze upon my infant son and wonder, boy how on evolution's green earth are you EVER going to be able to afford something like what you grew up in? > It's hilarious how adults ... > ... 3) see their company as > important just because it happens to be THEIR company now... That is part of it perhaps, or more exactly, my company is important because I own stock in it from the company profit sharing plan, and that this particular company is holding the bag for my particular pension fund. This takes on a whole new meaning for people of my age, because we know that social security is scheduled to go bust right when I reach my late youth. Think about this just a bit. Some may think of this problem as being smaller than it really is, perhaps by imagining that the government can simply raise taxes to cover the cost, or just print more money and hand it out. But try to estimate what will really happen when that fund is outta money. Michael people of your age (and mine) need to think about what actually happens when you are about 50, still in the middle of your earning years, and now there are skerjillions of retired geezers with their hands out. What will this country do? What will France, Germany, Japan, Australia and Sweden do? I hear they are in a worse jam than we are. ... ... > ...let the younger set how-r-u each other's brains out with no > interference, objection, or trace of envy. > > You seem to have some negative stereotypes regarding instant messaging > in your head! Just because inarticulate people use a technology > doesn't mean that that technology is inherently useless. Inarticulate > people use email too, doesn't mean that email is useless... Point well taken. I have been driven away from some otherwise interesting email groups because of piles of rubbish from people who couldn't spell, put together a single grammatically correct sentence, or even produce any solid evidence that they could think. As I write, I note that in my own previous post, the sentence in which I complained the most loudly contained to absurd typos, this in spite of Bill's offering me the squiggly red lines under the most blatant examples. Some emailers also make comments such as How R U. Oy vey, must we communicate in license plate? I am tempted to reply to "How R U" with O, I M V-R-E O-L 2-D. N O R U? O-L 2? ... {8^D spike From brian at posthuman.com Tue Oct 10 04:00:08 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:00:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <452B1AC8.4020302@posthuman.com> Here's some ideas: Schroeder, Lady of Mazes - Enhanced humans can work with advanced nano environment to enforce very localized or even physically overlapping ideas of a perfect world. Wright, Golden Age series - Various enhanced stuff including mass mentalities, memory redaction, self-aware characters created accidentally during games, more. Egan, Schild's Ladder - More Egan-posthumans flitting about, this time into some unusual places. Peter F. Hamilton - Night's Dawn series has various bits, including an "affinity" gene which allows for mental communication, uploads, controlling engineered species, etc. More recent Commonwealth series also has plenty of bits including various enhancements. Geodesica series - Various upgraded characters including the highly upgraded Exarchs who can control multiple bodies, manage complete societies, and some bits regarding giving everyone access to a highly transparent society. Vinge, Rainbow's End - Haven't read it yet, but sounds like it might meet your criterion if you consider external devices as enhancements. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 10 04:15:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:15:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] nuclear power for all In-Reply-To: <200610100338.k9A3cpDr018741@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200610100428.k9A4S944005937@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > the sentence in which I complained the most loudly contained to > absurd typos... spike Oh dear, this is getting two funny. On another topic entirely, it appears the U.S. is trying to spread nuclear technology to, well, pretty much everywhere including such places as Yemen: http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/61808.htm Someone who is up to speed on their nuke tech, do remind me. As I recall from the physics lectures so very long ago that a heavy water reactor requires slightly more highly enriched uranium, and makes as a byproduct plutonium 235 which can be used to make fission bombs? And a light water reactor can use slightly less enriched uranium, requires a less sophisticated control system but does not produce plutonium? Or is that an oversimplification? I suppose the scheme makes sense if the U.S. is helping nations build light water reactors, because that would help mop up excess uranium without producing bomb stuff, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gases. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Oct 10 04:38:14 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:38:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs - A New Take In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610090509g3e4acd99ua0c2e18459e6c684@mail.gmail.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7641ddc60610041230m637a8a0byc8c73ed5f12d8af1@mail.gmail.com> <452421C4.7050602@pobox.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061008233356.046aecf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <4529D926.4040902@pobox.com> <638d4e150610090509g3e4acd99ua0c2e18459e6c684@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20F8F1BF-2709-4B33-8E52-6FEC94224C38@mac.com> On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:09 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: > I still believe my friend, under discussion here, is a clear thinker > and simply has a goal system that doesn't place extremely high value > on the perpetuation of the human race. I see nothing inconsistent nor > surprising here. Human nature is diverse in spite of its common > evolutionary underpinnings. > It seems to me that the majority of the people here actually do want the human race to be replaced by something superior. Most want that superior something to have continuity with existing humans, especially themselves through augmentation, uploading and such. But those future ex-humans will not be human in body, are unlikely to keep human emotions as we know them, will have eschewed most human limits, will think perhaps millions of times faster and will most likely think and exist so radically differently as to be a completely different type of being. I dare say that most of us are rather in a hurry to go beyond the current rather sorry human state no matter how much we may enjoy parts of it along the way. If this so then the argument boils down to whether humans as we know them go away by choice and whether they get transformed into something better or are simply replaced. - samantha From brian at posthuman.com Tue Oct 10 04:56:36 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:56:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <452B1AC8.4020302@posthuman.com> References: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <452B1AC8.4020302@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <452B2804.2090403@posthuman.com> TV show: Stargate SG-1: Season 3, Ep 5 "Learning Curve" interesting story idea, luddish ending http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s3/305.shtml Season 4, Ep 3 "Upgrades" may be slightly interesting http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s4/403.shtml Season 7, ep 5 "Revisions" when things go wrong... http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s7/705.shtml Few more bits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity#Popular_culture -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Oct 10 05:14:38 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:14:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <452B1AC8.4020302@posthuman.com> References: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <452B1AC8.4020302@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <1154D255-C44D-4DC8-AE8C-6F57CC412313@mac.com> David Zindell's Neverness series, Neverness, The Broken God, The Wild, War in Heaven. The set is full of post-human "gods", machine "gods", post-Singularity (or several) cultures, augmented more or less humans, etc. I found it much richer and more engaging than the Dune series and much more imaginative. Plenty of food for thought. - samantha On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Brian Atkins wrote: > Here's some ideas: > > Schroeder, Lady of Mazes - Enhanced humans can work with advanced nano > environment to enforce very localized or even physically overlapping > ideas of a > perfect world. > > Wright, Golden Age series - Various enhanced stuff including mass > mentalities, > memory redaction, self-aware characters created accidentally during > games, more. > > Egan, Schild's Ladder - More Egan-posthumans flitting about, this > time into some > unusual places. > > Peter F. Hamilton - Night's Dawn series has various bits, including an > "affinity" gene which allows for mental communication, uploads, > controlling > engineered species, etc. More recent Commonwealth series also has > plenty of bits > including various enhancements. > > Geodesica series - Various upgraded characters including the highly > upgraded > Exarchs who can control multiple bodies, manage complete societies, > and some > bits regarding giving everyone access to a highly transparent society. > > Vinge, Rainbow's End - Haven't read it yet, but sounds like it might > meet your > criterion if you consider external devices as enhancements. > -- > 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 05:32:44 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:32:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognition enhancement in fiction In-Reply-To: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <4081.163.1.72.91.1160077424.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610092232p53e2e4c4o74a11f0d60e0cdd8@mail.gmail.com> Not sure if this is in accordance with the letter of the request, but I think it's definitely in the spirit: 'Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell'. When I was reading it I was going "bloody heck, did the author hire an AI researcher as a technical consultant or something?". Highly recommended. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 07:31:46 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] North Korea has the bomb In-Reply-To: <00e501c6eb79$ed0bc6e0$c2084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20061010073146.12945.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > Well sort of. More than sixty years after the first > nuclear bomb exploded > with a force of 15,000 tons of TNT, North Korea just > tested a nuclear bomb > equivalent to 550 tons of TNT. That's a dud. Still, > this is not a happy day. 550 tons? I can see why the white house is so reluctant to confirm the news. After all it is not inconceivable that they could have scraped together 550 tons of TNT to mess with our heads. Still, it's not wise to call a nuclear bluff. That's the beauty of the nuke. Cheer up, John. What with China, India, and Pakistan, non-whites have had the nuke for some time. I look forward to the day when anybody can walk into walmart and purchase a nuke. That will be the day when respect is universal and interpersonal problems will be solved without the use of force. Can you blame North Korea, Iran, or the rest for wanting to sit at the grown-up's table for a change? Or do you buy into the whole "axis-of-insane-evil" malarky? You do realize that the entire Korean peninsula was a civilized nation-state for over a thousand years before George Washington was a glimmer in his father's eye don't you? The some 50 odd years of a separate North and South Korea is a historical fluke resulting from the cold war which was spawned by nukes in the first place. Korea was of course a vassal of the Japanese empire for few decades, but we ended that with 2 small nukes. It seems that much of Korea's fortunes the last century have revolved around nukes in one way or another. The interesting question what will your commander-in-chief do, when Greater Korea makes a bid for reuinification, which it it inevitably must as all people do when they are artificially separated from their brothers and sisters? What will China and Japan do? Oh the delicious beauty of the human drama as it unfolds. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -Galileo Galilei __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:32:18 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:32:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fools building AIs - A New Take In-Reply-To: <20F8F1BF-2709-4B33-8E52-6FEC94224C38@mac.com> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7641ddc60610051558t4b3a367dga0ec8f17f7a5d8d5@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610051814g31ebd7e4oa762380f39bd31e6@mail.gmail.com> <51ce64f10610061437q38e85483ufab0fd9ced0aaea2@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150610062032i7fa59c21ge17ad2576e8fab80@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20061008233356.046aecf8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <4529D926.4040902@pobox.com> <638d4e150610090509g3e4acd99ua0c2e18459e6c684@mail.gmail.com> <20F8F1BF-2709-4B33-8E52-6FEC94224C38@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610100132k7c134fcdm5b9565147d41563e@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > It seems to me that the majority of the people here actually do want > the human race to be replaced by something superior. There is a difference between "species X is no longer around because it evolved into species Y" and "species X is no longer around because it became extinct, leaving no descendants". I remember one night when I was I don't know, maybe 10 years old, and sick with one of those bugs that children pick up that's really trivial, but is utter misery from the first person viewpoint, and I couldn't sleep all night, but I stayed awake with the printed version of David Attenborough's 'Life on Earth', and the physical misery just didn't matter because I was so entranced with the beauty of the vision, life crawling out of the primordial slime and climbing ever upwards; and I began dimly to appreciate the moral freight on our - my - shoulders, to pass on the torch, not only for the welfare of future generations (which isn't something a 10 year old, however smart, can get that much of a grip on) but to make all those lives before us have meaning, not only those who died in the sky over Britain in 1940 AD and in the pass of Thermopylae in 480 BC, but all those who suffered and died with defective genes that the handful with lucky mutations might do better, back to the first fish that struggled out of the ocean. If our descendants a thousand years from now feel the same, I think our generation will have done its job. One of the most moving passages for me in all of Christian mythology has been this (where I take God as a metaphor for the principles of evolution and self-organization, Adam as a metaphor for our predecessors and the foe to be entropy): "O Loving wisdom of our God When all was sin and shame A second Adam to the fight And to the rescue came. O wisest love! that flesh and blood Which did in Adam fail, Should strive afresh against the foe, Should strive and should prevail." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Oct 10 08:35:16 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:35:16 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <200610100317.k9A3H3oe006947@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610100317.k9A3H3oe006947@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1211.86.143.28.237.1160469316.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Brandon Reinhart wrote: > Does this mean when I join up with a group-mind, I'm going to have to wear > one of your warning signs like a star of david? Feh! Exactly my thought when I made the sign. Could the warning sign threaten individual liberty? I might have to wear one of those cognitive hazard signs myself. But as I write in the text it is unlikely real borganisms would be risky this way. If they are normal, law abiding citiens they will not assimilate people left and right. This is for the assimilation incontinent borgs. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From alito at organicrobot.com Tue Oct 10 10:08:57 2006 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:08:57 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intellectual influence In-Reply-To: <2995.163.1.72.81.1160432489.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <2995.163.1.72.81.1160432489.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <1160474938.14108.34.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 00:21 +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote: > I didn't know the Big W had that feature, and now I'm itching to try. Just > simple pattern matching in a python script and I could make a crawler to > harvest the graph. I just have to figure out the best way of download a > copy of the Wikipedia to play with locally. Anybody who has done it? > http://download.wikimedia.org/ I haven't actually tried it but I'm assuming it's the same file as what the human knowledge compression people (http://prize.hutter1.net/) are supplying, with the latter just being truncated to the first hundred megs. If it is, it's an easily understandable xml file. Whole thing doesn't seem that big either if you restrict to current articles (2.8 gigs compressed for the english version). From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 11:09:17 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:09:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity Message-ID: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.com> I saw this when rummaging through the archives, and didn't see a reply, and it's been gnawing at me as the one such paradox I don't have a satisfactory answer for. I'm going to rephrase it in more vivid terms that I find help make it clearer: You're sitting down one evening with a ritual to summon Satan and bind him to your will, because you're annoyed the Playstation 3 is delayed and you want one _this_ Christmas, dammit. Unfortunately, you miss a bar over one variable of the binding ritual. "Muhahaha, foolish mortal!" mocks Satan. "Now you are mine to do with as I will!" "Erg... I just wanted a PS3," grumbleth you. "Too bad. Now being evil and all I'm going to do something nasty to you, but in accordance with tradition, I will give you a logical chance. So, here are your options: A: I turn you into a frog. B: I run off a copy of you. In case you're a threadist, I'll do it atom by atom, neuron by neuron, symmetrically, with thread of consciousness unbroken throughout, such that there will be two of you at the end and neither objectively nor subjectively will it be possible to tell which is the original and which is the copy (and in case you're a substratist, all copies will continue to be made of carbon compounds in water just like before, no uploading into silicon chips), so you should equally expect to be either. Then I will let one copy go free, but similarly multiply the other into 999. And then I will take all 999 to hell and make them write essays on postmodernist literature! Muhahaha! Now being a reasonable devil, I'll let you think for a little while, then you have to make your choice." "Oh crap," says you. "If I get turned into a frog, I won't be able to fulfil many of my goals. Unless I get kissed by a princess. But princesses these days are few and far between and mostly not into any variant of rishathra. So the probability there is much less than 50%. Whereas if I choose option B, there's a 50% probability that I just get to go free. So I should take B..." "But," you continue to muse, "let's look at the situation tomorrow in that event. There will be 1 copy of me free, and 999 undergoing horrible torture. There will be no objective fact of the matter as to what the copying sequence was. The only objective fact will be that 0.1% of my instances will be free and 99.9% will be tortured. Therefore I should estimate a 99.9%probability that I'll be tortured. Compared to that, being turned into a frog doesn't sound so bad after all." I'm assuming for the sake of the thought experiment that you're Homo economicus, only concerned about what you personally will experience, that you don't value maximizing copies for its own sake etc; the question is whether in case B you should estimate the probability that you will be forced to write essays on postmodernist literature versus being allowed to go free at 50/50 or 99.9/0.1. Now to a threadist the first line of reasoning seems correct, the thread of consciousness splits 50/50 and after that who cares what happens to the other thread that isn't you? So I'll understand perfectly if threadists reply "fetchez la vache!". However, I have other reasons (which I won't bring up again here, that argument's been beaten so far into the ground as to contribute to landscape erosion) for disbelieving that philosophy. To us patternists, the second line of reasoning seems correct; 1 copy of our pattern is free and 999 copies are being tortured. But intuitively the threadist view seems correct here! There must be a 50% probability on the first copy that I'll go free. Once I'm subjectively experiencing myself as being free, how can it then make any difference how many copies of the tortured pattern are made? I can't suddenly find myself yanked into Satan's classroom just because more copies outside my light cone were made, can I? How do we reconcile intuition with the patternist view? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Tue Oct 10 13:18:27 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:18:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question References: <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000201c6ec6e$934c0bb0$00b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> According to prof. Zeilinger it should be possible, but in the far future only, to teleport little molecules and perhaps viruses, with a good enough fidelity (this is an important factor!). There is, of course, a big difference between a quantum state of a photon (or of a particle, or of an ion-in-a-trap, or of an atom, or of a billion of atoms acting all together with a single phase as a single object) and a quantum state of a big molecule (where the sequences, the chirality, etc., are essential factors). Interesting experiments by Polzik confirm it is possibility to realize an entanglement between a sample of matter (a collective made of billions of atoms) and radiation (a laser propagating through that sample of matter). This kind of entanglement, between matter and radiation, allows one to perform the so called 'Bell measurement' on the superposition between the radiation (coming from the sample of matter) and the quantum state to be teleported back into the sample of matter. (In a science fiction story the above sample of matter would be a sort of primordial soup and the quantum state to be teleported would be the recipe to trasform the soup into a living organism. But this story has been written I suppose ...). http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/10/6 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0605095 http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/2/15 http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/6/10 http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/8/1 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302114 From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 10 14:05:13 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:05:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <1211.86.143.28.237.1160469316.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200610101417.k9AEHtKv017990@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs > > > Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > Does this mean when I join up with a group-mind, I'm going to have to > wear > > one of your warning signs like a star of david? Feh! > > Exactly my thought when I made the sign. Could the warning sign threaten > individual liberty? I might have to wear one of those cognitive hazard > signs myself... Anders Sandberg, Anders if you did that, you would hafta wear the supernova of David. spike From hemm at openlink.com.br Tue Oct 10 14:02:20 2006 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:02:20 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <452AA611.4050001@pobox.com> Message-ID: <03a801c6ec74$b4ff75c0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Loved the signs. Specially the "memetic hazard" which is really the most usefull today... :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs > Anders Sandberg wrote: >> I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs for transhuman >> technologies: >> http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/warning_signs_for_tomorrow.html > > This reminds me of some signs I made up for SIAI's future lab: > > http://yudkowsky.net/humor/ptb.pdf > http://yudkowsky.net/humor/nfts.pdf From bret at bonfireproductions.com Tue Oct 10 14:59:58 2006 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:59:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <3909531D-0835-4FA6-8A7D-CB865B15A59C@bonfireproductions.com> Ok, Anders - I don't post this to the list often enough - these are brilliant! You should consider one for Meso-scale structures and their inherent weirdness. "Objects in mirror may be stranger than they appear" (Of course that's microscope mirror.) The warning for Autonomous Device hits the nail right on the head! Thanks for sharing! Bret On Oct 9, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs for transhuman > technologies: > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/ > warning_signs_for_tomorrow.html > > (as well as make graphs of who influenced who: > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/ > colorful_academic_genealogies.html > - maybe we should make a similar kind of graph for transhumanism?) > > -- > 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 From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 16:28:44 2006 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:28:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intellectual influence In-Reply-To: <1160474938.14108.34.camel@alito.homeip.net> References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <2995.163.1.72.81.1160432489.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <1160474938.14108.34.camel@alito.homeip.net> Message-ID: <51ce64f10610100928k47eb4c4cq58bbdcf310cb91e9@mail.gmail.com> You can also use the new web service Webaroo to download a summarized version of Wikipedia for your own perusal. It's about 6GB large, and lacks images. -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 17:09:16 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:09:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intellectual influence In-Reply-To: <2995.163.1.72.81.1160432489.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <2995.163.1.72.81.1160432489.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 10/9/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > Neil H. wrote: > > * How similar are the results if you simply rely on which person > articles > > have wiki links to each other? > > My guess is that the influence links will have a higher signal-to-noise > ratio, especially since many person references relate more to interactions > and family than intellectual links. Oh yes, certainly. However, the sheer quantity of information available may result in some interesting things. > It also depends on how well you can disambiguate persons from other > articles. I didn't see any "person" category, which means it is likely > that it will be tricky to automatically determine whether a link is > another person (I'd love to have a good named entity reference detector > for English to integrate in my software - in Swedish capitalisation can do > a surprisingly decent job, but it fails for English). Even if we just > accept philosopher category pages it will be somewhat messy. Still, in the > long run every link is sacred: it contains a deliberate relation to > another document we can mine if we can just dig out enough context around > it. Actually, if you go up through the Category links, I think each person subtype eventually leads up to "Category:People." For example, Category:Philosophers is in Category:People_known_in_connection_with_religion_or_philosophy, which is in Category:People. On another side note, it might be fun to try clustering everything in the categories and subcategories for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transhumanism -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 10 17:11:07 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:11:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity (resend) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell Wallace wrote on the perennial topic of personal identity: I saw this when rummaging through the archives, and didn't see a reply, and it's been gnawing at me as the one such paradox I don't have a satisfactory answer for. I'm going to rephrase it in more vivid terms that I find help make it clearer: So, here are your options: A: I turn you into a frog. B: I run off a copy of you. In case you're a threadist, I'll do it atom by atom, neuron by neuron, symmetrically, with thread of consciousness unbroken throughout, such that there will be two of you at the end and neither objectively nor subjectively will it be possible to tell which is the original and which is the copy (and in case you're a substratist, all copies will continue to be made of carbon compounds in water just like before, no uploading into silicon chips), so you should equally expect to be either. Then I will let one copy go free, but similarly multiply the other into 999. And then I will take all 999 to hell and make them write essays on postmodernist literature! Muhahaha! (Option A is ruled out since being a frog doesn't do much for one's future.) "But," you continue to muse, "let's look at the situation tomorrow in that event. There will be 1 copy of me free, and 999 undergoing horrible torture. There will be no objective fact of the matter as to what the copying sequence was. The only objective fact will be that 0.1% of my instances will be free and 99.9% will be tortured. Therefore I should estimate a 99.9% probability that I'll be tortured. Compared to that, being turned into a frog doesn't sound so bad after all." Here's where the confusion becomes apparent. It's the usual confusion between objective and subjective points of view, reinforced by culture, language, and personal experience. It's Descartes'' error in not so subtle disguise, the assumption within "cogito, ergo sum" that *I* am experiencing, rather than the more defensible assertion that *some process* seems to be reporting on an experience. I'm assuming for the sake of the thought experiment that you're Homo economicus, only concerned about what you personally will experience, What is this "you" that is spoken of, Human? The "Self" which is held so dearly is only a conceptual locus, not an intrinsic property of matter. that you don't value maximizing copies for its own sake etc; the question is whether in case B you should estimate the probability that you will be forced to write essays on postmodernist literature versus being allowed to go free at 50/50 or 99.9/0.1. Now to a threadist the first line of reasoning seems correct, the thread of consciousness splits 50/50 and after that who cares what happens to the other thread that isn't you? So I'll understand perfectly if threadists reply "fetchez la vache!". Thread of consciousness is a useful concept, but it's misused here. Earlier it was clearly stated that there would be no way to distinguish among the copies, so the (often useful) concept of Self can't apply here. Or if it were to apply, it would have to apply equally to all copies and therefore be equally meaningless. Self is not something intrinsic, it is only the point of view of an agent, and since an agent, by definition, must be able to intentionally affect its environment, the concept of agent (and by extension, Self) does not apply to independent copies. So, the logically consistent way to look at the above situation must be from the third party point of view: That the future scenario would contain one individual indistinguishable from you, and 99 new individuals being tortured. So the question (which must remain in the third person POV)is whether you would prefer a future with (A) your agency contained within the body of a frog, or (B) the creation of 99 individuals (who happen to be very similar to you) who are being tortured. Makes sense? Paradox is always a matter of insufficient context. In the bigger picture, all the pieces must fit. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 10 17:06:22 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:06:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell Wallace wrote on the perennial topic of personal identity: I saw this when rummaging through the archives, and didn't see a reply, and it's been gnawing at me as the one such paradox I don't have a satisfactory answer for. I'm going to rephrase it in more vivid terms that I find help make it clearer: So, here are your options: A: I turn you into a frog. B: I run off a copy of you. In case you're a threadist, I'll do it atom by atom, neuron by neuron, symmetrically, with thread of consciousness unbroken throughout, such that there will be two of you at the end and neither objectively nor subjectively will it be possible to tell which is the original and which is the copy (and in case you're a substratist, all copies will continue to be made of carbon compounds in water just like before, no uploading into silicon chips), so you should equally expect to be either. Then I will let one copy go free, but similarly multiply the other into 999. And then I will take all 999 to hell and make them write essays on postmodernist literature! Muhahaha! (Option A is ruled out since being a frog doesn't do much for ones future.) "But," you continue to muse, "let's look at the situation tomorrow in that event. There will be 1 copy of me free, and 999 undergoing horrible torture. There will be no objective fact of the matter as to what the copying sequence was. The only objective fact will be that 0.1% of my instances will be free and 99.9% will be tortured. Therefore I should estimate a 99.9% probability that I'll be tortured. Compared to that, being turned into a frog doesn't sound so bad after all." Here's where the confusion becomes apparent. It's the usual confusion between objective and subjective points of view, reinforced by culture, language, and personal experience. It's Descartes'' error in not so subtle disguise, the assumption within "cogito, ergo sum" that *I* am experiencing, rather than the more defensible assertion that *some process* seems to be reporting on an experience. I'm assuming for the sake of the thought experiment that you're Homo economicus, only concerned about what you personally will experience, What is this "you" that is spoken of, Human? The "Self" which is held so dearly is only a conceptual locus, not an intrinsic property of matter. that you don't value maximizing copies for its own sake etc; the question is whether in case B you should estimate the probability that you will be forced to write essays on postmodernist literature versus being allowed to go free at 50/50 or 99.9/0.1. Now to a threadist the first line of reasoning seems correct, the thread of consciousness splits 50/50 and after that who cares what happens to the other thread that isn't you? So I'll understand perfectly if threadists reply "fetchez la vache!". Thread of consciousness is a useful concept, but it's misused here. Earlier it was clearly stated that there would be no way to distinguish among the copies, so the (often useful) concept of Self can't apply here. Or if it were to apply, it would have to apply equally to all copies and therefore be equally meaningless. Self is not something intrinsic, it is only the point of view of an agent, and since an agent, by definition, must be able to intentionally affect its environment, the concept of agent (and by extension, Self) does not apply to independent copies. So, the logically consistent way to look at the above situation must be from the third party point of view: That the future scenario would contain one individual indistinguishable from you, and 99 new individuals being tortured. So the question (which must remain in the third person POV)is whether you would prefer a future with (A) your agency contained within the body of a frog, or (B) the creation of 99 individuals (who happen to be very similar to you) who are being tortured. Makes sense? Paradox is always a matter of insufficient context. In the bigger picture, all the pieces must fit. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 17:40:01 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:40:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question In-Reply-To: <000201c6ec6e$934c0bb0$00b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <000201c6ec6e$934c0bb0$00b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: On 10/10/06, scerir wrote: > > According to prof. Zeilinger it should be possible, but in the far future > only, to teleport little molecules and perhaps viruses, with a good enough > fidelity (this is an important factor!). But why do you care? I don't see what quantum teleportation has to do with classical teleportation. In classical teleportation you want an exact copy at a remote location. The disassembly of the original is commonly part of the equation but I can imagine processes where it might not be entirely necessary. The classical quantum states of all of the atoms in the original are IMO *irrelevant* from a human "teleportation" standpoint [1] -- the quantum state of my brain changes far more between going to sleep and waking up or letting my blood sugar get too low and I find neither of those upsetting. And a dumb rock doesn't care whether or not it is the "same" rock when it is moved from point A to point B. If you do this by turning matter into energy, transmitting a beam of energy and turning it back into matter I think you have *lots* of problems involving the difficulty of doing those conversions, the efficiency of those conversions, the non-trivial amount of energy required for 60kg of matter (a small fraction of that mass is converted to energy in an atomic bomb explosion), etc. So I think that is a non-starter until one is *well* into the singularity and perhaps not even then. If one uses "teleportation" of information through a worm hole, "subspace" or some other "magical" ether then one still has the problem of how to get it in an out and it doesn't make the object being teleported "magically" appear at some distant point in space -- there has to be a transporter, ring, etc. on both ends. (So you can never beam down to a planet without a transporter on the planet.) If you want the "same" atoms, you have a big problem with accelerating that much matter up to the speed of light and slowing it down again. If your purpose is simply to send someone from point A to point B they can walk or ride a boat or fly in a plane. If anyone can explain to me how any of these so-called "teleportation" experiments are in any way relevant to classical (i.e. Star Trek or Star Gate) teleportation please do so. I used to be able to stand on my head -- but it isn't useful for very much. I think that is how I classify experiments in this area as well. Robert 1. Of course if you start to drift off into Penrose or perhaps Tipler land you may consider them to be more important than I do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Oct 10 17:13:01 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:13:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question In-Reply-To: <000201c6ec6e$934c0bb0$00b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <000201c6ec6e$934c0bb0$00b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061010121156.041472c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:18 AM 10/10/2006, scerir wrote: >According to prof. Zeilinger it should be possible, >but in the far future only, to teleport little molecules >and perhaps viruses, with a good enough fidelity (this >is an important factor!). (snip) Thanks! Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Oct 10 17:11:14 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:11:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question In-Reply-To: <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20061008172043.03020878@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061010121021.04147558@pop-server.austin.rr.com> >Natasha that article made the mainstream media, but it was nothing profound >as far as I could tell from what they actually said, no profound >breakthroughs. Scotty won't be beaming us aboard any time soon. spike Indeed. Although the article still holds value from a researcher's point of view. Do you have the URL? Thanks Spike - Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, 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 velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Oct 10 18:20:20 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:20:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity References: Message-ID: Jef wrote: "So, the logically consistent way to look at the above situation must be from the third party point of view: That the future scenario would contain one individual indistinguishable from you, and 99 new individuals being tortured." Indeed. Hopefully, these sort of thought experiments begin to show why patternist view is logically inconsistent. Jef wrote: "So the question (which must remain in the third person POV)is whether you would prefer a future with (A) your agency contained within the body of a frog, or (B) the creation of 99 individuals (who happen to be very similar to you) who are being tortured." Clearly, the best solution from the original instance POV (that is, you) would be to preserve the first instance of you and send all the 99 new instances to Hell. Since all the 99 instances of your pattern are materially different, they won't affect subjective experience of the first instance, meaning, there is exactly zero chance that this original instance will feel any pain being suffered by new 99 instances. Materially (and, therefore, subjectively), the original instance continues his/her life as if nothing happened. Obviously, if the original instance has a capacity for compassion, it will certainly feel very sad about the awful fate of 99 people suffering, but the point is that it will not experience their pain directly. S. From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Oct 10 17:19:36 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:19:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <1211.86.143.28.237.1160469316.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <200610100317.k9A3H3oe006947@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1211.86.143.28.237.1160469316.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061010121358.04146d20@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:35 AM 10/10/2006, you wrote: >Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > Does this mean when I join up with a group-mind, I'm going to have to wear > > one of your warning signs like a star of david? Feh! > >Exactly my thought when I made the sign. Could the warning sign threaten >individual liberty? I might have to wear one of those cognitive hazard >signs myself. Speaking of signs, yesterday I was reviewing art genres and practices, and came across a genre known as massurrealism. http://www.massurrealism.org/002.htm Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, 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 asa at nada.kth.se Tue Oct 10 19:50:39 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:50:39 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Intellectual influence In-Reply-To: References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <2995.163.1.72.81.1160432489.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <2189.163.1.72.81.1160509839.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Neil H. wrote: > Oh yes, certainly. However, the sheer quantity of information available > may > result in some interesting things. Exactly. Huge datasets are self-correcting in an interesting manner. I just went through some of the entries by hand to get a "feel" for the graph, and I think the main problem is that a lot of the important philosophers do not have the right templates or categories. So right now one either has to do it more or less by hand, or use links in the body of the articles. I haven't done anything with the subgraph I extracted, but it seems it branches out much more towards modern philosophers as well as mentions many truly old presocratics. Interesting bias. > On another side note, it might be fun to try clustering everything in the > categories and subcategories for > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transhumanism Yummy. Hmm, read boring philosophy papers for the friday meeting or play with Wikipedia? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 10 20:19:07 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:19:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Heartland wrote: > Clearly, the best solution from the original instance POV > (that is, you) would be to preserve the first instance of you > and send all the 99 new instances to Hell. Assuming you meant literally what you wrote above, I have the following comments: Self-preservation, while naturally a strong attractor in the goal systems of evolved agents, does not necessarily override all other goals. What is "best" from the POV of a self-aware agent is whatever actions it can expect to most effectively promote its present values into the future. "Best" does not necessarily imply its own survival, but does imply survival and growth of that which it values. [Supporting examples include parents sacrificing for their offspring, warriors sacrificing for their cause, and the general behavior of those culturally recognized as heroes.] This level of meta-thinking (or lack thereof) is at the root of many of present society's problems involving Tragedy of the Commons and extended Prisoners' Dilemma scenarios. > Obviously, if the original instance has a capacity > for compassion, it will certainly feel very sad about the > awful fate of 99 people suffering, but the point is that it > will not experience their pain directly. The pain of the 99 has no *direct* bearing on the actions of the original, but we can certainly expect a human in that situation to feel badly. It is the nature of humans -- again as a result of natural selection -- to react most strongly to local stimuli, but one thinking at a metalevel would be more concerned with the general causes and principles involved in such a scenario and seek to apply that understanding toward creating a more desirable future even though such actions may not improve quality of life for the currently suffering 99. [Supporting examples include our typical behavior in response to death of a friend, while feeling very little for the abstract deaths of thousands and millions of others, or the knee-jerk reaction to the plight of those starving in Africa of sending them more food while not addressing fundamental causes such as organizational corruption and lack of individual access to knowledge.] - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 10 20:45:44 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:45:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Heartland wrote: > Jef wrote: > "So, the logically consistent way to look at the above > situation must be from the third party point of view: That > the future scenario would contain one individual > indistinguishable from you, and 99 new individuals being tortured." > > Indeed. Hopefully, these sort of thought experiments begin to > show why patternist view is logically inconsistent. Looking back, I just realized that I let this statement implying agreement go unresponded. For the record, I think the "patternist" view of personal identity is consistent within a much greater context than the "threadist" view that you assert. My reasons are essentially the same as those expressed to you by John K Clark and others. While supporting the patternist view that "if the duplicate functions identically to me then for *all* practical purposes it can serve as me", I disagree with those who would extend the concept to say that all such duplicates "are" necessarily me. The distinction is based on the lack of shared agency, which is at the root of the concept of self. [Supporting examples: (1) If an exact duplicate and I were in an enclosure and only one could exit, it would make no difference (to anyone) which instance emerged. (2) If I could spawn copies of myself -- whether exact physical duplicates, physical copies with limited resemblance, or virtual copies in a computer system -- I would consider them to be instances of myself to the extent that they were acting on behalf of the instantiation which I considered to be myself.] - Jef From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Oct 10 23:02:27 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:02:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity References: Message-ID: Jef: > While supporting the patternist view that "if the duplicate functions > identically to me then for *all* practical purposes it can serve as me", > I disagree with those who would extend the concept to say that all such > duplicates "are" necessarily me. The distinction is based on the lack > of shared agency, which is at the root of the concept of self. But, Jef, these are mutually exclusive views. If you disagree that your duplicates are indistinguishable from the first instance of you, then that would be inconsistent with the patternist view. > [Supporting examples: (1) If an exact duplicate and I were in an > enclosure and only one could exit, it would make no difference (to > anyone) which instance emerged. If "anyone" includes an instance of you that stays behind, then it makes a big difference to that instance from its POV. > (2) If I could spawn copies of myself > -- whether exact physical duplicates, physical copies with limited > resemblance, or virtual copies in a computer system -- I would consider > them to be instances of myself to the extent that they were acting on > behalf of the instantiation which I considered to be myself.] Yes, but that reduces only to the notion of goal preservation and not material preservation of the first instance that produced those goals. If we view this situation only in terms of pure material (or physical) identity, patternist view breaks down very quickly. If we consider this only in terms of functional identity, threadist or other views that imply instance preservation break down. My personal preference is to maintain material identity as I don't see any value in preserving my functional identity. S. From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 10 23:58:17 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:58:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Heartland wrote: > Jef: >> While supporting the patternist view that "if the duplicate functions >> identically to me then for *all* practical purposes it can serve as >> me", I disagree with those who would extend the concept to say that >> all such duplicates "are" necessarily me. The distinction is based >> on the lack of shared agency, which is at the root of the concept of >> self. > > But, Jef, these are mutually exclusive views. If you disagree > that your duplicates are indistinguishable from the first > instance of you, then that would be inconsistent with the > patternist view. Well Swalomir, I'm hesitant to embark on a discussion that may need more time than I have available for it, but I'll tell you what: If you will paraphrase what you think I was trying to say about the crucial element of agency, then I'll work through it with you. If you recall, several months ago you agreed that I accurately represented your assertion about the importance of continuously threaded identity, and I think doing this is important in order to avoid talking past each other. >> [Supporting examples: (1) If an exact duplicate and I were in an >> enclosure and only one could exit, it would make no difference (to >> anyone) which instance emerged. > > If "anyone" includes an instance of you that stays behind, > then it makes a big difference to that instance from its POV. Of course you're right about that, and I knew I didn't close that loophole for the (intended) sake of brevity and because it seemed obvious that something with no output has no effect. The way that particular thought experiment usually goes is that only one person ever comes out because the other instantiation is instantly disintegrated or some such. - Jef From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 00:28:31 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:28:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610101728y7a8ef854x4fcf3c5dca178f4b@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > Here's where the confusion becomes apparent. It's the usual confusion > between objective and subjective points of view, reinforced by culture, > language, and personal experience. It's Descartes'' error in not so subtle > disguise, the assumption within "cogito, ergo sum" that *I* am experiencing, > rather than the more defensible assertion that *some process* seems to be > reporting on an experience. > That's how I would be inclined to come at it too, but the problem is that we implicitly use this stuff to make predictions. In an infinite universe (at any of the Tegmark levels), there are infinitely many identical instances of you, and there is no fact of the matter as to which one of those instances you are; you are all of them. Because there is a finite (albeit very small) probability that a flock of giant albino penguins will materialize in your living room in five minutes, the number of instances that experience such an event is the same as the number that does not: infinity (of the same cardinality) in each case. In practice, we predict a giant albino penguinless future - and this prediction always comes true. Why? The best explanation is that in some obvious sense (cardinality notwithstanding) there are far _fewer_ penguin-experiencing instances than penguinless ones, so one's subjective probability of the latter experience is almost 1. Empirically this works: our subjective experiences are in fact those we would expect from the probability argument. But this explanation appears to break down here, because a count of instances gives 999:1, yet it seems that the actual subjective experience should be 50:50. In other words, this paradox appears to break the one explanation we have as to how the world manages to be a semi-predictable place. That's why I'm still chewing on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 00:31:03 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:31:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0610101731v3441df60kfd1745f713d7a06f@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Self-preservation, while naturally a strong attractor in the goal > systems of evolved agents, does not necessarily override all other > goals. In fairness he mightn't necessarily be claiming it should. I did say suppose for the sake of the thought experiment that the subject's motives are purely selfish; in practice one would assign strong negative utility to 999 people being tortured even if none of those people was oneself, but I'm looking at it from the self viewpoint to try to get at the paradox that appears to cast doubt on the philosophical explanation of how we can make predictions in an infinite universe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 00:48:48 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:48:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20061010121021.04147558@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20061008172043.03020878@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20061010121021.04147558@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: > > > Indeed. Although the article still holds value from a researcher's point > of view. Do you have the URL? > At Yahoo: http://politics.yahoo.com/s/zd/20061005/tc_zd/190618 At /.: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/04/2026231 R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed Oct 11 00:51:58 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:51:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity References: Message-ID: Jef: > Well Swalomir, It's Slawomir, Jef. :) Jef: > I'm hesitant to embark on a discussion that may need more > time than I have available for it, but I'll tell you what: If you will > paraphrase what you think I was trying to say about the crucial element > of agency, then I'll work through it with you. If you recall, several > months ago you agreed that I accurately represented your assertion about > the importance of continuously threaded identity, and I think doing this > is important in order to avoid talking past each other. Yes, I remember. You accurately characterized my position, yet didn't agree with it for some reason. I'm not sure what was the source of disagreement. Correct me if I'm wrong but, based on what you've written in this thread, it seems like your definition of survival deals more with goal fulfillment through your future copies (in the same sense an artist hopes to influence the world through his/her work long after his/her material death) rather than preservation of physical processes that implement the first "you". But that's just an educated guess. Jef: >>> [Supporting examples: (1) If an exact duplicate and I were in an >>> enclosure and only one could exit, it would make no difference (to >>> anyone) which instance emerged. Heartland: >> If "anyone" includes an instance of you that stays behind, >> then it makes a big difference to that instance from its POV. Jef: > Of course you're right about that, and I knew I didn't close that > loophole for the (intended) sake of brevity and because it seemed > obvious that something with no output has no effect. The way that > particular thought experiment usually goes is that only one person ever > comes out because the other instantiation is instantly disintegrated or > some such. Obviously, at t3, dead mind remains dead regardless of whether the death occurred at t1 or t2. S. From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 11 01:05:13 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:05:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity, or "Am I missing your point entirely?" In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610101728y7a8ef854x4fcf3c5dca178f4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell Wallace wrote: On 10/10/06, Jef Allbright wrote: Here's where the confusion becomes apparent. It's the usual confusion between objective and subjective points of view, reinforced by culture, language, and personal experience. It's Descartes'' error in not so subtle disguise, the assumption within "cogito, ergo sum" that *I* am experiencing, rather than the more defensible assertion that *some process* seems to be reporting on an experience. That's how I would be inclined to come at it too, but the problem is that we implicitly use this stuff to make predictions. In an infinite universe (at any of the Tegmark levels), there are infinitely many identical instances of you, and there is no fact of the matter as to which one of those instances you are; you are all of them. But as I tried to say earlier (above), the Self is not somehow outside and observing these processes that are your current focus of concern in this email. The self is a result of these processes and is not privileged is such a way that any of this matters. Or am I missing your point entirely? The scenario you described seems fully comprehensible in classical terms. Because there is a finite (albeit very small) probability that a flock of giant albino penguins will materialize in your living room in five minutes, the number of instances that experience such an event is the same as the number that does not: infinity (of the same cardinality) in each case. In practice, we predict a giant albino penguinless future - and this prediction always comes true. Why? The best explanation is that in some obvious sense (cardinality notwithstanding) there are far _fewer_ penguin-experiencing instances than penguinless ones, so one's subjective probability of the latter experience is almost 1. Empirically this works: our subjective experiences are in fact those we would expect from the probability argument. I would say our subjective experience is a *result* of the way these things work. Even if things were different behind the scenes, we would not be in a position to know any difference. This reminds me of the silly clich? found in many fictional stories involving time travel. Someone changes something in the past and a person in the present says, "That's strange, there wasn't a tree here a moment ago..." Or am I missing your point entirely? But this explanation appears to break down here, because a count of instances gives 999:1, yet it seems that the actual subjective experience should be 50:50. In other words, this paradox appears to break the one explanation we have as to how the world manages to be a semi-predictable place. That's why I'm still chewing on it. It seems like you're imagining some kind of Self that can be spread out over multiple instances. To me it seems almost a problem of semantics, but reflecting a misconception of reality: A point of view is a result of the processes producing it, not something that observes the show from some privileged position. Or am I missing your point entirely? ;-) - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 11 01:23:36 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:23:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Heartland wrote: > It's Slawomir, Jef. :) Very sorry, S. ;) > Yes, I remember. You accurately characterized my position, > yet didn't agree with it for some reason. I'm not sure what > was the source of disagreement. Correct me if I'm wrong but, > based on what you've written in this thread, it seems like > your definition of survival deals more with goal fulfillment > through your future copies (in the same sense an artist hopes > to influence the world through his/her work long after > his/her material death) rather than preservation of physical > processes that implement the first "you". But that's just an educated > guess. Actually I believe "survival" as popularly conceived is an illusion, so there's nothing to hang on to anyway. The child I was at the age of eight is long gone, but I remember him fondly. To me, the key is to recognize that the Self doesn't inhabit the body, but rather is a construct of the body within its environment. The Self is just going along for the ride, and it feels like it's in control because that kind of functioning is what evolution settled on because it works. It's very difficult to break the illusion because our culture, our language, and our personal experience tells us that the Self is the center of the action. Oh well. Nothing new to see here. Move along now, move along... - Jef From James.Hughes at trincoll.edu Wed Oct 11 01:27:50 2006 From: James.Hughes at trincoll.edu (Hughes, James J.) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:27:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: ETC Group: COMPETITION ANNOUNCEMENT: Design a Nano-Hazard Symbol Message-ID: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD28039015D18E0@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Anders - Submit yours. It would be ironic for a transhumanist to win a Luddite contest. - J. ------------------ COMPETITION ANNOUNCEMENT: Design a Nano-Hazard Symbol ETC Group announces International Graphic Design Competition CALL FOR ENTRIES Biotechnology, nuclear power, toxic chemicals, electromagnetic radiation -- each of these technological hazards has a universally recognized warning symbol associated with it. So why not nanotechnology -- the world's most powerful (and potentially dangerous) technology? Concerned citizens everywhere are invited to submit their designs for a universal Nanotechnology Hazard Symbol at: http://www.etcgroup.org/ nanohazard Entries will be judged by a panel of eminent judges convened by the ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion Technology and Concentration, www.etcgroup.org). These judges include Dr. Vyvyan Howard (Editor of the Journal of Nanotoxicity), Dr. Gregor Wolbring (The Canadian Advisory Commitee on Nanotech Standardisation), Chee Yoke Ling (Third World Network), Claire Pentecost (Associate Professor and Chair of the Photography Department at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago), Rory O'Neill (Editor of Hazards magazine) and Dr. Alexis Vlandas (Nanotechnology Spokesperson for International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility). Entries will also be judged by participants at the World Social Forum, Nairobi, Kenya, 20-25 January 2007. The winning entry will be submitted to international standard-setting bodies responsible for hazard characterisation, to international governmental organisations and to national governments as a proposed symbol for nanotechnology hazards. Closing date: 8 January 2007 A gallery of entries submitted will be available at http:// www.etcgroup.org Why Do We Need a Nano-Hazard Symbol? Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter at the tiny level of atoms and molecules, has created a new class of materials with unusual properties and new toxicities. It used to be that nanotechnology was the stuff of science fiction. Today, however, there are over one thousand nanotechnology companies worldwide. Nanoparticles, nanotubes and other engineered nanomaterials are already in use in hundreds of everyday consumer products, raising significant health, safety and environmental concerns. Nanoparticles are able to move around the body and the environment more readily than larger particles of pollution. Because of their extremely small size and large surface area nanoparticles may be more reactive and more toxic than larger particles of the same substance. They have been compared to asbestos by leading insurance companies who worry their health impact could lead to massive claims. At least one US-based insurance company has canceled coverage of small companies involved with nanotechnology. Unlike more familiar forms of pollution arising from new technologies, nano-hazards (potentially endangering consumers, workers and the environment) have yet to be fully characterized, regulated or even subject to safety testing. The US Food and Drug Administration will have its first public meeting about regulating nanomaterials on October 10, 2006. Most governments worldwide have yet to even begin thinking about nano- regulation. Nonetheless, nanoparticles invisible to the naked eye are already in foods, cosmetics, pesticides and clothing without even being labelled. Every day laboratory and factory workers could be inhaling and ingesting nanoparticles while the rest of us may be unwittingly putting them on our skin, in our body or in the environment. It's not just a safety question. Nanotechnology also raises new societal hazards: The granting of patents on nano-scale materials and processes, and even elements of the periodic table, allows for increased corporate power and monopoly over the smallest parts of nature. Some designer nanomaterials may come to replace natural products such as cotton, rubber and metals -- displacing the livelihoods of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. In the near future the merger of nanotechnology with biotechnology (in nano-biotechnology applications such as synthetic biology) will lead to new designer organisms, modified at the molecular level, posing new biosafety threats. Nano-enabled technologies also aim to 'enhance' human beings and 'fix' the disabled, a goal that raises troubling ethical issues and the specter of a new divide between the technologically "improved" and "unimproved." ETC Group has called for a moratorium on nanoparticle production and release to allow for a full societal debate and until such time as precautionary regulations are in place to protect workers, consumers and the environment. Standard setting bodies around the world are now scrambling to agree on nomenclature that can describe nanoparticles and nanomaterials. A common, internationally-recognized symbol warning of the presence of engineered nanomaterials is equally overdue. For a short and simple introduction to Nanotechnology see "A Tiny Primer on Nano-scale Technologies," available online: http:// www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?id=55 Details Of The Competition: We are asking concerned people everywhere (including artists, designers, scientists, students, regulators and members of the public) to submit possible designs for an international Nano-Hazard warning symbol that could be used to identify the presence of nanmoaterials. This symbol could, for example, be placed on products containing nanomaterials, in laboratories or factories where workers handle nanoparticles, or on containers transporting nanomaterials. The symbol should be simple, easy to recognize and communicate clearly the new, potential hazards that result when matter is manipulated at the nanoscale (1 billionth of a metre -- the size of atoms and molecules). We encourage participants to be as creative as possible in inventing a new nano-hazard symbol. Images can be designed on computer or by hand, scanned, photographed or otherwise rendered in 2 dimensions -- either using colour or in black and white. Entries will be judged on their conceptual as well as artistic merit. Descriptions and explanations accompanying the entries will be very welcome. For examples of existing hazard warning symbols for comparison see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol Participants can submit as many different entries as they wish. Each entry should be submitted seperately. Entries can be submitted in one of 3 ways: 1) Upload electronically using the upload form at http:// www.etcgroup.org/nanohazard 2) Email as a jpeg or gif file to nanohazard at etcgroup.org 3) Send by post to Nano-Hazard Competition, ETC Group, 431 Gilmour Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 0R5. Canada Please include your name, country and a contact email or postal address. All submitted entries will be treated as non-copyright and in the public domain unless the submitter wishes to place them under a creative commons license allowing free non-commercial use (see details here http://www.creativecommons.org). Entries submitted with copyright conditions (other than creative commons) will not be considered. Entries sent by post will not be returned. The closing date for entries is 8th January 2007. Judging will be in two parts: Judging Panel: A selection of entries will first be made by a panel of eminent judges chosen by the ETC Group. This panel includes: Dr. Vyvyan Howard, Founding editor of the Journal of Nanotoxicology. Dr. Gregor Wolbring, The Canadian Advisory Commitee on Nanotech Standardisation. Chee Yoke Ling, Legal Advisor, Third World Network. Claire Pentecost, Artist, Writer, Associate Professor and Chair of the Photography Department at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago Rory O Neill, Editor of Hazards (trade union workplace safety magazine). Dr. Alexis Vlandas, Nanotechnology spokesperson for International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility. Public Judging: The selected entries will then be displayed at the World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya (20- 25 January 2007) for civil society attendees to judge. We also encourage everyone to view the gallery of submitted artwork online and submit comments there. More Information: For a short introduction to nanotechnology see: "A Tiny Primer on Nano-scale Technologies" available online: http://www.etcgroup.org/ en/materials/publications.html?id=55 For an introduction to the toxicity of nanoscale materials see the following resources: "Size Matters" (2003), an ETC Occasional Paper which includes an appendix by Dr Vyvyan Howard, Founding Editor of the Journal of Nanotoxicology: http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/165/01/ occ.paper_nanosafety.pdf ETC Group's 2004 Communique, 'Nano's Troubled Waters' http:// www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/116/01/gt_troubledwater_april1.pdf A May 2006 report on nanotechnology in sunscreens and cosmetics by Friends of the Earth: http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/nanotech/ A recent scientific evaluation of nanoscale hazards by the European Commission's highest level scientific committee on toxicity, The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/ scenihr_cons_01_en.htm A comprehensive overview (2004) of nanoparticle toxicity, "Small Matter, Many Unknowns" by Swiss Re, the world's second largest re- insurance company: http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwsfilpr.nsf/ vwFilebyIDKEYLu/ULUR-5YNGET/$FILE/Publ04_Nanotech_en.pdf Take Action: The US Food and Drug Administration is holding its first-ever public hearing to discuss regulatory issues related to nanotechnology on October 10, 2006. Despite the fact that the US government spends approximately $1 billion per year on nanotech R&D and hundreds of consumer products are already on the market, the US government spends a paltry $11 million per year on nanotechnology related risk research (1.1% of the total budget). Go here for details: http:// www.nanotechproject.org/80/nanotechnology-development-suffers-from- lack-of-risk-research-plan In May 2006 ETC Group joined the International Center for Technology Assessment, Friends of the Earth and other consumer health and environmental groups in a legal petition challenging FDA's failure to regulate health and environmental threats from nanomaterials currently used in consumer products. The full petition and an executive summary are available here: http://www.icta.org/nanotech/ index.cfm You can send electronic comments to the FDA asking them to properly control, regulate and label nanomaterials. An online form is available to help you do this via The Center for Food Safety. Go to: http://ga3.org/campaign/Nano _______________________________________________ ETC Group mailing list http://lists.etcgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/etcgroup From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 01:18:37 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20061011011838.26732.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Anders Sandberg wrote: > > I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs > for transhuman > technologies: > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/warning_signs_for_tomorrow.html > > (as well as make graphs of who influenced who: > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/colorful_academic_genealogies.html > - maybe we should make a similar kind of graph for > transhumanism?) The signs are rather amusing. The philosophical phylogeny is rather interesting as well. Although I was surprised by a few branches that seemed to end prematurely. For example, Einstein and Kepler. Did they not influence any who came after them? I am certain that Newton was influenced by Kepler and Kepler's laws fare better under general relativity than Newton's. Also you have Daoism as its own little island yet Lao Tzu was a descendent of Confucius whose non-anglicized name was Kung Fu Tzu. You have him embedded amongst the Western thinkers, without acknowledging his influence on his own grandchildren which is kind of odd. Furthermore, I seemed to have missed any reference to the Stoics like Aurelius. Were they not as influential as other Greek/Roman philosophers? This is of course nit-picking on my part as the concept of a philosophical phylogeny itself is very original and praiseworthy. :) I would be interested in something similar for the sciences and even religion. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed Oct 11 01:46:53 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:46:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity References: Message-ID: Jef: > To me, the key is to recognize that the Self doesn't inhabit the body, > but rather is a construct of the body within its environment. The Self > is just going along for the ride, and it feels like it's in control > because that kind of functioning is what evolution settled on because it > works. It's very difficult to break the illusion because our culture, > our language, and our personal experience tells us that the Self is the > center of the action. > > Oh well. Nothing new to see here. Move along now, move along... > > - Jef How do you define survival, Jef? S. From transcend at extropica.com Wed Oct 11 00:31:55 2006 From: transcend at extropica.com (Brandon Reinhart) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:31:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <3909531D-0835-4FA6-8A7D-CB865B15A59C@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <200610110156.k9B1uq9G019554@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Yes, despite my joking response I think the warning signs are cute as well. In fact, they might be a neat way to convey certain high shock level concepts to newbies. Brandon -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bret Kulakovich Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:00 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs Ok, Anders - I don't post this to the list often enough - these are brilliant! You should consider one for Meso-scale structures and their inherent weirdness. "Objects in mirror may be stranger than they appear" (Of course that's microscope mirror.) The warning for Autonomous Device hits the nail right on the head! Thanks for sharing! Bret On Oct 9, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > I had some fun this weekend by making warning signs for transhuman > technologies: > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/ > warning_signs_for_tomorrow.html > > (as well as make graphs of who influenced who: > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/ > colorful_academic_genealogies.html > - maybe we should make a similar kind of graph for transhumanism?) > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Oct 11 01:41:43 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:41:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: ETC Group: COMPETITION ANNOUNCEMENT: Design a Nano-Hazard Symbol In-Reply-To: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD28039015D18E0@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> References: <8CF6A92CB628444FB3C757618CD28039015D18E0@exbe1.cmpcntr.tc.trincoll.edu> Message-ID: <452C4BD7.2050407@goldenfuture.net> Ironic is an understatement. Joseph Hughes, James J. wrote: >Anders - Submit yours. It would be ironic for a transhumanist to win a >Luddite contest. - J. > >------------------ > >COMPETITION ANNOUNCEMENT: Design a Nano-Hazard Symbol > >ETC Group announces International Graphic Design Competition CALL FOR >ENTRIES > >Biotechnology, nuclear power, toxic chemicals, electromagnetic radiation >-- each of these technological hazards has a universally recognized >warning symbol associated with it. So why not nanotechnology -- the >world's most powerful (and potentially >dangerous) technology? > >Concerned citizens everywhere are invited to submit their designs for a >universal Nanotechnology Hazard Symbol at: http://www.etcgroup.org/ >nanohazard > >Entries will be judged by a panel of eminent judges convened by the ETC >Group (Action Group on Erosion Technology and Concentration, >www.etcgroup.org). These judges include Dr. Vyvyan Howard (Editor of the >Journal of Nanotoxicity), Dr. Gregor Wolbring (The Canadian Advisory >Commitee on Nanotech Standardisation), Chee Yoke Ling (Third World >Network), Claire Pentecost (Associate Professor and Chair of the >Photography Department at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago), >Rory O'Neill (Editor of Hazards magazine) and Dr. Alexis Vlandas >(Nanotechnology Spokesperson for International Network of Engineers and >Scientists for Global Responsibility). Entries will also be judged by >participants at the World Social Forum, Nairobi, Kenya, 20-25 January >2007. > >The winning entry will be submitted to international standard-setting >bodies responsible for hazard characterisation, to international >governmental organisations and to national governments as a proposed >symbol for nanotechnology hazards. > >Closing date: 8 January 2007 > >A gallery of entries submitted will be available at http:// >www.etcgroup.org > > >Why Do We Need a Nano-Hazard Symbol? > >Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter at the tiny level of atoms >and molecules, has created a new class of materials with unusual >properties and new toxicities. > >It used to be that nanotechnology was the stuff of science fiction. >Today, however, there are over one thousand nanotechnology companies >worldwide. Nanoparticles, nanotubes and other engineered >nanomaterials are already in use in hundreds of everyday consumer >products, raising significant health, safety and environmental >concerns. Nanoparticles are able to move around the body and the >environment more readily than larger particles of pollution. Because >of their extremely small size and large surface area nanoparticles >may be more reactive and more toxic than larger particles of the same >substance. They have been compared to asbestos by leading insurance >companies who worry their health impact could lead to massive claims. >At least one US-based insurance company has canceled coverage of >small companies involved with nanotechnology. Unlike more familiar >forms of pollution arising from new technologies, nano-hazards >(potentially endangering consumers, workers and the environment) have >yet to be fully characterized, regulated or even subject to safety >testing. The US Food and Drug Administration will have its first >public meeting about regulating nanomaterials on October 10, 2006. >Most governments worldwide have yet to even begin thinking about nano- >regulation. Nonetheless, nanoparticles invisible to the naked eye are >already in foods, cosmetics, pesticides and clothing without even >being labelled. Every day laboratory and factory workers could be >inhaling and ingesting nanoparticles while the rest of us may be >unwittingly putting them on our skin, in our body or in the environment. > >It's not just a safety question. Nanotechnology also raises new >societal hazards: The granting of patents on nano-scale materials and >processes, and even elements of the periodic table, allows for >increased corporate power and monopoly over the smallest parts of >nature. Some designer nanomaterials may come to replace natural >products such as cotton, rubber and metals -- displacing the >livelihoods of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the >world. In the near future the merger of nanotechnology with >biotechnology (in nano-biotechnology applications such as synthetic >biology) will lead to new designer organisms, modified at the >molecular level, posing new biosafety threats. Nano-enabled >technologies also aim to 'enhance' human beings and 'fix' the >disabled, a goal that raises troubling ethical issues and the specter >of a new divide between the technologically "improved" and "unimproved." > >ETC Group has called for a moratorium on nanoparticle production and >release to allow for a full societal debate and until such time as >precautionary regulations are in place to protect workers, consumers >and the environment. Standard setting bodies around the world are now >scrambling to agree on nomenclature that can describe nanoparticles >and nanomaterials. A common, internationally-recognized symbol >warning of the presence of engineered nanomaterials is equally overdue. > >For a short and simple introduction to Nanotechnology see "A Tiny >Primer on Nano-scale Technologies," available online: http:// >www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?id=55 > > >Details Of The Competition: > >We are asking concerned people everywhere (including artists, >designers, scientists, students, regulators and members of the >public) to submit possible designs for an international Nano-Hazard >warning symbol that could be used to identify the presence of >nanmoaterials. This symbol could, for example, be placed on products >containing nanomaterials, in laboratories or factories where workers >handle nanoparticles, or on containers transporting nanomaterials. >The symbol should be simple, easy to recognize and communicate >clearly the new, potential hazards that result when matter is >manipulated at the nanoscale (1 billionth of a metre -- the size of >atoms and molecules). > >We encourage participants to be as creative as possible in inventing >a new nano-hazard symbol. Images can be designed on computer or by >hand, scanned, photographed or otherwise rendered in 2 dimensions -- >either using colour or in black and white. Entries will be judged on >their conceptual as well as artistic merit. Descriptions and >explanations accompanying the entries will be very welcome. > >For examples of existing hazard warning symbols for comparison see >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol > >Participants can submit as many different entries as they wish. Each >entry should be submitted seperately. Entries can be submitted in one >of 3 ways: >1) Upload electronically using the upload form at http:// >www.etcgroup.org/nanohazard >2) Email as a jpeg or gif file to nanohazard at etcgroup.org >3) Send by post to Nano-Hazard Competition, ETC Group, 431 Gilmour >Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 0R5. Canada > >Please include your name, country and a contact email or postal address. > >All submitted entries will be treated as non-copyright and in the >public domain unless the submitter wishes to place them under a >creative commons license allowing free non-commercial use (see >details here http://www.creativecommons.org). Entries submitted with >copyright conditions (other than creative commons) will not be >considered. Entries sent by post will not be returned. > >The closing date for entries is 8th January 2007. > >Judging will be in two parts: > >Judging Panel: A selection of entries will first be made by a panel >of eminent judges chosen by the ETC Group. >This panel includes: >Dr. Vyvyan Howard, Founding editor of the Journal of Nanotoxicology. >Dr. Gregor Wolbring, The Canadian Advisory Commitee on Nanotech >Standardisation. >Chee Yoke Ling, Legal Advisor, Third World Network. >Claire Pentecost, Artist, Writer, Associate Professor and Chair of >the Photography Department at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago >Rory O Neill, Editor of Hazards (trade union workplace safety magazine). >Dr. Alexis Vlandas, Nanotechnology spokesperson for International >Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility. > >Public Judging: The selected entries will then be displayed at the >World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya (20- 25 January 2007) for civil >society attendees to judge. We also encourage everyone to view the >gallery of submitted artwork online and submit comments there. > > >More Information: > >For a short introduction to nanotechnology see: "A Tiny Primer on >Nano-scale Technologies" available online: http://www.etcgroup.org/ >en/materials/publications.html?id=55 > >For an introduction to the toxicity of nanoscale materials see the >following resources: > >"Size Matters" (2003), an ETC Occasional Paper which includes an >appendix by Dr Vyvyan Howard, Founding Editor of the Journal of >Nanotoxicology: http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/165/01/ >occ.paper_nanosafety.pdf > >ETC Group's 2004 Communique, 'Nano's Troubled Waters' http:// >www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/116/01/gt_troubledwater_april1.pdf > >A May 2006 report on nanotechnology in sunscreens and cosmetics by >Friends of the Earth: http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/nanotech/ > >A recent scientific evaluation of nanoscale hazards by the European >Commission's highest level scientific committee on toxicity, The >Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: >http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/ >scenihr_cons_01_en.htm > >A comprehensive overview (2004) of nanoparticle toxicity, "Small >Matter, Many Unknowns" by Swiss Re, the world's second largest re- >insurance company: http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwsfilpr.nsf/ >vwFilebyIDKEYLu/ULUR-5YNGET/$FILE/Publ04_Nanotech_en.pdf > >Take Action: > >The US Food and Drug Administration is holding its first-ever public >hearing to discuss regulatory issues related to nanotechnology on >October 10, 2006. Despite the fact that the US government spends >approximately $1 billion per year on nanotech R&D and hundreds of >consumer products are already on the market, the US government spends >a paltry $11 million per year on nanotechnology related risk research >(1.1% of the total budget). Go here for details: http:// >www.nanotechproject.org/80/nanotechnology-development-suffers-from- >lack-of-risk-research-plan > >In May 2006 ETC Group joined the International Center for Technology >Assessment, Friends of the Earth and other consumer health and >environmental groups in a legal petition challenging FDA's failure to >regulate health and environmental threats from nanomaterials >currently used in consumer products. The full petition and an >executive summary are available here: http://www.icta.org/nanotech/ >index.cfm > >You can send electronic comments to the FDA asking them to properly >control, regulate and label nanomaterials. An online form is >available to help you do this via The Center for Food Safety. Go to: >http://ga3.org/campaign/Nano >_______________________________________________ >ETC Group mailing list >http://lists.etcgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/etcgroup > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 11 02:47:55 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:47:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Heartland wrote: > How do you define survival, Jef? More relevant to this discussion, I think, is what survival is not. The common view of immortality [that's the implicit topic, right?] is a simple theme of preservation and continuation, but with little thought of growth, which, as the Red Queen observed, is necessary just to stay in the same relative position within any competitive environment. Growth over a significant period of time results in significant change, which might be a disappointment to some were dreaming of persistence. More directly to your question, the term "survival" can be used effectively when it refers to certain traits within a certain context, mutually understood. - Jef From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 02:52:23 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:52:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity, or "Am I missing your point entirely?" In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0610101728y7a8ef854x4fcf3c5dca178f4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610101952q1048fe60m7c40f0e2eec0b2d9@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > It seems like you're imagining some kind of Self that can be spread out > over multiple instances. To me it seems almost a problem of semantics, but > reflecting a misconception of reality: A point of view is a result of the > processes producing it, not something that observes the show from some > privileged position. Or am I missing your point entirely? ;-) > Or I'm missing yours, or we're both missing each other's :) Let's see if I can try and get a handle on yours... You seem to be saying that the self is an illusion, that one can say e.g. about seeing the sun rise tomorrow that infinitely many people will, infinitely many people won't, and the ratio is (some large number):1, but any statement that "_I_ will see the sun rise tomorrow" is meaningless verbiage, or at best a metaphor for an imperfect picture of objective reality. That my paradox only looks like a paradox because I'm stressing the flimsy word "self" beyond its limits, and where it seems to generate a contradiction between the objective and subjective viewpoints, the subjective one is an illusion that should be ignored. Is that a correct paraphrase of your position? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 11 03:17:00 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:17:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity, or "Am I missing your point entirely?" In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610101952q1048fe60m7c40f0e2eec0b2d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell Wallace wrote: On 10/11/06, Jef Allbright wrote: It seems like you're imagining some kind of Self that can be spread out over multiple instances. To me it seems almost a problem of semantics, but reflecting a misconception of reality: A point of view is a result of the processes producing it, not something that observes the show from some privileged position. Or am I missing your point entirely? ;-) Or I'm missing yours, or we're both missing each other's :) Let's see if I can try and get a handle on yours... You seem to be saying that the self is an illusion, that one can say e.g. about seeing the sun rise tomorrow that infinitely many people will, infinitely many people won't, and the ratio is (some large number):1, but any statement that "_I_ will see the sun rise tomorrow" is meaningless verbiage, or at best a metaphor for an imperfect picture of objective reality. That my paradox only looks like a paradox because I'm stressing the flimsy word "self" beyond its limits, and where it seems to generate a contradiction between the objective and subjective viewpoints, the subjective one is an illusion that should be ignored. Is that a correct paraphrase of your position? You're really losing me here. The common theme I'm seeing is that you seem to be talking about applying events outside a system (the observations of other independent observers) as if they have some effect on the output of that particular system (a particular observer). I will say with certainty, and in the same sense as my earlier comments, perception of the sun "rising" is an illusion. ;-) - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 03:25:10 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:25:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity, or "Am I missing your point entirely?" In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0610101952q1048fe60m7c40f0e2eec0b2d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610102025k2681b4d6j9c9d57a9c68028d5@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > You're really losing me here. The common theme I'm seeing is that you > seem to be talking about applying events outside a system (the observations > of other independent observers) as if they have some effect on the output > of that particular system (a particular observer). > *nods* If my paraphrase wasn't close to your point, then I don't understand your point at all I'm afraid, seems I was right and we are both missing each other :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 03:31:19 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:31:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240610102031v1ba180cfl31eeb16fdc14ceec@mail.gmail.com> On 10/10/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > I saw this when rummaging through the archives, and didn't see a reply, > and it's been gnawing at me as the one such paradox I don't have a > satisfactory answer for. I'm going to rephrase it in more vivid terms that I > find help make it clearer: > > A: I turn you into a frog. > > B: I run off a copy of you. In case you're a threadist, I'll do it atom by > atom, neuron by neuron, symmetrically, with thread of consciousness unbroken > throughout, such that there will be two of you at the end and neither > objectively nor subjectively will it be possible to tell which is the > original and which is the copy (and in case you're a substratist, all copies > will continue to be made of carbon compounds in water just like before, no > uploading into silicon chips), so you should equally expect to be either. > Then I will let one copy go free, but similarly multiply the other into 999. > And then I will take all 999 to hell and make them write essays on > postmodernist literature! Muhahaha! > Has anyone considered the computational value of 999 copies of your current level of intellect and problem solving potential? I don't know what the break-even point is on the value of existentially "free" threads compared to hell-constrained threads, but it seems obvious that the Satanic motivation for this thought puzzle would violate any promise to clone only a minimal number of copies where this ratio would be in your favor. So I will assume that 999 extra copies is sufficiently many extra threads of subjective Hell to outweigh the value of your meager singular 'free' experience. Would this puzzle be any different if the 999 "others" were not clones of yourself? Is there a parallel here to the idea of licensing your pattern? If the evolved-over-(your-life)-time configuration of your brain is a pattern which determines your approach to problem-solving, then allowing a second party to possess a copy of that pattern gives them the ability to use it for their own purpose. Imagine everything you are capable of, including the things which you are morally opposed to doing despite having the capability. This Satan character is employing those copies to do exactly those jobs. (Assume Satan grew tired of you postmodernist literature essays) If the RIAA can protect the pattern of bits that make up a CD, surely we must be allowed to protect the pattern of our own neural algorithms. This puts a new spin on the term "Intellectual Property." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed Oct 11 03:42:21 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:42:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity, or "Am I missing your point entirely?" References: Message-ID: Jef: "I will say with certainty, and in the same sense as my earlier comments, perception of the sun "rising" is an illusion. ;-)" Some illusions are worth having. Let me also go on record to say that I prefer to experience "illusions" rather than nothing at all. :) S. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 03:46:42 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:46:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: <62c14240610102031v1ba180cfl31eeb16fdc14ceec@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240610102031v1ba180cfl31eeb16fdc14ceec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610102046g3227b7c3xfd606b905855b891@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/06, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > I don't know what the break-even point is on the value of existentially > "free" threads compared to hell-constrained threads, but it seems obvious > that the Satanic motivation for this thought puzzle would violate any > promise to clone only a minimal number of copies where this ratio would be > in your favor. So I will assume that 999 extra copies is sufficiently many > extra threads of subjective Hell to outweigh the value of your meager > singular 'free' experience. Oh, I agree. In this case though I'm trying to analyze, not the ethical issues, but the philosophical problem this paradox seems to cause with regard to the question of how we can make predictions in an infinite universe. If the RIAA can protect the pattern of bits that make up a CD, surely we > must be allowed to protect the pattern of our own neural algorithms. This > puts a new spin on the term "Intellectual Property." > Yep! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Oct 11 02:55:09 2006 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:55:09 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Re: Q. for Stan Schwartz [North Korea's weapon test] Message-ID: <5570758.1160535310257.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > >On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 09:47:40AM -0700, Graeme Kennedy wrote: >> >> On 9-Oct-06, at 9:41 AM, b b wrote: >> >> >How difficult would it be for North Korea to fake a nuclear test >> >via seismographic evidence? >> >> 550mt? Seismic, maybe. Isotopes, unlikely. >> >> Underground tests are confirmable with atmospheric isotope tests. >> Usually iridium. > >Has this been confirmed yet? Apparently the seismic evidence >suggests this was something of a dud (less than a kiloton, >whereas it should have been over 10 and closer to 20 kilotons)... > >Arms Control Wonk suggests that this is evidence that it was genuine, >as if they were going to fake it they would have made it bigger: > >http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1230/nork-data-it-was-a-dud >http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1231/dropping-the-f-bomb-on-norks > >-- >Jim Lippard From jonkc at att.net Wed Oct 11 05:54:27 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:54:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity. References: Message-ID: <00f501c6ecf9$fd1261d0$c4084e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > Clearly, the best solution from the original instance POV The original instance of an adjective is a pretty damn fuzzy concept, and the original point of view of that adjective is even fuzzier. It's so fuzzy that the phrase becomes just a sound one can make with your mouth. > would be to preserve the first instance of you and send all the 99 new > instances to Hell. The trouble is I have no way of knowing if I am your noble sacred original composed of the same holy original atoms. If I took your advice there is a 99% probability I'll end up in hell. > How do you define survival? How do you define "definition"? > If we view this situation only in terms of pure material (or physical) > identity, patternist view breaks down very quickly. That is certainly true, but so what? Why would anybody only be concerned with stuff made of matter? There are lots of very interesting things that have nothing to do with atoms, as any mathematician will tell you. And poets are armed with a powerful arsenal of adjectives and adverbs; they are not made of atoms either. John K Clark From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 05:50:49 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061011055049.38666.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > A: I turn you into a frog. > > B: I run off a copy of you. In case you're a > threadist, I'll do it atom by > atom, neuron by neuron, symmetrically, with thread > of consciousness unbroken > throughout, such that there will be two of you at > the end and neither > objectively nor SUBJECTIVELY will it be possible to > tell which is the > original and which is the copy If this is taken as a premise of the problem, emphasis on SUBJECTIVELY being mine, then what you are saying is that there will be no way for ME to distinguish myself from my copies. Since my definition of self as an autonomous agent is: if qualia(self, perception A) = qualia(X, perception A) then X=self. If this is the case and I experience everything my so called "copies" experience exactly as they experience it, then my copies are ME. If however my copies don't experience the exact same qualia. i.e. I have no idea what my copy is experiencing at a given time, then my copy is simply a copy and not me. I think then it is important that one distinguish whether ones subjective experience of self is delocalized over multiple instances or whether the multiple instances are autonomous selves merely similar to you and not identical. So by this definition, if I copy myself right before lunch and one of my "selves" has a cheeseburger and the other other has a salad, then after lunch I try to determine whether or not my copy is me, then my criteria is simple: If I remember eating a cheeseburger then I am the one who ate the cheeseburger. If I remember eating a salad, then I am the one who ate the salad. If I remember eating both, then both are me. Ok, so working from the logic of above, from a purely self-interested and ruthlessly rational point of view, if I am either a patternist or a threadist, I shouldn't care. It would be as if 999 of my twin brothers met their doom but only I escaped. Yeah, it sucks and I feel bad for them but at least I made it out alive and in a harsh Darwinian world that is all that matters. If however I do indeed subjectively experience all of the qualia of the multiple instances of me, then the dilemma posed is practically identical to Satan offering to either: A: Turn you into a frog. B: Extend your lifespan a thousand fold and torture you for 99.9% of your preturnaturally long life. The frog option is looking pretty good at this point, unless I happen to be Hugh Hefner and Albert Einstein rolled into one, in which case I may still take B. Actually to be honest, I have read a zillion patternist vs. threadist debates on this list and I don't think my own view of self falls into either camp. What would you say? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:31:03 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:31:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity. References: <00f501c6ecf9$fd1261d0$c4084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John K Clark: > Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: Me: >How do you define survival? John K Clark: > How do you define "definition"? Forgive me, Mr. Clark, but I'll pass. Read the archives. Or maybe start with this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/ S. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Oct 11 07:35:37 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:35:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goldbach's Conjecture Resolved! A Story References: <065301c6eb46$9fcdf1b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1264.163.1.72.81.1160418004.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <071701c6ed08$2492f590$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> > What a wonderful story. Reminds me of Brin's _Stones of Significance_, > although that protagonist didn't have an equally well-defined problem. > > Would it be OK to include it in the transhuman humour collection later on? Thanks Anders, and yes, I'd be pleased to have it included! And I really liked that Brin story too. Russell writes > ...and people accuse us 00s programmers of writing inefficient code :) > Good story! Thank you. What, we "naughty-naughty" programmers write inefficent code? :-) Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Oct 11 08:18:55 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:18:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity. References: <00f501c6ecf9$fd1261d0$c4084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <074f01c6ed0e$0c2d0580$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell put a nice twist into the usual run of thought experiments and, from my point of view, shows an additional reason to reject any notion of "probability" having objective significance as regards the anticipation paradox. I mean to assert that probability is just not the right way to look at identity or anticipation. Yes, you cannot but feel that "your odds" are such-and-such in certain circumstances. But objectively, that's not really the case, because (as someone who has been a "patternist" longer than anyone else here, since 1966!), I claim that one must simply integrate benefit over the runtime you get in the multiverse, wherever and whenever you get it, and that negative or bad experience must be weighed against the good. > But intuitively the threadist view seems correct here! There must > be a 50% probability on the first copy that I'll go free. Neat! But as I've always maintained, illusory, because there is a 100% chance that you will experience going free and a 100% chance that you will experience not going free. This is simply because you can be in two places at the same time. A detached, scientific examination of all the physical processes actually occurring forces the conclusion that there is a true version of you executing in each place. > How do we reconcile intuition with the patternist view? It has to be just runtime (or as some people insist on calling it, "observer moments"). Suppose that a person is duped into believing that after his first fork, half of his total future measure is safe, and that it is only the other half that gets further parceled up. A good way to refute that is to suppose that the bifurcations take place so fast that they're all done inside one milli-second. My apologies for not reading all the posts in this thread; after 40 years of this it's gotten old now, despite my having been obsessed by it for a decade or two. In the end, it matters whether one embraces most closely a higher level concept of who you are (your values, your beliefs, your memories) or the lower level aspects of who you are (your current sensations, your current moods, and your current thoughts). Those of us who most strongly adhere to the former tend to be patternists; those who can't help but identify with the latter, some sole instance somewhere, are not. Lee From scerir at libero.it Wed Oct 11 09:00:35 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:00:35 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question References: <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com><000201c6ec6e$934c0bb0$00b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <000201c6ed13$bacf09d0$0a901f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Robert Bradbury: > I don't see what quantum teleportation has to do > with classical teleportation. In quantum teleportation you need the entanglement between the quantum states of two separated systems, a third quantum state to be teleported from Alice to Bob, a certain measurement performed by Alice (Bell state measurement) which deletes the quantum state to be teleported (no cloning theorem) and re-creates the quantum state at Bob's location, and some additional classical information from Alice to Bob. (In the new experiment Polzik uses a similar protocol, to teleport a quantum state. The main difference is that the entangled systems are not two particles but a sample of atoms and radiation (a beam interacting with the sample of atoms). If the 'Star-Trek' teleportation is the classical one I think it should not be much different from the quantum teleportation (I read they also use entanglements and 'Heisenberg compensators'). > In classical teleportation you want an exact copy at a remote location. > The > disassembly of the original is commonly part of the equation but I can > imagine processes where it might not be entirely necessary. The classical > quantum states of all of the atoms in the original are IMO *irrelevant* > from > a human "teleportation" standpoint [1] -- the quantum state of my brain > changes far more between going to sleep and waking up or letting my blood > sugar get too low and I find neither of those upsetting. And a dumb rock > doesn't care whether or not it is the "same" rock when it is moved from > point A to point B. Well, I tend to agree here. The problem I see (using the usual quantum protocol) is this one. You can teleport only the 'soul' (the quantum state) and not the 'body' (the quantum system) [1]. So the questions (imo) are: - is it possible to teleport the quantum state of a big molecule? - are there problems due to quantum decoherence? - assuming that we have the quantum state of a big molecule and that we can teleport it, how can we re-create, at a distance, non just the 'soul' but also the 'body'? These are, perhaps, stupid questions, but I cannot give answers. s. [1] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0408095 there are big problems even if we try to communicate, with quantum means, simple things like 'chirality'. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 13:47:50 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:47:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity. In-Reply-To: <074f01c6ed0e$0c2d0580$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <00f501c6ecf9$fd1261d0$c4084e0c@MyComputer> <074f01c6ed0e$0c2d0580$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610110647g7decb37cte343982b277872ff@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I mean to assert that probability is just not the right way to look > at identity or anticipation. Yes, you cannot but feel that "your odds" > are such-and-such in certain circumstances. But objectively, that's > not really the case, because (as someone who has been a "patternist" > longer than anyone else here, since 1966!), I claim that one must > simply integrate benefit over the runtime you get in the multiverse, > wherever and whenever you get it, and that negative or bad > experience must be weighed against the good. > *nods* Everything you say in this post makes sense, and that would be how I'd approach it too, at least as far as practical policy is concerned: if the situation described were to occur, I'd behave as though I believed the odds were 1:999 whatever my intuition told me. But there's still a philosophical problem. In an infinite universe, there will always be infinitely many instances that experience each possibility, and infinities of the same cardinality at that. So mathematically the integral is undefined; how then do you justify any conclusions? How do you explain the fact that empirically we can make predictions, and they come out the way intuitively reasonable theories of probability say they should? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Oct 11 14:54:34 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:54:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question In-Reply-To: References: <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <000201c6ec6e$934c0bb0$00b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061011095345.0401df10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:40 PM 10/10/2006, Robert wrote: >I used to be able to stand on my head -- but it isn't useful for very much. >I think that is how I classify experiments in this area as well. haha! Well, you certainly offered some worthwhile ideas. Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, 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 jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 11 16:06:22 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:06:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Importance of Context [Was: Probability of identity] In-Reply-To: <074f01c6ed0e$0c2d0580$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Russell brings up an interesting twist on the old topic of personal identity, reviving discussion of the "patternist" and "threadist" interpretations. Heartland (threadist) reminds us that what seems most significant to him is that the thread of identity appear to be unique and unbroken. Lee (patternist) reminds us that he's thought this through most carefully and that it's obvious that a copy of a person is necessarily and absolutely the same person. Jef offers strange and cryptic comments about agency and illusion which might make sense if anyone could understand what point he's trying to make. ------------------------------------------ It's all about context. * Without context there is no meaning; things simply are as they are. * Context and meaning necessarily imply an observer. There is no ultimate meaningful objective viewpoint. * Paradox is always a case of insufficient context. In the bigger picture, all of the pieces must fit. Alrighty then, so what? ------------------------------------------ Russell talks about paradox and asks how can predictions be made, given a context of infinite possibilities. I respond (in rather terse and mystical fashion) that no absolute predictions can ever be made about the real world, because any system of prediction is operating within a limited context. I offer reassurance by saying that there is no actual paradox because (as a matter of observation and faith) we exist in a rational universe and all the pieces must work together in a way that would make sense, if the observer system has context sufficient to model the observations of interest. * We can make highly confident statements about formally defined systems such as mathematics, but G?del, Chaitan and others have shown us that even in mathematics the context is open and expanding. * We can make useful but less confident statements about the behavior of engineered systems -- but we recognize that no matter how carefully and thoroughly we exercise our engineering knowledge, we can expect to be surprised and perplexed when they breakdown due to unmodeled interaction with the larger context of the environment. * We can make somewhat useful predictions about complex systems such a social interactions, but we are learning that rather than modeling the entire system of interest, we are able to exploit regularities in its behavior, while Hume's Problem of Induction looms in the distance, threatening a greater context within which the regularities no longer hold. * We can make useful predictions about the probabilities of quantum behavior, but as we look closer we find that the observer is an unavoidable element of the context of interest. * For many persons, the world is flat. They are able to make predictions effectively within this context. For persons with a greater context of geography, astronomy and so on, the world is certainly not flat, but space-time is flat - or isn't it? * We feel that we have free will, but we observe that everything appears to follow a cause and effect relationship. Simply a matter of context. My point is that every system of meaning is necessarily dependent on context and necessarily implies an observer. I also make a related comment about what we mean by Self -- more on this later. ------------------------------------------ Lee often explains how a copy of a person must be considered the same person. He points out that the copy is more similar to the original than the original was to its predecessor a day earlier. We have no difficulty maintaining personal identity through much greater differences over a lifetime, so why not acknowledge that an exact copy must be exactly the same person? He's quite right -- within the context of his argument. But what about within the context of social interaction? Does it really make sense to consider each copy to be precisely the same person, or within a larger context does it make sense to make distinctions? I brought up the issue of agency because it is fundamental to our concept of self. Moral and legal responsibility, our concept of "free will" (another useful illusion), all rest on a workable concept of agency. * If your exact copy, who has been out mining asteroids for the last ten years, comes home, should he (moral/legal "should") be entitled to an equal share and control of your property? [I could also mention spousal relations, but that carries a lot more extended ramifications than I have time for at this moment, so I won't mention it.] * If your copy is sued for gross negligence out on the asteroid (now you know why he came home), should you be equally liable? And does it make sense that personal identity (in a practical/social context) be established by physical/functional similarity or might agency be more relevant? * If I spawn a temporary copy of myself for the purpose of increasing my working bandwidth for an urgent project, then it seems clear that there are two of me working on the project, common agency and physical/functional being unquestionable. * If I spawn a temporary copy of myself for the purpose of increasing my working bandwidth for an urgent project, but I make the copy different from me in certain obvious physical ways such as having bright green skin, then it seems clear that there are still two of me working on the project, with common agency and functional similarity being unquestionable and physical similarity being irrelevant. * If I spawn a temporary copy of myself for the purpose of increasing my working bandwidth for an urgent project, but I make the copy different from me in the certain obvious functional ways such as not needing sleep and not caring about entertainment, (bear in mind that I can change my functionality as well via drugs, surgery, prosthetics, etc., without my identity being questioned) then it seems clear that there are two of me working on the project, common agency being unquestionable and physical/functional similarity being irrelevant. * [I could continue with an example of a copy in a computerized virtual reality, but I fear I risk boring the reader.] ------------------------------------------ Heartland asserts that identity is established always and only by continuity of the physical trajectory of the matter which performs the mind function. To most of us on this list, there appear many immediate and obvious exceptions and logical flaws with this reasoning, but despite much discussion, Heartland appears to continue to hold this sincere belief. Even when it is suggested that he believes this to be true because he wants it to be true, he has always shown the capability for further discussion. This is yet another example of system behavior within a specific context. ------------------------------------------ Time for me to get to work. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 11 17:16:04 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:16:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: <62c14240610102031v1ba180cfl31eeb16fdc14ceec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Mike Dougherty made some interesting observations: Has anyone considered the computational value of 999 copies of your current level of intellect and problem solving potential? I don't know what the break-even point is on the value of existentially "free" threads compared to hell-constrained threads, but it seems obvious that the Satanic motivation for this thought puzzle would violate any promise to clone only a minimal number of copies where this ratio would be in your favor. So I will assume that 999 extra copies is sufficiently many extra threads of subjective Hell to outweigh the value of your meager singular 'free' experience. Okay... then who is this person, necessarily outside the system, who is able to access and evaluate the value of these 999 + 1 subjective experiences? It doesn't matter whether you have duplicates throughout the earth or throughout the multiverse, decision-making implies agency, and agency implies a single point of view. Would this puzzle be any different if the 999 "others" were not clones of yourself? Good question. Might help clarify the point I've been trying to make that similarity does not imply shared agency. Is there a parallel here to the idea of licensing your pattern? If the evolved-over-(your-life)-time configuration of your brain is a pattern which determines your approach to problem-solving, then allowing a second party to possess a copy of that pattern gives them the ability to use it for their own purpose. Imagine everything you are capable of, including the things which you are morally opposed to doing despite having the capability. This Satan character is employing those copies to do exactly those jobs. (Assume Satan grew tired of you postmodernist literature essays) If the RIAA can protect the pattern of bits that make up a CD, surely we must be allowed to protect the pattern of our own neural algorithms. This puts a new spin on the term "Intellectual Property." Interesting idea, and the precedent is that we do license our problem solving capabilities when we act as paid consultants. A difficulty with licensing ones pattern with the same negligible cost as with duplicating software might be that one should be entitled to sell only the novel parts, not the parts acquired directly from other sources such as other consultants, schooling, books, movies, conversations with friends, the overall environment...oops, never mind. It appears that such growth opportunities must be evaluated within a more encompassing context than our current system of trade. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed Oct 11 22:34:26 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:34:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Importance of Context References: Message-ID: Jef: "Heartland asserts that identity is established always and only by continuity of the physical trajectory of the matter which performs the mind function. To most of us on this list, there appear many immediate and obvious exceptions and logical flaws with this reasoning, but despite much discussion, Heartland appears to continue to hold this sincere belief. Even when it is suggested that he believes this to be true because he wants it to be true, he has always shown the capability for further discussion. This is yet another example of system behavior within a specific context." Well, that's not quite fair, is it? You say that many on this list clearly see the "obvious exceptions and logical flaws" in my reasoning and that I simply choose to ignore them even when they are being pointed out to me. What usually happens is that people who argue with me already assume patternist view and evaluate the conclusions I provide entirely in terms of patternist view instead of showing evidence for why patternist view better approximates reality in the first place. It's little bit like arguing with a fundamental Christian who despite your perfectly logical explanations about how natural selection works says, "but the Bible says different," as if the Bible, not science based on evidence and provable predictions, is the fundamental and unquestionable assumption that a discussion about creation should be based on. So yes, I tend to ignore most of these arguments, not because I want to, but because they are simply circular, confused, and, most importanly, irrelevant to the real discussion about the fundamental nature of continued existence. S. From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Oct 12 00:58:39 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:58:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0610100409s14ca402dp929f3ff7dd220bc7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0J7000HKR01SIHA0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> On 10/10/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: >Satan [says] ... "I run off a copy of you. ... atom by atom, neuron >by neuron, symmetrically, with thread of consciousness unbroken >throughout, such that there will be two of you at the end and >neither objectively nor subjectively will it be possible to tell >which is the original and which is the copy ... Then I will let one >copy go free, but similarly multiply the other into 999. And then I >will take all 999 to hell" ... there's a 50% probability that I just >get to go free. ... But. .. There will be 1 copy of me free, and 999 >undergoing horrible torture. There will be no objective fact of the >matter as to what the copying sequence was. The only objective fact >will be that 0.1% of my instances will be free and 99.9% will be >tortured. Therefore I should estimate a 99.9% probability that I'll >be tortured. ... I'm assuming for the sake of the thought experiment >that you're Homo economicus, only concerned about what you >personally will experience, ...To us patternists, the second line of >reasoning seems correct; 1 copy of our pattern is free and 999 >copies are being tortured. ... But intuitively the threadist view >seems correct here! There must be a 50% probability on the first >copy that I'll go free. Once I'm subjectively experiencing myself as >being free, how can it then make any difference how many copies of >the tortured pattern are made? I can't suddenly find myself yanked >into Satan's classroom just because more copies outside my light >cone were made, can I? I'm not sure what exactly the terms "threadist" or "patternist" mean, but it seems to me that the question you ask is well posed, and that the answer is 50%, for the reason you give. This is a case of indexical uncertainty, and rational beliefs under uncertainty simply do not need to be uniform distributions. That is, you can know everything there is to know about the physical work, and yet you can be subjectively uncertain about which person in that world you are. Such subjective beliefs are not arbitrary - there is a correct best belief, and the other beliefs are less than best. The correct beliefs will show themselves, for example, in the history any one person will see relating the beliefs he had and the actual frequencies he observed. For most people and long histories, the actual frequency seen should be pretty close to the subject belief held, when that belief is correct. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 12 03:28:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:28:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goldbach's Conjecture Resolved! A Story In-Reply-To: <065301c6eb46$9fcdf1b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200610120338.k9C3cf24019347@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin > Subject: [extropy-chat] Goldbach's Conjecture Resolved! A Story > > The singularity happened all right... ... > The request was simple. Determine whether the particular number > > 428 08791 39342 94963 22581 56917 17541 83578 75376 65202... > 33150 27368 53375 70181 59431 66642 > > is the sum is the sum of two primes, or not! ... I have discovered something truly remarkable. While fooling with Lee's question of determining if 4.281E4228 (call it Lee's Number) is the sum of two primes, I have found a way to determine that Lee's Number can be expressed as the sum of two primes in approximately 4E3170 different ways. No kidding, for once. Let P(n) be the number of different ways a positive even integer n can be expressed as the sum of two primes. For consistency with previous work, let us assume 1 is not prime, but twice a prime counts in P. For instance, P(14) = 2 because 11+3 and 7+7 would count but not 13+1. I have found that P(n) ~ .15*n^0.75 So P(Lee's Number) ~ 4E3170 This approximation is good to within a factor of two 98.7% of the time and within a factor of 3 for all even integers above 2 up to 32000, which is as high as I have checked it. I found something even more cool that that, which I will post tomorrow. spike From amara at amara.com Thu Oct 12 03:25:15 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:25:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Breathless in Saturn's Shadow Message-ID: I think that this must be the most stunning picture of a planetary ring system _ever_: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA08329.jpg Details on that spectacular image here: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA08329 Two new rings were discovered from the above Cassini camera observations. A "Janus/Epimetheus Ring" and a "Pallene Ring": http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/figures/PIA08328_fig1.jpg Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 05:10:24 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Breathless in Saturn's Shadow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061012051024.98106.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > > I think that this must be the most stunning picture > of a planetary > ring system _ever_: > http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA08329.jpg > > Details on that spectacular image here: > http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA08329 > > Two new rings were discovered from the above Cassini > camera observations. > A "Janus/Epimetheus Ring" and a "Pallene Ring": Ironic but true. It's kind of funny but being a biologist and trying to understand Fermi's Paradox has led me to astronomy where I am a duck out of water. And whereas I won't make make any pretense of having any true knowledge of astronomy (the most powerful telescope I ever had was a Tasco 12X refractor with maybe 7 sq in. lens), I can say that Saturn is an anomaly of a planet. The reason for this that I have been trying to understand the relationship between the role of environment in the generation of life (STP=standard temperature and pressure, a prerequite of the bizaarre carbon chemistry that makes life possible on earth). It turns out that Saturn is barely a planet having made the cut off for being a Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Oct 12 11:09:13 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Breathless in Saturn's Shadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36553.72.236.103.200.1160651353.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > I think that this must be the most stunning picture of a planetary > ring system _ever_: > http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA08329.jpg > Thank you, Amara! That is a most amazing picture! I forwarded it on to an old friend who, some years back,worked with NASA. Regards, MB From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Oct 12 13:00:49 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:00:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Teleportation Question In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20061011095345.0401df10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <200610100242.k9A2giGT004314@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <000201c6ec6e$934c0bb0$00b91f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <6.2.1.2.2.20061011095345.0401df10@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/11/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > I used to be able to stand on my head -- but it isn't useful for very > much. > I think that is how I classify experiments in this area as well. > > haha! Well, you certainly offered some worthwhile ideas. > In that vein, from Vasanth on /. ... "Very funny Scotty, . . . now beam down my clothes!!!!!!!" R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 17:23:56 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Excuse the fragmentary post (was Saturn) In-Reply-To: <20061012051024.98106.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061012172356.51641.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Sorry about that, folks. I had something come up and I thought I hit "save as draft" with the thought of finishing later. I may still. :) Stu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Oct 12 19:21:53 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:21:53 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Philosophical phylogeny In-Reply-To: <20061011011838.26732.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061011011838.26732.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1488.163.1.72.81.1160680913.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The Avantguardian wrote: > The philosophical > phylogeny is rather interesting as well. Although I > was surprised by a few branches that seemed to end > prematurely. For example, Einstein and Kepler. Did > they not influence any who came after them? This is the problem with all such graphs - they are both finite, biased and somewhat arbitrary. In this case I can put all the blame (and praise) on Mike Love, who did the original dataset. In making such a graph one has both to decide who gets to be in there and what links to leave out. Personal expertise and biases will of course affect the graph greatly. I have just finished a first draft graph based on the Wikipedia philosopher pages; I'm going to post it soonish. The fun thing is to compare the two graphs. I can preliminarily say that Love's graph is much "tighter" than the Wikipedia one - he has fewer people, they are more well-known and the links seem to be more restrictive. Wikipedia has many more modern French philosophers and minor marxists, as well as a branch leading over straight into libertarian politics/economy/philosophy. But it seems to miss a lot of the renaissance and early thinkers. The clusters I get are also slightly messier than in Love's graph, but I get many new clusters that make sense like the Focault-Deluze gang and the Rothbard libertarians. Most likely I will refine the Wikipedia graph a bit by adding the information in the pages that are not formatted with clear "influenced by" boxes, although this will introduce me as an extra biasing factor. And I think the graph will become better if we leave out unneccessary A->C links if there are A->B->C links. Examining the advisor-student graph together with this kind of influence graph is another thing I hope to do. If we mark out the important thinkers and their influence links, do they move close to the academic tree or independent of it? If people just absorb research interests from advisors the trees would be very similar, if they pick them up from an open pool of debate they would be independent. > This is of course nit-picking on my part as the > concept of a philosophical phylogeny itself is very > original and praiseworthy. :) I would be interested in > something similar for the sciences and even religion. Yes, me too. It is great fun to do and very educational. Having recently moved into a philosophy department it is very useful for me to become acquainted with who's who. I will definitely try to make a transhumanist phylogeny in the near future, no doubt earning myself endless trouble :-) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Oct 12 21:08:55 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:08:55 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Goldbach's Conjecture Resolved! A Story Message-ID: <2038.163.1.72.81.1160687335.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > Let P(n) be the number of different ways a positive even integer n can be > expressed as the sum of two primes. ... > I have found that P(n) ~ .15*n^0.75 Is that a numerical estimate? http://homepage.mac.com/billtomlinson/primes.html has a neat graph of P(n). It seems that numbers divisible by different small primes have their own "paths", I wonder if they all have 0.75 as exponent? Apparently P(n) is called the Goldbach partition, and it is sequence A001031 in the encyclopedia of integer sequences. But according to http://www.ieeta.pt/~tos/goldbach.html P(n) has the form C (n/(log(n)log(n-2))) prod_{p in odd prime factors of n}((p-1)/(p-2)) - which seems to grow roughly slightly faster than n/(log(n)^2). (assuming there are log(log(n)) prime factors http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DistinctPrimeFactors.html and their size grows as n http://www.springerlink.com/content/r52233680688x957/#search=%22%22average%20prime%20factor%22%22 ) However, http://www.primepuzzles.net/puzzles/GoldbachPartitions.pdf#search=%22Goldbach%20Partition%20asymptotics%22 suggests that it is bounded by exp(alpha x^beta) alpha>0, 0 I've been taking a fresh look at questions like Newcomb's paradox, quantum immortality and the doomsday argument because it seems to me that the paradox I recently commented on is related to some of them. One question I have is this: in the article at http://www.ephilosopher.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=printpage&artid=8 Nick Bostrom says: "For instance, it turns out that if there are many extraterrestrial civilizations and you interpret the self-sampling assumption as applying equally to all intelligent beings and not exclusively to humans, then another probability shift occurs that exactly counterbalances and cancels the probability shift that the Doomsday argument implies." Nick, if you're reading this, or anyone else who knows the reasoning applied - what's the motive for this statement? It doesn't seem to me to follow. (I think the doomsday argument is fallacious because it fudges the term "I", but that's a different thing; it doesn't seem to me that many civilizations has any bearing on it.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Oct 13 03:35:54 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:35:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] New animation References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a601c6ee79$3142e940$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello Extropes - NEW Animation NEW Contest! My newest animation, The Mark is now a contender in the "Drama" category at the 25 thousand dollar Aniboom competition. My original footage is in hi definition, this means it has a wide screen, and since the Aniboom site has square windows for animation viewing, my footage has been squished together to fit, making things appear sort of skinny and tall. Here's what I recommend, watch the video (the large sized one) at my webpage here: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/themark.htm (where you can also read a whole lot about this animation), after you watch it then go to the Aniboom site and rate it. Do this by going here: http://www.aniboom.com/Player.aspx?v=2556 and clicking the farthest right boom ball (by the "your vote"), they will ask you to register, but it's super easy to do! After that you can now rate it (click the ball again) and it will work, you will see a thank you window as proof! Or you can do this in reverse by just going to the http://www.aniboom.com/ front page and clicking the blue login button up in the top right corner, here you will be able to register, you can then go to my "The Mark" page http://www.aniboom.com/Player.aspx?v=2556 and vote right away the first time. I hope you enjoy the animation and that it gives you meaning, it was very cathartic to make. I invite your thoughts and comments here at the blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2006/10/mark.html And I thank you my dear friends and family for your votes and your support! Turn up your volume! P.S. My Odyssey fractal animation (http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/odyssey.htm) is also in this contest, in the "Experimental" category and you can vote for it here: http://www.aniboom.com/Pages/Application/Player/Player.aspx?animationID=1903 Thank you, thank you! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 04:37:15 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 05:37:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? Message-ID: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> (For anyone who hasn't read my earlier post: suppose you're copied into 2 copies, A and B, then B is copied into 999, should you subjectively expect to have a 1/2 probability of finding "yourself" as A, as intuition and causal logic would suggest, or 1/1000, as measure accounting would suggest?) I think I may have the solution now. It depends on what you choose as your reference class. "I" after all really refers to oneself _at the present time_. In practice for various reasons evolution not least among them we tend to extent that to one's future self also, but that's a rather arbitrary choice. Most of the time that doesn't matter because it's the obvious one (though note that Ethos can be taken as a form of extension of the reference class). The paradox can be taken as an exception to "most of the time". Specifically: if you choose to define your reference class by causal logic, then you get the causal logic conclusion. If you choose to define your reference class by measure accounting, then you get the measure accounting conclusion. If you want to know which "really" defines you - then the answer is, you'll "really" have died a second from now anyway, because "yourself" then will not be the same entity as "you" now (scare quotes because we're voiding the warranty on the words in question, but you get the idea). So decide what you care about, and aim for that. (This meshes nicely with the way the measure accounting viewpoint is consistent with morality - it gives the same policy decisions one would get if the 999 B's were randomly selected from your fellow humans rather than being copies of you.) And this is the kind of explanation one was looking for - in the absence of an undercutting defeater for one viewpoint against the other, one would philosophically expect different results to be explained by different premises. I think this one is satisfactory, though I'm open to counterarguments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 13 04:25:54 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:25:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Goldbach's Conjecture Resolved! A Story In-Reply-To: <2038.163.1.72.81.1160687335.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200610130444.k9D4iMWY004478@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Goldbach's Conjecture Resolved! A Story > > spike wrote: > > Let P(n) be the number of different ways a positive even integer n can > be > > expressed as the sum of two primes. > ... > > I have found that P(n) ~ .15*n^0.75 > > Is that a numerical estimate? Yes. > > http://homepage.mac.com/billtomlinson/primes.html has a neat graph of > P(n). It seems that numbers divisible by different small primes have their > own "paths", I wonder if they all have 0.75 as exponent?... Hmm, good question. This I will be able to answer as soon as I get back from vacation. The wicked cool thing I discovered is a really fast way to calculate S(n). I will adapt Tomlinson's terminology here, S(n) instead of P(n). I will share this approximately Monday evening if I get time to post. Oh it is cool, oh my. Anders thanks for the sites. That graph is one of the cool things I discovered while playing with this algorithm. I discovered the striations (which Tomlinson calls streaks). I have been puzzled until my puzzler is sore, more baffled than was the Grinch that time the Whos were singing cheerfully after he had ransacked Whoville. After I get back, anyone here who wants to play with those numbers can have at em. We might discover even more cool way stuff. ... > > Fun! Thanks, Spike for bringing it up! > > -- > Anders Sandberg... There's more. I will share the algorithm, or if you prefer a table of S(n) to 500,000. That table is too big to post on the ExI list, so I might make a website and post it there, or just email it to anyone who wants it. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Oct 13 05:18:07 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:18:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity. References: <00f501c6ecf9$fd1261d0$c4084e0c@MyComputer><074f01c6ed0e$0c2d0580$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610110647g7decb37cte343982b277872ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002c01c6ee87$00c53e40$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > > On 10/11/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I mean to assert that probability is just not the right way to look > > at identity or anticipation. Yes, you cannot but feel that "your odds" > > are such-and-such in certain circumstances. But objectively, that's > > not really the case because... (I claim) one must simply integrate > > benefit over the runtime you get in the multiverse, > *nods* Everything you say in this post makes sense, and that would be how I'd approach it too, at least as far as practical policy is concerned: if the situation described were to occur, I'd behave as though I believed the odds were 1:999 whatever my intuition told me. But there's still a philosophical problem. In an infinite universe, there will always be infinitely many instances that experience each possibility, and infinities of the same cardinality at that. So mathematically the integral is undefined; how then do you justify any conclusions? How do you explain the fact that empirically we can make predictions, and they come out the way intuitively reasonable theories of probability say they should? < I would use the same approach as, say, astronmers might if trying to determine the numerical ratio of a certain kind of galaxy to all galaxies. Namely, take a limit over larger and larger finite samples. The limiting process is always pretty good for avoiding infinities :-) May it simply be wished that throughout our infinite level-one universe, and throughout the Everett multiverse, your runtime in the main be pleasant and frequent! Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 05:24:22 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:24:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity. In-Reply-To: <002c01c6ee87$00c53e40$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <00f501c6ecf9$fd1261d0$c4084e0c@MyComputer> <074f01c6ed0e$0c2d0580$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610110647g7decb37cte343982b277872ff@mail.gmail.com> <002c01c6ee87$00c53e40$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610122224ndeaf89bya48caa9bdc9d4f22@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I would use the same approach as, say, astronmers might if trying to > determine > the numerical ratio of a certain kind of galaxy to all galaxies. Namely, > take a > limit over larger and larger finite samples. The limiting process is > always pretty > good for avoiding infinities :-) And failing that, something like measure, or "microscopically different generating macroscopically the same outcome" in processes etc; I'm happy enough with that now that I can see how to reconcile the paradox with it. May it simply be wished that throughout our infinite level-one universe, and > throughout the Everett multiverse, your runtime in the main be pleasant > and > frequent! > Thanks, you too! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Oct 13 05:35:00 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:35:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003e01c6ee89$884ce9b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell recapitulates nicely: > (For anyone who hasn't read my earlier post: suppose you're copied > into 2 copies, A and B, then B is copied into 999, should you subjectively > expect to have a 1/2 probability of finding "yourself" as A, as intuition and > causal logic would suggest, or 1/1000, as measure accounting would suggest?) Earlier I wrote that *probability* doesn't provide a very good way of addressing these problems. I'll note an exception later, however. Another reason that probability is inappropriate is that probabilities sum to 1. In these cases, "your" experiences sum to 1000, not 1. What about my objection? It was (perhaps not well-described) along these lines: Suppose that the A/B split occurs after .0001 seconds, and the subsequent splits to B all occur in the next .0009 seconds. Then all the forking is over in a millisecond. In that case would it not seem peculiar to suppose that the single copy experiencing A was as representative of you as the 999? We must banish the notion that there is a soul and it's being divided into ever smaller pieces! The exception I spoke of before, where probability *must* rear its head is for *planning* purposes. Suppose that the 999 of you will be copied into a location several hundred feet under water, and only one of you copied into a location at STP. Then you should walk around all day long, even while driving to work and at the theatre, in your scuba gear. I explore the feelings that one would have while taking such steps in my old story http://www.leecorbin.com/PitAndDuplicate.html , a link I've posted here many times. > I think I may have the solution now. > Specifically: if you choose to define your reference class by causal logic, then you > get the causal logic conclusion. If you choose to define your reference class by > measure accounting, then you get the measure accounting conclusion. I guess that's one way to solve the problem. > If you want to know which "really" defines you - then the answer is, you'll "really" > have died a second from now anyway, Well, I can't go along with that. It's really not the case upon the usual meaning of words, to say that Smith has just died when Smith looks and sounds just the way he did ten minutes ago. We really are concerned with *survival*, and so we have to reject philosophical stances that introduce concepts that wouldn't be useful in any imagined situation. (At least in any situation I've ever been able to imagine.) Lee > because "yourself" then will not be the same entity as "you" now (scare quotes because we're voiding the warranty on the words in > question, but you get the idea). So decide what you care about, and aim for that. (This meshes nicely with the way the measure > accounting viewpoint is consistent with morality - it gives the same policy decisions one would get if the 999 B's were randomly > selected from your fellow humans rather than being copies of you.) > And this is the kind of explanation one was looking for - in the absence of an undercutting defeater for one viewpoint against the > other, one would philosophically expect different results to be explained by different premises. I think this one is satisfactory, > though I'm open to counterarguments. < From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 06:03:36 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:03:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <003e01c6ee89$884ce9b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <003e01c6ee89$884ce9b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610122303i65da98f3tb7b3a12e8b5f5729@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Earlier I wrote that *probability* doesn't provide a very good way of > addressing > these problems. I'll note an exception later, however. Another reason that > probability is inappropriate is that probabilities sum to 1. In these > cases, "your" > experiences sum to 1000, not 1. But the probabilities of "myself" ending up "being" one of those 1000 do sum to 1, so I'm not sure that's relevant. After all "myselves" across the Tegmark multiverse sum to infinity, but my probability of observing a flipped coin ending up heads is .5 just as standard theory predicts. What about my objection? It was (perhaps not well-described) along these > lines: Suppose that the A/B split occurs after .0001 seconds, and the > subsequent splits to B all occur in the next .0009 seconds. Then all the > forking is over in a millisecond. In that case would it not seem peculiar > to suppose that the single copy experiencing A was as representative > of you as the 999? We must banish the notion that there is a soul and > it's being > divided into ever smaller pieces! Sorry, that was part of what I meant by "what you say makes sense" - I agree that is a problem with the causal logic 50/50 prediction, and indeed as the time becomes short compared to the timescale of conscious thought, intuition becomes less sure of the 50/50 result. The exception I spoke of before, where probability *must* rear its head > is for *planning* purposes. Suppose that the 999 of you will be copied > into a location several hundred feet under water, and only one of you > copied into a location at STP. Then you should walk around all day long, > even while driving to work and at the theatre, in your scuba gear. I > explore > the feelings that one would have while taking such steps in my old story > http://www.leecorbin.com/PitAndDuplicate.html , a link I've posted here > many times. Sure. The inconvenience of such is less than 1/1000 of the cost of losing one's life. Well, I can't go along with that. It's really not the case upon the usual > meaning of words, to say that Smith has just died when Smith looks > and sounds just the way he did ten minutes ago. We really are concerned > with *survival*, and so we have to reject philosophical stances that > introduce concepts that wouldn't be useful in any imagined situation. > (At least in any situation I've ever been able to imagine.) Sure, but the usual meaning of words breaks down here. An outside observer nonetheless would say there ends up being 1 A-Smith and 999 B-Smiths. And that's a valid viewpoint. Smith before the first copy saying "its 50/50 I'll be A" is also a valid viewpoint. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 06:18:13 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:18:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <003e01c6ee89$884ce9b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <003e01c6ee89$884ce9b0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610122318sf24ef84pf08af20aecf65bcd@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Well, I can't go along with that. It's really not the case upon the usual > meaning of words, to say that Smith has just died when Smith looks > and sounds just the way he did ten minutes ago. We really are concerned > with *survival*, and so we have to reject philosophical stances that > introduce concepts that wouldn't be useful in any imagined situation. > (At least in any situation I've ever been able to imagine.) To add, swiping a movie quote: "I don't know, I can _imagine_ quite a bit." I imagined this scenario, after all :) My point really is that in most circumstances there is a single notion of *survival* that we think we can concentrate on; this paradox I think exposes the fallacy of that single notion. And to extend: We normally think of e.g. immortality through one's descendants as a metaphor (at least until we step into the evolutionary perspective); one of the things I like about my solution to this paradox is that it extends to cover a lot of things that looked separate - immortality through one's descendants _isn't_ a metaphor, viewed from an appropriate choice of reference class. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 13:04:26 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:04:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/12/06, Russell Wallace quoting Nick Bostrom wrote: > "For instance, it turns out that if there are many extraterrestrial > civilizations and you interpret the self-sampling assumption as applying > equally to all intelligent beings and not exclusively to humans, then > another probability shift occurs that exactly counterbalances and cancels > the probability shift that the Doomsday argument implies." I believe that the "probability shift" is due to the fact that if there are many extraterrestrial civilizations then the cubicles are all "full". The argument has lots of problems, not the least of which range from (1) since the transition from humankind to posthumankind (with a variety of AIs, IAs, normo-humans, being present simultaneously is significantly greater than zero) the definition for "doomsday" is extremely soft; (2) doomsday could occur for all the cubicles if all of the protons decay (but that is in the very far future); (3) a significant fraction of the possible doomsdays may already be behind us (if you look at the relative abundance of solar systems which could probably not support life and the number of mass extinctions on this planet already behind us then there may not be many coin tosses left [1]). Robert 1. A recent glance at Robin's pages suggestes that he may be working on a paper discussing this fact. This derives from the variety of reasons suggesting that it would be really difficult to eliminate humanity or its knowledge base at this point. (How would one take out *all* of the libraries, all of the search engine server farms, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Oct 13 15:40:11 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:40:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> At 12:37 AM 10/13/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: >(For anyone who hasn't read my earlier post: suppose you're copied >into 2 copies, A and B, then B is copied into 999, should you >subjectively expect to have a 1/2 probability of finding "yourself" >as A, as intuition and causal logic would suggest, or 1/1000, as >measure accounting would suggest?) >I think I may have the solution now. ... >if you choose to define your reference class by causal logic, then >you get the causal logic conclusion. If you choose to define your >reference class by measure accounting, then you get the measure >accounting conclusion. If you want to know which "really" defines >you - then the answer is, you'll "really" have died a second from >now anyway, because "yourself" then will not be the same entity as >"you" now (scare quotes because we're voiding the warranty on the >words in question, but you get the idea). So decide what you care >about, and aim for that. At the foundation of decision theory is a key distinction, between beliefs and wants (i.e., probabilities and preferences). You can choose what you want anyway you like, but you are *not* free to choose your beliefs; beliefs are supposed to be your best estimate of the way the world is. When you ask "what is the chance that ..." you are asking about probabilities and beliefs, so the answer simply cannot depend on some value choice you make. The situation you describe is one that could be repeated again and again. After many repetitions you could compare the frequencies you see in your history to the probabilities you had assigned. Or you could make bets based on your probabilities and see whether such bets win or lose on average. These two related methods make clear that probabilities are not arbitrary value choices - they can be right or wrong. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 15:51:53 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:51:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610130851q146d7a67v9d4528c5835a8262@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > > The situation you describe is one that could be repeated again and > again. After many repetitions you could compare the frequencies you > see in your history to the probabilities you had assigned. Or you > could make bets based on your probabilities and see whether such bets > win or lose on average. Ah, but which "you"? That having been said, what would be your answer to the paradox then? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 16:04:11 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:04:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610130904g3d222fcfu2bef3b6726885d38@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > I believe that the "probability shift" is due to the fact that if there > are many extraterrestrial civilizations then the cubicles are all "full". > I still don't get it - if there are many civilizations (which there are, per Tegmark et al), there are many roomfuls of cubicles; that doesn't say anything about the percentage of rooms with many versus few cubicles occupied. The argument has lots of problems, not the least of which range from (1) > since the transition from humankind to posthumankind (with a variety of AIs, > IAs, normo-humans, being present simultaneously is significantly greater > than zero) the definition for "doomsday" is extremely soft; (2) doomsday > could occur for all the cubicles if all of the protons decay (but that is in > the very far future); (3) a significant fraction of the possible doomsdays > may already be behind us (if you look at the relative abundance of solar > systems which could probably not support life and the number of mass > extinctions on this planet already behind us then there may not be many coin > tosses left [1]). > Indeed so. The primary flaw in the doomsday argument itself, in my opinion, is that it fudges the reference class; essentially it assigns a prior probability to the proposition "I am me" - but the probability of that is necessarily 1. ("I" refers to the mind doing the contemplating, said mind being a product of history in a particular place and time. It makes no sense to say things like "I could have been Julius Caesar", but that's the sort of alternative the doomsday argument requires us to entertain.) 1. A recent glance at Robin's pages suggestes that he may be working on a > paper discussing this fact. This derives from the variety of reasons > suggesting that it would be really difficult to eliminate humanity or its > knowledge base at this point. (How would one take out *all* of the > libraries, all of the search engine server farms, etc.) > Unfortunately I can think of a rather easy way. The problem is that the K-selecting environment in which we evolved was the opposite of today's situation, therefore our brains are programmed to believe the opposite of the truth in such matters, therefore when people take the possibility of doomsday seriously they start talking about averting "nanowar", "bioterrorism" etc, whereas real life death and extinction have completely different causes, and nanotech and biotech are the only things that have a prayer of protecting us from them; the upshot of all this is that the greater the extent to which people believe in the possibility of doomsday and take actions they believe will avert it, the greater the obstacles to continued technological progress and the greater the probability that humanity will actually die out. Server farms do no good if the information on them isn't used. In my more pessimistic moments I sometimes imagine that every race smart enough to develop nanotechnology must be smart enough to first discover the doomsday argument and thereby snuff itself. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Fri Oct 13 16:34:12 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:34:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610130851q146d7a67v9d4528c5835a8262@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <8d71341e0610130851q146d7a67v9d4528c5835a8262@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0J7300MOD211WO00@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 11:51 AM 10/13/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: >On 10/13/06, Robin Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote: >The situation you describe is one that could be repeated again and >again. After many repetitions you could compare the frequencies you >see in your history to the probabilities you had assigned. Or you >could make bets based on your probabilities and see whether such bets >win or lose on average. > >Ah, but which "you"? For long enough histories, almost everyone should see statistics where frequencies are close to probabilities. >That having been said, what would be your answer to the paradox then? I'm not sure, not having thought about this in enough detail. But I'm more sure that there is a right answer. 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 Fri Oct 13 15:50:31 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:50:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 11:12 PM 10/12/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: >in the article at >http://www.ephilosopher.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=printpage&artid=8 > >Nick Bostrom says: >"For instance, it turns out that if there are many extraterrestrial >civilizations and you interpret the self-sampling assumption as >applying equally to all intelligent beings and not exclusively to >humans, then another probability shift occurs that exactly >counterbalances and cancels the probability shift that the Doomsday >argument implies." >Nick, if you're reading this, or anyone else who knows the reasoning >applied - what's the motive for this statement? It doesn't seem to >me to follow. If there are many aliens out there, then the total number of creatures that we could have been in the universe doesn't change much from scenarios where our civilization dies fast or lasts long. So if you are a random creature among all these creatures, then you are more likely to find yourself in our civilization if our civilization lasts long and has many creatures in it. This is the "other probability shift." 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 sentience at pobox.com Fri Oct 13 21:33:35 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:33:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> Robin Hanson wrote: > > At the foundation of decision theory is a key distinction, between > beliefs and wants (i.e., probabilities and preferences). You can > choose what you want anyway you like, but you are *not* free to > choose your beliefs; beliefs are supposed to be your best estimate of > the way the world is. When you ask "what is the chance that ..." > you are asking about probabilities and beliefs, so the answer simply > cannot depend on some value choice you make. *Nods to Hanson.* I tried to make the reference class depend on the utility function, and while it helped clear up some parts of the problem, it didn't answer the ultimate scientific question: "What should we expect to *see*?" > The situation you describe is one that could be repeated again and > again. After many repetitions you could compare the frequencies you > see in your history to the probabilities you had assigned. Or you > could make bets based on your probabilities and see whether such bets > win or lose on average. These two related methods make clear that > probabilities are not arbitrary value choices - they can be right or wrong. The bizarre thing about these situations, as they work in our thought experiments, is that, on most assumptions you care to make about where the subjective probability mass goes (or as I sometimes say, where the realness-fluid flows, bearing in mind that we are almost certainly talking about some kind of phlogiston that isn't the actual solution) - anyway, regardless of which assumption you make, after N repetitions of the experiment, nearly all of your subjective probability mass is in a set of observers who, by applying induction, would end up with the assumption you started with - that is, under your assumption, all the probability mass would end up in observers who, given their experienced history, would strongly suspect your assumption - which is to say, after N repetitions of the experiment, then "you", wherever you are, would be almost certain of the answer. But an outside observer would have no idea where most of the "probability mass" had gone, so they can't learn anything by performing the experiment from outside - you would have to be inside it. > For long enough histories, almost everyone should see statistics where > frequencies are close to probabilities. But which subset of observers constitutes "almost everyone" and how can you tell from outside? Confusion exists in the mind, not in reality. All this mess has to be generated by a bad question - certainly we have to be doing *something* wrong. I find it highly suspicious that the central question revolves around a phlogiston-type substance, subjective (conditional) probability mass, that cannot be observed from the outside but which we imagine ending up in different amounts in different observers. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Oct 14 03:01:37 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:01:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com><0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> Message-ID: <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes > Robin Hanson wrote: >> >> At the foundation of decision theory is a key distinction, between >> beliefs and wants (i.e., probabilities and preferences). You can >> choose what you want anyway you like, but you are *not* free to >> choose your beliefs; beliefs are supposed to be your best estimate of >> the way the world is. When you ask "what is the chance that ..." >> you are asking about probabilities and beliefs, so the answer simply >> cannot depend on some value choice you make. Yes, but of the two questions, "What is the probability that I will be be one of those under water?", and "what percent of my separate copies needs to wearing scuba gear half an hour from now?", the first is misleading enough to be called *wrong*, because it invites one to suppose that "I" will be experiencing one of the outcomes but not the other. You and I, Robin, have known better than that for a decade or two. Or, in my case, for forty years now. Robin continues >> The situation you describe is one that could be repeated again and >> again. After many repetitions you could compare the frequencies you >> see in your history to the probabilities you had assigned. Or you >> could make bets based on your probabilities and see whether such bets >> win or lose on average. These two related methods make clear that >> probabilities are not arbitrary value choices - they can be right or wrong. Quite right. Of course a single instance is only viscerally aware of one one path throughout the branches. Eliezer says > The bizarre thing about these situations, as they work in our thought > experiments, is that, on most assumptions you care to make about where > the subjective probability mass goes (or as I sometimes say, where the > realness-fluid flows, bearing in mind that we are almost certainly > talking about some kind of phlogiston that isn't the actual solution)... > > But an outside observer would have no idea where most of the > "probability mass" had gone, so they can't learn anything by performing > the experiment from outside - you would have to be inside it. But you make it sound as though there is a single substance (why not call it our soul?) which is being divided up into smaller and smaller segments that sum to one. Experience per second of solar system time does not necessarily add up to one unit per second in these thought experiments. Therefore as I said a day or two ago---and is really quite obvious and something I think you acknowledge---for *planning* purposes each instance who is about to branch must be prudent according to his anticipations of the coming moments, but ought to intellectually realize the truth: he'll really be equally in many different places. It will be true that he remembers making choice A and it will be true that he remembers making some choice other than A. > Confusion exists in the mind, not in reality. All this mess has to be > generated by a bad question - certainly we have to be doing *something* > wrong. What is wrong in duplication (or forking) experiments is to suppose that there is only a probability that the bad outcome will occur. We *know* that both outcomes occur. Therefore probability is an atrocious way to approach the problem. Probability can be used, as I say, only for planning purposes in that one might have to do something awkward in the present circumstance while a lot of copies of one are being made. > I find it highly suspicious that the central question revolves > around a phlogiston-type substance, subjective (conditional) probability > mass, that cannot be observed from the outside but which we imagine > ending up in different amounts in different observers. Exactly! Souls don't exist; we all know that. There isn't any real problem here except in the ways that some people occasionally try to prescribe actions. So long as one remembers that duplicates are selves, one will avoid making or prescribing erroneous action choices. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Oct 14 03:19:09 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:19:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robin writes > If there are many aliens out there, then the total number of > creatures that we could have been in the universe doesn't change much > from scenarios where our civilization dies fast or lasts long. So if > you are a random creature among all these creatures, I think that this is probably exactly the point at which Russell demurs. That's what I've never been able to choke down myself. And I know that Eliezer has publically denigrated such a calculus of souls, rightly saying that it's bad to think about a sample space (made up, say, of all sentient entities) from which you were drawn at random--- in other words, that a priori, it was equally likely that you could have been born in the four centuries before Christ as that you were born in the U.S. in the 1960's. No way! You could not have been born anywhere except on Earth and in the 20th century at that. You are the result of a baby with certain genetic traits being raised in a 20th century type environment. It is not possible that you could have been born with twelve tentacles living in a methane atmosphere and holding absolute religious convictions concerning the Great Squid that preclude all scientific or rational thinking. It simple wouldn't be you. Therefore as Eliezer says, the sample space is bad; and Bostrom and others seem to have been thinking that its made of soul-like points in the space of all possible outcomes. Lee > then you are more likely to find yourself in our civilization if > our civilization lasts long and has many creatures in it. This > is the "other probability shift." From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 13:54:07 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:54:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <7641ddc60610140654k65ec201au82cd2206bf9fad5f@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > At 12:37 AM 10/13/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: > >(For anyone who hasn't read my earlier post: suppose you're copied > >into 2 copies, A and B, then B is copied into 999, should you > >subjectively expect to have a 1/2 probability of finding "yourself" > >as A, as intuition and causal logic would suggest, or 1/1000, as > >measure accounting would suggest?) > >I think I may have the solution now. ... > >if you choose to define your reference class by causal logic, then > >you get the causal logic conclusion. If you choose to define your > >reference class by measure accounting, then you get the measure > >accounting conclusion. If you want to know which "really" defines > >you - then the answer is, you'll "really" have died a second from > >now anyway, because "yourself" then will not be the same entity as > >"you" now (scare quotes because we're voiding the warranty on the > >words in question, but you get the idea). So decide what you care > >about, and aim for that. > > At the foundation of decision theory is a key distinction, between > beliefs and wants (i.e., probabilities and preferences). You can > choose what you want anyway you like, but you are *not* free to > choose your beliefs; beliefs are supposed to be your best estimate of > the way the world is. When you ask "what is the chance that ..." > you are asking about probabilities and beliefs, so the answer simply > cannot depend on some value choice you make. ### But value choices may change your definitions of terms: You can formulate a number of similar but distinct definitions of "self", all largely consistent with the quotidian usage, yet leading to widely divergent numerical estimates in imagined situations far removed from our daily experience. I actually *decide* to extend most of the rights and privileges of being myself to all entities structurally similar to my present structure (and those entities derived from them by certain transformations). Somebody else may insist on a different procedure - and our results of counting noses will diverge, not because of different beliefs about the physical world but because of putting different meanings in the same word, "I". > > The situation you describe is one that could be repeated again and > again. After many repetitions you could compare the frequencies you > see in your history to the probabilities you had assigned. Or you > could make bets based on your probabilities and see whether such bets > win or lose on average. These two related methods make clear that > probabilities are not arbitrary value choices - they can be right or wrong. > ### But definitions are neither. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 14:39:58 2006 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:39:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60610140739i5c7ec889q5cab74dd11082cba@mail.gmail.com> On 10/13/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Exactly! Souls don't exist; we all know that. There isn't any real problem > here except in the ways that some people occasionally try to prescribe > actions. So long as one remembers that duplicates are selves, one will > avoid making or prescribing erroneous action choices. > ### Lee, we agree in our respective definitions of self (i.e. "Rafal" and "Lee") but I don't agree with you that only our brand of definition is in some rigorous way objectively correct. Others may disregard the possible future experiences of entities structurally similar to them unless also connected by a continuous thread of existence (whatever that may mean, since it appears that a whole slew of notions are advanced here). It may lead them to actions that could increase the likelihood of duplicates suffering horribly. Well, that's their problem, not mine. As long as only their duplicates are involved, it's no skin off my back, by my definition, and I feel no desire to convert them. I general, there is indeed confusion in the mind (as Eli writes) whenever our desires interact with our rational mind in situations when feedback is insufficient (including our thought experiment). Our rational mind has a grab-bag of tricks that have been honed during evolution to improve attainment of desires. Even math feels true because of evolutionary feedback, since the math-challenged who can't work out the task "There are four of us, and five of them - Fight or Flight?" got weeded out. Pose a situation where the tricks cannot be evaluated by external feedback or by reference to known past, and the mind boggles, randomly pulling different rabbits out of the hat, trying to rewrite desires, creating internal feedbacks and long reams of email output. Rafal From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Oct 14 16:04:37 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:04:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60610140739i5c7ec889q5cab74dd11082cba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009401c6efaa$7d7e0f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Rafal writes > ### Lee, we [happen to] agree in our respective definitions of self (i.e. "Rafal" > and "Lee") but I don't agree with you that only our brand of definition is in some > rigorous way objectively correct. However, for what constitutes a *person* in our daily usage, we do have something pretty close to "objectively correct". If someone claims to be Napoleon, he is simply wrong, and if ten days from now I claim not to be Lee Corbin, then either I am objectively wrong or I have undergone extensive brain damage. You're right in that when we extend these concepts into heretofore unfamiliar ways, more latitude necessarily obtains when conceiving of what a person is. > Others may [deny they're the same person] unless also connected by a > continuous thread of existence (whatever that may mean... It may lead > them to actions that could increase the likelihood of duplicates suffering > horribly. Well, that's their problem, not mine. As long as only their > duplicates are involved, it's no skin off my back, by my definition, > and I feel no desire to convert them. That would be different if you loved them, of course. We are discussing to what extent a duplicate is you. Opinions do differ. But in my opinion, it is simply erroneous to contend that you are not the same person today as you were yesterday just because someone made a duplicate of you while you slept and killed the original. That's simply wrong. I'm fond of how I described it a few days ago: In the end, it matters whether one embraces most closely a higher level concept of who you are (your values, your beliefs, your memories) or the lower level aspects of who you are (your current sensations, your current moods, and your current thoughts). Those of us who most strongly adhere to the former tend to be patternists; those who cannot help but identify with the latter, a sole instance somewhere, are not. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Oct 14 16:27:49 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:27:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com><451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net><45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net><8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com><051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com><059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> At the risk of replying to the wrong email, I'm responding to Russell who wrote > As it happens, you have tagged my sympathies entirely incorrectly; > if you look at what I actually wrote, you'll note that I specifically stated > the likes of al-Qaida are our enemies and have to be fought. What I am > opposed to is autoimmune disease: allowing our supposed protectors to > turn inwards and target us instead of our enemies. I agree. In very many ways the government has become an enemy of its citizens, but this hasn't started just in the last decade. It remains to assess how much "we" are being targeted by government when those governments attempt to target Al Queda. > Perhaps more fundamentally, I'm arguing precisely against making decisions > by affect value. That's not true if you mean it in general. You know (and have described) very well why evolution implemented our emotions (and you described why you think that this EEA design isn't very useful right now). You are also familiar with the Damasio Card Experiment. Alas (for those who haven't read it) it doesn't appear to be on-line anymore. I'll post my saved text copy of "How to Think With Your Gut", which has a fair description of it, in another post. This entire delicious subject of rationality, hyper-rationality, and rational integration of our emotions, values, and abstract reasoning must be pursued. One of our main tasks may be to keep Jef Albright from becoming too excited by the prospect. :-) > Not every proposal that wraps itself in stirring words about fighting the > bad guys is actually going to be helpful against said bad guys. (Reader's > home exercise: think of 57 historical examples.) That's for sure. > I could claim (and happen to believe) that if the primary threat today came from > armed men speaking a foreign language, I would have volunteered for military > service, That's probably more than I would do at this stage... :-) > If you're looking to criticize someone for trying to make the West weak, you've > got the wrong guy I'm afraid. Sorry, but what is the key disagreement here? I'll post another email right now that I think may help. It will still be "Tyranny in place", but I want to sand back---since you appear to be willing---and see if we can objectively determine what our real differences are. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Oct 14 16:53:10 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:53:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com><451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net><45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <45209AD2.2080002@mac.com> Message-ID: <00d401c6efb1$a4f02810$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> It seems to me that people's differences on this subject do not really pertain to what is *currently* happening anywhere. On both sides it's merely the perceived threats of future events that's causing the heat. Surely no one can deny, especially since 9/11, that a certain amount of havoc is being or has been thrreatened by Al Qaeda. On the other hand, no one can deny that the same thing that befell the Weimar Republic could happen here, either gradually or suddenly. Insofar as the actions of one particular government, that of the U.S., is in focus, it's noteworthy that there have been no serious attacks inside the country for over five years. It may be true that no one in the West knows exactly why, but it also may be because counter- measures have been so far effective. Samantha put it well, speaking of threats from our "protectors": > The threat of hitherto-unseen proportions is much nearer than you > think. It is a common tactic in a country headed away from freedom > to focus all attention on an external enemy. If the enemy is elusive, > everywhere and nowhere and can never really be defeated then all > the better for the smokescreen behind which unanswerable nearly > unstoppable power over its own people amasses. I hope that [those] > who think likewise wake up before it is far too late. That can be balanced from the other side by some of Joseph Bloch's posts, or by the very nice Mark Steyn essay in the Wall Street Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760 Just because the threatened actions (by Al Queda or the U.S. government) are not actually occuring at present---despite vocal outcries that they are ---is of course no reason for complacency. But let's keep it in perspective: Western governments *may* start declaring internal political enemies to be "enemy combattants" or *may* start posing a physical threat to a significant number of their citizens, and foreign terrorist organizations *may* start blowing up Western cities or *may* begin waging biowar etc. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Oct 14 17:11:40 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:11:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Broad vs. Narrow Rationality Message-ID: <00d901c6efb4$2cdbec80$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> For those unaware of the crucial role of emotions in good decision making: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v5/n11/full/nn1102-1103.html For another article---memorably describing "The Marines vs. the Wall Street brokers" and related subjects---see the essay below (no longer on line so far as I can tell). Both describe the Damasio card experiment. First an excerpt from it, then included is the whole essay by Thomas A. Stewart. Lee Some tantalizing evidence in this regard comes from experiments by Antonio Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine. In one experiment, Damasio gave subjects four decks of cards. They were asked to flip the cards, picking from any deck. Two decks were rigged to produce an overall loss (in play money), and two to produce a gain. At intervals, the participants were asked what they thought was going on in the game. And they were hooked up to sensors to measure skin conductance responses, or SCRs (which are also measured by lie-detector machines). By the time they'd turned about 10 cards, subjects began showing SCRs when they reached for a losing deck -- that is, they showed a physical reaction. But not until they had turned, on average, 50 cards could they verbalize their "hunch" that two decks were riskier. It took 30 more cards before they could explain why their hunch was right. Three players were never able to put their hunches into words -- yet they, too, showed elevated SCRs and they, too, picked the right decks. Even if they couldn't explain it, their bodies knew what was going on. Damasio was already aware of the astounding fact that people who suffer damage to parts of their brains where emotions are processed have difficulty making decisions. When such patients participated in Damasio's card experiment, they never expressed hunches. Remarkably, even if they figured out the game intellectually, they continued to pick from losing decks. In other words, they knew their behavior was a mistake but they couldn't make the decision to change it. Emotions, Damasio theorizes, get decision-making started, presenting the conscious, logical mind with a short list of possibilities. Without at least a little intuition, then, the decision process never leaves the gate. ======================================================== The Entire Essay: How to Think With Your Gut How the geniuses behind the Osbournes, the Mini, Federal Express, and Starbucks followed their instincts and reached success. By Thomas A. Stewart, November 2002 Getting in Touch With Your Gut. It's simple, really: Just get out of your own way. Psychologists have a term to describe people who are in unusually close contact with their gut feelings -- "high intuitives." While you can't teach such skills the way you teach multiplication tables, everyone can hone their instincts to some degree. Here are a few guidelines: Practice, practice. This is the most important thing. "Gut instinct is basically a form of pattern recognition," says Howard Gardner, a Harvard professor and psychologist. The more you practice, the more patterns you intuitively recognize. List decisions you've made that turned out right -- and mistakes, too. Then reconstruct the thinking. Where did intuition come in? Was it right or wrong? Are there patterns? Highly intuitive people often let themselves be talked out of good ideas. "Generally you're better with either people or things," says Manhattan psychologist and executive coach Dee Soder. If you're intuitively gifted about people, write down your first impressions of new colleagues, customers, and so on -- you want to hold on to those gut reactions. Learn to listen. People come up with all sorts of reasons for ignoring what their gut is trying to tell them. Flavia Cymbalista has developed a decision-making approach adapted from a psychological technique known as "focusing." She calls it MarketFocusing, and she uses it to teach businesspeople to find the "felt sense" that tells them they know something they can't articulate. "You have to express your willingness to listen to what the felt sense has to say, without an agenda of your own," she says. Tell stories. Fictionalize a problem as a business school case or as happening to someone else. That can free up your imagination. Dave Snowden, director of IBM's (IBM) Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity in Wales, has been working with antiterrorism experts and finds that they think more creatively if he poses problems set in a different time -- the Civil War, for example. Another kind of storytelling is what cognitive psychologist Gary Klein calls a "pre-mortem": Imagine that your project has failed and gather the team to assess what went wrong. Breed gut thinkers. Dismantle the obstacles that prevent people from using their guts. High turnover rates, for example, are inimical to developing the deep expertise that hones intuition. Since gut feelings are inherently hard to express, don't let people jump on a dissenter who hesitantly says, "I'm not sure ... " Instead, say "Tell us more." Some leaders go around the table twice at meetings to give people a chance to put hunches into words. To sharpen your intuitive thinking, you have to get out of your own way; to foster it among those around you, you have to get out of their way too. The practical implications of all this are profound. People who make decisions for a living are coming to realize that in complex or chaotic situations -- a battlefield, a trading floor, or today's brutally competitive business environment -- intuition usually beats rational analysis. And as science looks closer, it is coming to see that intuition is not a gift but a skill. And, like any skill, it's something you can learn. To make sense of this, you first have to get over the fact that it contradicts everything you've been taught about making decisions. B-school encourages students to frame problems, formulate alternatives, collect data, and then evaluate the options. Almost every organization that trains decision-makers has followed the same approach. Paul Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, was taught that way, and he drilled this method into his students when he ran the Marines' leadership and combat development program in the '90s. But Van Riper noticed that in the swirl and confusion of war simulations -- let alone actual combat -- rational decisions always seemed to come up short. "We used the classical checklist system," he says. "But it never seemed to work. Then we'd criticize ourselves for not using the system well enough. But it still never seemed to work, because it's the wrong system." Frustrated, Van Riper sought out cognitive psychologist Gary Klein. At the time, Klein was studying firefighters, who operate under conditions quite like war. To his consternation, Klein learned that firefighters don't weigh alternatives: They simply grab the first idea that seems good enough, then the next, and the next after that. To them it doesn't even feel like "deciding." Inspired by Klein, Van Riper brought a group of Marines to the New York Mercantile Exchange in 1995, because the jostling, confusing pits reminded him of war rooms during combat. First the Marines tried their hand at trading on simulators, and to no one's surprise, the professionals on the floor wiped them out. A month or so later, the traders went to the Corps's base in Quantico, Va., where they played war games against the Marines on a mock battlefield. The traders trounced them again -- and this time everyone was surprised. When the Marines analyzed the humbling results, they concluded that the traders were simply better gut thinkers. Thoroughly practiced at quickly evaluating risks, they were far more willing to act decisively on the kind of imperfect and contradictory information that is all you ever get in war. The lesson wasn't lost on the Marines, who concluded that the old rational analysis model was useless in some situations. Today the Corps's official doctrine reads, "The intuitive approach is more appropriate for the vast majority of ... decisions made in the fluid, rapidly changing conditions of war when time and uncertainty are critical factors, and creativity is a desirable trait." Conditions, in other words, not unlike those in which many business decisions are made today. The notion that people always act rationally and in their own interest is a pillar of economic theory. So it's interesting that a group of economists, led by the University of Chicago's Richard Thaler, should contribute some of the most damning evidence of people's proclivity for irrational decisions. Building on work by Princeton psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, these so-called behavioral economists have shown not only that many of our economic decisions are irrational, but also that our waywardness is predictable. We get more satisfaction from avoiding a $100 loss than from making a $100 gain, for example, and we compulsively find patterns where none exist. (This stock has gone up for three days; therefore it will continue to go up.) Go ahead, point it out to us. It doesn't matter; we'll make the same mistakes over and over again. Thaler and others speculate that these logical lacunae are the product of a brain wired for survival on the savanna, not for hyperrational calculation. Machines do deductive and inductive calculations well. People excel at "abduction," which is less like reason than inspired guesswork. (Deduction: All taxis are yellow; this is a taxi; therefore it is yellow. Induction: These are all taxis; these are all yellow; therefore, all taxis are probably yellow. Abduction: All taxis are yellow; this vehicle is yellow; therefore this is probably a taxi.) Abduction leaps to conclusions by connecting a known pattern (taxis are yellow) to a specific situation (this yellow vehicle must be a taxi). Compared with computers, people are lousy number crunchers but superb pattern makers -- even without being aware of it. Indeed, much of what we call instinct, psychologists say, is simply pattern recognition taking place at a subconscious level. Some tantalizing evidence in this regard comes from experiments by Antonio Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine. In one experiment, Damasio gave subjects four decks of cards. They were asked to flip the cards, picking from any deck. Two decks were rigged to produce an overall loss (in play money), and two to produce a gain. At intervals, the participants were asked what they thought was going on in the game. And they were hooked up to sensors to measure skin conductance responses, or SCRs (which are also measured by lie-detector machines). By the time they'd turned about 10 cards, subjects began showing SCRs when they reached for a losing deck -- that is, they showed a physical reaction. But not until they had turned, on average, 50 cards could they verbalize their "hunch" that two decks were riskier. It took 30 more cards before they could explain why their hunch was right. Three players were never able to put their hunches into words -- yet they, too, showed elevated SCRs and they, too, picked the right decks. Even if they couldn't explain it, their bodies knew what was going on. Damasio was already aware of the astounding fact that people who suffer damage to parts of their brains where emotions are processed have difficulty making decisions. When such patients participated in Damasio's card experiment, they never expressed hunches. Remarkably, even if they figured out the game intellectually, they continued to pick from losing decks. In other words, they knew their behavior was a mistake but they couldn't make the decision to change it. Emotions, Damasio theorizes, get decision-making started, presenting the conscious, logical mind with a short list of possibilities. Without at least a little intuition, then, the decision process never leaves the gate. None of us have the advantage of a handy SCR detector to know when we're getting a hunch. But gut knowledge has other ways of making its presence felt, and it's often physical. Howard Schultz shook when he had his caffe epiphany. George Soros, the international financier who made billions in currency speculation, feels opportunity in his back, according to his son Robert. "The reason he changes his position on the market or whatever is because his back starts killing him," Robert said in a book about his father. "It has nothing to do with reason. He literally goes into a spasm, and it's his early warning sign." What exactly is Soros's back reacting to? That question bedeviled Flavia Cymbalista, an economist who specializes in uncertainty in financial markets. Soros invests only when he has a hypothesis -- a story that explains a trend in the market. But as Soros himself has theorized, markets don't yield to analysis, because they are continuously changing -- and this is one reason Soros has learned to trust his back. "There are things you can know, but only experientially and bodily," Cymbalista says. What does this mean for making decisions in real life? Research suggests that neither nose-in-the-spreadsheet rationality nor pure gut inspiration is right all the time. The best approach lies somewhere between the extremes, the exact point depending on the situation. Naresh Khatri and H. Alvin Ng, of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and Massey University in Wellington, New Zealand, surveyed nearly 300 executives in the computer, banking, and utilities industries -- meant to represent three different degrees of business stability -- and then compared what executives said about their own decision-making styles. Intuition was clearly the favored strategy for computer-industry execs. Planful approaches were the norm in the relatively staid, rules-driven utilities industry. In a similar vein, Dave Snowden, director of IBM's new Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity in Wales, suggests basing your approach on the nature of the problem confronting you. Snowden breaks problems down into four types: The problem is covered by rules. This is the domain of legal structures, standard operating procedures, practices that are proven to work. Never draw to an inside straight. Never lend to a client whose monthly payments exceed 35 percent of gross income. Never end the meeting without asking for the sale. Here, decision-making lies squarely in the realm of reason: Find the proper rule and apply it. The situation is complicated. Here it is possible to work rationally toward a decision, but doing so requires refined judgment and expertise. Building an automobile, for example, is a complicated problem. You can diagram it; you can assemble and disassemble it; if you remove a piece, you know the consequences. This is the province of engineers, surgeons, intelligence analysts, lawyers, and other experts. Artificial intelligence copes well here: Deep Blue plays chess as if it were a complicated problem, looking at every possible sequence of moves. The situation is complex. This sort of problem can't be resolved by rational analysis. Too much is unknowable. Complex systems -- battlefields, markets, ecosystems, corporate cultures -- are impervious to a reductionist, take-it-apart-and-see-how-it-works approach because your very actions change the situation in unpredictable ways. "Complexity is coherent only in retrospect," Snowden says. With hindsight, for example, the malevolent lines leading to 9/11 are clear, but it would have taken pure luck to see them beforehand. The strategy is to look for patterns at every level, Snowden says. Or rather, the idea is to allow patterns to surface and trust your gut to recognize them. That's how masters play Go, a game that artificial intelligence can't seem to understand. They don't so much analyze a game as contemplate it. When a pattern or behavior emerges, they then reinforce it (if they like it) or disrupt it (if not). In the realm of complexity, decisions come from the informed gut. Karl Wiig, a consultant who runs the Knowledge Research Institute, and Sue Stafford, who heads the philosophy department at Simmons College, saw this in action while designing systems for insurance companies. "Insurance underwriting software is good only for simple cases," Stafford says. Plug in the data -- married white male, age 30, driving this and living here -- and get a quote. Hard cases -- the diabetic actuary who skydives and teaches Sunday school -- need human underwriters, and the best all do the same thing: Dump the file and spread out the contents. "They need to see it all at once," Stafford says. They don't calculate a decision; they arrive at one. The situation is chaotic. Here, too, instinct is better than analysis. The only thing you can do is act. "You impose order," Snowden says. "That's where charismatic leaders come in." After Enron imploded, a team of crisis executives from Kroll Zolfo Cooper parachuted in to save what's savable and dismantle the rest in an orderly way. One of them, Michael France, has the job of putting together a business plan for OpCo, a possibly viable energy business. When he landed, the entire operation was in chaos. "People were afraid," France recalls. "They were either misdirected or undirected. Decision-making was paralyzed. You don't have much time. You've got to be quick and decisive -- make little steps you know will succeed, so you can begin to tell a story that makes sense." This quick-twitch sort of decision-making is akin to the firefighter whose gut makes him turn left or the trader who instinctively sells when the news about the stock seems too good to be true. Behind many of the errors in decision-making lies a yearning for the "right" answer: If only we get enough data, if only we examine all the alternatives, we'll know what to do. "People tend to spend all their time looking for rules," Snowden says. "They're kidding themselves." Situations in which rules supply all the answers are becoming an endangered species, in business and everywhere else. Command-and-control management went out with tail fins. Risks are both greater and less predictable. As companies outsource, globalize, and form alliances, they become more interdependent -- simultaneously competitor and customer, drastically increasing the complexity of their relationships. More and more, all you can do is admit that you simply don't know and go with your gut. This may well feel uncomfortable. No one likes uncertainty, and it's going to be hard to explain to your boss a hunch you can't really articulate, even to yourself. To make things easier, you can teach yourself to tune in more attentively to intuition and to raise your gut IQ. (See "Getting in Touch With Your Gut.") On the other hand, making decisions this way may come more easily than you think. Chances are that the classic linear model you thought you were following -- data comes in, you analyze, draw inferences, make a decision -- was partly an illusion anyway. "The data doesn't just 'come in,'" Klein points out. "You have to figure out where you're going to look -- and that is an intuitive process." In other words, you already are more of an intuitive decision-maker than you may have thought. So relax and listen. Your gut has something to say to you, and it might be important. Thomas A. Stewart is the editorial director of Business 2.com. From velvethum at hotmail.com Sat Oct 14 20:11:00 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:11:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com><0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com><007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><7641ddc60610140739i5c7ec889q5cab74dd11082cba@mail.gmail.com> <009401c6efaa$7d7e0f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: > Rafal writes >> ### Lee, we [happen to] agree in our respective definitions of self (i.e. >> "Rafal" >> and "Lee") but I don't agree with you that only our brand of definition is in >> some >> rigorous way objectively correct. Lee Corbin: > However, for what constitutes a *person* in our daily usage, we do have something > pretty close to "objectively correct". If someone claims to be Napoleon, he is > simply wrong, and if ten days from now I claim not to be Lee Corbin, then either > I > am objectively wrong or I have undergone extensive brain damage. Anything that is not an integral part of Y is not Y. So yes, there exists an objectively correct (no quotes) way to determine whether person A is/isn't person B. Lee Corbin: > We are discussing to what extent a duplicate is you. Opinions do differ. > But in my opinion, it is simply erroneous to contend that you are not > the same person today as you were yesterday just because someone > made a duplicate of you while you slept and killed the original. That's > simply wrong. Well, the reason why a duplicate isn't the original is because the duplicate doesn't extend the original's ability to access reality after original is dead. To put it in the context of your story, "Pit and duplicate," Yevgeny in the pit will always stay in the pit. He will never see the city again because his ability to process reality is stuck in the chunk of matter that is, in turn, stuck in the pit, and will not be extended beyond the pit by those Yevgenys who reached the city. In reality, the paradox of "the same" Yevgeny inside and outside of the pit does not exist because it is logically impossible for two separate and unconnected chunks of matter to implement a single entity. Yevgeny inside the pit does not survive by virtue of other people continuing to exist outside of the pit. Lee Corbin: > I'm fond of how I described it a few days ago: > > In the end, it matters whether one embraces most closely a higher > level concept of who you are (your values, your beliefs, your > memories) or the lower level aspects of who you are (your current > sensations, your current moods, and your current thoughts). That's a good way of looking at it. S. From brian at posthuman.com Sat Oct 14 21:43:58 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:43:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Relativity drive: the end of wings and wheels? In-Reply-To: <4501AC82.2090700@pobox.com> References: <51ce64f10609080148lee84927wc272dcaf430460c@mail.gmail.com> <4501AC82.2090700@pobox.com> Message-ID: <45315A1E.3010603@posthuman.com> There's a few letters and a reply in a more recent NS: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225720.700-emdrive-on-trial.html Emdrive on trial * 07 October 2006 * NewScientist.com news service * Paul Friedlander The article on "flying by light" describes a machine that uses microwaves to generate thrust. As I read it, I, like the thousands of other physicists who will have read it, immediately realised that this was impossible as described (9 September, p 30). Physicists are trained to use certain fundamental principles to analyse a problem and this claim clearly flouted one of them. To understand how, consider this. A "Shawyer drive" is installed in a spacecraft floating in deep space far from any other object. Let us say that it got there using nuclear power, since it cannot use sunlight. Switch on the Shawyer drive and the craft begins to accelerate. The craft changes speed and in so doing it changes its momentum without any other external change. Except it doesn't, because this is impossible. Momentum, according to one of our basic principles, is conserved and cannot be created or destroyed. The craft is breaking this rule. In a conventional rocket, thrust is achieved without breaking the rule because the combined momentum of the craft and the exhaust gas from the rocket cancel each other out as they move in exactly opposite directions. The principle of conservation of momentum is every bit as true in the world of relativity and quantum mechanics as it was when set down by Newton. The Shawyer drive is as impossible as perpetual motion. From Greg Egan Relativistic conservation of momentum has been understood for a century, and dictates that if nothing emerges from Shawyer's device then its centre of mass will not accelerate. This statement holds true in all reference frames. It is likely that Shawyer has used an approximation somewhere in his calculations that would have been reasonable if he hadn't then multiplied the result by 50,000. The reason physicists value principles such as conservation of momentum is that they act as a reality check against errors of this kind. Tuart Hill, Western Australia From Dick Atkinson Your cover story describes Roger Shawyer's plan to power a space vehicle by the pressure exerted by microwaves in a vessel shaped like a truncated cone. Because one end is smaller it is suggested that there will be a smaller force acting on it, so the net forces will accelerate the device in the direction of its larger end. Surely there is a facile error in this idea: every photon striking the big end has to be reflected there. Photons which impact on the sloping sides exert forces too. In effect, the narrowing walls of the vessel are part of the little end, and a little vector analysis should show that their contribution neatly balances the two ends. I think this is as unreal as Jonathan Swift's account of the Big-endians and the Little-endians in Gulliver's Travels, and any journey that Shawyer's drive facilitates is rather less likely than Gulliver's voyage to the flying island of Laputa. Having said that, I hope I'm wrong. South Shields, Tyne and Wear, UK From Paul Warren I have seen some comments that question the academic integrity of your reports on Shawyer and his emdrive concept. I feel New Scientist has an important role to fulfil in exploring maverick or contentious science, and thus I am glad you published the article. But I would like to request that you present both sides of this kind of argument, and with more academic rigour. Can we hear more on the emdrive and its sceptics? Scarborough, North Yorkshire, UK Roger Shawyer replies: The momentum exchange is between the electromagnetic wave and the engine, which is attached to the spacecraft. As the engine accelerates, momentum is lost by the electromagnetic wave and gained by the spacecraft, thus satisfying the conservation of momentum. In this process, energy is lost within the resonator, thus satisfying the conservation of energy. The emdrive concept is clearly difficult to comprehend without a rigorous study of the theory paper, which is available via emdrive.com or the New Scientist website (http://tinyurl.com/npxv8). This paper, which has been subjected to a long and detailed review process by industry and government experts, derives two equations: the static thrust equation and the dynamic thrust equation. The law of the conservation of momentum is the basis of the static thrust equation, the law of the conservation of energy is the basis of the dynamic thrust equation. Provided these two fundamental laws of physics are satisfied, there is no reason why the forces inside the resonator should sum to zero. The equations used to calculate the guide wavelengths in the static thrust equation are very non-linear. This is exploited in the design of the resonator to maximise the ratio of end plate forces, while minimising the axial component of the side wall force. This results in a net force that produces motion in accordance with Newton's laws. We are now in the process of negotiating a trial flight programme. From issue 2572 of New Scientist magazine, 07 October 2006, page 24 -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Oct 14 22:06:43 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:06:43 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Philosophical phylogeny In-Reply-To: <1488.163.1.72.81.1160680913.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20061011011838.26732.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <1488.163.1.72.81.1160680913.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <1214.163.1.72.81.1160863603.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> I have put up the new versions of the Love and Wikipeidia genealogies, as well as a more complex version of the academic phylogeny at: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2006/10/genealogy_the_next_generation.html Conclusions: there seems to be some consensus on who has influenced who, and most philosophers (and mathematicians, neuroscientists etc.) belong to the giant component. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Oct 14 22:35:53 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:35:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > At the risk of replying to the wrong email, I'm responding to > Russell who wrote > >> As it happens, you have tagged my sympathies entirely incorrectly; >> if you look at what I actually wrote, you'll note that I >> specifically stated >> the likes of al-Qaida are our enemies and have to be fought. What I >> am >> opposed to is autoimmune disease: allowing our supposed protectors to >> turn inwards and target us instead of our enemies. > > I agree. In very many ways the government has become an enemy of > its citizens, but this hasn't started just in the last decade. It > remains to > assess how much "we" are being targeted by government when those > governments attempt to target Al Queda. Personally, I don't believe that Al Qaeda is their target. I think massive expansion of government power and control and a near blank check for any military adventures they deem desirable is the primary target of their efforts. At the least this has been the primary result. Oh and the most lucrative and unquestioned federal pork barrel in US history. - samantha From brentn at freeshell.org Sat Oct 14 22:41:46 2006 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:41:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2006, at 18:35, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Oh and the most lucrative and unquestioned federal pork > barrel in US history. > > - samantha Heck yes. The company I used to work for tried to apply for some DHS grants. It quickly became apparent that without the right sort of connections, the door was quite closed. So much for the "free market." :P B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From extropy at unreasonable.com Sat Oct 14 23:19:11 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:19:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clamping down email server Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> I've been sending and receiving my email through my hosted FreeBSD server for years, fairly smoothly. Of late I've been getting thousands of messages a day purportedly from other mail servers, rejecting email attributed to my domain, viz., that uses a random address like jkkqrlaz at unreasonable.com. Meanwhile, there are signs that some email I've originated is not getting to its destination, suggesting that it's being blocked along the way. I've checked a couple of blacklist sites, and not found my domain or its IP address listed, and confirmed that sendmail is using POP Auth. Could someone point me to a straight-forward procedure for clamping down my email server, seeing if it's on any blacklists, and restoring its good name? I plan to switch soon to a new web host, where I figured I'd rely on postfix, but I need email fully functional right away. -- David Lubkin. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 23:58:31 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:58:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <009401c6efaa$7d7e0f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60610140739i5c7ec889q5cab74dd11082cba@mail.gmail.com> <009401c6efaa$7d7e0f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Seems to me that supposed duplicates share nearly the same biological nature, even more than is the case with identical twins, but that they cannot share the same nurture. Supposed duplicates must be separated in space, at the very least, necessitating different subjective experiences and thus different nurtures. If one is a product not only of nature but also of nurture (as I believe) then it follows that one's supposed duplicate is not actually oneself. -gts From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 00:35:01 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:35:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610141735w75b44e59ibabaeaf8b25f6965@mail.gmail.com> On 10/14/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Perhaps more fundamentally, I'm arguing precisely against making > decisions > > by affect value. > > That's not true if you mean it in general. Well okay, for strict accuracy the above should be read as "...against an excessive tendency in many contexts to make decisions by..." (interesting article btw, thanks). ...and I pretty much agree with the rest of what you wrote. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 03:03:24 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:03:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clamping down email server In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: David, I've noticed something of the same nature on the email coming into the aeiveos.com domain. I think it is due to the fact that some mail systems (qmail?) are willing to attempt to send back "undelivered" messages. The spamers then falsify the mail into your system so it looks like a rejected send that has to be returned. Of course if the system/user that it is being delivered to rejects it then it bounces back to you (and presumably your system may get blacklisted as a spam relay). I think this problem may have diminished for me when I switched to Postfix (which was a quick deinstall of qmail and install of postfix under Gentoo Linux). As I suspect many (most?) large ISPs maintain their own internal blacklists getting ones name "cleared" may be difficult to impossible (which is why some people find blacklisting problematic). I never went into the mechanics of what was wrong with qmail. I thought it was setup to refuse to act as a relay but there may have been a bug that allowed it to do so when the message was being returned under the guise of having originated from your system. I do believe that there may have existed a number of 3rd party patches which were not incorporated into the version I was running -- so it might have been fixed but I didn't know what the fixes were. I have read someplace (/., digg, ???) that SPAMers may now have test suites to identify the holes in various mail agents so they can target their SPAM to yours [1] and so if one doesn't have staff people to stay on top of this full time its relatively easy to get caught in the cross fire. I would expect that among the ExI List readers there are enough people with systems that we could setup a "whitelisted" secure email relay cloud which could benefit everyone involved. Robert 1. Gives a whole new meaning to rotating your shield frequencies to defeat the enemy phasers -- but ultimately they will adapt. On 10/14/06, David Lubkin wrote: > I've been sending and receiving my email through my hosted FreeBSD > server for years, fairly smoothly. Of late I've been getting > thousands of messages a day purportedly from other mail servers, > rejecting email attributed to my domain, viz., that uses a random > address like jkkqrlaz at unreasonable.com. > > Meanwhile, there are signs that some email I've originated is not > getting to its destination, suggesting that it's being blocked along the > way. > > I've checked a couple of blacklist sites, and not found my domain or > its IP address listed, and confirmed that sendmail is using POP Auth. > > Could someone point me to a straight-forward procedure for clamping > down my email server, seeing if it's on any blacklists, and restoring > its good name? > > I plan to switch soon to a new web host, where I figured I'd rely on > postfix, but I need email fully functional right away. > > > -- David Lubkin. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From brian at posthuman.com Sun Oct 15 03:23:14 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:23:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clamping down email server In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <4531A9A2.2000706@posthuman.com> Running your own personal outbound mail server in today's environment is simply not worth the endless neverending trouble you will have. Just send the outgoing mail through your ISP's mail server instead of attempting direct delivery. They have paid folks to do the neverending work of keeping clear of blacklists and all the other issues, and at this point it is a full time job. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 08:11:36 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:11:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clamping down email server In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: On 10/15/06, David Lubkin wrote: > I've been sending and receiving my email through my hosted FreeBSD > server for years, fairly smoothly. Of late I've been getting > thousands of messages a day purportedly from other mail servers, > rejecting email attributed to my domain, viz., that uses a random > address like jkkqrlaz at unreasonable.com. > This is called NDR (Non Delivery Report) Spam. Or sometimes Reverse NDR Spam. Quote: By default, Microsoft(r) Exchange Server accepts all messages received via SMTP protocol. In case the server is unable to find a recipient within the system the message is returned to the sender (non-delivery report, NDR). This approach, however, may cause a potential security threat: since the sender's address is not checked, a sender with malicious intentions may set any address as the reply-to address. NDR-attacks allow spammers to bypass most of the server side and client side spam check filters: * since Exchange Server returns undelivered messages as an attachment, spam filters that monitor the message body and headers for specified keywords operate less than effectively, often allowing such messages to pass through undetected; * many users delete unsolicited mail manually without reading it (this takes less than a second); however, when they see a message with 'Undelivered Mail' in the subject line they may very well open and read the attached message, not only potentially wasting their time ? but what if it contains a virus, or more specifically a worm which would then send messages to all the contacts in their address book?; * because the source of such mail is a so-called "honest" server (one that is not found in SPEWS or ORDB databases), sever filters, including the latest filters introduced in Microsoft Exchange 2003 Server will pass the message through. End quote ----------------- What you need is a 'whitelist' of valid addresses for your domain, so that you can reject these NDR messages with made-up return addresses. In rare cases this may cause a false detection when somebody mistypes your email address. Or just train your spam filter to know that NDRs are spam. That is what I've done with my POP3 email. Again, this may also give very occasional false detections that you have to watch out for. BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Oct 15 14:19:49 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:19:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <012d01c6f065$54a2db00$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > On Oct 14, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> In very many ways the government has become >> an enemy of its citizens, but this hasn't started just >> in the last decade. It remains to assess how much >> "we" are being targeted by government when those >> governments attempt to target Al Queda. > > Personally, I don't believe that Al Qaeda is their target. So you see (as you explain below) that any inconvenience to Al Qaeda that occurs overseas is just a side-effect of a government grab for more power? Would you try to make that argument apply to America in World War II, the Civil War, Korea, and Viet Nam? Or is something different now? > I think massive expansion of government power and control > and a near blank check for any military adventures they deem > desirable is the primary target of their efforts. I think that the Bush and Blair administrations would like nothing better than to have buried Al Queda, especially by 2008, so that they could turn to the electorate and say "See?". One thing that is more dangerous now than in any point in Western history is the huge size of the bureaucracies, and their self-sustaining agendas. Far more civil rights were abrogated during the Civil War and World War II, and in effect in World War I, than now, but it was easy to pull back once the menace was contained. There are two very sad reasons why we'll never return to the halcyon days of the 1990s when the U.S. really was a superpower (or at least everyone thought so), and there seemed to be few threats from disgruntled individuals and groups. One is simply technically small groups and individuals can threaten organized society like never before, and the other is that the unbelievably huge centralized bureaucracies that have been created to deal with them have self-sustenance as their primary goal. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Oct 15 14:23:34 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:23:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60610140739i5c7ec889q5cab74dd11082cba@mail.gmail.com> <009401c6efaa$7d7e0f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <013301c6f065$c0d3ffc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> gts writes (hi Gordon!) > Seems to me that supposed duplicates share nearly the same biological > nature, even more than is the case with identical twins, but that they > cannot share the same nurture. That depends on how recently the duplicate was made. I think that for suitable reward you'd sacrifice the last few moment's memories. > Supposed duplicates must be separated in space, at the very least, > necessitating different subjective experiences and thus different nurtures. "Nurture" as in the traditional nurture/nature debate is taken to mean a long term build-up. I don't identify with very brief experiences, and I'm the same person no matter where you teleport me and how many times per milli-second you do it. Lee From eugen at leitl.org Sun Oct 15 15:11:40 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:11:40 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clamping down email server In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <20061015151140.GK6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:19:11PM -0400, David Lubkin wrote: > I've been sending and receiving my email through my hosted FreeBSD > server for years, fairly smoothly. Of late I've been getting > thousands of messages a day purportedly from other mail servers, > rejecting email attributed to my domain, viz., that uses a random > address like jkkqrlaz at unreasonable.com. Most spam uses forged From: addresses. > Meanwhile, there are signs that some email I've originated is not > getting to its destination, suggesting that it's being blocked along the way. Not at all unsual. > I've checked a couple of blacklist sites, and not found my domain or > its IP address listed, and confirmed that sendmail is using POP Auth. I've tried http://www.robtex.com/rbls/207.159.131.159.html and several others on http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=RBL+check&btnG=Google+Search which come up green. > Could someone point me to a straight-forward procedure for clamping > down my email server, seeing if it's on any blacklists, and restoring You can always use http://www.abuse.net/relay.html or similiar online relaying sites to test whether you're having a misconfiguration. You do seem to have a lot of open ports, though: helium:~# nmap 207.159.131.159 Starting nmap 3.81 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-10-15 17:09 CEST Interesting ports on unreasonable.com (207.159.131.159): (The 1639 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed) PORT STATE SERVICE 21/tcp open ftp 22/tcp open ssh 23/tcp open telnet 25/tcp open smtp 30/tcp open unknown 53/tcp open domain 80/tcp open http 110/tcp open pop3 111/tcp open rpcbind 135/tcp filtered msrpc 139/tcp open netbios-ssn 143/tcp open imap 443/tcp open https 587/tcp open submission 648/tcp open unknown 993/tcp open imaps 995/tcp open pop3s 1022/tcp open unknown 1023/tcp open netvenuechat 3306/tcp open mysql 6666/tcp filtered irc-serv 6667/tcp filtered irc 6668/tcp filtered irc 13782/tcp open VeritasNetbackup > its good name? As far as I can tell you're not in any RBL, so there's no way to restore what is not tarnished to start with. You typically can't get an RBL to unblock you or any target site to use non-braindead mail filtering anyway, so you could as well send a fax, or pick up the phone, if you want to make sure your missive came through. Yes, it is really that bad. > I plan to switch soon to a new web host, where I figured I'd rely on > postfix, but I need email fully functional right away. Picking postfix is a good choice. -- 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 Sun Oct 15 15:23:30 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:23:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clamping down email server In-Reply-To: <4531A9A2.2000706@posthuman.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> <4531A9A2.2000706@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20061015152330.GM6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:23:14PM -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > Running your own personal outbound mail server in today's environment is simply > not worth the endless neverending trouble you will have. I disagree. I have zero trouble with mine, and I consistently made the experience that you just can't rely on other people. > Just send the outgoing mail through your ISP's mail server instead of attempting > direct delivery. They have paid folks to do the neverending work of keeping > clear of blacklists and all the other issues, and at this point it is a full > time job. If you share your IP with random users, it is *guaranteed* to be in a RBL or many at some point. The paid folks can do zilch about it. If you want proper hygiene, use sterile IPs, and don't contaminate them yourself (such as running Tor in your address space). -- 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 Sun Oct 15 15:51:52 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:51:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What is the smallest genome possible? References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> Message-ID: <009b01c6f071$e0e4f5b0$d3084e0c@MyComputer> A bacteria with the smallest ever genome has been discovered, this cell has only 159,662 base-pairs of DNA. That's only 80K of information. Hell there have been some posts to this list bigger than that; and this is a living thing. It might be worthwhile to study it to find the bare minimum needed for life, perhaps they could try removing one of its 182 genes to see if they could get something even smaller. For more see: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012184647.htm John K Clark From extropy at unreasonable.com Sun Oct 15 16:09:10 2006 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:09:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Clamping down email server In-Reply-To: <20061015151140.GK6974@leitl.org> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> <20061015151140.GK6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20061015112836.072bfb68@unreasonable.com> Eugen wrote: [a hands-on, on-point reply] Thanks. One of my first thoughts actually was to write to you off-list, but (a) under the circumstances, I wasn't sure it would get to you, (b) I figured other people might have pertinent observations, and (c) the subject is one that many of us have to grapple with. And, as Brian alluded to, this is a topic where, even among technorati, you have to run as fast as you can to stay in the same place. -- David. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 16:28:07 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:28:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <013301c6f065$c0d3ffc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60610140739i5c7ec889q5cab74dd11082cba@mail.gmail.com> <009401c6efaa$7d7e0f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <013301c6f065$c0d3ffc0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Hiya Lee, On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:23:34 -0400, Lee Corbin wrote: >> Seems to me that supposed duplicates share nearly the same biological >> nature, even more than is the case with identical twins, but that they >> cannot share the same nurture. > > That depends on how recently the duplicate was made. Of course that is true. The supposed duplicates become more unlike each other as a function of time and experience. And so logically they start as different people even in the first moment following the split, at their first moment of unshared, disparate experience. > "Nurture" as in the traditional nurture/nature debate is taken to mean a > long term build-up. I think it needn't be taken that way here. I think we are to some extent a product of our experiences, no matter how brief those experiences may be. It follows also that one is not the same person from one day to the next, or even from one moment to the next. Certainly this is true biologically. Why should it not also be true psychologically? -gts From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 18:27:55 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:27:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What is the smallest genome possible? In-Reply-To: <009b01c6f071$e0e4f5b0$d3084e0c@MyComputer> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> <009b01c6f071$e0e4f5b0$d3084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 10/15/06, John K Clark wrote: > > It might be worthwhile to study it to find the bare minimum needed > for life, perhaps they could try removing one of its 182 genes to see if > they could get something even smaller. > Careful, careful, careful. As the article points out, it may be a bacteria in the process of becoming an organelle! You could view a mitochondria as being the smallest bacteria if you allow for bacteria to import proteins essential for self-replication. The previous minimal genome size for bacteria was thought to be in the 350-450 gene range so a 2-3x reduction is not simply trimming around the edges. The question is whether or not *all* the genes required for self-replication are in those 182 genes? I would tend to doubt it. If you are importing RNAs or proteins to accomplish complete replication then you are violating the "rules". I suspect this could be extended if you are importing anything other than simple molecules to produce a copy of yourself. (E.g. does the bacteria do the synthesis of its cell membrane and/or wall or is relying on the host to do the heavy lifting?) This is going to cause rather loud discussions as to *what* precisely is a bacteria? [And we thought the "what is a planet?" discussions were bad.] As at least one virus has recently been found with a multi-thousand base genome so I think the virus and bacteria definitions are starting to get very fuzzy. Where is Humpty Dumpty when you need him? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 15 19:09:51 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:09:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] What is the smallest genome possible? In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> <009b01c6f071$e0e4f5b0$d3084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061015140415.021b2ee0@satx.rr.com> >*what* precisely is a bacteria? I know it's tiresome of me to mention this, but "a bacteria" is a grammatical error, that's what it is. The singular word everyone in this thread is looking for is "bacterium". (And before anyone starts talking about plural "virii", that's "viri" or "viruses".) Damien Broderick [your friendly neighborhood lexical cop] From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 15 20:48:46 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:48:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <012d01c6f065$54a2db00$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <012d01c6f065$54a2db00$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1160945327.5671.9.camel@localhost> On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 07:19 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > > > On Oct 14, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > >> In very many ways the government has become > >> an enemy of its citizens, but this hasn't started just > >> in the last decade. It remains to assess how much > >> "we" are being targeted by government when those > >> governments attempt to target Al Queda. > > > > Personally, I don't believe that Al Qaeda is their target. > > So you see (as you explain below) that any inconvenience to > Al Qaeda that occurs overseas is just a side-effect of a > government grab for more power? Would you try to make > that argument apply to America in World War II, the Civil > War, Korea, and Viet Nam? Or is something different now? I don't believe Al Qaeda is or ever was a significant enough problem to justify what has been and is being done in this idiotic war on a form of asymmetric warfare. Bush has repeadely even lowered the priority of finding bin Laden. > > > I think massive expansion of government power and control > > and a near blank check for any military adventures they deem > > desirable is the primary target of their efforts. > > I think that the Bush and Blair administrations would like nothing > better than to have buried Al Queda, especially by 2008, so > that they could turn to the electorate and say "See?". Do you think Al Qaeda are the end and be-all of terrorism? Do you think it is remotely possible to ever find and "bury" all cells of any such organization? Bush and most of the administration claim this war is never ending. The people should have been up in arms and soon as this was claimed. But no, most of us bring our freedom and our money gladly to Washington to protect us from the B-A-A-D and E-V-I-L endless menace. > > One thing that is more dangerous now than in any point in > Western history is the huge size of the bureaucracies, and > their self-sustaining agendas. Far more civil rights were > abrogated during the Civil War and World War II, and > in effect in World War I, than now, but it was easy to pull > back once the menace was contained. > Yep. Which is why a "war" defined as endless is hideously dangerous. > There are two very sad reasons why we'll never return to > the halcyon days of the 1990s when the U.S. really was > a superpower (or at least everyone thought so), and there > seemed to be few threats from disgruntled individuals and > groups. One is simply technically small groups and > individuals can threaten organized society like never > before, and the other is that the unbelievably huge > centralized bureaucracies that have been created to > deal with them have self-sustenance as their primary > goal. > Yes. I consider the second orders of magnitude more dangerous than the first. YMMV. - samantha From jonkc at att.net Sun Oct 15 20:48:30 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:48:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What is the smallest genome possible? References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com><009b01c6f071$e0e4f5b0$d3084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002501c6f09b$790f49c0$53094e0c@MyComputer> Robert Bradbury Wrote: > As at least one virus has recently been found with a multi-thousand base > genome so I think the virus and bacteria definitions are starting to get > very fuzzy. I disagree, the distinction between a bacterium (thank you Damien) and a virus (if virii or viri is a real word it damn well shouldn't be) isn't the size of its genome, it's the fact that a bacterium has a metabolism while a virus does not. However I agree with you that it might sometimes become a little difficult deciding if something is a organelle or a bacterium. It gets even worse, a mitochondria cannot live unless it is imbedded deep inside another creature, but then neither can a tapeworm. When a organism evolves into a parasite or symbiote it always becomes simpler. John K Clark From riel at surriel.com Sun Oct 15 21:16:43 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:16:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pour-on nanotechnology stops bleeding in seconds Message-ID: <4532A53B.1070705@surriel.com> Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US, have created a liquid that stops bleeding in any tissue in a matter of seconds. It is a discovery that they claim has the potential to revolutionise surgery and emergency medicine and could even make it easier to reattach severed limbs. Rutledge Ellis-Behnke and colleagues worked from the nanoscale, using individual amino acids to create a self-assembling peptide. It looks exactly like water but when applied directly onto injured tissue it halts bleeding. This is the first time nanotechnology has been used to control bleeding, claims Rutledge. ... http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/October/10080601.asp -- Who do you trust? The people with all the right answers? Or the people with the right questions? From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 21:28:19 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:28:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What is the smallest genome possible? In-Reply-To: <002501c6f09b$790f49c0$53094e0c@MyComputer> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061014185557.06905680@unreasonable.com> <009b01c6f071$e0e4f5b0$d3084e0c@MyComputer> <002501c6f09b$790f49c0$53094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 10/15/06, John K Clark wrote: > I disagree, the distinction between a bacterium (thank you Damien) and a > virus (if virii or viri is a real word it damn well shouldn't be) isn't the > size of its genome, it's the fact that a bacterium has a metabolism while a > virus does not. However I agree with you that it might sometimes become a > little difficult deciding if something is a organelle or a bacterium. It > gets even worse, a mitochondria cannot live unless it is imbedded deep > inside another creature, but then neither can a tapeworm. When a organism > evolves into a parasite or symbiote it always becomes simpler. > Wikipedia has an interesting article about the plural of virus. Quote: In the English language, the standard plural of virus is viruses. This is the most frequently occurring form of the plural, and refers to both a biological virus and a computer virus. The less frequent variations viri and virii are virtually unknown in edited prose, and no major dictionary recognizes them as alternative forms. Their occurrence can be variously attributed to hypercorrection formed by analogy to Latin plurals such as radii; idiosyncratic use as jargon among a group, such as computer hackers; and deliberate word play, such as on BBSs (see, e.g.: leet). To complicate matters further, viri is already used in Latin as the plural of vir, meaning "man" (thus making viri mean "men") End quote ---------- Read on for more tasty linguistical nuggets. BillK From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Oct 15 23:16:32 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:16:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 11:19 PM 10/13/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > If there are many aliens out there, then the total number of > > creatures that we could have been in the universe doesn't change much > > from scenarios where our civilization dies fast or lasts long. So if > > you are a random creature among all these creatures, > >I think that this is probably exactly the point at which Russell demurs. >That's what I've never been able to choke down myself. And I know >that Eliezer has publically denigrated such a calculus of souls, rightly >saying that it's bad to think about a sample space (made up, say, of >all sentient entities) from which you were drawn at random--- >in other words, that a priori, it was equally likely that you could have >been born in the four centuries before Christ as that you were born >in the U.S. in the 1960's. No way! >You could not have been born anywhere except on Earth and in >the 20th century at that. You are the result of a baby with certain >genetic traits being raised in a 20th century type environment. It is >not possible that you could have been born with twelve tentacles >living in a methane atmosphere and holding absolute religious >convictions concerning the Great Squid that preclude all scientific >or rational thinking. It simple wouldn't be you. Therefore as >Eliezer says, the sample space is bad; and Bostrom and others >seem to have been thinking that its made of soul-like points in the >space of all possible outcomes. Counterfactuals are one of our most powerful intellectual tools. If we had to swear off using them our thinking would be immensely impoverished. They infuse science and ordinary thinking in equal measures. Sometimes the language we use to describe counterfactuals makes it ambiguous which ones we refer to, but the idea that we can imagine situations other than the one we find ourselves and ask ourselves what we should believe in such situations is a powerful way to clarify what we should believe in our real situation. "What if you didn't know when you were born or what civilization you live in" is an example of a useful thought-clarifying counterfactual. 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 Sun Oct 15 23:46:42 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:46:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60610140654k65ec201au82cd2206bf9fad5f@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <7641ddc60610140654k65ec201au82cd2206bf9fad5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0J7700CZFBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 09:54 AM 10/14/2006, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > >if you choose to define your reference class by causal logic, then > > >you get the causal logic conclusion. If you choose to define your > > >reference class by measure accounting, then you get the measure > > >accounting conclusion. ... So decide what you care > > >about, and aim for that. > > > > beliefs are supposed to be your best estimate of > > the way the world is. When you ask "what is the chance that ..." > > you are asking about probabilities and beliefs, so the answer simply > > cannot depend on some value choice you make. > >### But value choices may change your definitions of terms: You can >formulate a number of similar but distinct definitions of "self", all >largely consistent with the quotidian usage, yet leading to widely >divergent numerical estimates in imagined situations far removed from >our daily experience. Yes, agreed. What questions we may choose to ask about the world may certainly depend on our values. But for any one question well-posed in terms of what someone will see, or how things will be arranged, the probabilities should not depend on values. If we ask about creatures who remember being in this situation many times, we should be able to ask about the typical frequencies they should remember having seen. 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 Sun Oct 15 23:48:39 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:48:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired Message-ID: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> You're Fired, Forbes, October 30, 2006. In the above OpEd I introduce a wide audience to my proposal to put market in charge of whether to fire the CEO. Not only would this add value to companies, it would change the way we think about who does and should "run" our major organizations. 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 Sun Oct 15 23:24:05 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:24:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> Message-ID: <0J7700CZGBHBEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 05:33 PM 10/13/2006, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > After many repetitions you could compare the frequencies you > > see in your history to the probabilities you had assigned. Or you > > could make bets based on your probabilities and see whether such bets > > win or lose on average. These two related methods make clear that > > probabilities are not arbitrary value choices - they can be right or wrong. > >The bizarre thing about these situations, as they work in our thought >experiments, is that, on most assumptions you care to make about where >the subjective probability mass goes (or as I sometimes say, where the >realness-fluid flows, bearing in mind that we are almost certainly >talking about some kind of phlogiston that isn't the actual solution) - >anyway, regardless of which assumption you make, after N repetitions of >the experiment, nearly all of your subjective probability mass is in a >set of observers who, by applying induction, would end up with the >assumption you started with - that is, under your assumption, all the >probability mass would end up in observers who, given their experienced >history, would strongly suspect your assumption - which is to say, after >N repetitions of the experiment, then "you", wherever you are, would be >almost certain of the answer. >But an outside observer would have no idea where most of the >"probability mass" had gone, so they can't learn anything by performing >the experiment from outside - you would have to be inside it. I'm not yet convinced that this claim is true, that there are no outside observations that can prefer one account to another. But I haven't thought about this enough yet to be very confident about any such claim either way. 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 Sun Oct 15 23:46:31 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:46:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0J7700FROCI9SQE0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> At 11:01 PM 10/13/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Confusion exists in the mind, not in reality. All this mess has to be > > generated by a bad question - certainly we have to be doing *something* > > wrong. > >What is wrong in duplication (or forking) experiments is to suppose that >there is only a probability that the bad outcome will occur. We *know* >that both outcomes occur. Therefore probability is an atrocious way to >approach the problem. Probability can be used, as I say, only for >planning purposes in that one might have to do something awkward >in the present circumstance while a lot of copies of one are being made. You seem to be rejecting the concept of indexical uncertainty, which seems to me to be valid and central to these situations. Even when you know all of the physical details of a universe, you can still be uncertain about which creature you are in such a universe. An agent who has forked but has not yet found out which forked agent he is can sensibly have uncertainty about his identity. 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 00:50:44 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20061016005044.38517.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> I like the idea. I think it will make CEO selection for companies more meritocratic which would go a long way to justify how much more they earn compared to an average employee of the same company. --- Robin Hanson wrote: > You're Fired, > Forbes, October 30, 2006. > > In the above OpEd I introduce a wide audience to my > proposal to put > market in charge of whether to fire the CEO. Not > only would this > add value to companies, it would change the way we > think about who > does and should "run" our major organizations. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Oct 16 01:43:25 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:43:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: <20061016005044.38517.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <20061016005044.38517.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0J7700H21GSE5010@caduceus1.gmu.edu> At 08:50 PM 10/15/2006, Stuart LaForge wrote: >I like the idea. I think it will make CEO selection >for companies more meritocratic which would go a long >way to justify how much more they earn compared to an >average employee of the same company. Similar mechanisms might be used to advise on the wisdom of offering particular CEO candidates particular compensation packages. 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 lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 16 01:45:34 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:45:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <012d01c6f065$54a2db00$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1160945327.5671.9.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <015d01c6f0c4$ff139ed0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes >> So you see (as you explain below) that any inconvenience to >> Al Qaeda that occurs overseas is just a side-effect of a >> government grab for more power? Would you try to make >> that argument apply to America in World War II, the Civil >> War, Korea, and Viet Nam? Or is something different now? > > I don't believe Al Qaeda is or ever was a significant enough problem to > justify what has been and is being done in this idiotic war on a form of > asymmetric warfare. Bush has repeadely even lowered the priority of > finding bin Laden. Why was the bombing of Pearl Harbor any different? Fewer lives were lost than on 9-11, and wouldn't the mature thing to do have been to just sit down with the Japanese and ask them what their problem was? (They were upset about the oil sanctions.) We could just have just negotiated it out with them, do you think? > Do you think Al Qaeda are the end and be-all of terrorism? Do you think > it is remotely possible to ever find and "bury" all cells of any such > organization? No, on both counts. > Bush and most of the administration claim this war is > never ending. The people should have been up in arms and soon as this > was claimed. But no, most of us bring our freedom and our money gladly > to Washington to protect us from the B-A-A-D and E-V-I-L endless menace. Am I to infer that you don't think Al Qaeda attacks on the West.it will be endless? You suppose that they'll just fade away over time? >> One thing that is more dangerous now than in any point in >> Western history is the huge size of the bureaucracies, and >> their self-sustaining agendas. Far more civil rights were >> abrogated during the Civil War and World War II, and >> in effect in World War I, than now, but it was easy to pull >> back once the menace was contained. > > Yep. Which is why a "war" defined as endless is hideously dangerous. You are perfectly correct. The world is not in a good state peace-wise :-) But look on the bright side: in terms of per capita deaths, this one looks to be one of the gentlest in history. The only long term question is whether the war will gradually fade away, or escalate to total conflict once Hispanic North America and Moslem Europe lock horns. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 01:27:45 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] When biology and english clash (was smallest genome) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061016012745.7294.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> > Quote: > In the English language, the standard plural of > virus is viruses. This > is the most frequently occurring form of the plural, > and refers to > both a biological virus and a computer virus. Biological classification is much to blame for the confusion when it comes to the plurals of organisms. In biology, the singular can refer to a single individual organism i.e. the red fox got into our chicken coop. Unfortunately the singular can also refer to an entire species which is rarely comprised of a single individual. i.e. The red fox is in danger of going extinct due to the popularity of fox hunting. Whilst the plural in a sloppy way, is used to describe multiple organisms of the same species i.e. the foxes have a den in the woods. Or multiple species i.e. the foxes are in the order Carnivora or the foxes are comprised of three related species. When you get into microbiology it gets even worse because all the old taxonomical rules start to break down. The concept of species is rather ill defined for bacteria and non-existent for viruses. Since very seldomly is a microbiologist actually dealing with a single bacterium (i.e. Robert diluted down his suspension culture a million fold until but a single bacterium was present in his microscope field.) I and most microbiologists would not object to the phrase: E. coli is a bacteria that lives in your gut as opposed to Fred is Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 16 01:56:24 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:56:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com><0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com><007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700FROCI9SQE0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <016401c6f0c6$af6c9ec0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robin writes >>What is wrong in duplication (or forking) experiments is to suppose that >>there is only a probability that the bad outcome will occur. We *know* >>that both outcomes occur. Therefore probability is an atrocious way to >>approach the problem. Probability can be used, as I say, only for >>planning purposes in that one might have to do something awkward >>in the present circumstance while a lot of copies of one are being made. > > You seem to be rejecting the concept of indexical uncertainty, which seems > to me to be valid and central to these situations. Even when you know > all of the physical details of a universe, you can still be uncertain > about which creature you are in such a universe. Yes, especially if you are addressing a case in which there are real differences: In some experiments, subjects remain identical over spatial distances. But in either case, one may wonder if he is A, the duplicate that was to be created near Alpha Centauri, or B, the duplicate that was to be created near Betelgeuse. However! That is not crucial to your identity: your identity is independent of spatial location. (Let me be clear: Robin Hanson lives equally well both near Alpha Centauri and Betelgeuse.) > An agent who has forked but has not yet found out which forked agent > he is can sensibly have uncertainty about his identity. He *can* be uncertain about his location. About what else can he be uncertain? And are you defending a statement such as "with probability .6 I will be at A and with probability .4 I'll be at B"? I have said that I will defend such a statement only for *planning* purposes---you need to be wearing a raincoat if you know it's raining at one of the places. But the truth is that there is a 100% probability that you will be at A. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 16 02:08:14 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:08:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com><0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robin writes >>You could not have been born anywhere except on Earth and in >>the 20th century at that. You are the result of a baby with certain >>genetic traits being raised in a 20th century type environment. >>[If you had been raised under significantly different circumstances, >>then you wouldn't be you.] > Counterfactuals are one of our most powerful intellectual tools. Agreed. > the idea that we can imagine situations other than the one we find > ourselves and ask ourselves what we should believe in such situations > is a powerful way to clarify what we should believe in our real situation. That is so! But it is valid only so long as your identity remains constant (or nearly so) under the counterfactual assumptions. "What would it be like for me if I were a bat" is, as you know, a bad question. Likewise, we can't "find ourselves" as you write, in the 14th century (unless someone had some mighty fine simulations or hidden societies going on back then). > "What if you didn't know when you were born or what civilization you live > in" is an example of a useful thought-clarifying counterfactual. I know that I *must* have been born in a 20th century type civilization or simulation, or I wouldn't be me. It would be someone else. Even so, were a Lee Corbin infant raised as a latter-day Wahhabist in Saudi Arabia in the 1960s, the differences are just too great: it simply wouldn't be me. Therefore there can be no sense to taking the fundamental sample space to be "all sentient creatures" or even "all creatures with human DNA". Lee From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Oct 16 02:44:30 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:44:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 10:08 PM 10/15/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > the idea that we can imagine situations other than the one we find > > ourselves and ask ourselves what we should believe in such situations > > is a powerful way to clarify what we should believe in our real situation. > >That is so! But it is valid only so long as your identity remains constant >(or nearly so) under the counterfactual assumptions. "What would it be >like for me if I were a bat" is, as you know, a bad question. Likewise, >we can't "find ourselves" as you write, in the 14th century (unless someone >had some mighty fine simulations or hidden societies going on back then). I don't agree that it matters what your identity is or whether it holds constant. The issue is what beliefs are appropriate given the *info* available in a situation. That could include info, or lack of info, about any aspect of your identity, as well as info about anything else. So it can make sense to ask what you should believe if you had the info a bat has, or what you should believe if you had the info that people had in the 14th century. Of course the further you go from your current experience the harder it may be to evaluate what beliefs should go with what info. But that doesn't mean the question doesn't make sense - just that the question may be hard. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Oct 16 02:49:38 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:49:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <016401c6f0c6$af6c9ec0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700FROCI9SQE0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <016401c6f0c6$af6c9ec0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0J7700GQRJURYY40@caduceus1.gmu.edu> At 09:56 PM 10/15/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > You seem to be rejecting the concept of indexical uncertainty, which seems > > to me to be valid and central to these situations. Even when you know > > all of the physical details of a universe, you can still be uncertain > > about which creature you are in such a universe. > >Yes, especially if you are addressing a case in which there are real >differences: >In some experiments, subjects remain identical over spatial distances. But in >either case, one may wonder if he is A, the duplicate that was to be created >near Alpha Centauri, or B, the duplicate that was to be created near >Betelgeuse. However! That is not crucial to your identity: your identity >is independent of spatial location. It seems to me that all aspects of my identity, not just my spatial location, can be reasonable topics of uncertainty. I can be uncertain about my space, my time, my name, my personality, my memory, my goals, at so on. >And are you defending a statement such as "with probability .6 I will be >at A and with probability .4 I'll be at B"? I have said that I will defend >such a statement only for *planning* purposes---you need to be wearing >a raincoat if you know it's raining at one of the places. But the truth is >that there is a 100% probability that you will be at A. I can certainly say now that I am at A or B with some probabilities. If I have one or several descendants, I can anticipate now that they might then also have such uncertainty. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From george at betterhumans.com Mon Oct 16 02:27:20 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:27:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com><0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <4532EE08.2000802@betterhumans.com> Self-sampling most definitely gives strength to the Doomsday Argument. The fact that I find myself as an individual in pre-Singularity existence is a very troubling observation, particularly given the assumption that there should be far more post-Singularity individuals than in a pre-Singularity civ. It also indicates that the most probable observation of a civ is pre-Singularity and not post, a possible indicator that there are no post-Singularity civs. Cheers, George From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 16 03:10:35 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:10:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com><0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robin writes >>"What would it be like for me if I were a bat" is, as you know, a bad question. >>Likewise, we can't "find ourselves" as you write, in the 14th century (unless >>someone had... simulations or hidden societies going on back then). > > I don't agree that it matters what your identity is or whether it > holds constant. > The issue is what beliefs are appropriate given the *info* available in a > situation. That could include info, or lack of info, about any aspect of your > identity [!], as well as info about anything else. So it can make sense to ask > what you should believe if you had the info a bat has, or what you should > believe if you had the info that people had in the 14th century. Yes, I could conceivably have the info that a bat has at a certain time and place. But I could not *be* a bat. That is, "I" could not have different info---contrary to what you write above---concerning the critical factors of my identity, the things that make me who I am. The Doomsday Argument asks about chances of *being* an individual living over certain periods, and the point here is that almost all historical periods are inadmissable because you can't be anyone else. Lee From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Oct 16 03:22:05 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:22:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> At 11:10 PM 10/15/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > >>"What would it be like for me if I were a bat" is, as you know, a > bad question. > >>Likewise, we can't "find ourselves" as you write, in the 14th > century (unless > >>someone had... simulations or hidden societies going on back then). > > > > I don't agree that it matters what your identity is or whether it > holds constant. > > The issue is what beliefs are appropriate given the *info* available in a > > situation. That could include info, or lack of info, about any > aspect of your > > identity [!], as well as info about anything else. So it can > make sense to ask > > what you should believe if you had the info a bat has, or what you should > > believe if you had the info that people had in the 14th century. > >Yes, I could conceivably have the info that a bat has at a certain time >and place. But I could not *be* a bat. That is, "I" could not have >different info---contrary to what you write above---concerning the >critical factors of my identity, the things that make me who I am. The fact that you cannot be other than who you are does not at all imply that you cannot be uncertain about who you are. You can even be uncertain about critical factors of your identity. If is even possible to imagine that you are uncertain about whether you are a human or a bat. >The Doomsday Argument asks about chances of *being* an individual >living over certain periods, and the point here is that almost all historical >periods are inadmissable because you can't be anyone else. It seems to me that one can imagine being uncertain about what historical period one lives in. Given such uncertainty, we can ask what reasonable beliefs are about that. 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 03:08:20 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] When biology and english clash In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061015140415.021b2ee0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20061016030820.26022.qmail@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > > >*what* precisely is a bacteria? > > I know it's tiresome of me to mention this, but "a > bacteria" is a > grammatical error, that's what it is. The singular > word everyone in > this thread is looking for is "bacterium". If the English qualify as a people- debatable I know ;) - then E. coli qualify as a bacteria. Especially since a bacterium usually refers to an individual as opposed to a population, a group, or a type. Incidently an individual virus is called a virion. A virus generally refers to a type of virion. And multiple types of virions/virus are referred to as viruses. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 16 03:42:13 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:42:13 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com><0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu><017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robin writes >>The Doomsday Argument asks about chances of *being* an individual >>living over certain periods, and the point here is that almost all historical >>periods are inadmissable because you can't be anyone else. > > It seems to me that one can imagine being uncertain about what historical > period one lives in. Given such uncertainty, we can ask what reasonable > beliefs are about that. Okay, suppose that you do know about different historical periods (let's say Roman Civilization, French Enlightenment, 20th century America, and 22nd century Africa), insofar as you know that they existed or exist. Nonetheless *you*, Robin Hanson, are more certain about 20th century life and that you were raised in it than almost anything else. Were those influences absent, then you would be someone else. But what sense does such a counterfactual make (you *could be* Napoleon)? That's like saying that Soul #29230041608 could attach to Robin Hanson or it could attach to Napoleon Bonaparte. As a good Bayesian, you should use all the information you have, but you *must* use the information that makes you who you are. Everything else *you* know must be predicated up that first. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 03:32:45 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What is the smallest genome possible? In-Reply-To: <002501c6f09b$790f49c0$53094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20061016033245.26481.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > Robert Bradbury Wrote: > > > As at least one virus has recently been found with > a multi-thousand base > > genome so I think the virus and bacteria > definitions are starting to get > > very fuzzy. > > I disagree, the distinction between a bacterium > (thank you Damien) and a > virus (if virii or viri is a real word it damn well > shouldn't be) isn't the > size of its genome, it's the fact that a bacterium > has a metabolism while a > virus does not. For the sake of thread discipline, I have moved the grammatical discussuion to a separate thread. However this topic is an interesting one. I agree that a metabolism AND a genome distinguish bacteria from viruses that have only a genome. However, Robert's point is still valid. There are things called mycoplasmas that dwell in a twilight world between viruses and bacteria. They have circular genomes and some housekeeping genes, yet are obligate parasites incapable of living outside of a host cell. They also share a plasma membrane with bacteria but lack a cell wall. And they have tiny genomes compared to bacteria. So the question remains: Are they viruses that evolved plasma membranes, parasitic bacteria that got lazy and ditched most of their genes, or simply a thing unto themeselves? On the other hand theer are viruses like herpes viruses (including CMV, EBV, and others)that have genomes in excess of 150kb (kilobases not kilobytes). Amazingly the genomes of some herpes viruses include counterfeit copies of human MHC genes (the id mechanism of self for the immune system) that actually fool the host defenses into "thinking" a cell is not infected. > However I agree with you that it > might sometimes become a > little difficult deciding if something is a > organelle or a bacterium. > gets even worse, a mitochondria cannot live unless > it is imbedded deep > inside another creature, but then neither can a > tapeworm. When a organism > evolves into a parasite or symbiote it always > becomes simpler. It has a whole becomes simpler, but the genes it keeps should remain as highly derived as the free living counterpart. That's my story at any rate and I am sticking with it. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Oct 16 04:08:41 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:08:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Halloween Hangman Game Message-ID: <002001c6f0d8$c4bbc500$6600a8c0@brainiac> Be warned: this can be a terrible time sink. http://dedge.com/flash/hangman/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon Oct 16 05:41:36 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:41:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com><0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu><4530062F.3080503@pobox.com><007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><7641ddc60610140739i5c7ec889q5cab74dd11082cba@mail.gmail.com><009401c6efaa$7d7e0f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <001c01c6f0e5$c3ea0a30$ac084e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > So yes, there exists an objectively correct (no quotes) way to determine > whether person A is/isn't person B. Yes, assuming God is the one doing the observing, but then God is a bit of a bore. Astronomically more important than objectivity is subjectivity, if you think feel and have person B memories then you are person B. And if God disagrees then God can stick it where the sun don't shine. > the reason why a duplicate isn't the original is because the duplicate > doesn't extend the original's ability to access reality after original is > dead. Translation: The copy isn't the original because he isn't the original and he isn't the original because he's not the original. That is to say, the copy doesn't have those same sacred atoms that Heartland can distinguish from all other atoms in the observable universe but that the scientific method can not. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Mon Oct 16 06:15:54 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:15:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution?. References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com><0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com><007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700FROCI9SQE0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <003a01c6f0ea$9562c710$ac084e0c@MyComputer> "Robin Hanson" > You seem to be rejecting the concept of indexical uncertainty What sort of index could you possibly provide to convince me that I am not me? As I've said before, objectivity be damned! If subjectively I'm John K Clark then I am. And even if I'm wrong and it's all an illusion it still doesn't matter, not when you're dealing with an illusion that incredibly gigantically astronomically good. > An agent who has forked but has not yet found out which forked agent he is > can sensibly have ncertainty about his identity. I can't see how. The agent might have uncertainty about what Everett style universe he was now living in, but not that he is he. The uncertainty is external not internal. To me the idea that someone can think like person B, feel like person B, believe he is person B, and have all of person B's memories, but still not be person B is, well.., I don't believe gibberish is too strong a word. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 16 07:01:58 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:01:58 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: <4532EE08.2000802@betterhumans.com> References: <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4532EE08.2000802@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <20061016070158.GQ6974@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:27:20PM -0400, George Dvorsky wrote: > Self-sampling most definitely gives strength to the Doomsday Argument. I find it interesting that so many subscribe to the SSA religiously. You don't have any degrees of freedom at all in this experiment of self-observation. > The fact that I find myself as an individual in pre-Singularity Wherever you go, there you are. You're not an omniscient external observer, randomly picking items from the same reference class. You're only observing an infinitely self-biased sample of one: yourself. > existence is a very troubling observation, particularly given the I only find it troubling, that people are taking number games religiously. > assumption that there should be far more post-Singularity individuals > than in a pre-Singularity civ. It also indicates that the most probable > observation of a civ is pre-Singularity and not post, a possible > indicator that there are no post-Singularity civs. Only if you build on invalid premises. -- 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 velvethum at hotmail.com Mon Oct 16 07:05:43 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:05:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com><0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu><4530062F.3080503@pobox.com><007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><7641ddc60610140739i5c7ec889q5cab74dd11082cba@mail.gmail.com><009401c6efaa$7d7e0f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001c01c6f0e5$c3ea0a30$ac084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John K Clark: > Astronomically more important than objectivity is subjectivity, if you > think feel and have person B memories then you are person B. And if God > disagrees then God can stick it where the sun don't shine. Subjectivity is more important than objectivity? So, according to you, the truth is what *you* want or feel is the truth? If so, then you are nothing more than a faith-based scientist and you should stop talking to me. Heartland: >> the reason why a duplicate isn't the original is because the duplicate >> doesn't extend the original's ability to access reality after original is >> dead. John K Clark: > Translation: The copy isn't the original because he isn't the original and > he isn't the original because he's not the original. That is to say, the > copy doesn't have those same sacred atoms that Heartland can distinguish > from all other atoms in the observable universe but that the scientific > method can not. I guess you can't stop yourself from inventing these moronic interpretations, can you? It's hard for me to believe that you actually believe in the majority of stuff you write. I'm sorry that I can't reward you with more attention for this silliness. S. From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 10:49:31 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:49:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > > You're Fired, Forbes, October 30, 2006. > > In the above OpEd I introduce a wide audience to my proposal to put > market in charge of whether to fire the CEO. Not only would this > add value to companies, it would change the way we think about who > does and should "run" our major organizations. > I don't really see why random market movements should be used as the basis for directorial employment. There are two main criticisms. 1) Stock markets are random. 2) Company directors are mostly PR or insignificant. The market swings through booms and slumps and some sectors have mini booms and slumps. If markets were efficient then successful investors contrary to the herd (like Buffet) could not exist. (1). Some directors will be lucky to be in the right place at the right time and some won't. There are only a very few directors whose decisions have much effect on company performance. Usually in new, fast-moving sectors where rapid change is paramount. The vast majority of company directors are of the type "I've worked 10 years to get my snout into the trough and I'm going to make the most of it." (Because everyone else does it as well). Then they concentrate on PR, keeping their lucrative employment, increasing their stock options, accumulating huge pension funds, and ensuring huge payoffs for terminating their employment. Company staff voting is a much better system for controlling the excesses of the board. If the company staff are also the shareholders, you get the best of all possible worlds. ;) BillK (1) From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Oct 16 11:47:11 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:47:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: References: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0J7800JSB8QOAT70@caduceus1.gmu.edu> At 06:49 AM 10/16/2006, BillK wrote: > > http://hanson.gmu.edu/YoureFired.htm > > You're Fired, Forbes, October 30, 2006. > > In the above OpEd I introduce a wide audience to my proposal to put > > market in charge of whether to fire the CEO. > >I don't really see why random market movements should be used as the >basis for directorial employment. > >There are two main criticisms. >1) Stock markets are random. ... >The market swings through booms and slumps and some sectors have mini >booms and slumps. If markets were efficient then successful investors >contrary to the herd (like Buffet) could not exist. (1). Claiming that stock markets do not contain all possible information, and so are not perfectly "efficient," is very different from claiming that they are completely random and contain no info whatsoever. My proposal only needs markets to contain a bit more info than the other processes one might use to fire CEOs. >2) Company directors are mostly PR or insignificant. ... >Some directors will be lucky to be in the right place at the right >time and some won't. There are only a very few directors whose >decisions have much effect on company performance. Usually in new, >fast-moving sectors where rapid change is paramount. If the CEO makes no difference, and markets recognized that fact, then my proposal will not advise firing the CEO. The markets would only have an impact when they estimated that they would make a difference. >The vast majority of company directors are of the type "I've worked 10 >years to get my snout into the trough and I'm going to make the most >of it." (Because everyone else does it as well). Then they >concentrate on PR, keeping their lucrative employment, increasing >their stock options, accumulating huge pension funds, and ensuring >huge payoffs for terminating their employment. Similar methods could be used to advise on CEO compensation. If markets agree with you that CEOs are paid too much, they would advise cutting back. >Company staff voting is a much better system for controlling the >excesses of the board. If the company staff are also the shareholders, >you get the best of all possible worlds. ;) As you know, that situation is very rare. 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 Mon Oct 16 11:58:17 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:58:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 11:42 PM 10/15/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > It seems to me that one can imagine being uncertain about what historical > > period one lives in. Given such uncertainty, we can ask what reasonable > > beliefs are about that. > >But what sense does such a counterfactual make (you *could be* Napoleon)? >That's like saying that Soul #29230041608 could attach to Robin Hanson or >it could attach to Napoleon Bonaparte. As a good Bayesian, you should use >all the information you have, but you *must* use the information >that makes you >who you are. Everything else *you* know must be predicated up that first. At 02:15 AM 10/16/2006, John K Clark wrote: > > You seem to be rejecting the concept of indexical uncertainty > >What sort of index could you possibly provide to convince me that I am not >me? ... The agent might have uncertainty about what Everett style >universe he was now living in, but not that he is he. At 03:01 AM 10/16/2006, Eugen* Leitl wrote: > > The fact that I find myself as an individual in pre-Singularity > >Wherever you go, there you are. You're not an omniscient >external observer, randomly picking items from the same >reference class. You're only observing an infinitely self-biased >sample of one: yourself. Let's start with simple examples. I might wake up and for a moment not be able to remember whether it is Monday, when I can sleep in, or Tuesday, when I need to get up early. This is not uncertainty about the world, it is uncertainty about who I am, whether I am Monday-Robin or Tuesday-Robin. I might also have amnesia, permanent or temporary. For example, I might have been having a dream about my life as Lee Corbin, and so I might wake up and for a moment not remember if I was really Robin Hanson or Lee Corbin. When I ask "Am I Robin?" the "I" in this sentence cannot be by definition equal to Robin, as then the claim would be true by definition. If I am able to be uncertain about this, it must be that "I" refers to something other than "Robin," so that it can be only a contingent fact about the world that "I" am "Robin." If Lee could also have had a dream that confused him about whether he was Lee or Robin, then when he asks "Am I Robin?" the "I" in his question must refer to something different than the "I" when I ask the question. So if we are to be able to represent the uncertainty in both of these questions, I can't see how to escape having things like "Soul #29230041608" in our language. 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 Mon Oct 16 12:02:19 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:02:19 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution?. In-Reply-To: <003a01c6f0ea$9562c710$ac084e0c@MyComputer> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <4530062F.3080503@pobox.com> <007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700FROCI9SQE0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <003a01c6f0ea$9562c710$ac084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <0J7800JAX9FWASA0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> On 10/13/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: >suppose you're copied into 2 copies, A and B, then B is copied into >999, should you subjectively expect to have a 1/2 probability of >finding "yourself" as A, as intuition and causal logic would >suggest, or 1/1000, as measure accounting would suggest? On reflection, I say 1/1000. If this situation is repeated many times, that is the frequency that will be recorded in the vast majority of agent history statistics. 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 jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 12:41:30 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:41:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Philosophical phylogeny In-Reply-To: <1488.163.1.72.81.1160680913.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20061011011838.26732.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <1488.163.1.72.81.1160680913.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <5366105b0610160541g5fd71758j4bc50d1c4b911c08@mail.gmail.com> I eagerly await seeing more memetic phylogenic trees, Anders. Even more interesting: your methods and tools for generating these maps. If you've posted this already, where? I've not studied graph theory, so forgive an ignorant question. Does there exist a way to measure messiness? Finally, for your transhumanist phylogeny do you plan to map an overlap between science fiction authors and non-fiction works? I think in particular of three examples. Bernal's influence on Stapledon; Danridge Cole's & G.K. O'Neill's influence on Zebrowski, Sterling, et.al.; and Scott Westerfeld's political visualization tools on your own similar work. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Oct 16 13:17:30 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:17:30 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Philosophical phylogeny In-Reply-To: <5366105b0610160541g5fd71758j4bc50d1c4b911c08@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061011011838.26732.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <1488.163.1.72.81.1160680913.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <5366105b0610160541g5fd71758j4bc50d1c4b911c08@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4820.147.67.241.226.1161004650.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Jay Dugger wrote: > I eagerly await seeing more memetic phylogenic trees, Anders. Even > more interesting: your methods and tools for generating these maps. If > you've posted this already, where? My current setup consists of simple files with rows consisting of "name1" "name2" "name3" "name4" ... This read by a matlab script that puts the names into a set, and then prints a file in the GML language with nodes and edges. The map layout is then done with the wonderful program yEd, free for downloading and fully functional. I only wish the clustering algorithm was documented. Making the initial file and fiddling with the layout coloring and style is what takes most time. > I've not studied graph theory, so forgive an ignorant question. Does > there exist a way to measure messiness? Hmm, not that I know of. But one could compare to a random graph. If you calculate the diameter and local clustering (the average number of triangles each node is in), in a regular localized graph the clustering is high and the diameter is high. In a small world graph diameter is small but there is much clustering. In a random (messy) graph the clustering is small and the diameter is small. Graphs with low clustering and high diameter are probably tree-like (not messy?). > Finally, for your transhumanist phylogeny do you plan to map an > overlap between science fiction authors and non-fiction works? I think > in particular of three examples. Bernal's influence on Stapledon; > Danridge Cole's & G.K. O'Neill's influence on Zebrowski, Sterling, > et.al.; and Scott Westerfeld's political visualization tools on your > own similar work. Yes, I don't think it makes sense to leave them out. And thanks for the tips! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Oct 16 14:33:54 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:33:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Slawomir, it appears this would have been a good opportunity to paraphrase your understanding of what the other person is trying to say, rather than responding with the shallow implication that he's being stupid. John is making a hugely important point that many people don't grasp, that *all meaning* is subjective. Some people misinterpret this to mean *all knowledge* is subjective, and either (1) go to the postmodernist extreme of absolute relativism, or (2) take righteous umbrage in defense of (increasingly) objective scientific practice. Either reaction would be missing the point. John also points out that you repeatedly offer circular definitions; such behavior being the crux of both cognitive dissonance and endlessly unproductive argument. In a discussion such as this, one would hope to clearly highlight the differences between two points of view, to be left for resolution in the (indefinite) future as each person's knowledge base converges on an increasingly accurate model of reality. - Jef > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Heartland > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 12:06 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? > > John K Clark: > > Astronomically more important than objectivity is > subjectivity, if you > > think feel and have person B memories then you are person B. And if > > God disagrees then God can stick it where the sun don't shine. > > Subjectivity is more important than objectivity? So, > according to you, the truth is what *you* want or feel is the > truth? If so, then you are nothing more than a faith-based > scientist and you should stop talking to me. > > Heartland: > >> the reason why a duplicate isn't the original is because the > >> duplicate doesn't extend the original's ability to access reality > >> after original is dead. > > John K Clark: > > Translation: The copy isn't the original because he isn't > the original > > and he isn't the original because he's not the original. That is to > > say, the copy doesn't have those same sacred atoms that > Heartland can > > distinguish from all other atoms in the observable universe > but that > > the scientific method can not. > > I guess you can't stop yourself from inventing these moronic > interpretations, can you? It's hard for me to believe that > you actually believe in the majority of stuff you write. I'm > sorry that I can't reward you with more attention for this silliness. > > S. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jonkc at att.net Mon Oct 16 14:51:46 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:51:46 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com><0J72004PHZJ09G90@caduceus1.gmu.edu><4530062F.3080503@pobox.com><007901c6ef3d$738298e0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><7641ddc60610140739i5c7ec889q5cab74dd11082cba@mail.gmail.com><009401c6efaa$7d7e0f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><001c01c6f0e5$c3ea0a30$ac084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002c01c6f132$a018da80$d90a4e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > Subjectivity is more important than objectivity? ABSOLUTELY! The end of subjectivity is the very definition of death. > So, according to you, the truth is > what *you* want or feel is the truth? If you're talking about my identity then you are completely correct, if I think I'm me then I'm me. And I don't want to brag or anything but I am the world's greatest expert on John K Clark; and I think I'm him. > If so, then you are nothing more than a faith-based scientist One thing and one thing only takes priority over the scientific method, but it certainly isn't faith, its direct experience. If I stick my hand into a fire I don't need science or even logic to know the sensation is unpleasant, in a similar way someone telling me I'm not conscious I just think I am is downright comical. > you should stop talking to me I'm commenting on your childish ideas, it you don't wish to read what I say just block my posts, it's really not hard, I'll bet even you could figure out how to do it. By the way, the running total for your last post was 3 question marks and 3 periods, come on you can do better than 50%. John K Clark From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Oct 16 15:12:46 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:12:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: Robin Hanson wrote: > When I ask "Am I Robin?" the "I" in this sentence cannot be > by definition equal to Robin, as then the claim would be true > by definition. If I am able to be uncertain about this, it > must be that "I" refers to something other than "Robin," > so that it can be only a contingent fact about the world that > "I" am "Robin." > > If Lee could also have had a dream that confused him about > whether he was Lee or Robin, then when he asks "Am I Robin?" > the "I" in his question must refer to something different > than the "I" when I ask the > question. So if we are > to be able to represent the uncertainty in both of these > questions, I can't see how to escape having things like "Soul > #29230041608" in our language. For these same reasons, I say that the Self is an illusion, albeit a necessary one for any agent. So I agree that we must assign such labels, but I hope that we can also become clearly aware that as with all labels, even those which refer to our "own self", the map is not the territory. When more of society has arrived at this higher-level, pragmatic understanding of self as the referent of agency, then it will become obvious that the same rules apply to collective agencies as to individuals, and problems such as Tragedy of the Commons will no longer appear paradoxical. - Jef From george at betterhumans.com Mon Oct 16 14:26:41 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:26:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: <20061016070158.GQ6974@leitl.org> References: <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4532EE08.2000802@betterhumans.com> <20061016070158.GQ6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <453396A1.7020500@betterhumans.com> Eugen, You and I have gone back and forth many times on the topic of the SSA, and we clearly have differing perspectives on the matter. One thing I want to make clear, however, is that the SSA does not indicate the *truth*, merely what you should probabilistically *assume* given insufficient data. I will admit that it is at best a philosophical mind exercise, but it's one that, imo, offers some profound insight as where we find ourselves within certain reference classes. Cheers, George Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:27:20PM -0400, George Dvorsky wrote: > >> Self-sampling most definitely gives strength to the Doomsday Argument. > > I find it interesting that so many subscribe to the SSA religiously. > You don't have any degrees of freedom at all in this experiment > of self-observation. > >> The fact that I find myself as an individual in pre-Singularity > > Wherever you go, there you are. You're not an omniscient > external observer, randomly picking items from the same > reference class. You're only observing an infinitely self-biased > sample of one: yourself. > >> existence is a very troubling observation, particularly given the > > I only find it troubling, that people are taking number games > religiously. > >> assumption that there should be far more post-Singularity individuals >> than in a pre-Singularity civ. It also indicates that the most probable >> observation of a civ is pre-Singularity and not post, a possible >> indicator that there are no post-Singularity civs. > > Only if you build on invalid premises. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 16 16:32:47 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:32:47 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Doomsday argument In-Reply-To: <453396A1.7020500@betterhumans.com> References: <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4532EE08.2000802@betterhumans.com> <20061016070158.GQ6974@leitl.org> <453396A1.7020500@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <20061016163247.GC6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:26:41AM -0400, George Dvorsky wrote: > You and I have gone back and forth many times on the topic of the SSA, > and we clearly have differing perspectives on the matter. One thing I George, if it's science, it has to be straightforward. There have to be zero space for interpretation. There must be a rigorous argument as to why SSA must be valid for first-person single-instance observers, or not. I don't see such reasons, but then I'm not an expert. Those here who are experts please set me straight. > want to make clear, however, is that the SSA does not indicate the > *truth*, merely what you should probabilistically *assume* given But the whole point of self-observation is that you can't argue probabilistically, because it's an infinitely biased sample of one. I must be missing something, because it is completely obvious to me. > insufficient data. I will admit that it is at best a philosophical mind > exercise, but it's one that, imo, offers some profound insight as where > we find ourselves within certain reference classes. I agree that probability applies to external observers, assuming sufficient number of samples. But we're not external observers. Our ability to observe is causally linked to our existance. I can infer no probability from a self-measurement, other than me (a member of a particular class) exists. -- 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 18:38:20 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061016183820.84626.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > Some directors will be lucky to be in the right > place at the right > time and some won't. There are only a very few > directors whose > decisions have much effect on company performance. > Usually in new, > fast-moving sectors where rapid change is paramount. If you are right and that is the case, then there is no justification whatsoever to huge CEO salaries. Cap their salaries at ten times the salary of the average employee and use the savings to pay the shareholders dividends. > The vast majority of company directors are of the > type "I've worked 10 > years to get my snout into the trough and I'm going > to make the most > of it." (Because everyone else does it as well). > Then they > concentrate on PR, keeping their lucrative > employment, increasing > their stock options, accumulating huge pension > funds, and ensuring > huge payoffs for terminating their employment. If their decisions make NO DIFFERENCE in the performance of the company, they are no more worthy than the middle manager who devotes thirty years of his life to a company only to get a meager pension and gold watch. > > Company staff voting is a much better system for > controlling the > excesses of the board. If the company staff are also > the shareholders, > you get the best of all possible worlds. ;) This might work although I worry that such will still suffer the problem of becoming a popularity contest. At least a market model would be presumambly more objective if less nimble. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Oct 16 19:38:39 2006 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:38:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: <20061016183820.84626.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061016183820.84626.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9C4A81DF-C7FF-4492-97D1-E06B9020A293@ceruleansystems.com> On Oct 16, 2006, at 11:38 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > --- BillK wrote: >> Some directors will be lucky to be in the right >> place at the right >> time and some won't. There are only a very few >> directors whose >> decisions have much effect on company performance. >> Usually in new, >> fast-moving sectors where rapid change is paramount. > > If you are right and that is the case, then there is > no justification whatsoever to huge CEO salaries. Cap > their salaries at ten times the salary of the average > employee and use the savings to pay the shareholders > dividends. This type of populist thinking is naive and wrong. If this was really true, the shareholders already have the power to do it. The kind of CEO that gets paid $10 million is also the kind of CEO that immediately adds $1 billion in value to a company, making it one of the best investments a shareholder can make. Only a fool would think this is a bad deal for the shareholder. If paying the mail boy a ton of money had the same ROI, the shareholders would be all over that too. As a point of fact, most CEOs do not make all that much money and they have to put up with hours, risks, and other crap no ordinary employee has to. Not surprisingly, in a free market a good CEO is usually worth to shareholders what they are paid whether you recognize it or not, anecdotes notwithstanding. A somewhat relevant tangent is that until the Bush tax cuts, the tax code made this kind of indirect investment in high-value CEOs one of the best ways of returning value to shareholders. Now that old- fashioned dividends are (for the moment) a moderately good (but not great) vehicle for returning value to shareholders, it will mitigate some of the creative ways in which shareholders try to maximize their profit. Much of what people dislike about how money is shuffled around and allocated at companies is a direct result of stupid taxation policies and regulations and the investor market responding to said stupid taxation policies and regulations. The government created this environment for the most part, not the companies. J. Andrew Rogers From hibbert at mydruthers.com Mon Oct 16 21:42:41 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:42:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <4533FCD1.2090006@mydruthers.com> > When I ask "Am I Robin?" the "I" in this sentence cannot be by > definition equal to Robin, as then the claim would be true by > definition. If I am able to be uncertain about this, it must be that > "I" refers to something other than "Robin," so that it can be only a > contingent fact about the world that "I" am "Robin." > > If Lee could also have had a dream that confused him about whether he > was Lee or Robin, then when he asks "Am I Robin?" the "I" in his > question must refer to something different than the "I" when I ask > the question. So if we are to be able to represent the uncertainty > in both of these questions, I can't see how to escape having things > like "Soul #29230041608" in our language. This seems like a confusing way to think about it, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the referents. As a third party, describing the two situations, I would have said that the question was about which BODY was Robin Hanson, not which SOUL was. In the first paragraph I quoted above, the third party would tie the word "I" to a particular body which was recently observed to have woken up in Fairfax County, and to note that the body was wondering whether or not it was a particular person currently employed at GMU. From our external point of view, we already know that the answer is yes, but we're not sure how long it will take for the body and brain to figure that out. In the second paragraph, we have a hypothetical question about a different body, presumably situated in Santa Clara County. In the hypothetical, the Santa Clara body has recently woken up and is wondering something similar. Once again, the question is about the identity of a particular body. Was your use of "Soul #2923..." metaphorical? Or is the question deeper than it looks to me? Have you already assumed that consciousnesses might be transplanted or something? Chris -- Currently reading: Marc Bekoff, The Cognitive Animal; Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum; Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Oct 16 22:35:52 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:35:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <4533FCD1.2090006@mydruthers.com> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <4533FCD1.2090006@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <0J7900HQZ2V2V580@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 05:42 PM 10/16/2006, Chris Hibbert wrote: > > If Lee could also have had a dream that confused him about whether he > > was Lee or Robin, then when he asks "Am I Robin?" the "I" in his > > question must refer to something different than the "I" when I ask > > the question. So if we are to be able to represent the uncertainty > > in both of these questions, I can't see how to escape having things > > like "Soul #29230041608" in our language. > >This seems like a confusing way to think about it, but maybe I'm >misunderstanding the referents. As a third party, describing the two >situations, I would have said that the question was about which BODY was >Robin Hanson, not which SOUL was. ... >Was your use of "Soul #2923..." metaphorical? Or is the question deeper >than it looks to me? Have you already assumed that consciousnesses >might be transplanted or something? I was just following Lee's notation. A better name might be "Index#2923". But it is more about minds than bodies. You know you are a mind, but you might not know which body that corresponds to. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 23:55:05 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:55:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <0J7900HQZ2V2V580@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <4533FCD1.2090006@mydruthers.com> <0J7900HQZ2V2V580@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610161655m444b921bg9218946cd0eb71da@mail.gmail.com> On 10/16/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > > I was just following Lee's notation. A better name might be > "Index#2923". > But it is more about minds than bodies. You know you are a mind, but you > might not know which body that corresponds to. > To see why it doesn't make sense to say "I might not be me", consider that fundamentally there is nothing ontologically privileged about one's past and future selves as opposed to other people. Do you think it makes sense to ask "why am I currently my current self as opposed to my 10 year old self or my 70 year old self?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Oct 17 00:54:02 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:54:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: Message-ID: Jef: > Slawomir, it appears this would have been a good opportunity to > paraphrase your understanding of what the other person is trying to say, > rather than responding with the shallow implication that he's being > stupid. Ok. Since you insist, I will paraphrase what he's saying. He claims that beliefs are equivalent to knowledge so if he "thinks" he is John Clark, then it must be the case that he is John Clark. So, according to this view, if I brainwashed him into believing he was an ant, that belief and nothing else determines the truth value of the statement, "John Clark is a ant." That's simply nonsense. Jef: > John is making a hugely important point that many people don't grasp, > that *all meaning* is subjective. It's also a red herring in this debate that doesn't pertain to the things I'm talking about. Jef: > John also points out that you repeatedly offer circular definitions; > such behavior being the crux of both cognitive dissonance and endlessly > unproductive argument. Jef, you can't continue to accuse me of these things without giving specific examples. Jef: > In a discussion such as this, one would hope to clearly highlight the > differences between two points of view, to be left for resolution in the > (indefinite) future as each person's knowledge base converges on an > increasingly accurate model of reality. As you may recall, not long ago, I've spent a whole month highlighting those differences on this list. At some point one has to accept that some people have the capacity to understand those differences and some don't. It's okay if not everyone understands. Really. In summary, I'm talking exclusively about physical survival, not some hopelessly confused and abstract notion of personal identity. I don't care who I am as long as I am. (BTW, the "I's" here mean something very different from what you and John Clark think). I don't care about my "pattern." I only care about the process that wrote this sentence and its potential to experience something instead of nothing in the future. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself 2 questions: "What does it really mean to survive?" and, "Why does survival matter?" Without converging on the same answers to these questions first, there's absolutely no point in continuing this discussion. S. From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Oct 17 02:38:03 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:38:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610161655m444b921bg9218946cd0eb71da@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <4533FCD1.2090006@mydruthers.com> <0J7900HQZ2V2V580@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <8d71341e0610161655m444b921bg9218946cd0eb71da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0J7900MEPDZFB1F0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> At 07:55 PM 10/16/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: >I was just following Lee's notation. A better name might be "Index#2923". >But it is more about minds than bodies. You know you are a mind, but you >might not know which body that corresponds to. > >To see why it doesn't make sense to say "I might not be me", >consider that fundamentally there is nothing ontologically >privileged about one's past and future selves as opposed to other >people. Do you think it makes sense to ask "why am I currently my >current self as opposed to my 10 year old self or my 70 year old self?" I think I agree to your claim about lack of privilege. Whether it makes sense to ask "why" depends on more details, but it can make sense to ask which of these creatures you are, if you are uncertain. And it could make sense to ask which of them will remember being you, or which ones you remember being. 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 austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 02:41:23 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fictional Singularity Movie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061017024123.60596.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hey y'all, I'm wondering when the first "blockbuster" Singularity movie will emerge out of Hollywood. I have no doubt that it will happen eventually. If a film isn't already underway, this might be a good opportunity for someone in the pro-Singularity camp to make a positive contribution to Singularity awareness. The masses want to be entertained if they are to be expected to learn anything. I think Ray Kurzweil would be a good candidate for writing the screenplay (if he was interested) for several reasons: expertise, name recognition, balanced analyses, and a double major including creative writing. And I think the Wachowski brothers would make good Directors for it. (They are famous for "The Matrix" of course). To guard against the possibility that a film would only add to the "fiction" interpretation of the Singularity meme, the film could begin with an brief written explanation to the effect that: although the film itself is fictional, the Singularity is a "real" projected event that is anticipated by many experts in various fields. (Or something like that). A good, thought provoking film, might get a lot of people talking who otherwise might not learn of the Singularity for quite some time. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Oct 17 03:24:24 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:24:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com><0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu><017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu><018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robin writes > Let's start with simple examples. I might wake up and for a moment not be > able to remember whether it is Monday, when I can sleep in, or Tuesday, > when I need to get up early. This is not uncertainty about the world, it is > uncertainty about who I am, whether I am Monday-Robin or Tuesday-Robin. I claim and I thought you also held that "Monday Robin" and "Tuesday Robin" are the same person (differing only infinitesimally). Surely you agree that you are the same person from day to day (differing so little as to be of no consequence)? Or is this an evil meta-joke on your part, and you're fiendishly trying to convince me that you aren't Robin? > I might also have amnesia, permanent or temporary. For example, I might > have been having a dream about my life as Lee Corbin, and so I might wake > up and for a moment not remember if I was really Robin Hanson or Lee Corbin. But indeed, if you have enough amnesia, then absolutely you are *not* the same person. Even in popular culture, one says that to lose one's memories is to lose one's identity. The only thing that the two people still have in common is the same body---so I guess I agree with Chris's statement. > If Lee could also have had a dream that confused him about whether he was > Lee or Robin, then when he asks "Am I Robin?" the "I" in his question must > refer to something different than the "I" when I ask the question. But Lee and Robin never have such dreams, unless they're out of their minds. I've never heard of people in dreams thinking that they were someone else. Does this truly happen? Yes---I know that in some dreams I do things that are very unlike myself, and in some I don't seem to be conscious of certain things in my past. Therefore you are right to this extent: we could say that the now fully-awake Lee is burdened with someone else's memories. It's just a mistake, I think, to suppose in this case that those are really *my* memories. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Oct 17 03:35:06 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:35:06 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: Message-ID: <020801c6f19d$8fa36f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Slawomir (Heartland) is in my opinion right to reject valuing subjectivity over objectivity. In the case John advances, yes, if someone thinks he's Napoleon, and has all Napoleon's memories and dispositions, then he is Napoleon. But this is really because *objectively* he has those memories and objectively has those dispositions. It's not at all because he thinks he's Napoleon; that is a side issue, possibly denoting insanity or other mental dysfunction. What are we talking about? We are *talking* about that guy over there who thinks he's Napoleon. It has to be decided on objective grounds whether it is true that he has those memories and dispositions. Subjectivity has nothing to do with it. Subjectively, many people were deluded that they were Napoleon. We are entitled to call it delusion because they didn't really have Napoleon's memories and dispositions. We must rely on what we can determine to be objectively true. Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 17 04:29:31 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:29:31 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds In-Reply-To: <45315A1E.3010603@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <200610170445.k9H4jbGv002739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> The quality of posts has been excellent lately, thanks everyone. A few months ago I read on ExI about ravens placing nuts on roadways so that cars would crack them, which would be a special example of tool use in beasts; special because we know when cars and pavement became common, so we can observe how this technology spreads. Touring in northern California and southern Oregon this past weekend, I observed this behavior twice. Just as I was heading for an on-ramp to interstate 5 in Yreka, a raven swooped down, placed a hickory nut on the road ahead and flew off. I recognized the intent, so I drifted over and cracked the nut. I watched in my mirror as the bird came back and devoured the pieces. About an hour later, on highway 96 west of Seiad Valley, I saw that 8 to 10 ravens had placed a number of nuts on the roadway and were standing along side the road waiting for cars to provide lunch. The questions raised by these observations are many. Are we seeing the behavior arise independently in different populations? Are they teaching each other the tricks? In the second observation, I would guess they learned from watching one bird. The two observations were essentially different behaviors, where the first bird worked alone and the second as a group. The first bird worked near an overpass where there was a lot of traffic; the second group out in the country where the rolling nutcrackers would be sparse. I came up with an idea. There should be a website where those of us who watch beasts can report our observations. I would be interested to learn if there are geographical regions where ravens have not learned to place nuts on the roadways, or if some years in the future they figure out how that is done, and how the behavior spreads, and does the behavior ever disappear after having been observed in an area. We might be able to map the spread of technology in birds. Since ravens are indigenous to all over North America, Europe and Asia, it would make an interesting test case. Until I get that set up, how many of those here have seen ravens place nuts on a road? Where? When? This past weekend is the first time I saw that myself, and I watch birds early and often. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 17 04:59:10 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:59:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds In-Reply-To: <200610170445.k9H4jbGv002739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <45315A1E.3010603@posthuman.com> <200610170445.k9H4jbGv002739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061016235836.021abd60@satx.rr.com> At 09:29 PM 10/16/2006 -0700, spike wrote: >The questions raised by these observations are many. Are we seeing the >behavior arise independently in different populations? Are they teaching >each other the tricks? It's inherited, passed down through their nuts. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 05:03:13 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:03:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds In-Reply-To: <200610170445.k9H4jbGv002739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <45315A1E.3010603@posthuman.com> <200610170445.k9H4jbGv002739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610162203w3c345263k8bcb2ebc121497c1@mail.gmail.com> Ravens are interesting birds, though I've only ever seen one face to face once and it was merely glancing around the airport car park at the time. But another invention of theirs I've read about is landing on top of street lights and covering the photocell with their wings; the light comes on, generating enough heat to keep the bird warm on a winter's day. Probably again one bird discovered it by accident and remembered the trick, and others saw and copied. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Oct 17 05:33:48 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:33:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: Message-ID: <001e01c6f1ad$d7087610$c70a4e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > if I brainwashed him [me] into believing he was an ant, that belief and > nothing else determines the truth value of the statement, "John Clark is a > ant." That is true, but of course you'd have to be very good at brainwashing. If I felt and though like an ant and had an ant's memories and you erased all my memories of being a human being then there would be one more ant in the world and John Clark would be dead. Objectively that particular ant would look somewhat different from most other ants, but that is a trivial point because it would be other people's problem not the ant's. Subjectively he would see himself as a very handsome ant and a credit to his species. > I only care about the process that wrote this sentence That is an entirely reasonable sentiment, but to a process one atom of hydrogen is as good as another atom of hydrogen, a process can be duplicated. > At the end of the day you have to ask yourself 2 questions: "What does it > really mean to survive?" To you survival means having the same atoms and some pompous-speak bafflegab about space time coordinates. To me survival means that the difference between yesterday and today and between today and tomorrow to be roughly the same. If I feel that way tomorrow then I've lived another day. The crazy thing is you claim it is possible to be dead and not know you are dead, in fact according to you it is very easy to end up in that unfortunate state if you have not carefully performed the proper rituals concerning the High Holy Original atoms. And that my friend is beyond idiotic. > Why does survival matter? That is strictly a matter of personal preference and there is no point disputing matters of taste. > there's absolutely no point in continuing this > discussion. So you've said many times, so why do you keep continuing it? John K Clark From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 05:46:45 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: <9C4A81DF-C7FF-4492-97D1-E06B9020A293@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <20061017054645.18654.qmail@web60522.mail.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: > >> Some directors will be lucky to be in the right > >> place at the right > >> time and some won't. There are only a very few > >> directors whose > >> decisions have much effect on company > performance. > >> Usually in new, > >> fast-moving sectors where rapid change is > paramount. > On Oct 16, 2006, at 11:38 AM, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > > If you are right and that is the case, then there > is > > no justification whatsoever to huge CEO salaries. > Cap > > their salaries at ten times the salary of the > average > > employee and use the savings to pay the > shareholders > > dividends. --- "J. Andrew Rogers" wrote: > This type of populist thinking is naive and wrong. > If this was > really true, the shareholders already have the power > to do it. The shareholders or the majority share holders? > The kind of CEO that gets paid $10 million is also > the kind of CEO > that immediately adds $1 billion in value to a > company, making it one > of the best investments a shareholder can make. Value or price? > Only a fool would > think this is a bad deal for the shareholder. If > paying the mail boy > a ton of money had the same ROI, the shareholders > would be all over > that too. What do you consider ROI? Net profit or more market capitalization from hopeful investors who want to buy into Job's next big project? > As a point of fact, most CEOs do not make > all that much > money and they have to put up with hours, risks, and > other crap no > ordinary employee has to. Those are the CEOs that are actually earning their salaries. If those particular CEOs make more than 10 times the average employee of their company and didn't actually FOUND the company, I will be happy to reconsider my salary cap. (I consider CEOs that actually started the company has a whole different breed ... owners in fact) > Not surprisingly, in a > free market a good > CEO is usually worth to shareholders what they are > paid whether you > recognize it or not, anecdotes notwithstanding. In the ideal mathematical nirvana known as the free market, I agree. In the real world, "caveat emptor" prevails. > A somewhat relevant tangent is that until the Bush > tax cuts, the tax > code made this kind of indirect investment in > high-value CEOs one of > the best ways of returning value to shareholders. The shareholders or the majority shareholders? > Now that old- > fashioned dividends are (for the moment) a > moderately good (but not > great) vehicle for returning value to shareholders, > it will mitigate > some of the creative ways in which shareholders try > to maximize their > profit. Yeah I know. If I could somehow earn my keep by collecting stock divedends instead of working. It would be like not having to pay taxes. How cool is that? > Much of what people dislike about how money > is shuffled > around and allocated at companies is a direct result > of stupid > taxation policies and regulations and the investor > market responding > to said stupid taxation policies and regulations. > The government > created this environment for the most part, not the > companies. But Andrew, isn't the government simply composed of the mouthpieces of those industries and non-profits with most successful spin-doctoring in a given election cycle? Who are you going to vote for come November? Big tobacco or the Sierra Club? The National Rifleman's Association or the entertainment industry? The "Don't Nuke the Whales Foundation" or "U-boat Veterans for Deficit Spending?" Corporations (in a broad sense) are the government. And which ever ones gain the high ground and are able to lob grenades onto their opponents every four to eight years don't seem to have much to offer the average voter. Yet amazingly, any two of even the least-informed voters seems to have the most deap-seated political convictions. Convictions that demand loyalty to idealogies that have long ago ceased to have any of but the most token of meanings to the political parties that supposedly espouse them. Thus we live in an age where republicans try to drown the government in a bathtub by creating gigantic new bureaucracies in the name of combatting the "phantom menace". And the democrats support legislation endorsing the creation of what amounts to concentration camps for the undesirables without very clearly defining who those are. All supposedly in the name of "business as usual". Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 09:31:26 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:31:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: <0J7800JSB8QOAT70@caduceus1.gmu.edu> References: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0J7800JSB8QOAT70@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > Claiming that stock markets do not contain all possible information, and so are > not perfectly "efficient," is very different from claiming that they > are completely > random and contain no info whatsoever. My proposal only needs markets to > contain a bit more info than the other processes one might use to fire CEOs. > Obviously markets do not contain all possible information. Equally obviously markets contain *some* information. But markets also contain much wrong information, 'noise', rumor, fashion, 'follow the herd' and other nonsense. The accumulation of all that correct and incorrect data makes stock movements unpredictable. i.e. random. > > If the CEO makes no difference, and markets recognized that fact, then my > proposal will not advise firing the CEO. The markets would only have an impact > when they estimated that they would make a difference. > Markets don't recognize anything. They are random. Though they remain within the general business cycle. i.e. they all tend to rise in the boom cycle and they all tend to fall in the bear cycle, with fluctuations around the trend line. > > Similar methods could be used to advise on CEO compensation. If markets > agree with you that CEOs are paid too much, they would advise cutting back. > *Everyone* (except CEOs) think CEOs are over-rewarded. When all companies share prices rise in a boom market, the papers are full of CEOs explaining how their brilliant management has led their company to success. When boom turns to slump, the same CEOs complain that market conditions were against them, difficult trading conditions, nobody could have done any better, etc. But they still keep all their benefits, come boom or recession. Robin, you don't seem to appreciate how random stock movements are, within the general boom - slump business cycles. Every year random stock picking competitions are done which do just as well or better than the financial professionals. (Leading to much huffing and puffing and excusing by aforesaid professionals). Market movements are unpredictable, meaningless and random. It's not a problem. That's just the way life is. BillK From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Oct 17 10:20:01 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:20:01 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 11:24 PM 10/16/2006, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Let's start with simple examples. I might wake up and for a moment not be > > able to remember whether it is Monday, when I can sleep in, or Tuesday, > > when I need to get up early. This is not uncertainty about the > world, it is > > uncertainty about who I am, whether I am Monday-Robin or Tuesday-Robin. > >I claim and I thought you also held that "Monday Robin" and "Tuesday Robin" >are the same person (differing only infinitesimally). Surely you >agree that you >are the same person from day to day (differing so little as to be of no >consequence)? I am not very different from day to day it is true, but I am a little different, and that little difference is enough to use this as an example of indexical uncertainty. >But indeed, if you have enough amnesia, then absolutely you are *not* the >same person. Even in popular culture, one says that to lose one's memories >is to lose one's identity. ... But Lee and Robin never have such dreams, >unless they're out of their minds. We are the sort of creatures who usually are not very uncertain about who we are. Nevertheless, we are not completely certain either, and so we often have at least small degrees of indexical uncertainty. So once you accept the basic concept, then the question is when and where it is reasonable to apply the concept. Even if large degrees of indexical uncertainty are unusual, if they are coherent concepts, then we can think about them as possibilities, and use those examples to help us understand other things. Surely we have talked about many things on this list that are not in our immediate experience, but are plausible projections of our immediate experience into larger changes. 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 Tue Oct 17 10:26:50 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:26:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: References: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0J7800JSB8QOAT70@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0J7900L4DZOQ3XB0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 05:31 AM 10/17/2006, Bill K wrote: >On 10/16/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > > Claiming that stock markets do not contain all possible > information, and so > > are not perfectly "efficient," is very different from claiming > that they are > > completely random and contain no info whatsoever. My proposal only > > needs markets to contain a bit more info than the other processes one > > might use to fire CEOs. > >Obviously markets do not contain all possible information. Equally >obviously markets contain *some* information. But markets also contain >much wrong information, 'noise', rumor, fashion, 'follow the herd' and >other nonsense. The accumulation of all that correct and incorrect >data makes stock movements unpredictable. i.e. random. ... >Robin, you don't seem to appreciate how random stock movements are, >within the general boom - slump business cycles. Every year random >stock picking competitions are done which do just as well or better >than the financial professionals. (Leading to much huffing and puffing >and excusing by aforesaid professionals). >Market movements are unpredictable, meaningless and random. >It's not a problem. That's just the way life is. Again, the question is how much information the prices contain, relative to the other methods one could use to fire CEOs. You have not addressed that issue. If the prices are more informed, then they will make better choices and should be preferred. Of course we could do even better if the prices were even more informed. That is where you could help. Since you can see that the current prices are all wrong and you can tell in which direction they are wrong, you can make lots of money by buying low and selling high. And you will help make the prices more accurate in the process. Win win for all, surely. Do come back and thank us when you are rich. 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 mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Oct 17 11:35:03 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:35:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <34316.72.236.102.119.1161084903.squirrel@main.nc.us> At what point does the Alzheimer's sufferer become "not" the person they were? At what point do you think "well, my dad is dead - his body is still here, but he's not"? I have friends who've been down this road, and when the parent finally does actually *die* (to have a funeral, the *real* thing) they say it's like losing them a second time. ------------ If my mind were to be transplanted into another body, as in one of the Heinlein books - do I become someone else or am I still "me" but in another home - as Heinlein indicated in the book? -------------- The word "soul" and "spirit" have many religious connotations for me, but I do not have another word that seems to describe that part of me beyond my body. What word do we use here? It's a given that our bodies are, by now, 100% no longer our original cells, isn't it? TIA for any clarification - I'm just feeling a bit confused! Regards, MB From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Oct 17 11:53:49 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:53:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com><0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu><017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu><018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu><020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <026101c6f1e3$390f44d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robin writes >>But indeed, if you have enough amnesia, then absolutely you are *not* the >>same person. Even in popular culture, one says that to lose one's memories >>is to lose one's identity. ... But Lee and Robin never have such dreams, >>unless they're out of their minds. > > We are the sort of creatures who usually are not very uncertain about who we > are. Nevertheless, we are not completely certain either, and so we often have > at least small degrees of indexical uncertainty. But I protest that the word "we" or "I" is slippery here. Yes, we may say that a given human organism may be unsure about who he is. But if it's sufficiently unsure---i.e. has enough aberrant behavioral tendencies and different memories, then it's no longer the person that was formerly associated with that body. Lee > Surely we have talked about many things on this list that are not in > our immediate experience, but are plausible projections of our [sic] > immediate experience into larger changes. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 12:42:49 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:12:49 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" Message-ID: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> I just don't know what to say about this. I'm sure someone will... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7eGypGOlOc Emlyn From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 14:22:50 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:22:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Botnets: shades of future present Message-ID: eWeek.com has an interesting article about how the war may be lost vis-a-vis "botnets" [1]. There is an associated /. discussion [2]. The numbers appear to be rather staggering -- 57,000 active bots per day, 4.7 million computers hijacked. Bad enough that the networks are controlled by evil people. I shudder to think of what happens when they become controlled by evil AIs. Robert 1. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp 2. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/17/002251 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Oct 17 15:30:49 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:30:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002c01c6f201$3e37c810$030a4e0c@MyComputer> Russell Wallace Wrote: > suppose you're copied into 2 copies, A and B, then B is copied into 999, > should you subjectively expect to have a 1/2 probability of finding > "yourself" as A, as intuition and causal logic would suggest, or 1/1000, > as measure accounting would suggest?) After the copying if you asked A he would say there was a 100% probability that his identity had been successfully transferred to him, and he would be correct. If you asked B he would say there was a 100% probability that his identity had been successfully transferred to him, and he would be correct. If you asked one of B's 999 copies he would say there was a 100% probability his identity had been successfully transferred to copy number 721 and he would be correct too. You can't ask C, the person before any copying was done, his opinion on which one was him because he was yesterday, he doesn't exist today. None of this is a logical paradox, it's just an odd situation. It's unusual because up to now human copying machines are rather few and far between. But that need not always be true. I have a hunch the Singularity will produce far stranger things than that, so you'd better get used to it. John K Clark From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 15:36:19 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:36:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <34316.72.236.102.119.1161084903.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <34316.72.236.102.119.1161084903.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: On 10/17/06, MB wrote: > > If my mind were to be transplanted into another body, as in one of the Heinlein > books - do I become someone else or am I still "me" but in another home - as > Heinlein indicated in the book? > > -------------- > > The word "soul" and "spirit" have many religious connotations for me, but I do not > have another word that seems to describe that part of me beyond my body. What word > do we use here? It's a given that our bodies are, by now, 100% no longer our > original cells, isn't it? > Ah, this could be a job for my lexical tools. Let's try. The dictionary says that 'soul' has a wide range of meanings, depending on context, some more spiritual, some pretty mundane. Let's concentrate on the spiritual / religious meanings for you. First, a bit of background. In our Western religious tradition "soul" and "spirit" are often confused. Sometimes meanings are very similar, sometimes very different, leading to confusing discussions. The reason for this is that "soul" and "spirit" are used in English translations of the Old Testament and the New Testament. But the New Testament was written in Greek, thousands of years after the Old Testament was written in Ancient Hebrew. I think it is a mistake to take our idea of a 'soul' which comes from the Greek philosophers around the time of the New Testament and force them back thousands of years into the Hebrew Old Testament. Genesis wasn't written by Greek philosophers. The Ancient Hebrews didn't have the Greek philosophical conception of "soul". The Ancient Hebrew words relate to breath or wind. In Genesis, man is a living soul, but so are animals. (same Hebrew phrase). Basically, in the Old Testament if you had 'soul' (breath) you were alive, if you didn't, you were dead. Now, bearing that in mind, let's look up some dictionaries. soul - the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life 1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity. 2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state. 3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human. History: Old English sawol "spiritual and emotional part of a person, animate existence"; related to Old Frisian sele, Old Saxon seola, Old High German seula, of uncertain origin. Sometimes said to mean originally "coming from or belonging to the sea," because that was supposed to be the stopping place of the soul before birth or after death. psyche 1. The spirit or soul. 2. Psychiatry. The mind functioning as the center of thought, emotion, and behavior and consciously or unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body's responses to the social and physical environment. History: 17thC: from Latin, from Greek psykhe "the soul, mind, spirit, breath, life, the invisible animating principle or entity which occupies and directs the physical body" (personified as Psykhe, the lover of Eros); related to Greek psykhein "to breathe". The word had extensive sense development in Platonic philosophy and Jewish-influenced theological writing of St. Paul. In English, psychological sense is from 1910. spirit - 1. a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings. b. Incorporeal consciousness. 2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death. 5. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings: the vital principle or animating force within living things History: 13thC: from Old French esperit, from Latin spiritus "soul, courage, vigor, breath"; related to spirare "to breathe". Original usage in English mainly from passages in Vulgate, where the Latin word translates Greek pneuma and Hebrew ruah. mind - 1. the reasoning faculty, which thinks, judges, understands, and directs, in humans capable of great complexity because of the development of the human brain. 2. the human faculty to which are ascribed thought, feeling, etc.; often regarded as an immaterial part of a person distinct from the body; intellectual power. History: Old English gemynd "memory, thinking, intention"; related to Old High German gimunt "memory". ghost - the visible disembodied soul of a dead person History: Old English gast "soul, spirit, life, breath"; related to Old Frisian jest, Old High German geist "spirit, ghost". The surviving Old English senses are in Christian writing, where it is used to render Latin spiritus, a sense preserved in Holy Ghost. Modern sense of "disembodied spirit of a dead person" is attested from c.1385 and returns the word toward its ancient sense. Hope this gives you something to think about. :) BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 15:37:10 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:37:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <002c01c6f201$3e37c810$030a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <002c01c6f201$3e37c810$030a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610170837o6f34d5c0wdc2eee78562bdc42@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/06, John K Clark wrote: > > After the copying if you asked A he would say there was a 100% probability > that his identity had been successfully transferred to him, and he would > be > correct. If you asked B he would say there was a 100% probability that his > identity had been successfully transferred to him, and he would be > correct. > If you asked one of B's 999 copies he would say there was a 100% > probability > his identity had been successfully transferred to copy number 721 and he > would be correct too. You can't ask C, the person before any copying was > done, his opinion on which one was him because he was yesterday, he > doesn't > exist today. Right, you seem to be agreeing with the solution I came up with. None of this is a logical paradox, it's just an odd situation. It's unusual > because up to now human copying machines are rather few and far between. > But > that need not always be true. I have a hunch the Singularity will produce > far stranger things than that, so you'd better get used to it. > *nods* I don't know what the world of 3000 AD will look like, but I suspect our ideas will look as quaintly naive to our descendants then as spacemen rescuing Martian princesses from bug-eyed monsters look to us now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 17 17:13:39 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:13:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity - solution? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610170837o6f34d5c0wdc2eee78562bdc42@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0610122137o2a060ea7ic41153f32c946caf@mail.gmail.com> <002c01c6f201$3e37c810$030a4e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0610170837o6f34d5c0wdc2eee78562bdc42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061017171339.GN6974@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 04:37:10PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > *nods* I don't know what the world of 3000 AD will look like, but I > suspect our ideas will look as quaintly naive to our descendants then > as spacemen rescuing Martian princesses from bug-eyed monsters look to > us now. Right. It's either that, or back to really basic silica technology (flint). The way there leading through a truly narrow population bottleneck. I came across http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-empty8oct08,0,1515774,full.story recently, which set me thinking about how a very similiar malady is developing around the place where I sit. The U.S. star has been sinking for quite a few years already, and I'm really anxious for someone to pick up the guttering torch. So far, there are no conclusive candidates. -- 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 pj at pj-manney.com Tue Oct 17 17:24:12 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:24:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds Message-ID: <2737946.949701161105852872.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Oct 17 17:27:09 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:27:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds Message-ID: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Oct 17 17:23:48 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:23:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds Message-ID: <24357266.949651161105828204.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 19:03:21 2006 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:03:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> Tuesday, 17 October 2006 I think that program has the name "Physics Illustrator," and runs only on Tablet PCs. You can download it for free. (No link handy, just Google.) I'd like to know more about the whiteboard-style interface he uses in the video. Enjoy spring time, Emlyn! -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From hibbert at mydruthers.com Tue Oct 17 18:37:26 2006 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:37:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <453522E6.1080902@mydruthers.com> >> But indeed, if you have enough amnesia, then absolutely you are >> *not* the same person. Even in popular culture, one says that to >> lose one's memories is to lose one's identity. ... But Lee and >> Robin never have such dreams, unless they're out of their minds. > > We are the sort of creatures who usually are not very uncertain about > who we are. Nevertheless, we are not completely certain either, and > so we often have at least small degrees of indexical uncertainty. > So once you accept the basic concept, then the question is when and > where it is reasonable to apply the concept. A somewhat plausible example of uncertainty of identity: a standard nightmare supposedly has people waking up thinking that the final exam is today and they haven't studied. That's a Monday-me vs. Tuesday-me distinction that can matter intensely. (Or so I've heard.) Anyway, back to the uncertainty. Unless someone is verging on amnesia, the only kind of waking confusion that makes sense is momentary confusion about what history-of-behavior you have. Given modern technologies, we wouldn't distinguish mind from body in associating them with behavioral histories. (They always travel together in our experience.) So it would surprise me if a friend reported, after a dream about living someone else's life, that he woke up secure in his identity, but unsure about which body he should expect to be in. He'd have to have been confused about both mind (habits, experience, tastes) and body for the story to make any sense. Chris -- Currently reading: Marc Bekoff, The Cognitive Animal; Vernor Vinge: Rainbow's End; Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum; Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com http://mydruthers.com Prediction Market Software: http://zocalo.sourceforge.net From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Oct 17 19:28:54 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:28:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <453522E6.1080902@mydruthers.com> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <453522E6.1080902@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <0J7A000J9OS6BU10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 02:37 PM 10/17/2006, Chris Hibbert wrote: > > We are the sort of creatures who usually are not very uncertain about > > who we are. Nevertheless, we are not completely certain either, and > > so we often have at least small degrees of indexical uncertainty. > > So once you accept the basic concept, then the question is when and > > where it is reasonable to apply the concept. > >A somewhat plausible example of uncertainty of identity: a standard >nightmare supposedly has people waking up thinking that the final exam >is today and they haven't studied. That's a Monday-me vs. Tuesday-me >distinction that can matter intensely. (Or so I've heard.) >Anyway, back to the uncertainty. Unless someone is verging on amnesia, >the only kind of waking confusion that makes sense is momentary >confusion about what history-of-behavior you have. ... The main reason to be interested in and think about indexical uncertainty is not because people in our world often have large degrees of such uncertainty. The reason to be interested is that it opens up a new family of counterfactuals to reason about. Postulating and applying rationality constraints that relate the reasonable beliefs under different counterfactuals is a powerful way to constrain the beliefs we should find reasonable. I find the kind of possibilities considered in Doomsday arguments reasonable, even if I might take issue with assumptions made about reasonable priors, etc. 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 19:42:25 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:42:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/17/06, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > I think that program has the name "Physics Illustrator," and runs only > on Tablet PCs. You can download it for free. (No link handy, just > Google.) I'd like to know more about the whiteboard-style interface he > uses in the video. > I agree -- *what* is the whiteboard (or software that links a touch-sensitive projected screen) to window regions? The physics was interesting but the large scale interactive medium more so. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 19:45:13 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Could someone here tell me whether or not it would be physically possible to place a space station in "Lunar-Synchronous" orbit, such that the station would permanently "hover" over the "invisible" face of the moon (ie. so that the moon itself would at all times be located between Earth and the space station)? I personally wouldn't know where to begin in trying to calculate whether such an orbit is possible. The reason I ask is that it seems to me that a "stationary" orbit over the "invisible" side of the moon would be an ideal starting place to locate a self-sustaining space colony (as insurance against an existential disaster), such as the "Ark 1" as proposed by the Lifeboat Foundation. This location would seem to offer several security advantages over a lower, earth-orbit station. The advantages would be provided by the body of the moon itself. For example, the moon would serve as a crude shield to protect the station from simple projectile based weapons such as mass-drivers and coil guns (which may eventually achieve enough power to launch projectiles/payloads into space). I suspect a simple projectile based weapon of the future would be considerably easier for a terrorist to build, hide, and use successfully than a traditional rocket based propulsion system. The moon might also serve to shield and "trap" within it's gravity well, a payload of malicious nanoreplicators that might be fired toward the space station. Of course, actively-guided weapons would still pose a problem, but we have to start somewhere. Maybe moving out to behind Mars or Venus would make for a good next step. ;-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Oct 17 20:17:12 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:17:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty. References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com><0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu><017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu><018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu><020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <34316.72.236.102.119.1161084903.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <01e801c6f229$473563a0$e3084e0c@MyComputer> "MB" > The word "soul" and "spirit" have many religious connotations for me, but > I do not have another word that seems to describe that part of me beyond > my body. The word you're looking for is "information". Information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific method. Consider the similarities: The soul is non material and so is information. It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the soul, and the same is true for information. The soul is the essential, must have, part of consciousness, exactly the same situation is true for information. The soul is immortal and so, potentially, is information. I don't want to push this too far because there are also important differences between the soul and information. A soul is unique but information can be duplicated. The soul is and will always remain unfathomable, but information is understandable, in fact, information is the ONLY thing that is understandable. Information unambiguously exists, I don't think anyone would deny that, but in the unlikely event that the soul exists it will never be proven scientifically. > At what point does the Alzheimer's sufferer become "not" the person they > were? Point? Glass does not have a melting POINT, as it gets hotter it just gets softer and softer. Questions of this sort are not decided at a POINT, they are decided by a grey blob. John K Clark From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 20:30:21 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:30:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/17/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 10/17/06, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > > I think that program has the name "Physics Illustrator," and runs only > > on Tablet PCs. You can download it for free. (No link handy, just > > Google.) I'd like to know more about the whiteboard-style interface he > > uses in the video. > > > > I agree -- *what* is the whiteboard (or software that links a > touch-sensitive projected screen) to window regions? > > The physics was interesting but the large scale interactive medium more so. > The whiteboard is called a smartboard. They're in about every college and school in the country. (Maybe a slight exaggeration). The example photos show children using them. BillK From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Oct 17 20:36:53 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:36:53 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1780.163.1.72.81.1161117413.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> A B wrote: > Could someone here tell me whether or not it would be physically possible > to place a space station in "Lunar-Synchronous" orbit, such that the > station would permanently "hover" over the "invisible" face of the moon > (ie. so that the moon itself would at all times be located between Earth > and the space station)? You are thinking of the second Lagrange point. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point for a map. It is unstable, so you would need to do a bit of station-keeping to remain there, but it is a very small amount needed. > The moon might also serve to shield and "trap" within it's gravity well, > a payload of malicious nanoreplicators that might be fired toward the > space station. But this assumes they are just fired stupidly, not by somebody who understands orbital mechanics. It is not harder to hit L2 than L1! The real place to put the space ark is an unknown orbit. Space is big, and if it is too much of an hassle to find you it is likely nobody will. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 17 20:56:54 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:56:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061017155631.02264910@satx.rr.com> >Could someone here tell me whether or not it would be physically >possible to place a space station in "Lunar-Synchronous" orbit, such >that the station would permanently "hover" over the "invisible" face >of the moon Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#L2 From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Oct 17 21:58:31 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty. In-Reply-To: <01e801c6f229$473563a0$e3084e0c@MyComputer> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com><0J7300MG5007PJ40@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007a01c6ef3f$900a4c90$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu><017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu><018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu><020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677><0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <34316.72.236.102.119.1161084903.squirrel@main.nc.us> <01e801c6f229$473563a0$e3084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <34698.72.236.103.145.1161122311.squirrel@main.nc.us> > "MB" > >> The word "soul" and "spirit" have many religious connotations for me, but >> I do not have another word that seems to describe that part of me beyond >> my body. > > The word you're looking for is "information". Information is as close as you > can get to the traditional concept of the soul and still remain within the > scientific method. Thank you. :) Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 22:32:24 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:32:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: <0J7900L4DZOQ3XB0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0J7800JSB8QOAT70@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <0J7900L4DZOQ3XB0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: On 10/17/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > > Again, the question is how much information the prices contain, relative to the > other methods one could use to fire CEOs. You have not addressed that issue. > If the prices are more informed, then they will make better choices and should > be preferred. > > Of course we could do even better if the prices were even more informed. I thought I had addressed that issue. "Market movements are unpredictable, meaningless and random". Unpredictable, random price movements cannot be used to validate a CEO's performance, except in a few outstanding examples, e.g. where they turn round a failing company. But profits are probably a better measure in that case, rather than share price level. In a rising market, every CEO will claim they are obviously doing a great job. In a falling market, every CEO has good excuses available. After all, in a falling market you can't sack every CEO, can you? > That is where you could help. Since you can see that the current > prices are all wrong and you can tell in which direction they are wrong, you can make > lots of money by buying low and selling high. And you will help make the prices more > accurate in the process. Win win for all, surely. Do come back and thank us > when you are rich. > Heh! :) The old 'If you're so clever, why aren't you rich?' question. :) What part of "Market movements are unpredictable, meaningless and random" don't you understand? I can't predict stock prices. Nobody can. That's the point. You won't get any get-rich-quick tips from me (or Warren Buffet, for that matter). My advice is to invest in index tracking funds near the bottom of a recession cycle and sell near the top of a rising market. Usually a 4 or 5 year cycle. Don't worry about about timing the exact top or bottom. Just cash in near the top and wait till the recession cycle takes prices down far enough to buy back in to the index fund again. You won't become a dotcom millionaire, but you won't lose everything either. You'll do quite nicely for very little cost or trouble. BillK From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Oct 17 22:55:51 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:55:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: References: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0J7800JSB8QOAT70@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <0J7900L4DZOQ3XB0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0J7A0008NYD3C170@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 06:32 PM 10/17/2006, BillK wrote: > > Again, the question is how much information the prices contain, > relative to the > > other methods one could use to fire CEOs. You have not addressed > > that issue. If the prices are more informed, then they will make better > > choices and should be preferred. > >I thought I had addressed that issue. >"Market movements are unpredictable, meaningless and random". >Unpredictable, random price movements cannot be used to validate a >CEO's performance, except in a few outstanding examples, e.g. where >they turn round a failing company. But profits are probably a better >measure in that case, rather than share price level. First, it seems you did not actually read my proposal, as I did not suggest using share price levels. Second, while before you granted that stock prices contained some info, now you seem to claim they have no info, that stock prices are completely unrelated to profit, and that price changes have no relation to changes in expected profit. > > Since you can see that the current prices are all wrong > > and you can tell in which direction they are wrong, you > > can make lots of money by buying low and selling high. > >What part of "Market movements are unpredictable, meaningless and >random" don't you understand? I can't predict stock prices. Nobody >can. That's the point. If there is no relation between stock price and profit, then you must think that if you take your web business public you have just as good a chance of getting Google level prices as Google did, without having to go through all the work that Google did of actually being useful to customers. Buy low (any cheap web business), sell high (Google prices). 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 velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Oct 17 23:29:52 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:29:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fictional Singularity Movie References: <20061017024123.60596.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jeffrey, A B wrote: >> Hey y'all, >> >> I'm wondering when the first "blockbuster" Singularity movie will >> emerge out of Hollywood. I have no doubt that it will happen >> eventually. If a film isn't already underway, this might be a good >> opportunity for someone in the pro-Singularity camp to make a >> positive contribution to Singularity awareness. The masses want to >> be entertained if they are to be expected to learn anything. There's no doubt in my mind that a well done movie would do far more to increase awareness of Singularity among general population than all the Singularity-related websites out there put together. >> I think >> Ray Kurzweil would be a good candidate for writing the screenplay >> (if he was interested) for several reasons: expertise, name >> recognition, balanced analyses, and a double major including >> creative writing. It would have to be someone who is, first and foremost, skilled in the art of storytelling while also being an expert on the Singularity. Perhaps a better and faster approach to this would be to do a screenplay adaptation of the best and currently available novel about the Singularity. >> And I think the Wachowski brothers would make good >> Directors for it. (They are famous for "The Matrix" of course). I'm in total agreement with you there. I would argue that "The Matrix" is a "Singularity movie." After all, in the movie machines achieved above human-level intelligence and took over the world. The "S" word is not used explicitly (although the phrase "singular consciousness" makes an appearance) but the concept of transhuman intelligence is dealt with implicitly. Even though I suspect that the "W" brothers are talented enough to not only direct such a movie, but also to write it, I think they are currently more interested in adapting comic books than trying to write about "heavy" topics like Singularity. >> To >> guard against the possibility that a film would only add to the >> "fiction" interpretation of the Singularity meme, the film could >> begin with an brief written explanation to the effect that: although >> the film itself is fictional, the Singularity is a "real" projected >> event that is anticipated by many experts in various fields. (Or >> something like that). If the movie was done well, a sense of real potential for Singularity happening within our lifetimes should be obvious from the movie itself. As always, it's better to show than tell. S. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 23:03:31 2006 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:03:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: References: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0J7800JSB8QOAT70@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <0J7900L4DZOQ3XB0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:32:24 -0400, BillK wrote: > What part of "Market movements are unpredictable, meaningless and > random" don't you understand? I can't predict stock prices. Nobody > can. That's the point. The random walk hypothesis is not so well supported as you seem to think. How for example do you explain the fact that market indices have risen on the order of 8% or 10% each year on average for roughly the past 100 years? The random walk hypothesis predicts a 0% percent average return. US financial markets may be and probably are non-random but extremely or perfectly efficient. -gts From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Oct 17 23:29:00 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:29:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <007f01c6f244$0ea7be50$0200a8c0@Nano> I have Physics Illustrator on my Tablet PC. Here is the link - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=56347faf-a639-4f3b-9b87-1487fd4b5a53&displaylang=en (and as Jay said if you have a desktop or a normal laptop with Windows it won't work, only if you have the tablet pc operating system). While the program is fun to play with, and perhaps demonstrate something at a presentation, the problem I experienced with the program is that there is no output! You can not save it to an .avi or an .mov to show later or upload to a website. If you have a way to record your screen (and those are out there) you could record it, and if you are anything but perfect in your drawing (or in your just stopping to think) you might have to modify your footage (cut boring or incorrect frames out) and resave it, more work. In fact I talked about this problem on my animation blog - and came to the conclusion that self recording is the only way to output PI. To answer Robert, I can tell you how Physics Illustrator works, you draw directly on your computer screen and you could then show it via projector. But in the case of this YouTube video, in the beginning we hear the man (Professor Randall Davis) say "let me show you an example of the Assist Sketch Understanding System" which looks like it comes out of MIT, and so appears not to be of the Microsoft variety. These are two different programs. In his program Davis is actually drawing on the screen. This may be similar technology to some of the other onscreen interactive progress that has been going on like the Khronos Projector (also wrote about this on my blog here: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/khronos-projector.html) There are other examples too, I think some have shown at Siggraph and Wired. Do a Google search for "interactive screen". You can also read more about the MIT program by searching for "Assist Sketch Understanding System". Regards, 'animator for hire' Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Jay Dugger To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" Tuesday, 17 October 2006 I think that program has the name "Physics Illustrator," and runs only on Tablet PCs. You can download it for free. (No link handy, just Google.) I'd like to know more about the whiteboard-style interface he uses in the video. Enjoy spring time, Emlyn! -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. _______________________________________________ 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 23:40:55 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:10:55 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0610171640u58cccee0p78d1825a36eca996@mail.gmail.com> I love this list, people are too cool to be amazed by anything. Also might have to do with people knowing waaay too much to be surprised very often. Apologies for the stupid subject, btw, that was the subject line for the vid on youtube, and there was no context to where it came from. I really want one of those whiteboards! Emlyn On 18/10/06, BillK wrote: > On 10/17/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > On 10/17/06, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > > > > I think that program has the name "Physics Illustrator," and runs only > > > on Tablet PCs. You can download it for free. (No link handy, just > > > Google.) I'd like to know more about the whiteboard-style interface he > > > uses in the video. > > > > > > > I agree -- *what* is the whiteboard (or software that links a > > touch-sensitive projected screen) to window regions? > > > > The physics was interesting but the large scale interactive medium more so. > > > > The whiteboard is called a smartboard. They're in about every college > and school in the country. (Maybe a slight exaggeration). > > > > The example photos show children using them. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Oct 17 23:32:04 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:32:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" Message-ID: <004401c6f244$c44f5830$0200a8c0@Nano> PS - here are a bunch of YouTube results for interactive screens: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=interactive+screen 'animator for hire' Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Gina Miller To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" I have Physics Illustrator on my Tablet PC. Here is the link - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=56347faf-a639-4f3b-9b87-1487fd4b5a53&displaylang=en (and as Jay said if you have a desktop or a normal laptop with Windows it won't work, only if you have the tablet pc operating system). While the program is fun to play with, and perhaps demonstrate something at a presentation, the problem I experienced with the program is that there is no output! You can not save it to an .avi or an .mov to show later or upload to a website. If you have a way to record your screen (and those are out there) you could record it, and if you are anything but perfect in your drawing (or in your just stopping to think) you might have to modify your footage (cut boring or incorrect frames out) and resave it, more work. In fact I talked about this problem on my animation blog - and came to the conclusion that self recording is the only way to output PI. To answer Robert, I can tell you how Physics Illustrator works, you draw directly on your computer screen and you could then show it via projector. But in the case of this YouTube video, in the beginning we hear the man (Professor Randall Davis) say "let me show you an example of the Assist Sketch Understanding System" which looks like it comes out of MIT, and so appears not to be of the Microsoft variety. These are two different programs. In his program Davis is actually drawing on the screen. This may be similar technology to some of the other onscreen interactive progress that has been going on like the Khronos Projector (also wrote about this on my blog here: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/khronos-projector.html) There are other examples too, I think some have shown at Siggraph and Wired. Do a Google search for "interactive screen". You can also read more about the MIT program by searching for "Assist Sketch Understanding System". Regards, 'animator for hire' Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Participating Member http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Jay Dugger To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" Tuesday, 17 October 2006 I think that program has the name "Physics Illustrator," and runs only on Tablet PCs. You can download it for free. (No link handy, just Google.) I'd like to know more about the whiteboard-style interface he uses in the video. Enjoy spring time, Emlyn! -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. _______________________________________________ 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 18 00:01:42 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:01:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fictional Singularity Movie In-Reply-To: References: <20061017024123.60596.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061017184138.0218f100@satx.rr.com> At 07:29 PM 10/17/2006 -0400, S wrote: > >> I think > >> Ray Kurzweil would be a good candidate for writing the screenplay Or wait--maybe Arnie Schwarzenegger? >It would have to be someone who is, first and foremost, skilled in the art of >storytelling while also being an expert on the Singularity. Perhaps >a better and >faster approach to this would be to do a screenplay adaptation of >the best and >currently available novel about the Singularity. Novels are rarely useful as the basis for a movie; they are too long and complicated. A novella is what you need, or an informed original screenplay. Wil McCarthy is currently writing some scripts for the SciFi Channel, and would be a fine candidate. His BLOOM is a remarkable nanocalypse novel, and some of his more recent novels have remarkable visualization of near-Singularity technology and cultural adaptations (THE COLLAPSIUM, from 2000, and its sequels). John Barnes' MOTHER OF STORMS (1994) was an impressive self-bootstrapping Singularity novel. Poul Anderson's GENESIS (2000). Obviously Charlie Stross's linked stories in ACCELERANDO (2005) and GLASSHOUSE (2006) might serve. Or even, you know, SINGULARITY SKY (2003), although that's not quite right despite the title. Since hardly anyone here seems to have heard of my own Singularity fiction, I'll simply mention THE JUDAS MANDALA (1982) TRANSCENSION (2002) perhaps the most accessible for a mass audience: THE HUNGER OF TIME (with Rory Barnes, 2003) GODPLAYERS/K-MACHINES (2005/6). Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Wed Oct 18 00:32:37 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:32:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] You're Fired In-Reply-To: References: <0J7700CZHBHCEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0J7800JSB8QOAT70@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <0J7900L4DZOQ3XB0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <45357625.8000600@pobox.com> BillK wrote: > > I thought I had addressed that issue. > "Market movements are unpredictable, meaningless and random". > Unpredictable, random price movements cannot be used to validate a > CEO's performance, except in a few outstanding examples, e.g. where > they turn round a failing company. But profits are probably a better > measure in that case, rather than share price level. > > In a rising market, every CEO will claim they are obviously doing a great job. > In a falling market, every CEO has good excuses available. > After all, in a falling market you can't sack every CEO, can you? Bill, read Robin's actual paper. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Oct 18 00:03:20 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:03:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cool computer program Message-ID: <380-22006103180320843@M2W030.mail2web.com> From: Gina Miller I like "touch me" art. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From CHealey at unicom-inc.com Tue Oct 17 23:59:59 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:59:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to use Physics Illustrator on a non-tablet PC Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C85429673F91D@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> For the more enterprising of you: http://blog.hypercubed.com/archives/2006/02/05/how-to-use-physics-illist rator-on-non-tablet-pc/ Haven't tested this yet myself... -Chris From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 18 02:44:49 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:44:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200610180258.k9I2wVTW008879@andromeda.ziaspace.com> That is wicked cool Emlyn. On that same YouTube page that superconducting magnet video is way cool too. I hafta be careful to avoid the YouTube black hole for time: it is too easy to have an hour or two slip away fooling with it. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:43 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" > > I just don't know what to say about this. I'm sure someone will... > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7eGypGOlOc > > Emlyn > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 03:30:09 2006 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:00:09 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <200610180258.k9I2wVTW008879@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <200610180258.k9I2wVTW008879@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0610172030nb28b069ue3ed95fb8274091d@mail.gmail.com> On 18/10/06, spike wrote: > That is wicked cool Emlyn. On that same YouTube page that superconducting > magnet video is way cool too. Yes, that's awesome! > I hafta be careful to avoid the YouTube black > hole for time: it is too easy to have an hour or two slip away fooling with > it. > > spike I was looking at that stuff around 9pm last night, and suddenly it was after 1 in the morning... My wife commented that it's a technology (can I call it that?) which is still at the "Here's me, here's a picture of my dog" stage (like a circa '95 personal home page). I think it'll progress though. It's like TV only even more scarily addictive... Emlyn > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:43 AM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" > > > > I just don't know what to say about this. I'm sure someone will... > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7eGypGOlOc > > > > Emlyn > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 CHealey at unicom-inc.com Wed Oct 18 00:13:06 2006 From: CHealey at unicom-inc.com (Christopher Healey) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:13:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: How to use Physics Illustrator on a non-tablet PC (was "Cool computer program") Message-ID: <5725663BF245FA4EBDC03E405C85429673F91F@w2k3exch.UNICOM-INC.CORP> There's also a link I just noticed in the blog comments for filefactory.com, containing the completed conversion, but I'd recommend you either perform the conversion yourself from trusted sources, or at a minimum scan it very well for trojans. -Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Healey > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:00 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: How to use Physics Illustrator on a non-tablet PC > > > For the more enterprising of you: > > http://blog.hypercubed.com/archives/2006/02/05/how-to-use-phys > ics-illistrator-on-non-tablet-pc/ > > Haven't tested this yet myself... > > -Chris > From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 18 04:23:44 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:23:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds In-Reply-To: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <200610180425.k9I4Pt0D024291@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of pjmanney ... There are even stories of injured hikers being stalked by groups of Keas like they were just a big sheep...? Glad it wasn't me! PJ ... Keas and most other beasts likely know better than to mess with a primate with two opposable thumbs. Only by imagining not having those do we realize what competent weapons they are. spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 04:36:19 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:36:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds In-Reply-To: <200610180425.k9I4Pt0D024291@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <200610180425.k9I4Pt0D024291@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610172136m402b7529ne896801f998c53c6@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/06, spike wrote: > > Keas and most other beasts likely know better than to mess with a primate > with two opposable thumbs. Only by imagining not having those do we > realize > what competent weapons they are. > At a guess the keas were just hoping the human would expire of his own accord so they could have first dibs on the carrion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Oct 18 04:18:12 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:18:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] communist legacy In-Reply-To: <20061017171339.GN6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200610180437.k9I4bYLj022558@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl ... > I came across http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-empty8oct08,0,1515774,full.st ory ... Eugen* Leitl Thanks Gene. Looks to me like the classic communist legacy. It reminds me why the world fought against it like rabid wildcats. Thank evolution the good guys won WW3. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Oct 18 04:14:57 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:14:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] spirits (was Indexical Uncertainty) In-Reply-To: References: <34316.72.236.102.119.1161084903.squirrel@main.nc.us> <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <34316.72.236.102.119.1161084903.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061018000733.03d9f6e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> For at least ten years I have said that humans as well as dogs, cats and running operating systems have spirit. If you can interact with it, it has spirit. Keith Henson From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 06:20:54 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610172136m402b7529ne896801f998c53c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061018062054.59439.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > At a guess the keas were just hoping the human would > expire of his own > accord so they could have first dibs on the carrion. Once while taking my trash out into the back alley, I had a large very stale dinner roll narrowly miss my noggin and hit the pavement at my feet with an impressive crack. I immediatelly looked around and up at all the 2nd story apartment windows, feeling certain some rascal child or vindictive neighbor had hurled it at me. But to my surprise, nobody was in the alley and all the windows were shut. Then I happened to look straight up and sitting on a telephone wire some 60 feet above my head was a raven with his head cocked to the side looking down at me with one eye. From the way it was looking at me I am quite certain that it had been hoping to trade a stale biscuit for some warm unconcious not-quite-carrion. I was rather impressed by this feat of bird intelligence but also just a little disturbed. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ 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 Oct 18 08:26:45 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:26:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <0J7A000J9OS6BU10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <453522E6.1080902@mydruthers.com> <0J7A000J9OS6BU10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610180126p6d175bdau1c001ac607974736@mail.gmail.com> On 10/17/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > > The main reason to be interested in and think about indexical uncertainty > is not because people in our world often have large degrees of such > uncertainty. The reason to be interested is that it opens up a new > family > of counterfactuals to reason about. Postulating and applying rationality > constraints that relate the reasonable beliefs under different > counterfactuals > is a powerful way to constrain the beliefs we should find reasonable. But the one does not imply the other. That we can postulate a mind of sufficiently low (dreaming) or distorted (insane) consciousness as to genuinely not know whether it's Russell or Napoleon doesn't mean I (the entity currently thinking these thoughts) could have been Napoleon, any more than the number 3 could have been the number 7. If you doubt this, consider the extreme case: a rock doesn't know whether it's me or a rock. That doesn't mean I could have been a rock. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 18 08:55:49 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:55:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] communist legacy In-Reply-To: <200610180437.k9I4bYLj022558@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20061017171339.GN6974@leitl.org> <200610180437.k9I4bYLj022558@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061018085548.GP6974@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 09:18:12PM -0700, spike wrote: > Thanks Gene. Looks to me like the classic communist legacy. It reminds me While communist fallout was an exacerbating factor, you'll notice that all of the developed countries are well below replacement rate (but the U.S., but only due to red state excess and immigration), and demographics alone is about to finish off the economy. What's worse, is that the society is stratifying (the middle class is going fast, about everywhere), that education is very much failing, and that we've about have ceased innovating. By itself, this is not fatal, if someone else is about to pick up the torch. > why the world fought against it like rabid wildcats. Thank evolution the > good guys won WW3. -- 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 Wed Oct 18 14:05:20 2006 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:05:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610180126p6d175bdau1c001ac607974736@mail.gmail.co m> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <020101c6f19b$e0151220$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7900LAKZDC3XA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <453522E6.1080902@mydruthers.com> <0J7A000J9OS6BU10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <8d71341e0610180126p6d175bdau1c001ac607974736@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0J7C0048P4GWWU80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 04:26 AM 10/18/2006, Russell Wallace wrote: >The main reason to be interested in and think about indexical uncertainty >is not because people in our world often have large degrees of such >uncertainty. The reason to be interested is that it opens up a new family >of counterfactuals to reason about. Postulating and applying rationality >constraints that relate the reasonable beliefs under different counterfactuals >is a powerful way to constrain the beliefs we should find reasonable. > >But the one does not imply the other. Which claim is "one" and which is "other"? >That we can postulate a mind of sufficiently low (dreaming) or >distorted (insane) consciousness as to genuinely not know whether >it's Russell or Napoleon doesn't mean I (the entity currently >thinking these thoughts) could have been Napoleon, any more than the >number 3 could have been the number 7. If you doubt this, consider >the extreme case: a rock doesn't know whether it's me or a rock. >That doesn't mean I could have been a rock. A possible world specifies answers to all relevant questions. That is, it should be straightforward to figure out, if that world were the true one, what the answer to any specific relevant question is. So the problem with postulating "3=7" in a world is that ordinary math has clearly been thrown out in that world. Thus to make sense of this world we need to also specify some other way to answer relevant math questions. This is awkward, but for some purposes can be useful. Counterfactuals are untrue claims useful to an analysis. So clearly the mere fact that a counterfactual claim is not true is not a sufficient basis to reject it from consideration in an analysis. I see three obvious reasons to reject a counterfactual: 1) it is ambiguous which possible worlds are intended to be included or excluded by this claim, 2) the relevant possible worlds are themselves not clear, not giving us a straightforward way to answer relevant questions, or 3) the claim is not relevant to some purpose, so that ignoring it won't change the results. We also have one strong reason for considering a counterfactual. This is when we are analyzing the reasonable beliefs of an agent who is not entirely sure that the counterfactual is in fact false. It is hard to get such analyses right without including the possible worlds that the agents themselves are considering. I don't see that any of these reasons for rejection apply to the counterfactual claim that I (or you) are Napoleon. And I can imagine situations containing agents who are not sure they are false. So I don't yet see a basis for rejecting such counterfactuals. 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 jonkc at att.net Wed Oct 18 14:44:58 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:44:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fictional Singularity Movie References: <20061017024123.60596.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061017184138.0218f100@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a401c6f2c4$048ed860$270a4e0c@MyComputer> Let me see if I can guess what a Hollywood made Singularity movie would be like. The handsome hero and his beautiful assistant Dr. Kitty Loveinterest are determined to stop the Singularity; they accomplish this in the third act by breaking into the mad scientist's underground laboratory deep in the heart of an active volcano and winning a fistfight with villain Eliezer Yudkowsky and his gang of evil henchmen, who for some reason insist on attacking the hero one at a time rather than all at once. The world is saved, the Singularity will never happen, and they all lived happily ever after. The End.. or is it? Yudkowsky's diabolical laughter could be faintly heard over the closing credits. John K Clark From discwuzit at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 14:25:16 2006 From: discwuzit at yahoo.com (John B) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061018142516.94516.qmail@web54507.mail.yahoo.com> Anders - How hard is it to see a 300 Kelvin object against a 2 Kelvin background? And that's assuming only shirtsleeve conditions - no motors or other 'hotspots'... -John Message: 2 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:36:53 +0200 (MEST) From: "Anders Sandberg" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <1780.163.1.72.81.1161117413.squirrel at webmail.csc.kth.se> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 -snip- But this assumes they are just fired stupidly, not by somebody who understands orbital mechanics. It is not harder to hit L2 than L1! The real place to put the space ark is an unknown orbit. Space is big, and if it is too much of an hassle to find you it is likely nobody will. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hemm at openlink.com.br Wed Oct 18 15:56:51 2006 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:56:51 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fictional Singularity Movie References: <20061017024123.60596.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03da01c6f2ce$082b7b90$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Well, Hollywood has a bad record on depicting AIs. Usually humans are it's enemy or food or whatever makes it very likely to kill everything. It's like any singularity event would necessarily be distopic. There's perhaps one movie (which I can remember) where AI is at least interesting. and it's *not* 2001. If you remember the very first Star Trek movie, You'll remember that V'Ger thing. It looks very much like a product of a civilisation that has come through a singularity. And in the end of the movie, someone is actually uploaded into the AI. ----- Original Message ----- From: A B To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:41 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Fictional Singularity Movie Hey y'all, I'm wondering when the first "blockbuster" Singularity movie will emerge out of Hollywood. I have no doubt that it will happen eventually. If a film isn't already underway, this might be a good opportunity for someone in the pro-Singularity camp to make a positive contribution to Singularity awareness. The masses want to be entertained if they are to be expected to learn anything. I think Ray Kurzweil would be a good candidate for writing the screenplay (if he was interested) for several reasons: expertise, name recognition, balanced analyses, and a double major including creative writing. And I think the Wachowski brothers would make good Directors for it. (They are famous for "The Matrix" of course). To guard against the possibility that a film would only add to the "fiction" interpretation of the Singularity meme, the film could begin with an brief written explanation to the effect that: although the film itself is fictional, the Singularity is a "real" projected event that is anticipated by many experts in various fields. (Or something like that). A good, thought provoking film, might get a lot of people talking who otherwise might not learn of the Singularity for quite some time. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 hemm at openlink.com.br Wed Oct 18 16:31:35 2006 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:31:35 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora><20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061017155631.02264910@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <040101c6f2d2$e207be10$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Why not bury it a couple of kilometers below the surface of the moon? The moon itself is a good space station. It already has some gravity to begin with. and if safety is a concern, bury the base deep below the surface. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? > >>Could someone here tell me whether or not it would be physically >>possible to place a space station in "Lunar-Synchronous" orbit, such >>that the station would permanently "hover" over the "invisible" face >>of the moon > > Yes. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#L2 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Oct 18 17:18:31 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] high tech birds In-Reply-To: <20061018062054.59439.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> References: <8d71341e0610172136m402b7529ne896801f998c53c6@mail.gmail.com> <20061018062054.59439.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <32960.72.236.102.90.1161191911.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Then I happened to look straight up and sitting on a > telephone wire some 60 feet above my head was a raven > with his head cocked to the side looking down at me > with one eye. From the way it was looking at me I am > quite certain that it had been hoping to trade a stale > biscuit for some warm unconcious not-quite-carrion. > > I was rather impressed by this feat of bird > intelligence but also just a little disturbed. > Indeed. Note this old painting: http://www.pafa.org/paintingsPreview.jsp?id=1030 No doubt the eyes would be the first target, and then the meal could be finished at leisure... :( Regards, MB From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 18 17:17:30 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:17:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] new free online fiction from COSMOS Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061018121539.022fb850@cosmosmagazine.com> The first of the new free online COSMOS short stories is now up. These will be online offerings not published in the magazine--although the regular print stories will continue to appear online several months after paper publication. ================= http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/fiction or more specifically http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/763 "Apollo's breath" Original fiction exclusive to Cosmos Online by Shaun A. Saunders ===================== Enjoy! Damien Broderick From brian at posthuman.com Wed Oct 18 17:14:29 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:14:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fictional Singularity Movie In-Reply-To: <03da01c6f2ce$082b7b90$fe00a8c0@cpd01> References: <20061017024123.60596.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <03da01c6f2ce$082b7b90$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: <453660F5.1020208@posthuman.com> A good solid documentary movie would be nice, with some flashy graphics. Who knows, maybe such a thing is already underway? *wink* ;-) -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Oct 18 18:58:28 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:58:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <015d01c6f0c4$ff139ed0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <012d01c6f065$54a2db00$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1160945327.5671.9.camel@localhost> <015d01c6f0c4$ff139ed0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <3CAE0AEF-541D-4950-B007-A2D914D6F829@mac.com> On Oct 15, 2006, at 6:45 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > >>> So you see (as you explain below) that any inconvenience to >>> Al Qaeda that occurs overseas is just a side-effect of a >>> government grab for more power? Would you try to make >>> that argument apply to America in World War II, the Civil >>> War, Korea, and Viet Nam? Or is something different now? >> >> I don't believe Al Qaeda is or ever was a significant enough >> problem to >> justify what has been and is being done in this idiotic war on a >> form of >> asymmetric warfare. Bush has repeadely even lowered the priority of >> finding bin Laden. > > Why was the bombing of Pearl Harbor any different? Actual country with clear war like intentions. Clear definition of victory. Formal declaration of war. How was it all that similar? How is the question relevant? > >> Do you think Al Qaeda are the end and be-all of terrorism? Do you >> think >> it is remotely possible to ever find and "bury" all cells of any such >> organization? > > No, on both counts. > >> Bush and most of the administration claim this war is >> never ending. The people should have been up in arms and soon as >> this >> was claimed. But no, most of us bring our freedom and our money >> gladly >> to Washington to protect us from the B-A-A-D and E-V-I-L endless >> menace. > > Am I to infer that you don't think Al Qaeda attacks on the West.it > will > be endless? You suppose that they'll just fade away over time? Bush declared this is a never-ending war, not I. I don't believe it is or should be a "war" at all. I think we will have a lot less terrorist attacks if we refrain from some of our more asinine foreign entanglements and get out of Iraq. Whether people want to hear it or not the US has been asking for major blowback in the Middle East for decades now. We will not and cannot eliminate terrorism by turning the world into a complete police state. Personally I would not want to inhabit that kind of world even if such measures actually could remotely be workable with deep enough total surveillance. > >>> One thing that is more dangerous now than in any point in >>> Western history is the huge size of the bureaucracies, and >>> their self-sustaining agendas. Far more civil rights were >>> abrogated during the Civil War and World War II, and >>> in effect in World War I, than now, but it was easy to pull >>> back once the menace was contained. >> >> Yep. Which is why a "war" defined as endless is hideously dangerous. > > You are perfectly correct. The world is not in a good state peace- > wise :-) > > But look on the bright side: in terms of per capita deaths, this one > looks to be one of the gentlest in history. In terms of damage to fundamental rights and freedoms and the growth of unchecked power it is very dangerous. I don't see much bright side to the near total perversion of US concerns by the terrorism trump card. > The only long term question > is whether the war will gradually fade away, or escalate to total > conflict once Hispanic North America and Moslem Europe lock > horns. Now that image cheered me up. :-) - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Oct 18 19:07:58 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:07:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610161655m444b921bg9218946cd0eb71da@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7700CZEBHAEKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <016701c6f0c7$fab96510$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <4533FCD1.2090006@mydruthers.com> <0J7900HQZ2V2V580@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <8d71341e0610161655m444b921bg9218946cd0eb71da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <278713BE-6EA3-4451-A533-37D92E0BA174@mac.com> On Oct 16, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 10/16/06, Robin Hanson wrote: > I was just following Lee's notation. A better name might be > "Index#2923". > But it is more about minds than bodies. You know you are a mind, > but you > might not know which body that corresponds to. > > To see why it doesn't make sense to say "I might not be me", > consider that fundamentally there is nothing ontologically > privileged about one's past and future selves as opposed to other > people. Do you think it makes sense to ask "why am I currently my > current self as opposed to my 10 year old self or my 70 year old > self?" Yep. If it was high priority to contemplate such things I would retreat to a cave in the Himalayas. - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 19:12:05 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:12:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <20061018142516.94516.qmail@web54507.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061018142516.94516.qmail@web54507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/18/06, John B wrote: > How hard is it to see a 300 Kelvin object against a 2 > Kelvin background? And that's assuming only > shirtsleeve conditions - no motors or other > 'hotspots'... It would be more like a 20-40K background within the solar system and its not hard at all. The detectors in any IR telescope could manage it. Our mid-to-far IR technology isn't great (it isn't at the level of a 10 megapixel visible light camera for example) but that is because the market for such sensors isn't as large not because we can't really figure out how to do it. The real question isn't what temperature is it at as much as it is how much power is it radiating on an areal basis? If its only radiating 0.00001W/m^2 [1] its going to be hard to detect no matter *what* wavelengths the photons have. Robert 1. Thats an arbitrary number. The better way to look at it is whether its radiator size and our detector size are sufficiently matched that we can count photons at specific frequencies at levels significantly greater than the equipment or background noise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 19:39:24 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:39:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/17/06, A B wrote: > > The reason I ask is that it seems to me that a "stationary" orbit over the > "invisible" side of the moon would be an ideal starting place to locate a > self-sustaining space colony (as insurance against an existential > disaster), such as the "Ark 1" as proposed by the Lifeboat Foundation. This > location would seem to offer several security advantages over a lower, > earth-orbit station. > You and/or the Lifeboat foundation should probably rethink this. I've devoted a *lot* of thought over the years to external hazard function minimization -- I'm not sure putting anything in space is the way to go. I strongly suspect that there are places on Earth that could be far safer at a significantly lower cost because you don't have the wasted cost of hauling material out of the Earth's gravity well. Henrique's suggestion for a lunar subsurface colony isn't bad -- but I think a better argument could be made for an ocean subsurface colony. Something like an oceanic subfloor colony [1] someplace off the NW coast of the islands of Hawaii (away from the direction the subsurface hot spot is traveling, away from the Pacific subduction zones, not near any "typical" city targets for atomic bombs, etc.). There is probably still enough latent heat in the crust in such a location that you could tap geothermal energy (otherwise you probably need a breeder reactor and relatively large pile of uranium). Something like that and you would be relatively immune to anything which happens on the surface and probably be able to survive for millions to even tens or hundreds of millions of years. The problem is that most of us were brought up in the era when the colonizing of space would be the solution for all of our problems so we don't think along the lines of colonizing the oceans. Whether your fears are cosmic rays, mass drivers, nuclear weapons, nanobots, etc. most of them become much less pressing problems if you have sufficient amounts of mass between you and them. Robert 1. Oceanic subsurface (sea floor) colonies are largely immune from most natural or man-made hazards that would impact the Earth's surface. A sub-sea-floor colony would be immune from nuclear tipped torpedos as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 22:55:47 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:55:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <278713BE-6EA3-4451-A533-37D92E0BA174@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <4533FCD1.2090006@mydruthers.com> <0J7900HQZ2V2V580@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <8d71341e0610161655m444b921bg9218946cd0eb71da@mail.gmail.com> <278713BE-6EA3-4451-A533-37D92E0BA174@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610181555r55676b05w49fed9633b0d8bae@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Yep. If it was high priority to contemplate such things I would retreat to a cave in the Himalayas. > Eh, some people play football when they're taking a break from work, I contemplate philosophy :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 23:07:12 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:07:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty In-Reply-To: <278713BE-6EA3-4451-A533-37D92E0BA174@mac.com> References: <8d71341e0610122012wbaf4f61x44a5f0f68c79c7b7@mail.gmail.com> <0J7700CPPJM7WB80@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <017701c6f0d0$a85b5720$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7700G8HLCUYY60@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <018201c6f0d5$13a72820$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0J7800FDW996IW10@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <4533FCD1.2090006@mydruthers.com> <0J7900HQZ2V2V580@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <8d71341e0610161655m444b921bg9218946cd0eb71da@mail.gmail.com> <278713BE-6EA3-4451-A533-37D92E0BA174@mac.com> Message-ID: <62c14240610181607r5aae495q9d13087ec2ce3a18@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > Yep. If it was high priority to contemplate such things I would retreat to a cave in the Himalayas. > So would that be to get away from contemplating such things, or to enable contemplation? (in either event, bring a jacket - I hear it's cold there) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 23:31:18 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:31:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610181631j3ec91a58k7d571ad1c1220193@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > You and/or the Lifeboat foundation should probably rethink this. I've > devoted a *lot* of thought over the years to external hazard function > minimization -- I'm not sure putting anything in space is the way to go. > The point being missed is that what we need isolation from isn't matter, it's ideas. Giant rail guns, killer robots, swarms of flesh-eating nanites - they're like Satan and Cthulhu, reifications of our fears, because it's in our nature to put a visually imaginable face on things. They don't _literally_ exist; they need to be taken on the correct level, as metaphors. The reason Earth isn't big enough is that it's not _psychologically perceived_ as big enough, not now that we can span it in hours in person and in milliseconds by proxy. Materially it could support everyone in comfort and safety - considerably more than its current population if its resources were used more efficiently - but that's not how our psychology works. We need the _perception_ of an open frontier, so that our efforts will start being turned outwards rather than inwards against each other: http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/frontier.html I don't agree with the specifics of Zubrin's plans, but he's right about one thing: opening the space frontier is the only way to go. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Thu Oct 19 03:49:42 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:49:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1546.163.1.72.81.1160419899.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <4536F5D6.1000003@posthuman.com> The internet mods-up things quickly nowadays: http://digg.com/design/Funny_Warning_Signs_from_the_Future -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 04:21:57 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:21:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhuman warning signs In-Reply-To: <1211.86.143.28.237.1160469316.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <200610100317.k9A3H3oe006947@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1211.86.143.28.237.1160469316.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 10/10/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > Brandon Reinhart wrote: > > Does this mean when I join up with a group-mind, I'm going to have to > wear > > one of your warning signs like a star of david? Feh! > > Exactly my thought when I made the sign. Could the warning sign threaten > individual liberty? I might have to wear one of those cognitive hazard > signs myself. On a related note, some of these signs would make rather spiffy t-shirts. -- Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 04:32:04 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:32:04 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610181631j3ec91a58k7d571ad1c1220193@mail.gmail.com> References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0610181631j3ec91a58k7d571ad1c1220193@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/18/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > > The point being missed is that what we need isolation from isn't matter, > it's ideas. So are you saying we should return back to the cave man days when ideas were in much shorter supply? The reason Earth isn't big enough is that it's not _psychologically > perceived_ as big enough, not now that we can span it in hours in person and > in milliseconds by proxy. > But adjusting the psychological perceptions of people with a few milligrams of assorted substances is *so* much easier & cheaper than hauling bodies out of gravity wells... Materially it could support everyone in comfort and safety - considerably > more than its current population if its resources were used more efficiently > - but that's not how our psychology works. We need the _perception_ of an > open frontier, so that our efforts will start being turned outwards rather > than inwards against each other: > But shouldn't we stop reinforcing perceptions that people have that the frontier is someplace "out there". It is instead within our minds regarding what is and is not really possible -- call it the "pre-nano-reality wall". That is the open frontier that we need to overcome because that undermines the perception of resource shortages which in turn plays off of the predisposition (presumably genetic) to roam, accumulate resources and make copies of ourselves. As an aside -- in "The Case for Mars" Zubrin comes very close to making a case for nanotechnology (when he argues using Martian material and robots to produce Martian solar power satellites). But he fails to grasp that once you have the technology to start dismantling Mars and launching it into space you can keep going and finish the process completely. Whenever I come across the proponents of Mars colonization (blogs, etc.) I don't hesitate to point out that by the time they are able to get "there" it will likely no longer be "there". Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 05:16:41 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:16:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0610181631j3ec91a58k7d571ad1c1220193@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610182216j17929357p9ba6d5647a5d13d5@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > But shouldn't we stop reinforcing perceptions that people have that the > frontier is someplace "out there". It is instead within our minds regarding > what is and is not really possible -- call it the "pre-nano-reality wall". > That is the open frontier that we need to overcome because that undermines > the perception of resource shortages which in turn plays off of the > predisposition (presumably genetic) to roam, accumulate resources and make > copies of ourselves. > *shakes head* It's not really about resource shortages, never was. Oh, in the ancestral environment it was about resource shortages in the sense of _evolutionary causation_, but even then not _psychologically_. What drives conflict is pride, hate, the lust for power and the thrill of wielding it once obtained, the joy of watching _them_ suffer - the referent of "them" is almost infinitely fungible, but the drive is constant. I remind you that you yourself once proposed a campaign of nuclear genocide against "faith-based thinkers", and when you abandoned that you didn't move on to something driven by better motives, only to something more socially acceptable - having people tortured and raped for typing words on a computer keyboard. I had a conversation awhile ago with someone who believes we'll have magic-genie nanotech here on Earth. Was he saying "great, no need for conflict then, we'll have plenty of resources"? No, he was proposing a global, inescapable tyranny with authority to arbitrarily suppress technology in case the dreaded other uses it to obtain power. Are you wondering who this man was? Some luddite spokesman, some fringe lunatic, you're thinking? James Hughes, high-ranking member of the frigging World Transhumanist Association. No, the super-nanotech mythology is not the answer. Practical nanotech as a means to Diaspora - that might get somewhere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 19 15:50:53 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:50:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0610171640u58cccee0p78d1825a36eca996@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0610171640u58cccee0p78d1825a36eca996@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5389FC12-4965-49F9-9C80-241659F94799@mac.com> On Oct 17, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Emlyn wrote: > I love this list, people are too cool to be amazed by anything. Also > might have to do with people knowing waaay too much to be surprised > very often. > > Apologies for the stupid subject, btw, that was the subject line for > the vid on youtube, and there was no context to where it came from. > > I really want one of those whiteboards! > I can see, as I expect many here can, how to write the software to drive such a thing given a touch screen and its drivers. Step away from it being a touch screen and consider much the same thing drawn with a mouse and it becomes much less mysterious. But yeah, I would love one of these to play with. There used to be these screens you could mount on your computer display that would give you a touchscreen. I wonder if they still make those. In principle the same technology could be laid over any surface, calibrated and fed into a computer. The old ones were a bit simplistic in that they only tracked one point at a time. But that is how almost all mouse driven GUIs work. - s From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Oct 19 16:02:56 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:02:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <007f01c6f244$0ea7be50$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> <007f01c6f244$0ea7be50$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <28E8003F-B14D-4314-80A6-7DB8EC8F5279@mac.com> It is amazing the things that have been around a long time but resurface at last in front of more people and in commercial apps. I first saw equivalent physics programs back in the 80s and saw equivalent graphics interpretation albeit not on a touchscreen over a decade ago. Touch screen stuff was also around in the 80s. - s From eugen at leitl.org Thu Oct 19 16:10:56 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:10:56 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <5389FC12-4965-49F9-9C80-241659F94799@mac.com> References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0610171640u58cccee0p78d1825a36eca996@mail.gmail.com> <5389FC12-4965-49F9-9C80-241659F94799@mac.com> Message-ID: <20061019161055.GH6974@leitl.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:50:53AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > But yeah, I would love one of these to play with. There used to be > these screens you could mount on your computer display that would give > you a touchscreen. I wonder if they still make those. In principle > the same technology could be laid over any surface, calibrated and fed > into a computer. The old ones were a bit simplistic in that they > only tracked one point at a time. But that is how almost all mouse > driven GUIs work. I'm still amazed we don't have realtime body and gaze tracking, this being end-2006. The displays are becoming reasonably interesting (30" @ 2560 x 1600, something formerly only available in Xinerama), albeit not immersive (video projectors can be that, hopefully HDTV will drive the prices down). I'm looking forward to what the PS3 & Co will make possible. There's certainly enough crunch in a PS3 for useful machine vision (albeit only that, and little else). The Linux support rumour has been just confirmed, which makes the device a highly useful cluster component. I don't expect to need new desktop hardware until quadcores will become common (my current aging rig is a 2 GHz Athlon 64 on Ubuntu 6.06 LTS amd64/XP, 2 GBytes RAM, RAID 1, a passively cooled nVidia 7600 GS driving a 1280x1024 dual-head, and a similiar machine as a file server/crunch box -- it's good enough for Second Life, so it's more than sufficient for visualization). -- 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 16:49:22 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:49:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610182216j17929357p9ba6d5647a5d13d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0610181631j3ec91a58k7d571ad1c1220193@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0610182216j17929357p9ba6d5647a5d13d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/19/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > *shakes head* It's not really about resource shortages, never was. > Oh yes it is. Those "selfish genes" want to make more copies of themselves. Human social organizations are nothing more than highly complex systems on top of that fundamental drive. More resources guarantees males more "wives". More resources guarantees females a greater chance for survival of ones offspring. Jealousy, conquest, kidnapping or raping of young women, slavery, wars, exploration for and colonization of better locales, selling of explanations of reality (religions), etc. -- *ALL* go back to the fundamental genetically driven desire to make more copies of those genes. Humans are K-selected so it tends to be biased towards ensuring the survival of those offspring one does have. As humans tend to operate much more in the software (mental) realm than the hardware (physical) realm -- we morph the drive for the survival of our genetic offspring into a drive for the survival of our memetic offspring (in some cases). Getting genetic offspring requires "mates", getting memetic offspring requires followers. What drives conflict is pride, hate, the lust for power and the thrill of > wielding it once obtained, the joy of watching _them_ suffer - the referent > of "them" is almost infinitely fungible, but the drive is constant. > Pride, hate, lust, power, etc. are driven by the need to copy genetic and memetic material. I think deriving "joy" from the suffering of others (or mindless accumulation of power) is perhaps a warping of the need to generate control over ones environment which is a misdirection of the drive to guarantee the survival of ones offspring. If there is any truth to some of the psychology one sees on common TV shows today, it tends to be driven by those who experienced suffering or a lack of power when they were growing up (so it is in compensation for an environment forced upon them). There may be some people who have the "outside of the standard box" genetic mutations that cause them to be miswired at the neural level with respect to experiencing empathy towards those who are in situations that would result in suffering. I remind you that you yourself once proposed a campaign of nuclear genocide > against "faith-based thinkers", > Yes, and I still believe that the problem of those who follow without understanding or knowledge is a significant problem. And I've reached the point where, like Dennett, where I think the only way to deal with it is education before the meme sets are frozen in place. And it is going to be very very hard to keep those "addicted" to the propagation of faulty meme sets from continuing their practices. However, let us be *very* clear about one thing. I have no desire for power or wielding it. That suggestion was born out of the fear that 600-800 billion "followers" with significant sources of wealth (primarily controlled by an elite power group) represented a significant threat. It was based on calculations for the most efficient means for achieving "paradise" on Earth for the largest number of people in the shortest time. Because like it or not -- not having robust MNT *is* currently and will continue to cause an irrevocable loss of life [1]. and when you abandoned that you didn't move on to something driven by better > motives, only to something more socially acceptable - having people tortured > and raped for typing words on a computer keyboard. > I don't remember that so feel free to point out the message. I believe the end conclusion I reached was that providing people with alternate information sources was a reasonable approach (something the U.S. *is* doing with satellite news broadcasts in Arabic). I suspect tribal group think will make it relatively ineffective however. I had a conversation awhile ago with someone who believes we'll have > magic-genie nanotech here on Earth. Was he saying "great, no need for > conflict then, we'll have plenty of resources"? No, he was proposing a > global, inescapable tyranny with authority to arbitrarily suppress > technology in case the dreaded other uses it to obtain power. > It may come to that -- whether "human" or "artificial". And I for one am reconciled to the fact that I would not choose to live in either situation. There is a plateau of peaceful and constructive evolution on the top of the mountain surrounded on all sides by the various tyrannical cliffs. It is a plateau which seems very difficult to reach. No, the super-nanotech mythology is not the answer. Practical nanotech as a > means to Diaspora - that might get somewhere. > It only postpones the problem. As "The Wrath of Kahn" pointed out -- "Revenge is a dish best served cold." -- "I don't care, I'll get even with those Xyzzys -- Even if it takes me a thousand years or a million years or a trillion years." Diasporas can come back to haunt you. Black holes with sufficient mass and velocity can take out MBrains [2]. We either evolve to a point where we transcend the "natural" genetic and memetic driving forces or we end up being victims of them. Robert 1. Spending 500 billion dollars (and eventually probably more) on a ground war in Iraq is a significant fraction of the amount I once calculated as necessary for having robust MNT *now*. I view "paradise" for 5 billion people as perhaps being worth the sacrifice of a few tens of millions (since they are going to die anyway without robust MNT). And *yes* I do realize how this may sound to some people. You cannot fault the people who are clueless with respect to what is possible. But the people who have read EoC (now 20 years old), or who have read this list (and other similar lists) for many years *already* have blood all over their hands. 2. The only place & form which is "really" safe is as a cold intergalactic nano-robot swarm meme set constructed out of stable isotopes consuming only that energy required to repair damage caused by cosmic rays, neutrino bursts and an occasional high velocity ion one might encounter. You have to reduce your footprint to the point where harvesting or eliminating "you" costs much much more than would be gained by such acts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 19:01:13 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061019190113.71671.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In cases where rapid human re-population was necessary eg. deep space colonization, imminent existential disaster, etc. it would be useful to have the means to artificially "grow" fully developed human infants starting only with viable sperm and egg cells which can be easily stored (frozen) and transported (Or alternatively, using frozen human zygotes - eg. "test-tube babies"). I'm far from an expert in fertility, but it seems to me that we should already have the enabling technologies necessary for creating a fully functional "artificial" womb. It appears to me that the only necessary essentials are some form of support medium (for buoying the fetus - distilled water?) and a dynamic (modifiable) equivalent to the umbilical cord for supplying nutrients (amino acids, fatty acids, etc.) and removing wastes (urine). Biology should take care of the rest. Does this sound about right, or am I grossly oversimplifying things? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 19:44:22 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:44:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <28E8003F-B14D-4314-80A6-7DB8EC8F5279@mac.com> References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> <007f01c6f244$0ea7be50$0200a8c0@Nano> <28E8003F-B14D-4314-80A6-7DB8EC8F5279@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610191244t6376e56eld35320766f3a6348@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/06, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > It is amazing the things that have been around a long time but > resurface at last in front of more people and in commercial apps. I > first saw equivalent physics programs back in the 80s and saw > equivalent graphics interpretation albeit not on a touchscreen over a > decade ago. Touch screen stuff was also around in the 80s. > Yeah, I remember GO were one of the first outfits to do this sort of thing commercially, though it didn't take off back then. It seems to go like this a lot of the time: the first couple of attempts at an idea don't go anywhere because while the technology exists, it's still too expensive, clunky, unreliable; then it passes a certain threshold level and all of a sudden the next attempt succeeds big time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Oct 19 20:23:23 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:23:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: <20061019190113.71671.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061019190113.71671.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061019202323.GQ6974@leitl.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 12:01:13PM -0700, A B wrote: > In cases where rapid human re-population was necessary eg. deep space > colonization, imminent existential disaster, etc. it would be useful > to have the means to artificially "grow" fully developed human infants The bottleneck is not breeding, but raising them. And if you have robots good enough to avoid hospitalism, why at all bothering with people? -- 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 Oct 19 20:30:13 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:30:13 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610191244t6376e56eld35320766f3a6348@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> <007f01c6f244$0ea7be50$0200a8c0@Nano> <28E8003F-B14D-4314-80A6-7DB8EC8F5279@mac.com> <8d71341e0610191244t6376e56eld35320766f3a6348@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061019203013.GR6974@leitl.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:44:22PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Yeah, I remember GO were one of the first outfits to do this sort of > thing commercially, though it didn't take off back then. It seems to > go like this a lot of the time: the first couple of attempts at an > idea don't go anywhere because while the technology exists, it's still > too expensive, clunky, unreliable; then it passes a certain threshold > level and all of a sudden the next attempt succeeds big time. Immersive VR has been overdue for well over 15 years now, and we don't even have robust slates you could use in the bathtub. Is this pathetic, or what? -- 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 Thu Oct 19 20:41:20 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:41:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610181631j3ec91a58k7d571ad1c1220193@mail.gmail.co m> References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061019161524.03d4b820@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:31 AM 10/19/2006 +0100, Russell wrote: >On 10/18/06, Robert Bradbury ><robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote: >>You and/or the Lifeboat foundation should probably rethink this. I've >>devoted a *lot* of thought over the years to external hazard function >>minimization -- I'm not sure putting anything in space is the way to go. > >The point being missed is that what we need isolation from isn't matter, >it's ideas. > >Giant rail guns, killer robots, swarms of flesh-eating nanites - they're >like Satan and Cthulhu, reifications of our fears, because it's in our >nature to put a visually imaginable face on things. They don't _literally_ >exist; they need to be taken on the correct level, as metaphors. > >The reason Earth isn't big enough is that it's not _psychologically >perceived_ as big enough, not now that we can span it in hours in person >and in milliseconds by proxy. Materially it could support everyone in >comfort and safety - considerably more than its current population if its >resources were used more efficiently - but that's not how our psychology >works. We need the _perception_ of an open frontier, so that our efforts >will start being turned outwards rather than inwards against each other: I have spent a lot of effort on this subject recently. What seems to actually be the case is we need the perception of an improving future to keep us out of war mode. An open frontier will very often do that, but consider this counter example: The US really had an open frontier in the 1860. The people of the South foresaw (correctly) economic hard times a-coming with the loss of slaves and went to war anyway. If you want to keep people out of war mode, expanding the economy, particularly food production, faster than the population grows seems to be the ticket. In practice that means low birth rates. >http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/frontier.html > >I don't agree with the specifics of Zubrin's plans, but he's right about >one thing: opening the space frontier is the only way to go. I agree with you about opening up space, but I don't think anyplace in the solar system will be safe. Unfortunately the technology and wealth to go out on starships seems to lie on the other side of the singularity when (perhaps) most of the danger is past. Keith Henson From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 20:52:34 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: <20061019202323.GQ6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20061019205234.18763.qmail@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Eugen, I was mostly thinking in terms of a safeguard against a relatively nearer-term existential risk (say, shortly after MNT but still before AGI) where this technology could be incorporated into a self-sustaining space colony which could maintained by a skeleton crew until the remaining dangers on Earth or wherever could be mitigated (hopefully). For example, the sperm and eggs could remain frozen in liquid nitrogen (essentially indefinitely) and the LN2 could in turn be maintained by the coldness of space (unless I am mistaken). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Eugen Leitl wrote: On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 12:01:13PM -0700, A B wrote: > In cases where rapid human re-population was necessary eg. deep space > colonization, imminent existential disaster, etc. it would be useful > to have the means to artificially "grow" fully developed human infants The bottleneck is not breeding, but raising them. And if you have robots good enough to avoid hospitalism, why at all bothering with people? -- 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 19 20:07:56 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:07:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fictional Singularity Movie In-Reply-To: <00a401c6f2c4$048ed860$270a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20061017024123.60596.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061017184138.0218f100@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061019155740.03dc05d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:44 AM 10/18/2006 -0400, you wrote: >Let me see if I can guess what a Hollywood made Singularity movie would be >like. snip I have been working on a singularity based novel that a bunch of you read and oddly I happen know a Hollywood script writer who looked at it. This is what he said: Subject: Re: Your chapter/story Keith, you gave me exactly what's needed to make a movie below. - They're there to help people, supposedly. It all looks good. - Zaba catches on what's happening. Don't make her a native, make her an American over there working. Then you'd get Halle Berry. - If she is going to expose the "they're killing them!" part of it, then you have machines, high tech and bad guys after her. That's good for a movie. - You need a love interest and she needs to be of movie star age. If you do those things, you'd have a movie. XXXX snip XXXX >>I'm not sure how this could be a screenplay that anyone would make into a movie. The clinic turns the village into a weird paradise where people spend all their time in spirit world with their bodies in suspended state. Zaba just kind of fades out despite her fascinating transformation. >>Where's the jeopardy or conflict? KH Think about it. At the end of this segment, the entire physical population of Africa is *gone.* Sure they could come back but the "things" they have changed into don't want to. Effectively the entire population has been removed from the biosphere and *animals* get to live in their home. They have been seduced by self motivated AIs far out of control--or are they? The AIs were created by western culture (using Chinese engineers?) and (perhaps) uploaded humans from western culture who sell them in a not for profit mode to 3rd world cultures. The clinics remove humans from the world much more effectively than epidemics depopulated the new world. Thought about this way, the conflict is there. Do humans win or lose? Good question! Next question? Of course the technology created to deal once and for all with the human misery of Africa gets out of control in the western culture and North America is down to about 5 million people at the time the main story takes place. This section is a 60 year flashback. Was the depopulation of the western world intentional or unintentional? The people who are left have all the support they want to raise more children in an attempt to keep physical state humans from going extinct. Why the AIs want this is hard to understand. Pets? Esthetics? Though it is never stated this way, the story could be read as one of those "be careful what you wish for, you might *get* it." XXXX >>For a screenplay you'd need Zaba upfront as a character. You'd need her "new" state to cause some consternation or challenging by the elders. You could have a clash of old and new, but you don't do that. KH This is being orchestrated by AIs who have a phenomenally deep understanding of human nature. That's why Zaba is inhibited from telling adults about her "interface" and why the never-suspected seduction goes so smoothly. Suskulan is actually the main character of the story. He has enough human aspects to his character to interact with the villagers, and is a reflection of the people and AIs who developed his "seed" character, but he is *far* more and controls nearly god-like powers. He is, however, totally content with his limits. He likes being a clinic and taking care of his "owners." Just for Africa "the foundation" set up to grow a million of him. More CGI for the places growing them and more for the delivery to the teams by air, but the cost would get out of hand. XXXX >>While imagery and the ideas are very well thought out, it's just a story about a sort of weird pre-programmed paradise that happens in Africa. In contrast, you might try to rent an old movie called "The God Must Be Crazy" made in South Africa to see a clash of civilizations story. KH One of my favorites. Saw it in theaters maybe a dozen times. Very funny movie. Point taken though. This could be a funny movie, but not if you get the underlying theme. Bitter-sweet at best. XXXX >>To make a script out of this you'd need a lot of thought and development. KH True. The movie version could have a one sequence of gore where you see the bullet doing a slow motion through Zaba, with a spray of blood and bone where it exits, her dropping like a stone, and being carried to Suskulan. But it has probably better stay as a short story/chapter in an unpublishable novel. Thanks and best wishes, Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 19 22:07:06 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:07:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610182216j17929357p9ba6d5647a5d13d5@mail.gmail.co m> References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0610181631j3ec91a58k7d571ad1c1220193@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061019180618.03c1b740@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Part 2 of the Azar Gat paper is here: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:78d9xtcPgCoJ:cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1a.pdf+%22azar+gat%22+hunter+gatherers+part+filetype:pdf&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5 Again, if you want a copy, get it before the cache expires. Keith Henson From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Oct 19 22:19:55 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:19:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Richard Dawkins on Colbert Report Message-ID: <25870823.1228101161296396014.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 22:14:04 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: <20061019190113.71671.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061019221405.40251.qmail@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I wrote earlier: "It appears to me that the only necessary essentials are some form of support medium (for buoying the fetus - distilled water?) and a dynamic (modifiable) equivalent to the umbilical cord for supplying nutrients (amino acids, fatty acids, etc.) and removing wastes (urine)." After a bit more consideration (sigh), it's likely that with today's technology, at least a portion of the umbilical system would have to remain biological (unless the zygote can appropriately "adapt" - which I doubt, but maybe) in order to "branch" along with all the dividing cells. [It occurred to me that a human is not an insect, and doesn't have an open circulatory system]. Also, it may be necessary to appropriately supply hormones through the umbilical (but again I don't have much knowledge in this area). Even so, it should still be feasible, even with today's limited technology. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich A B wrote: In cases where rapid human re-population was necessary eg. deep space colonization, imminent existential disaster, etc. it would be useful to have the means to artificially "grow" fully developed human infants starting only with viable sperm and egg cells which can be easily stored (frozen) and transported (Or alternatively, using frozen human zygotes - eg. "test-tube babies"). I'm far from an expert in fertility, but it seems to me that we should already have the enabling technologies necessary for creating a fully functional "artificial" womb. It appears to me that the only necessary essentials are some form of support medium (for buoying the fetus - distilled water?) and a dynamic (modifiable) equivalent to the umbilical cord for supplying nutrients (amino acids, fatty acids, etc.) and removing wastes (urine). Biology should take care of the rest. Does this sound about right, or am I grossly oversimplifying things? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster._______________________________________________ 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 hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 19 22:17:56 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:17:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610182216j17929357p9ba6d5647a5d13d5@mail.gmail.co m> References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0610181631j3ec91a58k7d571ad1c1220193@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061019181603.03c28e88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> I seem to have copies of the Azar Gat papers in .pdf if anyone wants them by email. Part II is just as good. Keith Part II: Proximate, Subordinate, and Derivative Causes The interconnected competition over resources and reproduction, surveyed in Part I of this study, is the root cause of conflict and fighting in humans as in all other animal species. Other causes and expressions of fighting in nature, and the motivational and emotional mechanisms associated with them, are derivative of, and subordinate to, these primary causes, and originally evolved this way in humans as well. This, of course, does not make them any less 'real' but only explains their function in the evolution-shaped motivational complex, and, thus, how they came to be. It is to these 'second floor' causes and motivational mechanisms, directly linked to the first, that we now turn. Dominance: rank, power, status, prestige Among social mammals and primates, higher rank in the group gives improved share in communal resources, such as hunting spoils, and better access to females. In some species, such as baboons and wolves, rank differences are sharp, with the so-called 'alpha' males (and sometimes also females) reaping most of the advantages, relative to the other group members. Even in those social species, like the chimpanzees, where group relations are more egalitarian, 'leadership' positions confer considerable somatic and reproductive advantages. For this reason, rank in the group is hotly contested among social mammals and social primates. Status rivalry is acute and never-ending. It is the strong, fierce, and - among our sophisticated cousins, the chimpanzees - also the 'politically' astute, that win status by the actual and implied use of force (Goodall 1986; de Waal 1996). Rivalry for rank and domination in nature is, then, a proximate means in the competition for resources and reproduction. Closer to the chimpanzees' pattern, human groups in the 'state of nature' . . . From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Oct 19 22:47:44 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:47:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Richard Dawkins on Colbert Report In-Reply-To: <25870823.1228101161296396014.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <25870823.1228101161296396014.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <45380090.2070103@goldenfuture.net> Hilarious. Thanks for the link. Joseph pjmanney wrote: > Isn't it always the right time for a good laugh? Dawkins vs. Colbert. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA9EiSJaXww > > PJ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From neomorphy at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 00:57:20 2006 From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:57:20 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: <20061019190113.71671.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061019190113.71671.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: We're a loooooong way from exogenesis. Yes, you are oversimplifying things. Consider mother-baby immune development as a starting point. On 10/20/06, A B wrote: > > Biology should take care of the rest. Does this sound about right, or am > I grossly oversimplifying things? > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Oct 19 23:52:36 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:52:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Richard Dawkins on Colbert Report Message-ID: <380-2200610419235236739@M2W011.mail2web.com> From: Joseph Bloch transhumanist at goldenfuture.net >Hilarious. Thanks for the link. Funny! The host was a bit of goof, but Dawkins cleverly maneuvered around him. (Thanks PJ, Hope you are feeling better.) Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Fri Oct 20 01:45:23 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:45:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Richard Dawkins on Colbert Report In-Reply-To: <380-2200610419235236739@M2W011.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200610419235236739@M2W011.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <45382A33.2010103@goldenfuture.net> That's Colbert's schtick. He poses as an uber-right-winger (at times... he is wonderfully ambiguous about his character's politics at times), and is enormously talented at being spontaneously bizarre, always coming back to his original point in the end. Joseph nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >From: Joseph Bloch transhumanist at goldenfuture.net > > > >>Hilarious. Thanks for the link. >> >> > >Funny! The host was a bit of goof, but Dawkins cleverly maneuvered around >him. > >(Thanks PJ, Hope you are feeling better.) > >Natasha > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >mail2web - Check your email from the web at >http://mail2web.com/ . > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 02:32:08 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:32:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space colony behind the moon? In-Reply-To: References: <21854155.950131161106029834.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <20061017194513.64622.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8d71341e0610181631j3ec91a58k7d571ad1c1220193@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0610182216j17929357p9ba6d5647a5d13d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610191932j388ec2awc911383d3c5cc37a@mail.gmail.com> On 10/19/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Oh yes it is. Those "selfish genes" want to make more copies of > themselves. > If you look at my last post, you'll note that I explicitly distinguished between evolutionary and psychological causation. Selfish genes can create genuinely altruistic brains; the flipside of the coin is genes that are only competing for resources can create brains whose psychological motives for cruelty have nothing to do with those resources, and which remain in place long after the shortage thereof is over. I don't remember that so feel free to point out the message. > I refer to your support for imprisoning spammers. The problem is that while murder, torture, rape, slavery and genocide existed in our ancestral environment, prison did not, therefore our sympathy instincts don't register it. The end result is that civilized men who would never dream of personally committing rape, for example, are quiet happy to have it carried out on their behalf provided the victims are inside the psychological teflon of prison. I've decided to try calling it by the names of the deeds it covers, and see if that gets people's attention. 1. Spending 500 billion dollars (and eventually probably more) on a ground > war in Iraq is a significant fraction of the amount I once calculated as > necessary for having robust MNT *now*. > It's further away than that, but I agree completely that accelerating development of nanotechnology should be a very high priority and would be a far better use for money than almost all the things being done with it today. To that end, let's not pollute the meme pool and do the luddites' work for them with fairy tales about grey goo, magic utility fog, instantly disassembling the solar system for atoms etc. Let's keep a grip on the distinction between fantasy and real life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george at betterhumans.com Thu Oct 19 19:50:13 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:50:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: <20061019190113.71671.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061019190113.71671.qmail@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4537D6F5.703@betterhumans.com> A B wrote: > Does this sound about right, or am I grossly > oversimplifying things? You're oversimplifying. First, all fetus's require nutrients from the mother's blood stream. This means that an artificial womb would somehow have to duplicate the mother's blood exactly. Moreover, the mother's blood changes hour to hour depending on her intake; pregnant women have unpredictable food cravings and aversions during pregnancy -- all of which are evolutionary adaptations that help in the gestational process. Moreover, infants require motion, tactile stimulation (e.g. expectant mothers rub their bellies), and auditory and even visual stimulation. After child birth, babies need to breastfeed. Pregnancy prepares the mother's body physically and hormonally to nuture infants outside of the womb. Newborns require skin-to-skin contact that helps in bonding and perceptual development. And no artificial baby milk has come even close to matching mother's milk. There is more than just the ideal proportion of proteins, fats (including long-chain polyunsaturated lipids that are essential for optimal neurodevelopment), and carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals present in breastmilk that change even during one feed; breastmilk also contains human-specific immune factors, growth factors, anti-bacterial agents, anti-viral properties, anti-fungal properties, and anti-inflammatory properties. Also, the health risks associated with not bearing children or lactating must be weighed against the potential health benefits to a woman for not bearing children. Specifically, breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers are significantly lower for women who have born and breastfed children. Cheers, George From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 02:49:07 2006 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:49:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place In-Reply-To: <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: On 10/1/06, Joseph Bloch wrote: > I am appalled at your ignorance as to what an Islamist is. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism will provide a starting point. > http://www.jihadwatch.org will yield a wealth of further information. > And as far as their having no power to attain their ends, I direct your > attention to their successful usurpation of a sovereign nation > (Afghanistan), and their ongoing attempts to repeat that feat in other > nations (Afghanistan again, Iraq, Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan, et al). Your use of the term 'usurpation' is faulty. The countries you list are all Muslim nations with a long history of foreign intrusion -- European invasion, conquest, subjugation, and exploitation (sanitized in Western political mythology with the term "colonialism"). When the locals -- Muslims all -- turn to their one durable and respected cultural institution, their faith/mosques/clerics, seeking security and stability, it's hardly usurpation. It's more like genuine democracy. > If they can take over one nation, and have a credible shot at taking > over others, then they are a threat that must be addressed. When people who have been invaded and assaulted, defend themselves, they become "terrorists". When they prove to have the audacity, the grit, and the military talent to win, then they become "a threat". And to think that they would dare to assert themselves in this manner in their own country.... Have they no respect for the neocon declaration of world dominion!? Don't they know who's in charge?! Have these backward peoples not yet learned the crucial mantra of obeisance, to wit: "How high?" This is the twisted criminal logic of reality-challenged neocon war-mongers and their craven and obsequious Republican(and Democrat) base. > And if you > don't think Iran's ongoing attempts to secure the ability to produce > nuclear weapons are part of this threat, Iran has invaded no one. Iran has been invaded and abused(an exceedingly mild term for what they've had to endure at the hands of the West), their moderate, secular, democratically-elected government overthrown by the CIA (which is to say the US political elite), replaced with a brutal tyrant, who on behalf of the US, savaged his own people and looted their national treasure. Then, when those Islamists --the same ones you seek to demonize -- rescued the nation (with a spot of help from terminal cancer/mother nature) from the quarter century of depredations at the hands of enemies foreign and domestic, those foreign enemies (the US political elite) then throw their support behind Saddam Hussein in his unprovoked, opportunistic war of aggression against them. A war in which WMD's are employed, millions of innocent Iranians are killed (murdered might be an apt term to use here), and billions in national treasure are lost in defending the country. No people/country on the planet is more justified in seeking the credible deterrence offered by nuclear weapons. **They** are the ones who are threatened, and the US power elite are the threat. So, you see, you've got it turned precisely around. Not surprising from one who has drunk deep of the American exceptionalist Kool-aid. > then I must conclude that you > are simply so blinded by your partisanship It is you sir that is blinded by partisanship. > threat until you are faced with a law requiring the burqa in California > (if then). > >> The goal of the Islamists; a global Caliphate... ,,,Is indeed so silly a fear-mongering fantasy that it simultaneously embarrasses and and disqualifies whoever puts it forth from being taken seriously. > ... this nation really does face an external threat of > hitherto-unseen proportions. This is reality-challenged. > It's not about people in power in the U.S. Yes, it exactly is. > And, for the record, I am well aware of, and highly concerned about, the > Dominionist movement, but I daresay that a handful of well-connected > Dominionists don't quite rise to the level of threat posted by millions > of Islamists inspired by their ridiculous faith (as all faiths are > ridiculous) to impose their vision of their faith on every single human > being on this planet by deadly force, and being willing to kill > themselves to advance that goal. > > Unless I have somehow missed the hordes of Baptist suicide bombers Indeed, the Baptists don't advocate suicide bombing, they advocate homicide bombing. -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 20 03:21:05 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:21:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: <4537D6F5.703@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <200610200333.k9K3XcB1018342@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb > > A B wrote: > > Does this sound about right, or am I grossly > > oversimplifying things? Ja, wildly oversimplifying. The mother-baby system is unimaginably complicated, with hormonal feedback control systems that are poorly understood to this day. Consider that no mammal has been gestated in an artificial womb, living subjects upon which can be experimented freely. We could theoretically take a mammalian fetus out of the womb and surgically arrange an external umbilical cord. Of course the animal rights people wouldn't like it one bit. But as far as I know it has never been done. We are a long ways off from artificial wombs for humans methinks. spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 05:23:56 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:23:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: <200610200333.k9K3XcB1018342@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <4537D6F5.703@betterhumans.com> <200610200333.k9K3XcB1018342@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 10/19/06, spike wrote: > Ja, wildly oversimplifying. The mother-baby system is unimaginably > complicated, with hormonal feedback control systems that are poorly > understood to this day. It isn't unimaginably complicated. There are only ~38,000 genes in the human genome. Only a small subset of those produce secreted proteins in the bloodstream (I'd guess perhaps 10% or less). Limit this to known hormones and one is talking less than 100 different molecules. Compare this to ~10 million parts in CVN-76. I'm surprised Spike to hear a person in your position, considering some of the things your company has built, making an argument that the delivery of a moderately complex mixture of materials from source to destination with a few feedback loops as being "unimaginably complicated". Consider that no mammal has been gestated in anartificial womb, living > subjects upon which can be experimented freely. We could theoretically take > a mammalian fetus out of the womb and surgically arrange an external > umbilical cord. Of course the animal rights people wouldn't like it one > bit. But as far as I know it has never been done. We are a long ways off > from artificial wombs for humans methinks. Oh, I don't think we would be that far away if someone wanted to throw a couple of billion $ at it (the price of aircraft carriers). The problem of course is that natural wombs are a much "cheaper" source of the desired product and people don't take the need for artificial wombs (e.g. jump starting humanity elsewhere) very seriously. That said, I heard a number of years ago that the Japanese were working on the problem due to the decline in population in Japan which was due in part due to women apparently wanting to have fewer children and in many cases only one child. I've not heard whether or not they ran into difficulties -- but I believe that was before human genome completion and more modern methods of tissue bioengineering -- now it would be a much different ballgame. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 06:06:29 2006 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: <4537D6F5.703@betterhumans.com> Message-ID: <20061020060629.29119.qmail@web56509.mail.re3.yahoo.com> George: As for the health risks associated with NOT bearing children -- these are things that, I would hope in the future, become negligible due to more effective biological monitoring and cancer prevention measures. And I certainly don't think it would be appropriate for a woman with no interest in actually raising or caring for children to bear them on the basis that doing so would result in some degree of risk management WRT cancer. Childbirth is still far more of a health hazard than anything associated with NOT having children; people still do die in childbirth or experience complications like pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes (which can become permanent), or thyroid dysfunction following it. Not to mention inconveniences that can follow the process (like incontinence and stretching of tissues you don't necessarily want stretched!) I think your statements about the optimized environment provided by the biological womb are valid and scientifically sound, however, I think that the very idea of childbearing as personal risk-management is quite a gamble indeed. Though perhaps part of cancer management in the future might provide for a sort of hormonal treatment that could simulate pregnancy in the chemical sense without actually requiring that the woman gestate a fetus. - Anne --------------------------------- 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 eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 20 06:51:38 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:51:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purged Ohio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] Message-ID: <20061020065138.GV6974@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from Peter Langston ----- From: Peter Langston Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:43:42 -0700 To: Peter Langston Subject: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purged Ohio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early! Reply-To: psl at acm.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) Forwarded-by: David Michael [I guess October Surprise Season is officially open... -psl] Excerpt: "This doesn't eliminate the fact your Diebold System is utterly hackable, but it certainly explains how Rove plans to drag all your races into the margin of error so hitting the Diebold Button to steal the election doesn't look so obvious." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/85915/109 ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purged Ohio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early. by KStreetProjector Wed Oct 18, 2006 at 05:59:14 AM PDT A friend, in a position to be present at lunches of GOP insiders here in DC called me on Thursday, they know of my ongoing efforts to make hackable voting end. My friend was present as a group of Moderate GOP members with Ohio ties lamented how far the party had strayed. There was consensus at the table there was no way they should retain control. The table conversation began with the assumption they party would lose control in this election. The moderates started planning how to take back control of the GOP from the extremists. Then, one insider, probably an extremist, but certainly very close to Mr. Ken Mehlman abruptly stopped the conversation. He told table that it was impossible they would lose either house. He also predicts an Ohio GOP sweep. He informed the group that over the last year, in four critical states the GOP needs to hold, huge purges of the voter rolls have just been finished. The insider did not say which four states, but did say Ohio was among them. His claim was a new Diebold voter registry system had been installed over the last year. The last week of July and the first week of August a "test run" was made of the systems ability to purge ineligible voters. The purge generated names and test letters sent out to 1.2 million Ohio addresses with a focus on Universities, Apartment addresses with high turnover. He claims they made the letters seem just functionary, but they have an action component to avoid being purged from the rolls. The Insider warmed and said that Blackwell was brilliant in how he did this. The letter went on for a long time about changes in Ohio voting and security and suggested people who might have any concerns about their voting status could come by county offices and confirm their continued voting eligibility before election day. He further added, that since it was conducted as a "test" they only sent letters to a limited number of suspect addresses and "I suspect Blackwell chose criteria very very favorable for us." Further the insider stated that Blackwell had only purged the lists after a full 60 days was given for people to respond. Which means even if a voter was on the "termination" list, they would still have been eligible to vote in the primary. He told they table they believe the purge has probably caught up "hundreds of thousands of students, activists and wanderers with no real job" would show up at the polls and have to vote provisionally. He predicted to the table that tens of thousands of voters will show up on election day, and once the provisionals are used up will simply not be able to vote at all. He also said that this "operation" (The Insiders word, my friend was specific about this "had turned up a lot of additional fascinating information including a number of Democrats in elected office who are registered to vote in several places, and they may explore how to use this information against them." I am going to assume, Mr. Blackwell's "test" purge went to no-one registered GOP. His criteria is something I am trying to get a copy of now. Friday I called friends in Lorain County and Wayne County Ohio. I told them this DC tale. Neither of them had voted yet and I asked them if they could go on Monday to either early vote, or apply for an absentee ballot. And if possible sit for in the Elections Office for an hour and determine if anyone was expressing surprise they were no longer registered. If the sample of 11AM-1PM in Lorain County Ohio and 10AM-11AM in Wayne County Ohio are true. Then Ohio Democratic Voters had better go and Vote Early if they plan to vote at all. At Lorain County, my friend arrived to find a line of over 15 people, many of whom had come back for a second time, all of them Democrats who had arrived to vote and been told that Drivers License Information, or in one case Home Ownership Information had not matched the address provided for Voter Registration. In one case a college student had been purged because he had changed dorms on campus. In another case a local blue-collar worker had been purged because his voter registration had only his building address, but his drivers license included an apartment number. This tiny difference in information had led to his purging. While everyone present seemed to have enough information to allow the records to be updated, my friend told me it was being done by one and only one clerk and was taking a very long time, about 5 minutes per person to resolve. Everyone in line confirmed that several voters had given up in frustration and left. In Wayne County the sample is smaller, but during the one hour he stated 18 people arrived for absentee ballots or to vote early. Wayne County had 3 Diebold TSX Touch Screens set up for early voters. Of those who arrived two of them had been provisionally purged. The first was again a student from a local college, she was sent away and told she had to bring some ID beyond her student ID to prove she was resident at the College. She was wearing a Sherrod Brown button. The second was a local guy who owns two houses on the same block. His drivers license is to the one house where he keeps his cars, but his voter roll is in his house where he actually sleeps four houses away. This got resolved with a series of steps that included filling out two forms, and a clerk having to enter the corrected information into two separate computers. As an added bonus, My friend listened in and witnessed 8 retired ladies getting instructions on how to be poll workers on the new TSX machines. The instructor was a local elections board member. She was asked many questions by one of the retirees and her answer to almost all of them was "I don't know how it works, I just know how we are supposed to use it" Get ready Ohio. This story also may explain Mr. Blackwell's sudden discovery of the "two homes and is he really a qualified Voter" now facing Strickland. This Blackwell discovery of Mr. Strickland is actually "by-catch" of the much larger net thrown to eliminate hundred of thousands of democrats from the voting rolls. ACTION: Get to your election boards, bring all the documentation you can. Demand a paper absentee ballot. Alert everyone you know in Ohio. Good luck out there. This doesn't eliminate the fact your Diebold System is utterly hackable, but it certainly explains how Rove plans to drag all your races into the margin of error so hitting the Diebold Button to steal the election doesn't look so obvious. He has taken away your right to vote based on any piece of mismatched information in your state records. I would expect that would be nearly everyone if the test was applied across the board. But I suspect it was not done that way by Mr. Blackwell. It might be worth other states starting to look at this issue as well. They are very much in love with the power they have my friends. I am increasingly afraid this one ends as another of my friends now says very often: "By Feeding the Tree of Liberty." ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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 sjatkins at mac.com Fri Oct 20 06:59:50 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:59:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] on democracy and the coming US vote Message-ID: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Oct 20 08:55:28 2006 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:55:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Richard Dawkins on Colbert Report References: <25870823.1228101161296396014.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <45380090.2070103@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <012201c6f425$e3ac8760$0200a8c0@Nano> Really great thanks! I'm still smiling. 'animator for hire' Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." ----- Original Message ----- From: Joseph Bloch To: ExI chat list Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Richard Dawkins on Colbert Report Hilarious. Thanks for the link. Joseph pjmanney wrote: > Isn't it always the right time for a good laugh? Dawkins vs. Colbert. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA9EiSJaXww > > PJ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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 george at betterhumans.com Fri Oct 20 12:57:53 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:57:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Artificial" Womb In-Reply-To: <20061020060629.29119.qmail@web56509.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <20061020060629.29119.qmail@web56509.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4538C7D1.5080203@betterhumans.com> Anne Corwin wrote: > George: As for the health risks associated with NOT bearing children -- > these are things that, I would hope in the future, become negligible due > to more effective biological monitoring and cancer prevention measures. Thanks for bring that up -- I actually agree and hope you're right. I was just pointing out the current realities. Cheers, George From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 13:28:57 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:28:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purged Ohio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <20061020065138.GV6974@leitl.org> References: <20061020065138.GV6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 10/20/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > ----- Forwarded message from Peter Langston ----- > From: Peter Langston > Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:43:42 -0700 [snip] Interesting. I used to work with Peter Langston. One of the most creative programmers I ever encountered. If he is forwarding it I think it is worth people taking note of it. If one collectively considers the cited example of voter role manipulation, the past district line redrawing games and the recent problem of congressional staffers playing name calling and smear tactic games in Wikipedia [1] then there is a significant segment of the political "corporation" which has really gone over the cliff. On a positive note, I caught part of Charlie Rose's interview with Barack Obama last night discussing his recent book and a variety of political topics. I thought he was very good. Made me feel that there may still be some good, sensible politicians out there. Robert 1. Last I knew congressional IP addresses were still barred from editing Wikipedia pages. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:10:56 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:10:56 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prison Earth? [was: Space colony behind the moon?] Message-ID: On 10/19/06, Keith Henson wrote: > I agree with you about opening up space, but I don't think anyplace in the > solar system will be safe. Unfortunately the technology and wealth to go > out on starships seems to lie on the other side of the singularity when > (perhaps) most of the danger is past. > Some of you may have noticed Bush's recent recasting of the U.S. position on space to place an emphasis on U.S. dominanation of that frontier [1-4]. The implication is that it potentially allows the U.S. to deny access to space to anyone it considers to be a "threat to national security". A team of nanoengineers leaving the environs of the Earth for other resource rich regions of the solar system would certainly qualify under that label. Now fortunately unless "deep" surveillance becomes completely ubiquitous it probably would not be difficult for a team of nanoengineers to launch a handful of nanorobots to a passing NEO for resource development purposes. So while "we" might never be allowed to leave the planet, our agents might well make the leap. The interesting thing that the U.S. government has to worry about vis-a-vis permanent space colonies is a revolt against the motherland. It has happened before... Robert 1. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/us_space_policy/print.html 2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15172149/ 3. http://www.space.com/news/061007_bush_spacepolicy.html 4. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1715559/posts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 20 16:30:03 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:30:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610201640.k9KGeg5c007606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [psl at acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] The most remarkable aspect of the notion of paperless voting is not how easy it would be to hack. Most of us realize that any paperless system could be theoretically hacked. The thing that I find much more remarkable is how very easy it would be to design a system that would be verifiable. How many ways can you imagine? Consider: Voting place, barrel of unique random numbered tickets, you choose one. They give you the magnetic card that records your vote, you insert your card, enter your number off the ticket, no one knows who got what number so the vote is secret, you do the touch-screen thing, machine creates a receipt with a printed bar code registering your choices, not human readable so you still maintain secrecy. The day after the elections, a website with an enormous excel spreadsheet, records of every ticket number with how that ticket voted, still completely secret if you kept your ticket number to yourself. You verify the vote is recorded the way you thought you voted. If not, go to the news people with your ticket and your voting receipt. Then see if all the erroneous votes are for the same guy or proposition. Evolution damn, how easy is this? This would be cheap and easy, and would establish actual credibility of a paperless election. It would be more credible than the old punchcard elections too. spike From sentience at pobox.com Sat Oct 21 01:59:19 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:59:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <200610201640.k9KGeg5c007606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610201640.k9KGeg5c007606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <45397EF7.3050305@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > The most remarkable aspect of the notion of paperless voting is not how easy > it would be to hack. Most of us realize that any paperless system could be > theoretically hacked. The thing that I find much more remarkable is how > very easy it would be to design a system that would be verifiable. How many > ways can you imagine? Consider: > > Voting place, barrel of unique random numbered tickets, you choose one. > They give you the magnetic card that records your vote, you insert your > card, enter your number off the ticket, no one knows who got what number so > the vote is secret, you do the touch-screen thing, machine creates a receipt > with a printed bar code registering your choices, not human readable so you > still maintain secrecy. The day after the elections, a website with an > enormous excel spreadsheet, records of every ticket number with how that > ticket voted, still completely secret if you kept your ticket number to > yourself. You verify the vote is recorded the way you thought you voted. > If not, go to the news people with your ticket and your voting receipt. > Then see if all the erroneous votes are for the same guy or proposition. > > Evolution damn, how easy is this? This would be cheap and easy, and would > establish actual credibility of a paperless election. It would be more > credible than the old punchcard elections too. The problem is that it then becomes possible to buy votes and verify that people voted the way they said they would... ...which isn't really much of a problem compared to entire elections being stolen out of hand, so I'd say go for it. It is, however, the excuse that the existing gameplayers would use not to adopt the system. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 21 05:13:37 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:13:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <45397EF7.3050305@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200610210514.k9L5EBUq029648@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky ... > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [psl at acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell > purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] > > spike wrote: > > ... This would be cheap and easy, and > > would establish actual credibility of a paperless election... > > The problem is that it then becomes possible to buy votes and verify > that people voted the way they said they would... > > ...which isn't really much of a problem compared to entire elections > being stolen out of hand, so I'd say go for it. > > It is, however, the excuse that the existing gameplayers would use not > to adopt the system... Eliezer S. Yudkowsky Hmmm, ja I did overlook that possibility. In principle I would think the issue is get-aroundable however. It is illegal to solicit to buy votes, so send around a number of under-cover operatives seeking to sell their vote. The offer to buy a vote must come before the election, since it makes little sense to pay for one afterwards. Then the potential vote buyer would run the risk of getting caught before the election, which could defeat the purpose of trying to buy votes in the first place. A potential vote buyer would need to avoid soliciting strangers, relying more upon those who are known to the buyer, which in many cases would again be a waste, for the well-knowns would already likely vote the way the buyer wants. The known opposition would be too likely to report the vote buyer to the local authorities. I don't know Eli, the whole election thing is mired in paradox. For instance: We go on and on about cheating at the election booth, but what about cheating in the opinion polls before the election? Those opinion polls may effect the outcome of an election, yet as far as I know there is no law against falsely reporting the outcome of an opinion poll, or designing an opinion poll to come out a certain way, or to select respondents with at least 10 sets of earrings. (Conservatives generally avoid punching holes in their bodies. Any person with more than two earrings or with earrings in any body part other than the earlobes are not conservative voters. Pollsters can easily select or deselect these if they wish.) Newspapers shamelessly spin the news to possibly effect election outcomes, completely without consequence. Or so I would have thought until I saw this today: http://cbs5.com/californiawire/CA--MercuryNews-Layof_k_n_0ca--/resources_new s_html The Merc will always endorse any proposition that costs money, and will never endorse any tax cut for any reason. Less of their news is welcome news to me. spike From exi at syzygy.com Sat Oct 21 06:44:00 2006 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 21 Oct 2006 06:44:00 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Buying votes. [Was: ... Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <200610210514.k9L5EBUq029648@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <45397EF7.3050305@pobox.com> <200610210514.k9L5EBUq029648@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061021064400.31822.qmail@syzygy.com> >> spike wrote: >> > ... This would be cheap and easy, and >> > would establish actual credibility of a paperless election... >> >> The problem is that it then becomes possible to buy votes and verify >> that people voted the way they said they would... >> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > >Hmmm, ja I did overlook that possibility. In principle I would think the >issue is get-aroundable however. Yes, I think it is. Here's my solution: All votes get publicly reported with a random identification number. This means anyone can add up all of the published votes, and they better get the published totals. The total number of votes cast is recorded at various granularities, so multiple people are in a good position to verify that extra votes are not being added into the system. Each voter receives a printout of their vote, and the ID number assigned to it, printed by the machine that they enter their vote on. They can choose to keep or dispose of any parts of this record. If they keep at least the ID, they can look it up in the public database and insure that their vote was counted. This would, of course, allow a vote buyer to verify that the voter delivered the promised vote. So, how do we prevent this? The system allows NEGATIVE votes. A voter can cast as many pairs of votes tallying to zero as they wish. They receive a vote record for each individual vote, and thus can verify that both the positive and negative votes in a pair are being counted. In addition to the (zero or more) pairs of cancelling votes, the voter can enter exactly one vote record which is not cancelled. When a voter begins voting, they choose either a simple, single vote, or a more complex multiple voting procedure. Only people whose votes are being bought or coerced would use the extra procedure. After entering the votes they wish to show to their buyer, they press a special button to cancel the previous vote. The machine automatically generates the proper negative votes and prints both voting records. This allows any voter to sell their vote as many times as they like, to as many different parties as are willing to pay. The voter can deliver proof to each vote buyer that their vote was included in the total. No one, except the voter, knows which votes were cancelled. Now, someone wishing to buy a vote needs to make sure that the voter doesn't use the cancellation mechanism. The buyer could try to insure that the voter leaves the polling place with exactly one vote record, which is the one they've bought. To thwart this, the voter would need to destroy all of the other records before leaving the polling place. But then they couldn't verify their complete voting record. So, at each machine we have a drop box and a bunch of envelopes. The voter can seal as many records as they desire into envelopes, and affix addresses and stamps, and drop them in the drop box before leaving the polling machine. If a voter believes that mail to them may be intercepted and searched by vote buyers, then they can choose friends to mail the vote records to. In the extreme case, they just have to trust that the system will count their vote, and destroy the records at the polling place. If the system works well enough, no vote buyer would waste their money. Politicians would never accept such a system... -eric From sentience at pobox.com Sat Oct 21 07:30:14 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:30:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <200610201640.k9KGeg5c007606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610201640.k9KGeg5c007606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4539CC86.3030104@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > Voting place, barrel of unique random numbered tickets, you choose one. > They give you the magnetic card that records your vote, you insert your > card, enter your number off the ticket, no one knows who got what number so > the vote is secret, you do the touch-screen thing, machine creates a receipt > with a printed bar code registering your choices, not human readable so you > still maintain secrecy. The day after the elections, a website with an > enormous excel spreadsheet, records of every ticket number with how that > ticket voted, still completely secret if you kept your ticket number to > yourself. You verify the vote is recorded the way you thought you voted. > If not, go to the news people with your ticket and your voting receipt. > Then see if all the erroneous votes are for the same guy or proposition. An additional problem is that false-positive votes can be added to the system. Messick's system permits false-negative votes, too. I'm sure this problem has been studied by cryptanalysts - I dimly recall hearing about some clever system involving blinded signatures. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 20 13:51:12 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:51:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] on democracy and the coming US vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061020085037.03d3cc20@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:59 AM 10/20/2006, you wrote: >"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for >lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin >Franklin Ha-ha! Leave it to Franklin to put things in perspective! Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, 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 Oct 21 14:16:09 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 07:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061021141609.597.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It would be interesting to display the Drake calculation (or a more "updated" variation of it) as a 3-D, statistical (even) distribution overlaying the Milky Way galaxy. It could provide a "probable" range of physical distances between "intelligent civilizations" - and might help with some insights into the Fermi Paradox ... ? 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 transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sat Oct 21 15:08:12 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:08:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <200610210514.k9L5EBUq029648@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610210514.k9L5EBUq029648@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <453A37DC.3080807@goldenfuture.net> spike wrote: >We go on and on about cheating at the election booth, but what about >cheating in the opinion polls before the election? Those opinion polls may >effect the outcome of an election, yet as far as I know there is no law >against falsely reporting the outcome of an opinion poll, or designing an >opinion poll to come out a certain way, or to select respondents with at >least 10 sets of earrings. (Conservatives generally avoid punching holes in >their bodies. Any person with more than two earrings or with earrings in >any body part other than the earlobes are not conservative voters. >Pollsters can easily select or deselect these if they wish.) > As a rule, the more transparant the pollster is willing to be concerning their methodology, the more you should be able to trust their results. If they are unwilling to publish the actual questions, or provide the complete script of a poll on request, that should raise red flags. Membership in AAPOR (the American Association of Public Opinion Research) is also a good indicator of a reputable polling outfit. AAPOR also has procedures for registering complaints against pollsters who violate its code of professional ethics and standards. There are self-correction mechanisms to deal with the sort of over-the-top fraud you describe, even if it isn't raised to the level of criminality. The reputable pollsters have as much interest as anyone in seeing the push-polls, salesmen-masquerading-as-pollsters, etc. removed from the scene, because the bad apples make the entire industry suspect. You should also note that the days of live interviewers with clipboards walking down the street and taking a poll are pretty much gone, so the sort of biasing sample by physical appearance you describe isn't much of an issue. The vast majority of election or other public opinion polling is done via telephone (usually RDD, or Random Digit Dial, although some use RBS, or Registration Based Sampling), with various means of screening respondents. It's possible, I suppose, that an election poll could have "do you have any body piercings" and use that as a screening question, but it seems a bit silly to do so when you can just as easily ask "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?", or "Are you conservative or liberal?" and weight the sample accordingly. Joseph From eugen at leitl.org Sat Oct 21 15:09:27 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:09:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <4539CC86.3030104@pobox.com> References: <200610201640.k9KGeg5c007606@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4539CC86.3030104@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20061021150927.GH6974@leitl.org> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 12:30:14AM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > An additional problem is that false-positive votes can be added to the > system. Messick's system permits false-negative votes, too. > > I'm sure this problem has been studied by cryptanalysts - I dimly recall > hearing about some clever system involving blinded signatures. You're still not getting the problem. There are many secure protocols. Protocols are useless if Jack and Jill can't verify them in location. Jack and Jill don't understand cryptography, and about nobody understands verifying tamper-proof systems. It's just a non-issue, paper works just great. Don't put anything in place which can be exploited. Unverifyable systems can and will. -- 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 spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 21 15:49:37 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:49:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <4539CC86.3030104@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200610211600.k9LG0OgG012562@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [psl at acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell > purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] > > spike wrote: > > > > Voting place, barrel of unique random numbered tickets, you choose one. ... > > If not, go to the news people with your ticket and your voting receipt. > > Then see if all the erroneous votes are for the same guy or proposition. > > An additional problem is that false-positive votes can be added to the > system. Messick's system permits false-negative votes, too... After the election, the remaining tickets in the barrel would be collected and recorded by a bipartisan committee. The number of remaining tickets in the barrel should agree with the number of tickets originally in the barrel minus the number of voters that came in, each counted by a pair of person- counters at the door. The false positive votes would require theft of tickets. Better, have the tickets more like dominoes, or some device that has enough mass so that if some are stolen before the election, the shortage can be measured with a postal scale. > I'm sure this problem has been studied by cryptanalysts - I dimly recall > hearing about some clever system involving blinded signatures. > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky I wonder why they are not using such systems, or something to increase the voter confidence in elections. Do the election people not realize that lack of confidence in the election process is becoming an ever more serious problem? Is it not a damn serious threat to democracy? spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Oct 21 16:30:38 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:30:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <20061021141609.597.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061021141609.597.qmail@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/21/06, A B wrote: > > It would be interesting to display the Drake calculation (or a more > "updated" variation of it) as a 3-D, statistical (even) distribution > overlaying the Milky Way galaxy. It could provide a "probable" range of > physical distances between "intelligent civilizations" - and might help with > some insights into the Fermi Paradox ... ? > This is only interesting if you scale the stars (and civilizations) at their level of development (incapable of supporting life, capable of supporting simple life, capable of supporting complex life, capable of supporting technological civilizations, post-singularity civilizations). The density of those various star states varies with general galactic position (and probably "local" galactic quadrant history). Of course its kind of hard to display the post-singularity civilizations -- because we _can't_ see them! Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Oct 21 16:45:11 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:45:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [psl@acm.org: ACTION ALERT: Blackwell purgedOhio Voter Rolls Oct 1st.- Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <200610211600.k9LG0OgG012562@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <4539CC86.3030104@pobox.com> <200610211600.k9LG0OgG012562@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 10/21/06, spike wrote: > > > I wonder why they are not using such systems, or something to increase the > voter confidence in elections. Do the election people not realize that > lack > of confidence in the election process is becoming an ever more serious > problem? Is it not a damn serious threat to democracy? They aren't using the systems because there isn't much of a demand for it. In case you haven't been watching the numbers the overall opinion of politicians as a whole in the U.S. is the lowest it has been in decades. I'm guessing the general consensus is that the special interests have hijacked the process and there isn't an easy way out. Electoral fraud is considered a small problem because the general perception is that one is merely exchanging one set of bums for another set of bums. When the debate is about which bums are worse interest begins to fade quite rapidly. If you wanted to significantly improve the system you should push for constitutional changes for term limits. As things stand now the people who have been reelected the most have far too much power. The threat to democracy is in large part coming from Washington lobbyists -- not the voting booths. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 21 16:52:16 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:52:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Buying votes. [Was: ... Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <20061021064400.31822.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: <200610211652.k9LGqXoC009406@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eric Messick > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:44 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Buying votes. [Was: ... Vote Early!] > > >> spike wrote: > >> > ... This would be cheap and easy, and > >> > would establish actual credibility of a paperless election... ... > > If the system works well enough, no vote buyer would waste their > money. Excellent ideas eric, thanks. > > Politicians would never accept such a system... -eric With this however I disagree as it appears overly cynical. I can imagine politicians realize the threat to democracy of elections like the gubernatorial race in the state of Washington for governor a couple years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004 The US is having general elections in a couple weeks. I realized we could have a prototype system in place in time for that if we used one dollar bills as the unique identifiers, since those are already serialized uniquely, and they are cheap. The voter would choose one from a barrel, a pair of bipartisan volunteer election workers would record the serial number on the bill as they hand out the magnetic voter card, stamp the bill with invisible UV ink, so that the bill is still usable afterward but shows that a particular dollar bill corresponded with a used voter card. Better yet, use Mexican peso bills. What are those worth, about 9 US cents? Are there one peso bills? Are those things serialized like American paper money? Anyone here know from Mexican money? I would donate money to buy a couple thousand pesos, and I would donate a day to watch an election. We could pair up people of vaguely opposite political persuasions. Samantha and I could watch a polling place together for instance, for we agree on the importance of making elections fair, even if they go against they way we vote. spike From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 17:14:17 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061021171417.36873.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Robert, I suppose I meant dividing the "hospitable" volume of the galaxy by the calculated number of intelligent civilizations capable of communicating outside their own planet, in order to provide a "probable" distance from the nearest such civilization. Robert writes: "Of course its kind of hard to display the post-singularity civilizations -- because we _can't_ see them!" Is that because you believe this is simulation? Or do you think that the post-Sing civs obey the Prime Directive? :-) Personally, I generally don't agree with the Prime Directive as it has been portrayed in ST. ;-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Robert Bradbury wrote: On 10/21/06, A B wrote: It would be interesting to display the Drake calculation (or a more "updated" variation of it) as a 3-D, statistical (even) distribution overlaying the Milky Way galaxy. It could provide a "probable" range of physical distances between "intelligent civilizations" - and might help with some insights into the Fermi Paradox ... ? This is only interesting if you scale the stars (and civilizations) at their level of development (incapable of supporting life, capable of supporting simple life, capable of supporting complex life, capable of supporting technological civilizations, post-singularity civilizations). The density of those various star states varies with general galactic position (and probably "local" galactic quadrant history). Of course its kind of hard to display the post-singularity civilizations -- because we _can't_ see them! Robert _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amaraa at gmail.com Sat Oct 21 19:46:48 2006 From: amaraa at gmail.com (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:46:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <018c01c6f549$a68a5860$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER> AB: 210 extrasolar planets have been found, according to the The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php; or 197, according to JPL, http://planetquest1.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm, which links to a database that may be useful, and could overlayed on www.anzwers.org/free/universe/w50lys.gif and other maps at http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe. PlanetQuest is developing a "star catalog" that may also be useful when available, http://www.planetquest.org. Also see "Detecting New Planets" http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179076. In "SPECTRAL EVOLUTION OF AN EARTH-LIKE PLANET," http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609398.pdf, Harvard and JPL astronomers report that they have established a model for the Earth's atmosphere and detectable biomarkers over the lifetime of the Earth. "Observations of these features on an exoplanet should be able to place an Earth-like planet with regard to its evolution. Knowledge of those features will help to optimize the design of proposed instruments to search for Earth-like planets. If an exoplanet is found with a corresponding spectrum, we will have good evidence for characterizing its evolutionary state, its habitability, and the degree to which it shows signs of life." Regarding the Fermi paradox, http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179077 and http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_thursday_060720.html have interesting discussions. I don't understand why it's a paradox if we've only explored a miniscule portion of the search space (number of stars, percentage of time they are observed, EIRP range, frequency range, signal modulation schemes, etc.), based on an unpublished study of search space I did a few years ago. Comments? Robert: regarding invisibility of post-Singularity civilizations (I assume this refers to the transition from RF to more efficient communication schemes?), this would not, of course, apply to communications with other solar systems or galaxies, which could be significant. It might be interesting to look at the Harvard/JPL data and think about what spectral characteristics might be specific to post-Singularity civilizations, including post-ecophage civilizations. I am currently researching information on active SETI ( http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179532) and welcome any correspondence on this subject. _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:31 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity On 10/21/06, A B < austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote: It would be interesting to display the Drake calculation (or a more "updated" variation of it) as a 3-D, statistical (even) distribution overlaying the Milky Way galaxy. It could provide a "probable" range of physical distances between "intelligent civilizations" - and might help with some insights into the Fermi Paradox ... ? This is only interesting if you scale the stars (and civilizations) at their level of development (incapable of supporting life, capable of supporting simple life, capable of supporting complex life, capable of supporting technological civilizations, post-singularity civilizations). The density of those various star states varies with general galactic position (and probably "local" galactic quadrant history). Of course its kind of hard to display the post-singularity civilizations -- because we _can't_ see them! Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sat Oct 21 22:21:39 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:21:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity Message-ID: >In "SPECTRAL EVOLUTION OF AN EARTH-LIKE PLANET," > >http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609398.pdf, Harvard and JPL >astronomers report that they have established a model for the Earth's >atmosphere and detectable biomarkers over the lifetime of the Earth. For a topic like this, it's better to wait until the paper has passed through the review process, since parts of the paper (maybe large parts) are likely to change. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006astro.ph..9398K&db_key=PRE&data_type=HTML&format=&high=4534ff5d9f26190 (it is an extremely active field) http://exoplanet.eu/biblio.php That entire Extrasolar Planets website (http://exoplanet.eu) is all Jean Schneider's work; a "labor-of-love", as it were. Amazing, hm? BTW: A news item that some may not be aware of, is that the Corot mission, the first dedicated extrasolar Earthlike planet space mission, has its launch date pushed from October to 18 December: http://corot.oamp.fr/ http://smsc.cnes.fr/COROT/ http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=39 Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 22 00:01:29 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:01:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Cool computer program" In-Reply-To: <20061019203013.GR6974@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc0610170542k38e52c9bs57bbfa77a876dd2c@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0610171203r31018337nd063b5151982fe79@mail.gmail.com> <007f01c6f244$0ea7be50$0200a8c0@Nano> <28E8003F-B14D-4314-80A6-7DB8EC8F5279@mac.com> <8d71341e0610191244t6376e56eld35320766f3a6348@mail.gmail.com> <20061019203013.GR6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Oct 19, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Immersive VR has been overdue for well over 15 years now, and we don't > even have robust slates you could use in the bathtub. Is this > pathetic, > or what? Yep. Not to mention potentially embarrassing when inspiration strikes as Archimedes found out. One wonders how many good ideas went down the drain for lack of a slate. - s From amara at amara.com Sun Oct 22 15:50:51 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:50:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] "The Trouble with Physics" (cosmicvariance discussion) Message-ID: I missed this excellent discussion in the last weeks. It started with Sean's review of Lee Smolin's recent book, and continued in the comments section of the blog with many in the field (including Lee Smolin and Peter Woit) giving feedback and carrying the discussion further. "The Trouble with Physics" http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/10/03/the-trouble-with-physics/ Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 18:30:20 2006 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] New tool by Google Message-ID: <20061012183020.28280.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, There is a new cool tool for graphic visualization of trends. My understanding is that Google will eventually release a version also for extrapolations. Check out the current Beta version, and click the "Help?" button for a real nice explanation: http://tools.google.com/gapminde Additionally, there is a similar effort called Gapminder and even the WHO is starting to use it: http://www.gapminder.org/ Futuristically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Oct 22 23:11:14 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 16:11:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity Message-ID: <200610222328.k9MNSdKY028541@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Forwarded for Amara Angelica: _____ From: Amara D. Angelica [mailto:amaraa at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 1:31 PM To: 'spike' Subject: FW: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity _____ From: Amara D. Angelica [mailto:amaraa at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 3:47 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity AB: 210 extrasolar planets have been found, according to the The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php; or 197, according to JPL, http://planetquest1.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm, which links to a database that may be useful, and could overlayed on www.anzwers.org/free/universe/w50lys.gif and other maps at http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe. PlanetQuest is developing a "star catalog" that may also be useful when available, http://www.planetquest.org. Also see "Detecting New Planets" http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179076. In "SPECTRAL EVOLUTION OF AN EARTH-LIKE PLANET," http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609398.pdf, Harvard and JPL astronomers report that they have established a model for the Earth's atmosphere and detectable biomarkers over the lifetime of the Earth. "Observations of these features on an exoplanet should be able to place an Earth-like planet with regard to its evolution. Knowledge of those features will help to optimize the design of proposed instruments to search for Earth-like planets. If an exoplanet is found with a corresponding spectrum, we will have good evidence for characterizing its evolutionary state, its habitability, and the degree to which it shows signs of life." Regarding the Fermi paradox, http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179077 and http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_thursday_060720.html have interesting discussions. I don't understand why it's a paradox if we've only explored a miniscule portion of the search space (number of stars, percentage of time they are observed, EIRP range, frequency range, signal modulation schemes, etc.), based on an unpublished study of search space I did a few years ago. Comments? Robert: regarding invisibility of post-Singularity civilizations (I assume this refers to the transition from RF to more efficient communication schemes?), this would not, of course, apply to communications with other solar systems or galaxies, which could be significant. It might be interesting to look at the Harvard/JPL data and think about what spectral characteristics might be specific to post-Singularity civilizations, including post-ecophage civilizations. I am currently researching information on active SETI ( http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179532) and welcome any correspondence on this subject. _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:31 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity On 10/21/06, A B < austriaaugust at yahoo.com> wrote: It would be interesting to display the Drake calculation (or a more "updated" variation of it) as a 3-D, statistical (even) distribution overlaying the Milky Way galaxy. It could provide a "probable" range of physical distances between "intelligent civilizations" - and might help with some insights into the Fermi Paradox ... ? This is only interesting if you scale the stars (and civilizations) at their level of development (incapable of supporting life, capable of supporting simple life, capable of supporting complex life, capable of supporting technological civilizations, post-singularity civilizations). The density of those various star states varies with general galactic position (and probably "local" galactic quadrant history). Of course its kind of hard to display the post-singularity civilizations -- because we _can't_ see them! Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 01:16:19 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <200610222328.k9MNSdKY028541@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061023011619.98283.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > Forwarded for Amara Angelica: > http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_thursday_060720.html > have > interesting discussions. I don't understand why it's > a paradox if we've only > explored a miniscule portion of the search space > (number of stars, > percentage of time they are observed, EIRP range, > frequency range, signal > modulation schemes, etc.), based on an unpublished > study of search space I > did a few years ago. Comments? I don't consider it a paradox either, Amara. To summarize my thoughts on the matter: 1. SETI has been in formal operation for approximately 50 years. 2. The disk of the milky way is about 45,000 light years (ly) in radius and 1000 ly thick. 3. The central bulge of the milky way is approximately 6520 ly in radius. 4. Subtracting the volume of the central bulge from the total volume of the galaxy leaves us with a cylinder with a hollow center sort of like a flattended torus or a washer. (I do this because the the stars of the central bulge are too densely packed to allow life to develop without being fried with radiation.) This shape has a spatial volume of approximately 6.23 trillion cubic ly. 5. The maximum volume of SETI's light cone (assuming that every steradian of the sky has been scanned) is 4*pi*(50ly)^3/3 or a mere 523,299 cubic ly. Dividing 523,299 cubic ly by 6.23 trillion cubic ly gives me a figure of 8.41 E -8 or 1/841 millionth of the light cone of our galaxy for the fraction of space-time that we have thus far scanned for intelligent life. To draw conclusions of being alone in the galaxy based on such a miniscule sample size is mathematically irresponsible. It would be the equivalent of drawing sweeping conclusions about all of mankind based on a quick survey of the nearest 500 people to you. (All six billion people are well-nourished malaria-free Americans!) Unfortunately that is not to say that such poor statistical extrapolations aren't rather common in other fields as well. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much." - P. T. Barnum __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 23 02:23:12 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:23:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <20061023011619.98283.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200610230242.k9N2gKu8013010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity > > --- spike wrote: > > > Forwarded for Amara Angelica: > > > > http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_thursday_060720.html > > have > > interesting discussions. I don't understand why it's > > a paradox if we've only > > explored a miniscule portion of the search space... > I don't consider it a paradox either, Amara. To > summarize my thoughts on the matter: > > 1. SETI has been in formal operation for approximately > 50 years... Stuart LaForge If intelligent life in the cosmos were communicating, they would likely use lasers as opposed to radiating the signals spherically. With typical lasers we already have, the signals could be beamed with several thousand fold less power than trying to radiate the signal. Secondly, the signal energy requirement is proportional to the frequency of the carrier. So good chance the signals would be very low frequency and would be sent only to those stars which the smart stars already knew someone was there listening. The cosmic neighborhood does not yet know we have evolved electromagnetic ears, so they would not be beaming us signals, so the fact that we have seen no signals is not paradoxical. To find out if someone is listening, I expect an intelligent civilization would send out a very low information content message that only says "we are here." Sagan's notion of a base-one list of the first few prime numbers is one I find compelling. So I would propose we scan the very low frequencies for signals, and in the mean time send out a base-one message of the first six primes. spike From davidishalom1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 20:27:54 2006 From: davidishalom1 at gmail.com (david ish shalom) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:27:54 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Probability of identity, or "Am I missing Message-ID: >It seems like you're imagining some kind of Self that can be spread >out over multiple instances. To me it seems almost a problem of >semantics, but > reflecting a misconception of reality: A point of >view is a result of the > processes producing it, not something that >observes the show from some > privileged position. Or am I missing your point entirely? ;-) the components of self: According to the psychological reductionist theories, the self can be understood as reducible to certain other facts; these are facts about psychological connectedness, continuity and the right kind of cause leading from A to B. Psychological connectedness is the holding of particular content, direct psychological connections such as memory links, the connection between intention and action, enduring dispositions, personality traits, values, goals. Connectedness in other words means having some similarity of mental content between the original and the duplicate, it should be stressed that there is never total connectedness between different stages of an individual even during normal course of life. Psychological continuity is defined as the holding of overlapping chains of strong connectedness. For continuity to appear in B, B has to remember himself as having much the same mental content as A. we will see below how much continuity we practically need for survival to take place. the term "self" is used here to refer to the continuant, lasting, changing individual along his altering phases of life from childhood, adolescence to maturity and old age, and to later phases of existence. according to psychological reductionism, "a person just is psychological connectedness, continuity and the right kind of cause". "there is psychological continuity if and only if there are overlapping chains of strong connectedness between consecutive phases. A today is one and the same person as B at some future time if and only if A is psychologically continuous with B the right kind of cause: for survival, "The Diachronic Self" (TDS) and most other reductionist theories, require to keep the right kind of cause. The "right cause" is any reliable cause and not necessarily the normal one. personal identity can even survive the absence of normal, reliable, or direct causal connections between one stage of a person and a continuer "So long as the later continuer is caused to occur in some way, and the earlier stage of the person plays a crucial role, even if indirect and unreliable, then the continuer counts as the same person as the earlier person." "Any relevant and sufficient cause connecting the earlier entity with the later qualitatively identical entity." If the memories, intentions, and dispositions that together comprise the self identity were to be sustained by some reliable process other than the normal activity of the brain, that identity had been preserved. For example, memory could be preserved on this view by substituting a mechanical replacement for a collection of neurons so long as no change in function occurred." "it is the effect rather than the kind of cause that matters in these cases. In that line of thought brought by TDS, it can clearly shown that the fact that A is recording his personality now for his later Info-Immortality is easily holding that condition of relevant and sufficient cause and moreover is keeping a direct and reliable cause leading from A to B. the identity components: the theoretical line here is brought in order to clarify the complexity and the substance of the self, and by thus enabling to value more deeply the "identity capture" method which is in the core of the IRE project. memories are sustained in B if B remember from within the same memories about his life experience and life facts as A. Yet as is argued in the TDS, retaining memories, even in much higher resolution than in normal life, is far from enough to achieve enough connectedness and continuity required. Truly, "personal identity over time is secured by memory connections. I am the same person as an earlier person if I can remember "from the inside" doing the actions done by the earlier person. But memory alone is not sufficient to cover all the psychological connections of importance. "I might remember someone's past experiences, but I will not count as the same person if my character is entirely different from that of the person whose experiences I remember. "Suppose I have memories of being Prime Minister of England during the Second World War. I remember giving dramatic speeches and taking decisive actions and having the name "Winston Churchill." If I now am a very timid and indecisive person and have no interest in politics, I should think that I am not Winston Churchill. Some of Churchill's psychological characteristics have survived in me, but too few for me to feel intimately connected psychologically with Churchill. The degree of connectedness is too minor to sustain a judgment of psychological continuity between Churchill and myself. We would say that a small aspect of Churchill's person had continued on in me but so small a part that it would not ? lead me to think that my own personality had been displaced" "Compared with Churchill, I may respond to the q-memories with quite different emotions, draw different conclusions and lessons, and evaluate remembered situations differently". "If all a person's specific memories were lost in an accident, but all of his values, projects, and basic dispositions were intact, we would far more easily recognize him as the same person". TDS holds that the other personality traits, are more important for survival then mere memories. now there will still be differences, a person, even with advanced identity capture methods, still will not be able to record exactly similar mental content. Firstly all his unconscious mental content which for most people is largely unconscious anyway, and also a person unconscious intentions to distort his personal image, according to internal psychological defense mechanisms. So changes are unavoidable. Yet, as is argued below, some changes, as our transformative intentions, are contributing to our self identity and self expansion, and our true and genuine survival into our Info-Immortality phase. We can see that there are far reaching changes during the normal course of life but as long as there is enough continuity and the right kind of cause (in biological life the right kind of cause is the continuation of the same body and brain) the self is preserved and survival is maintained without any doubt. The same condition applies to the transition, as long as the main psychological facts are maintained and enough continuity and the right kind of cause are maintained, survival is achieved. The Diachronic Self stresses other components besides declarative memories which are important in determining the self, these are: Dispositions, Beliefs, Abilities, Desires, Values, Principles, Projects, Transformative life goals. Among these the more important elements, especially for more reflective and dynamic persons [these day we can simply state transhumanists and singularitarians] are those concerned with life projects, enduring principles and transformative life goals. Dispositions: according to TDS This term can plausibly cover a wide range of psychological traits and so assumes much importance as a component of connectedness. Dispositions constitute a large proportion of psychological traits that lead to action [behavior]. "Apart from a disposition's generating new traits as a result of other people's responses, it will also directly lead a person to develop particular kinds of beliefs, habits, and desires. Dispositions, being more enduring that most beliefs and simple desires, will play a more significant role in maintaining connectedness over long periods of time. Yet, dispositions are far from the most important component of changing identity". Beliefs: TDS suggests that ordinary beliefs are a relatively insignificant component of psychological connectedness. Yet Beliefs can, of course, be very significant. Central beliefs or belief-systems labeled as ideology, religion ,faith, philosophy of life, personal principles, and morality are important components of self, and are deeply entangled in our transformative project which holds the uttermost" imprint" in our self identity. Abilities: "Oddly, abilities have been ignored by most philosophers writing on identity . Physical, cognitive, and emotional abilities and skills play an undeniably sizable role in personality" "dispositions and abilities are usually integrated. If I am disposed to do or think X, we would naturally expect me to have the ability to do or think X: I will rarely be disposed to do something that I am unable to do". "Knowing that he is especially able at something, such as understanding and composing music, a person will tend to develop habits of awareness of opportunities for displaying and exercising his ability. This heightened awareness of relevant opportunities may be combined with social reinforcement and reward, turning the ability into a central personality trait, a trait that organizes and explains much of a person's activities. Abilities will appear to be a tremendously important psychological component, forcefully contributing to connectedness, if we focus on the short-term of a self-phase. Switching to a focus on the components of connectedness in changing persons over long stretches of time, this importance will diminish somewhat, at least relative to other components yet to be discussed (i.e., values and projects) Yet, The Diachronic explore some current and future technological means that could allow changes even in basic capacities as we currently conceive of them. Under such circumstances basic capacities can be treated more like easily alterable abilities.) Values: TDS consider desires and values together since holding "values to be a particular type of desire (with important relations to beliefs). Standard explanations of human behavior proceed in terms of an agent's beliefs and desires, so we should expect desires to be a crucial central component of anyone's psychology." Personally I tend to differentiate between desires and values since the first implies more towards bodily instincts while the second implies more to socially acquired traits. Knowing what should count as values will be important in measuring connectedness, both because of the central importance of our values in our psychology and because of their role in the formation of personal projects. Principles: TDS states "Adherence to principles constitutes another way of structuring oneself over time. Principles provide a means of defining ourselves, of being able to answer the question: "Who are you?" We can answer: "I am a person who embodies forthrightness, reasonableness, inventiveness, justice". "Principles, by marking boundaries, serve an invaluable function if we want to be a certain kind of person. Situations often admit of many possible responses, a range of which we may find acceptable. Without principles we can easily slide, bit by bit, from acceptable actions to unacceptable actions because there is no obvious stopping point" "It may appear that principles only restrict our options, acting as a burden and adding barriers to the achievement of our goals. However, by shaping our personality principles also enable us to do things and enter relationships otherwise difficult or unavailable to us." "Principles, especially moral principles, sometimes are presented as distinct, higher, purer restraints on our base personalities. In contrast to that view, I suggest the following account: Principles partially constitute our identity or personality just as much as do our desires and goals. Although goals, especially when grouped into projects, can powerfully shape our lives, principles guide more generally than goals: Principles help us select goals and subgoals and shape the manner in which we pursue them. Goals and principles interact, mutually influencing one another. While principles shape and select goals, our goals can motivate us to accept or reject principles". "When principles are securely integrated into our personalities, they imbue us with confidence as we approach novel situations and relationships. Whereas desires can be frustrated, projects can fall apart, and relationships can wither, principles form a solid core of the self, always being there to guide and sustain us." "Living by principles, then, increases our long-term personality coherence, enabling us to care more about our future self-stages". But principles themselves can be modified. Suppose, in my present stage one have a principle of some "moral flexibility", which is the outcome of having week will power, but it in fact does not reflects his ideal self. But since in the future one of his enhancements goals is having stronger will power, than he can now modify his principles of morality to better coexist with higher will power. Projects: Projects play a leading role in TDS account of psychological connectedness and continuity. "Some ends are not once-and-for-all acknowledged and then realized through the successful completion of one particular action. Rather, they persist throughout large stretches of an individual's life and continue to elicit actions that establish a pattern coherent in views of the ends". "Those which reach indefinitely into the future, play a central role within the ongoing endeavors of the individual, and provide a significant degree of structural stability to an individual's life, I call projects." .."For one who has formed projects, it will be impossible to explain much of her behavior without first understanding her projects". "Projects are explanatorily prior to individual actions. We may be unable to fathom the significance of a particular action to the agent until we discern the project that motivated it. We can explain specific actions by referring to projects, but we cannot understand someone's projects simply by pointing to her actions one at a time." "the connection between values and projects is an intimate one" " The economy of values, essential to the formation of projects, contributes substantial purpose and direction to a life, shaping behavior over time in ways that could not be explained by the individual values alone" our "transformation project": personally I see that the origin of our transformation project is in our intention and will to transform ourselves and evolve into our next evolutionary stage. Up until now we transhumanists and singularitarians have raised high vision, concerning the coming future, but Info-Resurrection method (IRE) is calling us to explicitly introspect ourselves, clarify and mold our personal transformation project. To report and digitally store what we want to preserve in ourselves, but not less important what we want to change, add, immensely enhance, and according to what moral principles that change will take place. At our second waking up point we will remember our transformation project as clearly as possible, since it is this information, which directly lead to our non biological transformation ,evolutionary leap, soon after waking up. The IRE method suggests that at the "waking up point", much similarity and continuity between the phases will be retained, but only hours or days later, the great transformation project will automatically be launched, fast approaching infinity of intelligence, creativity, freedom, gradients of bliss and love in action. TDS stating: "Should our concern for our future self-phases be proportionate to the degree of psychological connectedness between our current and future phases? Are some connections more important to us than others? Should we give weight to the fact of psychological continuity even when we have few or no direct psychological connections to a distant future self?" " A's concern for (later phase) B defensibly may be greater than the degree of psychological connectedness between them so long as A and B are continuous, i.e., connected by a chain of self-stages, adjacent pairs of which are strongly connected." , "some reductions in connectedness might be welcome, or be improvements. But we cannot plausibly claim that it would not matter if there was no psychological connectedness." [301] Most of us would regret losing all our current memories, even if continuity were maintained (two days from now I will remember only the experiences I will have tomorrow). We would regret losing some of our desires, intentions, and characteristics. So connectedness does matter apart from continuity". " "your degree of concern for your future self-phase need not be tied to the degree of overall connectedness between phases and may greatly exceed it. Going a little further: Depending on our values, many of us will have positive reasons to have future-concern more than proportional to degree of connectedness. I will call my account of the normative consequences of Reductionism Transformationism. To define this view more clearly, I will say I want Transformationism to express: Earlier stage A may reasonably care about later stage B more than proportionally to the degree of connectedness between them because (i) the person may value their life as a whole (or long stretches of their life), that is, they may value continuity as much as or more than connectedness. (They value being a person and not just being a person-phase.) (ii) B may be closer to A's conception of an ideal self. (iii) the person may hold self-transformation as a central goal". " In fact, the longer I want to live, and the more I want to grow, the smaller I will want the proportion of my later phase constituted by my current self. My later self-phase will continue to contain the characteristics of the earlier phase but will add more and more new characteristics and abilities. "On the other hand, if continuity were all that mattered (or all that need matter), I would not care if connectedness moved towards zero, so long as this reduction happened gradually and was not because my later phase was degenerating or fading away" While continuity alone may suffice for our persistence of an individual, it will matter to us that at least some of our current personality be exhibited by any later phase (assuming we do not totally loathe ourselves!). ? "yet my current characteristics constitute a small part of my later phase, because my later phase is magnificently grander than me-now: My future phase has more memories, additional experiences, greater wisdom, a wider range of abilities, stronger virtues, and so on. Since there are aspects of myself I'd like to trim away, I'd actually prefer connectedness to drop below 100%,... So only continuity is necessary for me to continue existing, but connectedness is desirable too. TDS claims are: Connectedness often is higher than at first apparent because: (i) some psychological connections are more important than others. (ii) some connections are instrumental to others, and behavior, being instrumental to the satisfaction of intrinsic desires, beliefs, and projects, can change enormously without much impact on connectedness". "We can rationally be concerned to grow and change. That implies that connectedness will fall. We can rationally want to grow into a stage weakly connected with our current stage." "? we may reasonably care about our later phases more than proportionately to connectedness when our later phase is closer to our conception of an ideal self. The concept of an ideal self or ideal identity is itself an idealization. Most of us have at least a few wishes about the kind of person we wish we were or want to become. ?.. Actualizing our ideal self may be one of our projects. The project of becoming our ideal self will encompass more specific projects and other personal characteristics." "Our sense of ourselves can still be strongly influenced by our continual striving toward our ideal. An ideal of great wisdom, for example, can show itself in efforts taken to learn from experience, to broaden experience, to develop listening skills, and so on. To whatever extent we have formed an ideal self-conception, we will have another reason for apportioning our future-concern disproportionally to the expected degree of psychological connectedness". 'The project of self-transformation itself is an element of connectedness, so its own existence will compensate for the reduction in other connections it causes". " It is worth noting that the more strongly we value self-improvement and the more broadly that value ramifies through our behavior, the greater the transformation we can undergo before we feel that we will lose what matters in survival. We might be willing to give up not only memories, desires, and abilities in the process of transforming into our ideal but even some of our other values. When we value self-transformation, we are really holding a complex of values rather than one simple value. The drive to self-improvement (if positively rather than negatively motivated) involves optimism (you must believe that improvement is achievable), enjoyment of experimentation, appreciation of novelty, tolerance of uncertainty, a willingness to take responsibility for your destiny, enjoyment of challenge, and desires for autonomy and self-direction. Self-transformation will also link to a disposition to think critically and imaginatively" > From joshuatfox at gmail.com Sat Oct 21 19:51:33 2006 From: joshuatfox at gmail.com (Joshua Fox) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:51:33 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Improving past "normality" Message-ID: <8760b3f20610211251u78e3f2bdie0c1da8296df7e6a@mail.gmail.com> Some people support technology designed to overcome handicaps, but oppose technology designed to improve humans beyond the "normal" human state. This New York Times article, about a controversy at Gallaudet University for the deaf, points out that some deaf people insist that since they consider themselves as good as anyone, they do not need to be improved by technology. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/education/21gallaudet.html As it happens, the technology under discussion is the first effective direct brain implant. Quite illuminating for the general question of transhumanism! Joshua -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 23 08:45:50 2006 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:45:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Buying votes. [Was: ... Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <200610211652.k9LGqXoC009406@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610211652.k9LGqXoC009406@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1161593150.5725.1.camel@localhost> On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 09:52 -0700, spike wrote: > I would donate money to buy a couple thousand pesos, and I would donate a > day to watch an election. We could pair up people of vaguely opposite > political persuasions. Samantha and I could watch a polling place together > for instance, for we agree on the importance of making elections fair, even > if they go against they way we vote. > I am a bit curious what you think my political persuasion is. From hemm at openlink.com.br Mon Oct 23 12:24:02 2006 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:24:02 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity References: <20061021171417.36873.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01d801c6f69e$21519c20$fe00a8c0@cpd01> ----- Original Message ----- From: A B To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity (...) Personally, I generally don't agree with the Prime Directive as it has been portrayed in ST. ;-) (...) Can you elaborate on that? From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Oct 23 16:32:12 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:32:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061023123206.03d6bb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:46 PM 10/21/2006 -0400, Amara wrote: snip > >Regarding the Fermi paradox, >http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179077 >and >http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_thursday_060720.html >have interesting discussions. I don't understand why it's a paradox if >we've only explored a miniscule portion of the search space (number of >stars, percentage of time they are observed, EIRP range, frequency range, >signal modulation schemes, etc.), based on an unpublished study of search >space I did a few years ago. Comments? > >Robert: regarding invisibility of post-Singularity civilizations (I assume >this refers to the transition from RF to more efficient communication >schemes?), this would not, of course, apply to communications with other >solar systems or galaxies, which could be significant. It might be >interesting to look at the Harvard/JPL data and think about what spectral >characteristics might be specific to post-Singularity civilizations, >including post-ecophage civilizations. RF is not the only way. Very early, 1979 or so, when considering the consequences of nanotechnology Eric Drexler reasoned by analogy that you can see the difference between a wild ecosystem and a tame one (I.e., Europe pre and post agriculture or hydroelectric dams). On this basis he went looking at a catalog of unusual galaxies, looking for one with a bite out of it from an expanding civilization dimming the stars behind an expansion front. He didn't find any. In fact, everywhere you look there are massive amounts of energy and matter that are clearly not being used in a purposeful way. The conclusion (as I try to reconstruct it) was that one of the following was true. 1. We are the first (at least inside our light cone). 2. Civilizations don't survive nanotechnology (singularity now) or if they do, they lose interest in the physical universe or (somehow) leave it. To these I guess you have to add the possibility the whole thing is a simulation by a malicious ghod. It is a bit much to think we are the first, but then again *someone* has to be first. The other consequences range from 100% lethal to simply unknown. Keith Henson From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 23 17:53:23 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:53:23 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061023123206.03d6bb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061023123206.03d6bb78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20061023175323.GQ6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 12:32:12PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > 1. We are the first (at least inside our light cone). Why do people have trouble buying this explanation? That we're in nobody's smart lightcone, I mean? It's perfectly simple and adequate, a single explanation for all our data, or rather, lack thereof. > 2. Civilizations don't survive nanotechnology (singularity now) or if they > do, they lose interest in the physical universe or (somehow) leave it. Let's say we're within the lightcone of all such cultures, let's say 10^9 (a pretty small number, actually) of them. What is the chance that all of those evolve precisely along a very specific trajectory, which ends in termination (or clean exodus, for all practical purposes that's the same)? Even a single one of them would be enough to take a giant spherical bite out of luminous universe (actually, I already argued why you can't observe these expansion spheres due to the anthropic principle). So all of them evolve exactly the same way, and all of them don't manage any noteworthy expansion (we've already sent out dumb space probes beyond this solar system), or sterilize their patch of the cosmic petri dish when they (silently) implode? Statistically, that's very improbable. Unless we're in the light cone of very few smart but suicidal critters, which is actually only a minor variation on 1. -- 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 Mon Oct 23 19:20:15 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:20:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity Message-ID: Amara D. Angelica amaraa at gmail.com : >Regarding the Fermi paradox, > >http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179077 and > >http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_thursday_060720.html have >interesting discussions. I don't understand why it's a paradox if we've only >explored a miniscule portion of the search space (number of stars, >percentage of time they are observed, EIRP range, frequency range, signal >modulation schemes, etc.), based on an unpublished study of search space I >did a few years ago. Comments? This essay might be useful: http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html and perhaps this discussion too: "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 G (the other one) -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 23 20:23:16 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:23:16 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <200610230242.k9N2gKu8013010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20061023011619.98283.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <200610230242.k9N2gKu8013010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061023202316.GX6974@leitl.org> On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 07:23:12PM -0700, spike wrote: > If intelligent life in the cosmos were communicating, they would likely use > lasers as opposed to radiating the signals spherically. With typical lasers I wouldn't use lasers, I would use relativistic matter pellet streams. You just can't beat the bandwidth, and the latency is almost as good as photons. > we already have, the signals could be beamed with several thousand fold less > power than trying to radiate the signal. Secondly, the signal energy > requirement is proportional to the frequency of the carrier. So good chance > the signals would be very low frequency and would be sent only to those There's no point in low-bandwidth links. Whatever it is, it has bits standing on each other's toes. > stars which the smart stars already knew someone was there listening. The We're radio bright only for less than a century. We should become relativistic travellers in about that time frame. If you were watching us from the distance, there would be no point to sending us anything. We would be arriving before your signal had time to reach us. I would also wonder why you would send anything, if you would just receive intelligence from your own expanding wavefront. That way you wouldn't miss anyone, even dumb slime. The advantage is that you're not looking at dumb signals, but a tentacle of the real thing, right in location. > cosmic neighborhood does not yet know we have evolved electromagnetic ears, > so they would not be beaming us signals, so the fact that we have seen no > signals is not paradoxical. > > To find out if someone is listening, I expect an intelligent civilization > would send out a very low information content message that only says "we are > here." Sagan's notion of a base-one list of the first few prime numbers is > one I find compelling. So I would propose we scan the very low frequencies > for signals, and in the mean time send out a base-one message of the first > six primes. Why send primes when you can come in person as easily? -- 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 riel at surriel.com Mon Oct 23 21:11:22 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:11:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <20061023202316.GX6974@leitl.org> References: <20061023011619.98283.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <200610230242.k9N2gKu8013010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20061023202316.GX6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <453D2FFA.20905@surriel.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: > We're radio bright only for less than a century. We should become relativistic > travellers in about that time frame. How? Personally I suspect we might end up crossing the void between stars very very slowly, in much the same way human civilization crossed the pacific ocean in small boats and canoes. "All we need to do" is get a diverse enough set of human populations in asteroid belt space stations and give them the means to expand and build more stations. Population pressure should ensure people migrate out to the Jupiter trojans, and eventually further out into the kuiper belt. Hopefully humanity will survive enough for the sun to have a run-in with another star along the galactical orbit, and get some of the human stations pulled out of their orbits. A few of those might make it to other stars. Even this scenario seems far-fetched enough to me to be science fiction. It might even make a nice story for some of the writers here... As for relativistic travel - that's even more far-fetched IMHO. I can't deny I would like to see it, though :) -- Who do you trust? The people with all the right answers? Or the people with the right questions? From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Oct 23 22:16:27 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:16:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <20061021171417.36873.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061021171417.36873.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/21/06, A B wrote: > I suppose I meant dividing the "hospitable" volume of the galaxy by the > calculated number of intelligent civilizations capable of communicating > outside their own planet, in order to provide a "probable" distance from the > nearest such civilization. > Why "communicating"? All supercivilizations (even we as a non-SC) are capable of communicating. Any SC more than 100 l.y. away would have had to predict the course of development on our planet and started transmitting circa 1900 for us to be receiving their signals now. And more importantly, as I pointed out at Extro3 -- we don't "talk" to nematodes -- they don't "talk" to us. I wrote: > "Of course its kind of hard to display the post-singularity civilizations > -- because we _can't_ see them!" > > Is that because you believe this is simulation? > That is a possibility but I consider (hope?) it to be one of the lower probabilities. For it to be a simulation you would have to assume there are no better things that SC have to devote their computronium to. I tend to find that implausible. Or do you think that the post-Sing civs obey the Prime Directive? :-) > Personally, I generally don't agree with the Prime Directive as it has > been portrayed in ST. ;-) > It has little to do with the P.D. It has much more to do with the fact that it is a waste of time and energy to attempt "talking" to a pre KT-I civilization when you can wait 10-50 years and talk to something much more "interesting". It takes a smaller fraction of matter and energy for them to simply watch us (or watch us N-thousand years ago from their perspective) unless they positioned a ship in our solar system as the Vulcans did -- but even that makes no sense because it is doubtful that a SC would send something we would consider to be a "ship". You have to understand that SC (IMO) don't travel unless they take the entire star system with them or colonize (replicate) unless its with the entire star system. That requires very close encounters between solar systems which is something that happens very infrequently in our galactic neighborhood. The reason that I say "we can't see them" is because MBrains (or anything between a Dyson shell and a MBrain) doesn't emit visible light. There is *no* "star" to point your telescope, radio receiver, etc. at. We have *NO* good high sensitivity and resolution mid-to-far-IR surveys that would indicate potential candidates for supercivilization status [1]. Robert 1. It is worth noting that a retired physicist from Fermi Labs is currently going through the IRAS data for possible candidates but the IRAS data is pretty poor for this purpose. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Mon Oct 23 23:15:38 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:15:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: References: <20061021171417.36873.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <453D4D1A.7090104@posthuman.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: > > It has little to do with the P.D. It has much more to do with the fact > that > it is a waste of time and energy to attempt "talking" to a pre KT-I > civilization when you can wait 10-50 years and talk to something much more > "interesting". > But that's not a very nice stance is it? During such a waiting period many many millions/billions of intelligences in that new civ will die. Just as there are folks around today who want to help out wild animals, I expect there would be folks in a many post-singularity civs who want to "save the sentients" from involuntary death and other indignities throughout the rest of the universe. All it would take is one of them from one post-S civ designing and launching one self replicating probe that would then spread throughout all galaxies over time to survey systems and then introduce itself and its potentialities to the local intelligences. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 24 02:47:45 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:47:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the many worlds of Hugh Everett, III Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061023213252.02176d80@satx.rr.com> I found myself wondering (1) whether there's a pop bio of Everett in this universe, and if not why not (there is this http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/everett/ ), and (b) why he didn't significantly develop relative state theory in the 25 years--half his life--after publishing it. (In this universe, his daughter Liz--born the same year as the paper on what would become known as MWI--killed herself at 39.) His Weapons Systems Evaluation Group worked on top secret nuclear stuff, including (it says at the site above) global UFO studies. Maybe a lot of it is still classified. Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Tue Oct 24 02:51:36 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:51:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place Message-ID: Mark Morford pointed to this "The Beginning of the End of America" http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=3&entry_id=10020 a few days ago, where Keith Olberman makes a powerful commentary on the Torture and Detention Bill. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 24 02:49:53 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <453D4D1A.7090104@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20061024024953.66400.qmail@web37212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Brian Atkins wrote: >All it would take is one of them from one post-S civ >designing and launching one self replicating probe >that would then spread throughout all galaxies over >time to survey systems and then introduce itself and >its potentialities to the local intelligences. A one in a million chance. That's quite a risk. Do you think it's possible? Just curious. Anna:) > Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > > It has little to do with the P.D. It has much > more to do with the fact > > that > > it is a waste of time and energy to attempt > "talking" to a pre KT-I > > civilization when you can wait 10-50 years and > talk to something much more > > "interesting". > > > > But that's not a very nice stance is it? During such > a waiting period many many > millions/billions of intelligences in that new civ > will die. > > Just as there are folks around today who want to > help out wild animals, I expect > there would be folks in a many post-singularity civs > who want to "save the > sentients" from involuntary death and other > indignities throughout the rest of > the universe. All it would take is one of them from > one post-S civ designing and > launching one self replicating probe that would then > spread throughout all > galaxies over time to survey systems and then > introduce itself and its > potentialities to the local intelligences. > -- > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 24 07:09:34 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:09:34 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <453D2FFA.20905@surriel.com> References: <20061023011619.98283.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <200610230242.k9N2gKu8013010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20061023202316.GX6974@leitl.org> <453D2FFA.20905@surriel.com> Message-ID: <20061024070934.GC6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:11:22PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > Personally I suspect we might end up crossing the void between > stars very very slowly, in much the same way human civilization > crossed the pacific ocean in small boats and canoes. Recipe: take a couple of asteroids. Infect them with a self-replicating factory, which processes them into gossamer-thin photovoltaics platforms, which double as phased-array capable microwave radiators. Steer them (photonic pressure and directed radiation is good enough) into a an assembly with sufficient aperture. Span a large carbon truss sail in front of a small probe. Fire the phased array, heating the gray sail to several kK. Watch the probe accelerate at several g as long as you can track it with your phased array radiator. At 1 g, it would take you about one year. > "All we need to do" is get a diverse enough set of human > populations in asteroid belt space stations and give them the > means to expand and build more stations. That's certainly an option, but such expansion is static in comparison to a solid state culture. > Population pressure should ensure people migrate out to the > Jupiter trojans, and eventually further out into the kuiper > belt. Hopefully humanity will survive enough for the sun to > have a run-in with another star along the galactical orbit, > and get some of the human stations pulled out of their orbits. > A few of those might make it to other stars. Canned monkeys, to the stars? Seems quite absurd. It could be done, in theory. But what would be the point? Machines will have colonized the next star system before you could launch some megatons or gigatons at a leisurly crawl. > Even this scenario seems far-fetched enough to me to be > science fiction. It might even make a nice story for some > of the writers here... > > As for relativistic travel - that's even more far-fetched IMHO. > I can't deny I would like to see it, though :) Relativistic travel is easy, when you're sending small craft (a kg-ton is a small craft) and leave the drive (a star, for instance) at home. Braking is more tricky, especially over large distances, where sacrificial sails won't work. -- 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 Tue Oct 24 08:51:27 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:51:27 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] the many worlds of Hugh Everett, III References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061023213252.02176d80@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002c01c6f749$98800d80$2fbd1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Damien Broderick: > [...] why he (H.Everett) didn't significantly develop > relative state theory in the 25 years--half his > life--after publishing it. The 1970 Varenna summer course (on the Como lake) was dedicated to the 'Foundations of Quantum Mechanics' (not an interesting subject, at that time!), following a suggestion from Franco Selleri (marxian-realist physicist). It had 84 participants, and its proceedings (editor B.d'Espagnat, 1971) reveals a diversified spectrum of subjects (such as measurement, hidden variables, non-locality, interpretations) and people (Wigner, Jauch, Shimony, d'Espagnat, Bell, de Broglie, Selleri, Bohm, de Witt I suppose, etc.), and philosophies. It is perhaps correct to say that, untill then, the Everett's 'relative state' interpretation (which is different from the modern 'many worlds' interpretation) was largely unknown, at least in Europe. Leaving aside technical problems (like the memory capacity of the observer in the 'relative state' interpretation, or the normalization of probabilities within the 'branching', or the conservation of energy and the formation of 'many worlds', etc.) the difficult problem, with Everett's interpretation, was its 'ontology'. Because it was a 'realistic' interpretation [1] in which the states are physical states and not just available informations about the preparation of quantum systems (like in the orthodox interpretation). I think the above has something to do with your question, and with Everett's story. s. [1] Not easy to define realism, in general quoting E.P.R. is a must here "if, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity." From mmbutler at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 08:08:01 2006 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:08:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] rehi to exi-chat Message-ID: <7d79ed890610240108vac854eci179a57ee98070f1d@mail.gmail.com> Hello especially to Anders, Robert and Spike. How are things? MMB -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m 'Piss off, you son of a bitch. Everything above where that plane hit is going to collapse, and it's going to take the whole building with it. I'm getting my people the fuck out of here." -- Rick Rescorla (R.I.P.), cell phone call, 9/11/2001 From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 14:52:17 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:52:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <453D4D1A.7090104@posthuman.com> References: <20061021171417.36873.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <453D4D1A.7090104@posthuman.com> Message-ID: On 10/23/06, Brian Atkins wrote: > > I wrote: > > It has little to do with the P.D. It has much more to do with the fact > > that > it is a waste of time and energy to attempt "talking" to a pre > KT-I > > civilization when you can wait 10-50 years and talk to something much > more > > "interesting". > > But that's not a very nice stance is it? During such a waiting period many > many > millions/billions of intelligences in that new civ will die. True. And of course you could set up sims with approximations starting from observations of the 2000, or 1900, or 1800, or ... Earth and run them forward to say 2050 to determine the *precise* point and method of contact required to save the greatest number of "conscious" entities [1]. Now of course the further back you go the more computational capacity and energy would be required to do this. At some point you have to ask "What is a single nematode (for we are as less then nematodes to KT-II+ civilizations) really worth? And besides, you are going to have to either delete or in the best case suspend all of those sims that you ran to try and determine the "best" intervention point. As I've said before in the past -- *if* the goal is to produce the greatest diversity in the Universe (explore as much of the phase space as possible) -- then prime directive type arguments do have merit. Do KT-II civilizations view it as a *right* of pre-KT-I civilizations to make (or not make) the transition on their own? Just as there are folks around today who want to help out wild animals, I > expect > there would be folks in a many post-singularity civs who want to "save the > sentients" from involuntary death and other indignities throughout the > rest of > the universe. All it would take is one of them from one post-S civ > designing and > launching one self replicating probe that would then spread throughout all > galaxies over time to survey systems and then introduce itself and its > potentialities to the local intelligences. But it is unnecessary. We've been figuring it out on our own. Dyson wrote the Dyson shell paper in 1960. Kardashev the KT-I/II/III paper in 1963. People like Harris, Dennett & Dawkins point out how we have to dig ourselves out of our genetic & societal predispositions for belief in "magic" -- in contrast to the SETI hope that "magical" scientific intervention will coerce large numbers into altering their beliefs. Indeed -- to really eliminate the beliefs one probably has to send in the nanorobots to restructure those neural pathways -- otherwise one has nothing but new beliefs on top of old beliefs. Perhaps (and here is where I can see the flames coming...) there is nothing so very special about our "intelligence" or our "consciousness" -- after all it is simply ions moving into or out of cells (current flows) in unique patterns. So what if we lose one, a million or even all of these instances? [2] Robert 1. If of course you consider a species that produces and slaughters tens or hundreds of millions of semi-conscious species (cows, pigs, sheep, etc.) annually as consisting of "intelligence" worth saving. And then of course there are the intelligences (whales) which we slaughted wholesale and the intelligences (dolphins) that we are rather careless about killing as a side effect of harvesting the less conscious/intelligent fish species. 2. Yes, I know you *care* about *your* ion pattern flows and about those of you children, parents, brothers, sisters, community, country and maybe your football team or humanity as a whole -- but those thougs are simply more ion pattern flows as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 15:08:39 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:08:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <20061024070934.GC6974@leitl.org> References: <20061023011619.98283.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <200610230242.k9N2gKu8013010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20061023202316.GX6974@leitl.org> <453D2FFA.20905@surriel.com> <20061024070934.GC6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 10/24/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Relativistic travel is easy, when you're sending small craft > (a kg-ton is a small craft) and leave the drive (a star, for > instance) at home. Braking is more tricky, especially over > large distances, where sacrificial sails won't work. We solved this problem during the debate about the dumb flyby probe being sent to Pluto. You have nested mass drivers (or nested guns) -- anything such that something larger can launch something smaller which can launch something smaller ... Oriented such that each nested launching is in the direction opposite to that of the direction of travel. An alternate approach would be a relatively large ablative heat shield targeted through the upper atmosphere of the star. The problem gets much smaller when you remove weak human bodies from the equation and only have to produce a few mg of nano-seeds as the final "package". It also true that because we will have *much* better observational data regarding target systems that you could do things like targeted landings -- things like flying into the tail of a comet in the target system and using that material to help with the deceleration. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Oct 24 15:45:57 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:45:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. References: <20061021171417.36873.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <010f01c6f783$8d3b7ba0$460a4e0c@MyComputer> Robert Bradbury Wrote: > as I pointed out at Extro3 -- we don't "talk" to nematodes -- >they don't "talk" to us. We don't talk to nematodes but every day humans directly effect the lives of billions of these worms, but ET does squat to us and that is very strange. Most of the excuses I've heard to explain away this fact are very unconvincing. It seems to me that if there were a race of beings as far advanced over us as we are over nematodes their existence would be obvious to anyone who looked up into the sky. It's not obvious. Why? This is my list of answers from least likely to most: 1) Maybe after your intelligence reaches a certain point there is no reason to go beyond because there is a limit to what any intelligence can do; and the universe just can't be engineered. 2) Maybe there is some hidden catastrophe we know nothing about that always destroyers a civilization when it advances beyond a certain point. 3) Maybe we are the first, somebody has to be. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Tue Oct 24 16:35:21 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:35:21 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: References: <20061023011619.98283.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <200610230242.k9N2gKu8013010@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20061023202316.GX6974@leitl.org> <453D2FFA.20905@surriel.com> <20061024070934.GC6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20061024163521.GJ6974@leitl.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:08:39PM +0000, Robert Bradbury wrote: > We solved this problem during the debate about the dumb flyby probe > being sent to Pluto. I don't remember that debate, but there are several ways to skin a cat. A circumsolar cloud of gossamer PV platforms doubling as a phased array pushing a gray sail has the advantage of being low-tech, the self-rep thing being the only secret sauce required. I don't know how many km^2 you'll need, but not a lot, if we're accelerating a very small payload. > You have nested mass drivers (or nested guns) -- anything such that > something larger can launch something smaller which can launch > something smaller ... Oriented such that each nested launching is in Photon momentum is free, and 3 g for months is nothing to sneeze at. > the direction opposite to that of the direction of travel. An The nice thing about a phased array is that the reconfiguration is all in timing, and hence realtime. You could push several probes with one assembly, by aiming in space or in time. > alternate approach would be a relatively large ablative heat shield > targeted through the upper atmosphere of the star. The problem gets If we're talking about bootstrap, an antimatter-catalyzed fusion drive for deceleration might work. It's a lot of mass, though. I don't know whether sacrificial sails can be used for braking, since I don't know how small a spot a phased array a lighthour wide could focus over several lightyears. > much smaller when you remove weak human bodies from the equation and > only have to produce a few mg of nano-seeds as the final "package". You need a seed pod which decelerates, maps the system and deploys the seed in the right location. Whether this whole assembly, including the sail is kg or a ton doesn't really matter that much. > It also true that because we will have *much* better observational > data regarding target systems that you could do things like targeted > landings -- things like flying into the tail of a comet in the target > system and using that material to help with the deceleration. Comets have almost no mass, braking via stellar atmospheres might be an option, but not at relativistic speeds. -- 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 Tue Oct 24 17:37:53 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:37:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: <010f01c6f783$8d3b7ba0$460a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John K Clark wrote: > Robert Bradbury Wrote: > > > as I pointed out at Extro3 -- we don't "talk" to nematodes -- they > >don't "talk" to us. > > We don't talk to nematodes but every day humans directly > effect the lives of billions of these worms, but ET does > squat to us and that is very strange. > Most of the excuses I've heard to explain away this fact are > very unconvincing. It seems to me that if there were a race > of beings as far advanced over us as we are over nematodes > their existence would be obvious to anyone who looked up into > the sky. It's not obvious. Why? > This is my list of answers from least likely to most: > > 1) Maybe after your intelligence reaches a certain point > there is no reason to go beyond because there is a limit to > what any intelligence can do; and the universe just can't be > engineered. > > 2) Maybe there is some hidden catastrophe we know nothing > about that always destroyers a civilization when it advances > beyond a certain point. > > 3) Maybe we are the first, somebody has to be. > (4) Maybe advanced intelligence develops inward for a significant phase of its evolution. Given what we know of the intrinsic physical constraints and decreasing returns for efforts applied to moving matter and energy around, wouldn't it make sense that advanced intelligence would rather tend to focus on inwardly increasing complexity? Such a developmental phase might be expected to begin with the era of information processing technology and progress until that approach has either been exhausted or superseded by further developments that we can't currently imagine. As Feynman said, "There's plenty of room at the bottom", and so far, the closer we look the more possibility-space we find, and we have only faint glimmerings of what doors might be opened with the arrival of practical quantum computing. Some people look around and are disappointed with unmet expectations of huge engineering projects enabled by accelerating technology, measuring the apparent lack of progress by the dearth of hovercraft, personal spacecraft, space elevators, huge power stations, etc. Others, perhaps closer to the practice of technology development, see a continued bloom of increasing ephemeralization in virtually all areas related to information technology. To borrow the analogy of an automobile, the parts of the car seen by the driver are even simpler than before, but greatly improved performance and reliability are delivered via much higher complexity under the hood. So what about the great power emissions and planet-scale construction projects envisioned by those who based their reasoning on common-sense ideas like the Kardashev scale and joined others in asking "where is everybody?", long before our own technology began to rapidly ephemeralize? In our case, within a very short time-window we went from high-power simply-modulated radio transmission to nearly ubiquitous low-power networked communication and we've learned how essential are the Shannon benefits of increasingly complex encoding resulting in signals that are increasingly indistinguishable from background noise. In addition to improving efficiency, the implications to security through obscurity are obvious. Anyone dealing with technology development is familiar with the Law of Unintended Consequences. As any project becomes increasingly complex, one can generally expect an increasing tendency toward unforeseen kinds of problems and side-effects. But this is only a first-order rule, and beyond it we find that increasing complexity can deliver increasing reliability, iff the structure reflects deeper, more effective principles. What many have not considered is the similarity of this observation to a moral imperative: That any action by an agent will have unintended consequences in rapidly increasing proportion to the number of interfaces it presents to the outside world (the adjacent possible) and therefore an increasingly intelligent agent will tend to minimize its interfaces while maximizing its effectiveness. There's an interesting dynamic tension between strategies of conflict and strategies of cooperation. Both rely on an element of diversity to promote growth. We can expect an advanced intelligence to promote growth (of complexity of the interesting kind) and to do so mandates a source of increasing diversity outside the local system. From this we derive some of our "moral" thinking (thinking about principles of action that work over expanding scope of interaction) such as the value of promoting equality among independent agents, and injunctions against murder and other forms of ruinous competition. It's an old topic, hashed and rehashed here on the extropy list, the question of whether increasing intelligence implies increasing morality, and while we generally agree that from an objective viewpoint it does not, from a subjective viewpoint--the viewpoint from which all decisions, moral or otherwise are made--it most certainly does. We can not know the specifics of what an advanced intelligence will do, but we can know that it will tend to do that which most effectively promotes its values into the future, and that this will reflect an increasingly subtle understanding of increasingly general principles. - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Oct 24 17:07:38 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:07:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061024120429.04584280@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Tuesday 24 October 2006, 9pm on BBC Two "Meet the scientific prophets who claim we are on the verge of creating a new type of human - a human v2.0. "It's predicted that by 2029 computer intelligence will equal the power of the human brain. Some believe this will revolutionise humanity - we will be able to download our minds to computers extending our lives indefinitely. Others fear this will lead to oblivion by giving rise to destructive ultra intelligent machines. "One thing they all agree on is that the coming of this moment - and whatever it brings - is inevitable." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/singularity/ Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, 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 scerir at libero.it Tue Oct 24 20:41:39 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:41:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. References: Message-ID: <000701c6f7ac$d3413760$c1911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Jef Allbright > (4) Maybe advanced intelligence develops inward > for a significant phase of its evolution. (0) As somebody said: 'Only the theory decides what one can observe'. It is possible that our theories (about communications, signals, informations) are still poor. Or not? From jonkc at att.net Tue Oct 24 22:06:40 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:06:40 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. References: Message-ID: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> "Jef Allbright" >Maybe advanced intelligence develops inward for a significant > phase of its evolution. Maybe, in fact probably, ET does indeed develops inward at first, but their brains operate millions of times faster than ours and the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That inward phase would last a long time subjectively, but objectively it would only be about 20 minutes long, maybe an hour. Yes there's plenty of room at the bottom, but there's not infinite room. I make the (reasonable I believe) assumption that any intelligent being, including ET, will have at least a little will to power; so ET wants to be the best Brainiac a Brainiac can be. Thinking, computation, is not mystical or abstract, it is a physical process needing matter and energy and obeying the second law of thermodynamics. All this activity should be very obvious to us here on Earth, but it's not. That is a very profound mystery, and I don't believe Star Trek will help us find a solution. Even in the extremely unlikely event that ET can't produce speeds faster than we can with our rockets, in less than 100 million years ET could send von Neumann style reproductive probes to every star in the Galaxy. Remember the universe is 13.7 billion years old. A blind man in a dead drunk on a cloudy day could observe that event, but we don't see a hint of it. This astronomical discrepancy between theory and experiment needs explaining, and the Star Trek prime directive just doesn't hack it. > wouldn't it make sense that advanced intelligence would rather tend to > focus on inwardly increasing complexity? Certainly, but that supports my ideas not yours. You can make more complex things with 4 atoms than you can with 2, you can make more complex things with 8 atoms than you can with 4, you can make more complex things with 16 atoms.. well you get the idea. John K Clark From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 18:43:01 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:43:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Subliminal Nude Pictures Focus Attention Message-ID: Another neat article, describing how presenting binocularly-masked subliminal nude images improved performance on a visual discrimination task. The nude images only improved performance if they fit the subject's sexual orientation. This makes me wonder if having a background software process which periodically flashed nude images fight-club-style would help or hinder productivity... ;) (If anybody can locate the original PNAS article for this, could you post a link here?) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000B6DFA-316D-153D-B16D83414B7F012F "Cognitive neuroscientist Sheng He of the University of Minnesota and his colleagues gathered groups of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men and bisexual women numbering 10 each. Each viewed special images pointed directly at each individual eye. The researchers could cancel out vision of one eye's image by presenting a specific high contrast image to the other eye. Such an image, called a Gabor patch, consists of a series of contrasting lines that form an abstract--and visually arresting--shape. "Normally, the two eyes look at the same image. They don't have any conflict," he explains. "We create a situation where the two eyes are presented with two images, and then they will have binocular competition. One image is high contrast [and dynamic], the other is static. You basically just see the dynamic image." Into the canceled out image slot, the researchers slipped an erotic image; for example, a naked woman displayed for a heterosexual man. To ensure that subjects did not consciously detect the invisible image, they were asked to press a specific key if they noticed any difference between the left and right images. Over the course of 32 trials, men were significantly better at detecting the orientation of Gabor patches when they appeared in the slot formerly occupied by an invisible image of a nude woman. The heterosexual men, however, had a more difficult time detecting the same orientation when it was located where an invisible picture of a nude man had been; this was not the case for heterosexual women when viewing their own sex naked. And the homosexual men's response was similar to that of the heterosexual women, as were the bisexual women's and heterosexual men's. This focus benefit did not carry over, however, when the participants were allowed to consciously see the naked photos, the researchers report in the paper published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. It may have been that the erotic images were on display too long, they speculate; previous studies have shown that it is difficult to maintain attention in one spot. Or it could be that social or cultural norms take over. "Maybe you don't want to look at the nude pictures," he suggests. Regardless, it appears that our minds are exquisitely tuned to detect sexual opportunity--especially when it is invisible. " From neuronexmachina at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 18:35:23 2006 From: neuronexmachina at gmail.com (Neil H.) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:35:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Thalamic brain stimulation boosts rat intelligence Message-ID: It's really too bad that thalamus isn't accessible to TMS... (I can't seem to find the PNAS reference, so here's the ScienceNOW news article) http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1023/3 "A team led by neurologist and neuroscientist Daniel Herrera at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York City implanted electrodes into the central thalamus of rats. This brain region is thought to help mediate arousal and is the region surgeons targeted in the minimally conscious patient. After stimulating the rats' central thalamus for 30 minutes, Herrera and colleagues found that two genes--one linked to neural activity and the other linked to cellular mechanisms of learning--had become more active in the rats' brains, including in the cerebral cortex and hippocampus. The stimulated rodents also explored more than unstimulated rats did and performed substantially better on an object-recognition test, Herrera and colleagues report online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "It's a significant finding," says Rodolfo Llinas, a neuroscientist at New York University. But don't call your neurosurgeon just yet. Herrera cautions that more work is needed to determine how long the benefits last and what the side effects are. Besides, he adds, the ultimate goal isn't to make healthy people smarter, it's to help neurological patients. Those most likely to benefit from the procedure are stroke or head-injury patients, whose brain damage is more stable than that of someone with a progressive disease such as Alzheimer's, Herrera says." From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 02:53:39 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:53:39 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <62c14240610241953g22d4c0b1ra782334ecc023fa5@mail.gmail.com> On 10/24/06, John K Clark wrote: > > This astronomical discrepancy between theory and experiment needs > explaining, and the Star Trek prime directive just doesn't hack it. > > > wouldn't it make sense that advanced intelligence would rather tend to > > focus on inwardly increasing complexity? > > Certainly, but that supports my ideas not yours. You can make more complex > things with 4 atoms than you can with 2, you can make more complex things > with 8 atoms than you can with 4, you can make more complex things with 16 > atoms.. well you get the idea. > Since you mentioned Star Trek... Are you willing to entertain a spin on Star Wars' "Force" - In episode 1, there is brief mention of "midiclorions" - They sounded to me like some kind of subatomic nanites (ok, use whatever made-up terminology; it makes no difference) If the "Force" is an example of one of these inwardly-increasing complexity civilizations, they could as easily manifest macro-scale effects as you could affect the flow of water through a stream by throwing in a large rock. "They" (collectively each one of 'them' who is not 'us') may be all around or even pervade us with little concern. Maybe that's why we can't find them - their omnipresence eludes us in the same way we eventually stop smelling the aromas filling the kitchen we're in. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Oct 25 04:24:14 2006 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:24:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024195420.03e8ab90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:53 PM 10/23/2006 +0200, Eugen wrote: >On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 12:32:12PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > > 1. We are the first (at least inside our light cone). > >Why do people have trouble buying this explanation? That we're >in nobody's smart lightcone, I mean? It's perfectly simple and >adequate, a single explanation for all our data, or rather, lack >thereof. It violates the Mediocrity principle. There is an extensive article on this and its counter, the Rare Earth hypothesis, in Wikipedia. > > 2. Civilizations don't survive nanotechnology (singularity now) or if > they > > do, they lose interest in the physical universe or (somehow) leave it. > >Let's say we're within the lightcone of all such cultures, let's say >10^9 (a pretty small number, actually) of them. What is the chance that all >of those evolve precisely along a very specific trajectory, which >ends in termination (or clean exodus, for all practical purposes >that's the same)? It depends on shape of the manifold. For all we know, all evolved species are subject to the same weakness. So their fate could be like a ball tossed into a basin. No matter where it starts it always winds up at the bottom. Still, I agree with you on it being less likely that all of them would fail. If we are the first, the future is unknown rather than deadly. >Even a single one of them would be enough to take >a giant spherical bite out of luminous universe (actually, I already >argued why you can't observe these expansion spheres due to the anthropic >principle). If you do, you better dust off the welcome mat. >So all of them evolve exactly the same way, and all of them don't manage >any noteworthy expansion (we've already sent out dumb space probes beyond >this solar system), or sterilize their patch of the cosmic petri dish when >they (silently) implode? Statistically, that's very improbable. Unless we're >in the light cone of very few smart but suicidal critters, which is >actually only a minor variation on 1. It has some strange implications for Eliezer and the SI. Keith Henson From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 25 08:53:01 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:53:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024195420.03e8ab90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024195420.03e8ab90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20061025085301.GA6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:24:14AM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > It violates the Mediocrity principle. There is an extensive article on The assumption that our culture is average is completely blown away by the anthropic argument. The bias only goes away after another, unrelated data sample. > It depends on shape of the manifold. For all we know, all evolved species > are subject to the same weakness. So their fate could be like a ball We're an evolved species, yet we have machines which have very different weaknesses (arguably, darwinian machines will route around any weaknesses long-term). We can do self-rep machines, or would be able to, if we made this a priority. Self-rep machines replicating outside the gravity well would quickly result in an ecosystem at least lighthours wide, and relatively soon, lightyears wide. There is no catastrophe which can nuke all this, cleanly. > tossed into a basin. No matter where it starts it always winds up at the > bottom. Still, I agree with you on it being less likely that all of them > would fail. If we are the first, the future is unknown rather than deadly. I very much agree. Assuming we can sustain this level of progress for several decades, the results could be self-sustaining/irreversible. > >Even a single one of them would be enough to take > >a giant spherical bite out of luminous universe (actually, I already > >argued why you can't observe these expansion spheres due to the anthropic > >principle). > > If you do, you better dust off the welcome mat. You can't observe them, unless you're the one who's initiated the expansion wavefront. So actually I would turn around the "oh noes, the Singularity killz!" argument, if one is buying the probabilistic analysis of observer-moment stuff. > >So all of them evolve exactly the same way, and all of them don't manage > >any noteworthy expansion (we've already sent out dumb space probes beyond > >this solar system), or sterilize their patch of the cosmic petri dish when > >they (silently) implode? Statistically, that's very improbable. Unless we're > >in the light cone of very few smart but suicidal critters, which is > >actually only a minor variation on 1. > > It has some strange implications for Eliezer and the SI. I don't understand. Please explain. -- 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 13:30:50 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:30:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Article: Subliminal Nude Pictures Focus Attention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/24/06, Neil H. wrote: > > > (If anybody can locate the original PNAS article for this, could you > post a link here?) Here is a related link by the same author. Jiang, Y., He, S., "Cortical responses to invivible faces: dissociating subsystems for facial-information processing," Curr Biol 16(20):2023-9 (24 Oct 2006). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17055981&itool=pubmed_docsum Some "electronic publication" information from jounals tends to lag showing up in the Journal web (contents) pages (particularly for PNAS I think) [you may have to be subscribed to their mailing lists]. It will usually show up in PubMed however within a few days (PubMed does capture ePub ahead of Print). So if you look through the "Related Links" to the article cited above in a few days you should get the abstract and maybe even a link to the PNAS source article -- but I don't think you can get PNAS articles online in the last 6-12 months online unless you actually have a subscription (which is *why* I prefer PLoS journals!). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 13:57:35 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:57:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 10/24/06, John K Clark wrote: > > > Even in the extremely unlikely event that ET can't produce speeds faster > than we can with our rockets, in less than 100 million years ET could > send von Neumann style reproductive probes to every star in the Galaxy. > Remember the universe is 13.7 billion years old. A blind man in a dead > drunk > on a cloudy day could observe that event, but we don't see a hint of it. First, until all of the dark matter and/or dark energy is explained I question the assertion "we don't see a hint of it". The best you can assert is that "what we see isn't what an anthropocentric perspective would lead one to expect to see"-- e.g. stellar colonization. Say for example that it is possible to imprint or transfer ATCs onto dark matter/energy -- then they *aren't going to waste their time colonizing stars -- they are going to dedicate their resources to evolving into/onto a better substrate. The thing which *always* gets left out of the colonization perspective is the lack of bandwidth and communications between the stars. 1. If you colonize you can only take a very, very, very small fraction of your knowledge with you. Sure the Library of Congress looks huge to us now but it isn't even a speck of dust to an ATC. It would be like the Pilgrims having to leave behind cloth making, crop growing, weapons manufacture, cooking, etc. knowledge bases on their voyage of colonization. They would get to America and they would be lucky if they could still walk and talk. [1] 2. Yes you could colonize, and yes you could communicate across those distances, but the information content of the communication is effectively so low that it would be difficult to justify the mass or energy it would require. Given how long the communication takes and how limited its information content would be (relative to what is available on either end) what good is it? It would be like a cave man sending us instructions on how to make a spear point. We can figure out how to make a spear point ourselves in a day or two. If the singularity transition takes only 10-50 years everything beyond that distance in light-years is "beyond knowing". By the time you "know" them they would be completely different. You can only know what they *used* to be. Interstellar communication consists entirely of historical docudramas. Robert. 1. I don't know how to create a good metaphor losing 20 or 30 orders of magnitude of ones knowledge base -- the U.S. population *still* depended upon Europe for many years for a vast set of resources -- but that knowledge set was transferred in dozens or thousands of humans -- not 10^25. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmbutler at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 14:03:50 2006 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:03:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7d79ed890610250703g796f13bbo1b6dc1f8b3d20960@mail.gmail.com> On 10/25/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > First, until all of the dark matter and/or dark energy is explained I > question the assertion "we don't see a hint of it". I can't be the first to suggest that the "Missing Mass" might, in some funny way, turn out to be evidence (or a side effect) of our simulation hardware... -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m 'Piss off, you son of a bitch. Everything above where that plane hit is going to collapse, and it's going to take the whole building with it. I'm getting my people the fuck out of here." -- Rick Rescorla (R.I.P.), cell phone call, 9/11/2001 From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 25 14:50:04 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:50:04 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20061025145004.GG6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:57:35AM -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote: > First, until all of the dark matter and/or dark energy is explained I > question the assertion "we don't see a hint of it". The best you can > assert is that "what we see isn't what an anthropocentric perspective > would lead one to expect to see"-- e.g. stellar colonization. Say for > example that it is possible to imprint or transfer ATCs onto dark > matter/energy -- then they *aren't going to waste their time I have the following two objections to this: there is currently no evidence that dark matter/energy is good for information processing. Secondly, evolutionary systems never abandon a niche they occupied when they colonize another. If transcension is possible, the original nucleation point and the wave of the immanent critters still goes on expanding. > colonizing stars -- they are going to dedicate their resources to > evolving into/onto a better substrate. Critters are never completely rational. A population of semirational beings never does some some fancy dance steps in perfect unison. There must be cosmic villages full of intergalactic idiots. Where are they? > The thing which *always* gets left out of the colonization perspective > is the lack of bandwidth and communications between the stars. Take a magnification glass, and look at a meadow. Each individual organism doesn't have to be able to ping New Zealand. Their overlapping interaction spheres are all local. Long-distance interaction only happen by iteration of local interactions. > 1. If you colonize you can only take a very, very, very small fraction > of your knowledge with you. Sure the Library of Congress looks huge Pioneers are a primitive niche. > to us now but it isn't even a speck of dust to an ATC. It would be > like the Pilgrims having to leave behind cloth making, crop growing, > weapons manufacture, cooking, etc. knowledge bases on their voyage of > colonization. They would get to America and they would be lucky if > they could still walk and talk. [1] According to that theory, we should never have left Africa. Yet we have colonized the entire world, using primitive tools and ridiculous motivations, in nick of a time, geologically speaking. > 2. Yes you could colonize, and yes you could communicate across those > distances, but the information content of the communication is > effectively so low that it would be difficult to justify the mass or > energy it would require. Given how long the communication takes and You sometimes find animals far out at sea, where they are certain to perish. Many seafarers set out to sea, expending the then-equivalents of today's space travel, and perished. But some of them did not, and this is why you're able to read this message. > how limited its information content would be (relative to what is > available on either end) what good is it? It would be like a cave man > sending us instructions on how to make a spear point. We can figure > out how to make a spear point ourselves in a day or two. If the > singularity transition takes only 10-50 years everything beyond that > distance in light-years is "beyond knowing". By the time you "know" > them they would be completely different. You can only know what they > *used* to be. Interstellar communication consists entirely of > historical docudramas. We don't have those (with the possible exception of the Wow! signal). > Robert. > 1. I don't know how to create a good metaphor losing 20 or 30 orders > of magnitude of ones knowledge base -- the U.S. population *still* > depended upon Europe for many years for a vast set of resources -- but Most of human colonization was driven by very small bands of people, which were completely self-sufficient. > that knowledge set was transferred in dozens or thousands of humans -- > not 10^25. -- 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 15:10:49 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:10:49 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024195420.03e8ab90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024195420.03e8ab90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 10/25/06, Keith Henson wrote: > > > It depends on shape of the manifold. For all we know, all evolved species > are subject to the same weakness. So their fate could be like a ball > tossed into a basin. No matter where it starts it always winds up at the > bottom. Still, I agree with you on it being less likely that all of them > would fail. If we are the first, the future is unknown rather than > deadly. Actually, there are arguments supporting evolution in directions of most rapid development (greatest computational capacity) in the shortest period of time. There are no "spheres" of growth of civilizations around their starting point -- it makes no sense to "grow" in directions of (1) increased hazards; (2) fewer resources; (3) more of the same. You are going to want to "grow" (migrate) in directions where you have: (A) greater thermodynamic efficiency (outside of the galaxy) [1] (B) greater resources (matter and/or energy) availability per unit of spatial volume. (B) would dictate either the migration to or construction of globular clusters. An alternative to an MBrain "galaxy" (a "dark" KT-III galaxy) would be a JBrain clustered galaxy (stars organized entirely in globular clusters with lots of JBrains orbiting between among them). If the computronium "limit" is element type mixture and not energy then one tends to migrate to regions where there is lots of low cost energy and matter that can be "tuned" for optimal computational capacity within the smallest region of space -- I would strongly argue that globular clusters would be such a place. So to position yourself optimally within the evolution of the galaxy "collective" a civilization doesn't want to "spread outward" -- it wants to head as rapidly as possible to the "best" location. (You didn't see the Pilgrims rushing off to colonize Greenland...) One might have two types of "intelligence hubs" in galaxies. There are the older natural GCs that may have formed at various points during galactic collisions. These would be be like river junctions in the evolution of cities on Earth. Artificial GCs (cities) that have to be constructed in the middle of nowhere (as we may be) may take much longer to develop [2]. The question we should be asking ourselves (post-singularity) is do we travel to the nearest city or do we build one ourselves? It is worth noting, merely as an aside, that joining a JBrain cluster may be non-trivial unless you are bringing something of significance to the party [3]. Robert 1. Which is discussed to some extent in the paper Milan and I published in New Astronomy recently. But it was Minsky who pointed this out to Dyson decades ago. 2. Moving solar systems around takes a *long* *long* time. 3. ... Collective Chair-entity: "Ok, the NGC 6397 steering committee will now hear a petition from the Earth Solar System FAI to join the collective." EFAI: "The Earth derived FAI would like to request joining and participating in the evolution of the NGC 6397 collective." Collective Vice Chair: "Mr. Chair-entity, I would like to point out that over the last 500 million years we have admitted 42 FAIs to the collective, what possible reason would there be for devoting resources to uplifting and integrating yet another FAI to our level? The only FAI with any information of interest that may have justified the uplifting cost was the FAI which accelerated around a black hole 150 million years ago to shorten its travel time and in the process suffered a *significant* amount of random damage to its computronium from the X-rays being released from the black hole. All of the other FAIs were effectively clones having evolved into essentially identical benevolent entities."... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 15:44:25 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:44:25 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: <20061025145004.GG6974@leitl.org> References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> <20061025145004.GG6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: Eugen wrote: Pioneers are a primitive niche. Sure, and I'm just now noticing that we don't have Amish, or Quakers or Shakers (or other groups which reject "state-of-the-art" technology) all over the surface of the planet. The problem that you have with technology moving quickly is that by the time you get "there", those who left behind you (in the planes rather than the ships) get there before you. When technology is moving quickly you can't afford to remain primitive or go off on colonizing "adventures" when you can be leap frogged. It is *only* when technology has been pushed to the limit *and* you can justify the mass and energy costs of supporting some of the interstellar transport projects you have proposed that colonization is even thinkable. Then, if you, Eugen, decide to take your share of the solar system resources and head out for Star xyzzy, you still have the problem that Anders and I will not be looking over your shoulder and take our share of the solar system resources (2x yours) and get there before you do. You have to "claim" ownership of the development rights for Star xyzzy and get *everyone* who can must more resources than you to recognize these rights and *then* hope the hell that someone beyond our light horizon with greater resources hasn't already started relocating Star xyzzy into their globular cluster development project. Your effort will appear fairly humorous 500 years from now when this weak message arrives back from your colonizing probe, "oops, I missed". You sometimes find animals far out at sea, where they are certain to > perish. Many seafarers set out to sea, expending the then-equivalents > of today's space travel, and perished. But some of them did not, and > this is why you're able to read this message. This argument only holds for something like intergalactic colonization (really only for very distant galaxies). Within our galaxy we will be able to *see* everything. We will have simulation capabilities and know within a certain probability of error -- those systems which will never develop life (or ATCs), those where the ATCs currently exist (e.g. globular clusters or orbiting the galaxy) and those which are like us on the verge of the singularity. But the crystal ball will be quite fuzzy in this area beyond say 500 light years distance. All of the solar systems within say 500 light years which could have evolved life, ATCs and allow rapid transitions throught The Singularity (as ours does) will have made the transition to MBrains and be essentially undetectable at our stage of development. I would also argue that until Pan-STARRs is fully functional our chances of identifying systems under development near us is relatively low. It is also true that there is a low probability of systems in our neighborhood being in development -- the development time (a few thousand years) vs. the development window time (billions of years) makes it much more likely that they are pre-development or post-development. The real problem isn't the lack of pre-development systems to develop it is knowing what the post-development civilizations are doing with them. The problem with near-relativistic colonization travel speeds isn't how long it takes to get there -- it is the energy required for course corrections when you discover where you want to go may not be where you are headed. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 25 16:36:11 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:36:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> <20061025145004.GG6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20061025163611.GK6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:44:25AM -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Sure, and I'm just now noticing that we don't have Amish, or Quakers > or Shakers (or other groups which reject "state-of-the-art" > technology) all over the surface of the planet. The problem that you We have plants and animals all over the surface of this planet. Almost soon as a new volcanic island pops over the surface of the of the sea the pioneer successon starts. Perhaps my language makes you think I'm talking pond scum, suddenly taking a leap to the stars. Not so. All pioneers must originate in a culture which is reasonably hi-tech by our means (self-rep machinery, interplanetary travel). As far as we know astrochicken who feed on crunchy carbonaceous chondrites don't arise spontaneously. > have with technology moving quickly is that by the time you get > "there", those who left behind you (in the planes rather than the > ships) get there before you. When technology is moving quickly you Yes, speed of travel and short replication is key to succeeding the pioneer niche. > can't afford to remain primitive or go off on colonizing "adventures" > when you can be leap frogged. It is *only* when technology has been > pushed to the limit *and* you can justify the mass and energy costs of > supporting some of the interstellar transport projects you have > proposed that colonization is even thinkable. Then, if you, Eugen, If you have time, and there's stuff growing (fusion metabolism) in Oort and Kuiper contamination will happen spontaneously, even if you don't have the genome for a plasma thruster. This is how it starts. After that, it's Darwin all over MLYr and GLYrs. > decide to take your share of the solar system resources and head out > for Star xyzzy, you still have the problem that Anders and I will not > be looking over your shoulder and take our share of the solar system > resources (2x yours) and get there before you do. You have to "claim" Yes, if you arrive there before me, you will beget a faster breed of pioneers. And so on. > ownership of the development rights for Star xyzzy and get *everyone* Who arrives in the wilderness first, has all the rights to use the resources and settle, before moving on. > who can must more resources than you to recognize these rights and > *then* hope the hell that someone beyond our light horizon with > greater resources hasn't already started relocating Star xyzzy into > their globular cluster development project. Your effort will appear > fairly humorous 500 years from now when this weak message arrives back > from your colonizing probe, "oops, I missed". The nice thing about relativistic travellers is that you don't see them coming. By the time half of the sky starts turning infrared, they're past here already. > This argument only holds for something like intergalactic colonization > (really only for very distant galaxies). Within our galaxy we will be The argument applies to all darwinian machines who're stochastically sampling the behaviour space. Some of them are Darwin Award winners. Some of them are just big winners, period. > able to *see* everything. We will have simulation capabilities and > know within a certain probability of error -- those systems which will > never develop life (or ATCs), those where the ATCs currently exist ( > e.g. globular clusters or orbiting the galaxy) and those which are > like us on the verge of the singularity. But the crystal ball will be > quite fuzzy in this area beyond say 500 light years distance. All of > the solar systems within say 500 light years which could have evolved > life, ATCs and allow rapid transitions throught The Singularity (as > ours does) will have made the transition to MBrains and be essentially > undetectable at our stage of development. I would also argue that You can't miss redistribution of predispersed material which will substitute each star with a blackbody lighthours wide very soon. > until Pan-STARRs is fully functional our chances of identifying > systems under development near us is relatively low. It is also true If they're infected, you can't miss it. Especially aggregated, they'd be visible across the entire visible universe. > that there is a low probability of systems in our neighborhood being > in development -- the development time (a few thousand years) vs. the > development window time (billions of years) makes it much more likely > that they are pre-development or post-development. The real problem > isn't the lack of pre-development systems to develop it is knowing > what the post-development civilizations are doing with them. > The problem with near-relativistic colonization travel speeds isn't > how long it takes to get there -- it is the energy required for course > corrections when you discover where you want to go may not be where > you are headed. If the stuff has grown legs, you're an animal at sea. -- 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 john.heritage at v21.me.uk Wed Oct 25 15:29:17 2006 From: john.heritage at v21.me.uk (John Heritage) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:29:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity Message-ID: <200610251629.AA299368680@v21.me.uk> I wouldn't use lasers, I would use relativistic matter pellet streams. You just can't beat the bandwidth, and the latency is almost as good as photons. --------------------- I did some googling around, but couldn't find any information on the pellet streams you mentioned. I'd take a guess that perhaps you mean encoding information on single atoms (perhaps in their electron spin state) and then sending collections of them as packets in pellet form. But I'm not sure how this idea could better the theoretically infinite bandwidth of the EM spectrum. Of coarse, we don't have infinite coverage of the EM band with practical lasers, but it's definitly not a static area - we're developing x-ray lasers in my electronics department... I think. Best wishes! John From jonkc at att.net Wed Oct 25 17:36:54 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:36:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <01fa01c6f85c$965f5e70$380a4e0c@MyComputer> Robert Bradbury Wrote: > until all of the dark matter and/or dark energy is explained I question > the assertion "we don't see a hint of it". We've known about dark matter and energy for only a few years but before that I don't recall ET advocates predicting it, and even today nobody can explain how dark matter can process information better than regular matter when it interacts so weakly with itself. On the one had you have a theory (there are no ET's) that explains every observation and needs no new physics, on the other hand you have a theory (there are ET's) that explains no observations and needs some sort of vague undefined new physics to work. If you use Occam's razor the choice is easy. > The thing which *always* gets left out of the colonization perspective is > the lack of bandwidth and communications between the stars. The Arecibo radio telescope could communicate with its twin at least 10,000 and possibly as far as 100,000 light years away, I would imagine ET could do a bit better. And you're acting like it would take some huge commitment on the part of ET, but sending one slow moving Von Neumann probe to one other star would only cost pocket change. That's all you'd need and the dead matter in the Galaxy would start to think about things. This does not conform with observations, I have a very simple explanation as to why, you need to engage in mental back flips. > If you colonize you can only take a very, very, very small fraction of > your knowledge with you. So the reason the Galaxy has not been engineered is because digital storage is so incredibly bulky. Hmm. "And now," the commentator said in a low hushed voice, "The next member of the ET's exist team will attempt a Mental Reverse Flying Triple Back Somersault with a degree of difficulty of 4.3, .. and so.. ah too bad, that must have hurt." John K Clark From amara at amara.com Wed Oct 25 18:06:07 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:06:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Good News (Speaking) Day for Scott Adams Message-ID: Wow! I never heard of spasmodic dysphonia. Scott Adams' amazing true story ... http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/10/good_news_day.html Amara From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu Wed Oct 25 19:12:11 2006 From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:12:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024195420.03e8ab90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061024195420.03e8ab90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20061025191211.GA8044@ofb.net> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:24:14AM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > At 07:53 PM 10/23/2006 +0200, Eugen wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 12:32:12PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > 1. We are the first (at least inside our light cone). > > > >Why do people have trouble buying this explanation? That we're > >in nobody's smart lightcone, I mean? It's perfectly simple and > >adequate, a single explanation for all our data, or rather, lack > >thereof. > > It violates the Mediocrity principle. There is an extensive article on Which works only if there's a non-degenerate distribution for us to be an average member of. If the expected number of spacefaring civs in the galaxy is 0 or 1, because the first such civ takes everything over, then Mediocrity has nothing to say. -xx- Damien X-) From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 25 19:45:31 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:45:31 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity In-Reply-To: <200610251629.AA299368680@v21.me.uk> References: <200610251629.AA299368680@v21.me.uk> Message-ID: <20061025194531.GN6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 04:29:17PM +0100, John Heritage wrote: > I did some googling around, but couldn't find any information on the pellet streams you mentioned. It's an old device: never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with tape cartridges. The usual comeback is that the latency would suck, but that argument goes away with relativistic matter streams. > I'd take a guess that perhaps you mean encoding information on single atoms (perhaps in their electron spin state) and then sending collections of them as packets in pellet form. No, just encode things as lattice defects (with error coding, even if punch a hole through interstellar vacuum there will be some proton and heavy ion radiance from the background). You encode them on one end, accelerate them, and catch them on the other end. > But I'm not sure how this idea could better the theoretically infinite bandwidth of the EM spectrum. If you look at deep space antenna network, you'll see that they're using giant antennas to catch a few photons, resulting in a very low data rate close to the noise background. Lasers are much better, but what is your beam divergence to Alpha Centauri, and how many channels can you resolve spatially, even if senders/emitters are lightminutes apart? It's certainly a channel, but for an advanced culture it's a terribly narrow pipe. DNA stores, how much? 1 bit/nm^3, which is about 10^9 bits for a micron-sized dust particle. > Of coarse, we don't have infinite coverage of the EM band with practical lasers, but it's definitly not a static area - we're developing x-ray lasers in my electronics department... I think. Right now WAN (allright, vacuum is lots more transparent than glass, but still) is 40 GBit/s, and we're already in touching distance of the physical limits in the laboratory (not yet in the field). -- 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 Wed Oct 25 22:45:51 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <01d801c6f69e$21519c20$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: <20061025224551.42368.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Henrique, I just don't really agree with the philosophy behind the fictional Prime Directive. I agree with what Brian Atkins wrote on the subject. "We" are constantly using (or at least attempting to use) our growing technology and knowledge to help millions of suffering people (and even a couple animal species) around the globe today. And I think that the majority of people on and off this list are in full support of that end-goal. Assuming a desire to be kind and having the resources available, it just seems inconsistent to me to arbitrarily refuse to help/uplift an extra-solar civilization based on the criterion that they are located 150 light-years away instead of 10,000 Kilometers away (for example a third-world country on our own planet's surface). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: A B To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity (...) Personally, I generally don't agree with the Prime Directive as it has been portrayed in ST. ;-) (...) Can you elaborate on that? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Wed Oct 25 23:14:12 2006 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:14:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Good News (Speaking) Day for Scott Adams In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453FEFC4.9020606@goldenfuture.net> Amara Graps wrote: >Wow! I never heard of spasmodic dysphonia. Scott Adams' amazing true story ... >http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/10/good_news_day.html > >Amara >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > That is utterly amazing. I had not heard about Scott Adam's condition, but to think that something like that can be cured, even if it doesn't last permanently, by something as simple as a rhyme, is just inspiring. Gotta wonder if the same sort of remapping-through-simple-repetition would work in other areas as well. Joseph From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Oct 25 23:46:00 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:46:00 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <20061025224551.42368.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061025224551.42368.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <53412.81.152.102.146.1161819960.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The prime directive places the independent cultural development of a species higher than the welfare of its individual members (shades of "the needs of the many"?). While this sounds nice on paper, it has many nasty consequences. It means that the Federation should just look on when preventable disasters happen, even when inaction would be regarded as a moral outrage when occuring in respect to a non-protected culture. If the directive is regarded as an ethical principle then it is presumably universal, and should also apply to the Federation. So the cultural development of the Federation is more valuable than the lives of any number of inhabitants. This way one gets a nice foundation for authoritarianism. If it is not an universal principle, then the Federation just has it as a habit or cultural decision. If another group like the Romulans wants to meddle it is OK, and the Federation can at most wring its hands or send warnings to the Romulans. If it only applies to every civilisation that is not sufficiently "adult", then one has to define what constitutes civilizational adulthood (in the Star Trek universe I guess spaceflight would be a likely definition, but as we have seen in a myriad of episodes there appears to be bundles of spacefaring primitives out there). But if the value of independent cultures is so high as to merit the sacrifice of many individuals, then it appears likely that this value would be diminished by them getting adult and joining the interstellar community since the individual culture now would be subjected to globalization (OK, galactization). The directive might be pragmatic in the sense that intervention brings disaster. In the IMHO rather silly novel _Omega_ by Jack McDevitt everybody is firmly convinced that less developed civilizations will be totally culturally crushed by any contact with a more advanced one. This is said to be based on terrestrial experience, but as India and Japan show it is empirically not true. Even if it was true it does not seem to be a strong enough reason to avoid intervening against a threat against the survival of an entire alien species. In the novel what could have been a very straightforward rescue effort is turned inefficient and downright silly just to prevent any cultural contamination. But ethically, delaying/risking saving the inhabitants in order to ensure the survival of their culture is equivalent to first sending in rescuers to salvage all museums, libraries and archives, and once they are securely saved turning to the injured. It takes a very warped moral system to sustain that. And the assumption of this paragraph was that the directive was pragmatically based rather than a moral principle. So at best I agree with aristos Gabriel - if they got smallpox and I have a vaccine I'm going to give it to them, regardless of what they think. But I'm going to leave it up to them to think it. The authenticity of a culture comes from interacting with the outside universe (including other cultures), not from isolation. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 00:29:27 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:29:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: <20061025163611.GK6974@leitl.org> References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> <20061025145004.GG6974@leitl.org> <20061025163611.GK6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 10/25/06, Eugen Leitl wrote: > We have plants and animals all over the surface of this planet. > Almost soon as a new volcanic island pops over the surface of the > of the sea the pioneer successon starts. Because the cost is low. They would not be here if they were not preprogrammed to spread. Their lack of exo-awareness specifies that they cannot spread in a way which dictates probability of survival. You can easily colonize the marginal niches -- show me a path to colonize the niches which will dominate! [1] Perhaps my language makes you think I'm talking pond scum, suddenly > taking a leap to the stars. Not so. All pioneers must originate in > a culture which is reasonably hi-tech by our means (self-rep machinery, > interplanetary travel). As far as we know astrochicken who feed > on crunchy carbonaceous chondrites don't arise spontaneously. Agreed. So the devil is in how one reconciles that from which one has arisen with that to which one aspires. Yes, speed of travel and short replication is key to succeeding the pioneer > niche. Yes. But it is sooner or later (whether it be in this galaxy or in others as one might attempt to colonize -- one is going to have to face up to the fact that there *are* other ("alien") footprints in Hollywood Boulevard.) [2]. If you have time, and there's stuff growing (fusion metabolism) in > Oort and Kuiper contamination will happen spontaneously, even if > you don't have the genome for a plasma thruster. I am not sure that I understand this inference. If important you should elaborate. Yes, if you arrive there before me, you will beget a faster breed of > pioneers. > And so on. No, at each step of the way, "colonizers" will assess the "state of the universe" to determine whether the investment justifies the benefit. This is the *key* factor which has not been brought into SETI, colonization, exploration & growth discussions (at least that I am aware of) before now. *WHY* Grow???? We understand reproduction, we have condoms, we have birth control pills, we understand enough about human self-satisfaction feedback loops that we can say, "We choose not to 'grow' -- We choose to better ourselves!" You *have* to justify growth across light year distances (and the delays it would impose upon the computronium) vs. growth across solar system distances (light year delays vs. light minute delays). > ownership of the development rights for Star xyzzy and get *everyone* > > Who arrives in the wilderness first, has all the rights to use the > resources and settle, before moving on. Of course. Unless a superior force says "All your matter (and energy) are belong to us. Ha Ha Ha..." [3] The nice thing about relativistic travellers is that you don't > see them coming. By the time half of the sky starts turning infrared, > they're past here already. You seem to be assuming a send everything everywhere with a colonize everything worth colonizing perspective. I would argue that you do not have enough matter or energy to do this. You have to select your targets -- and if they are not there when you arrive its an "opps" situation. I am willing to entertain this approach but I would want to see the numbers (i.e. you have to argue that you can blanket planetary or asterioid size areas within the surface area of a galaxy). I am maintaining that if you miss you miss. You have to know *in advance* with *high probability* that what you want to reach will be there when you arrive. Otherwise you are shooting bullets into the sky -- don't you have something better to do with them? The argument applies to all darwinian machines who're stochastically > sampling the behaviour space. Some of them are Darwin Award winners. > Some of them are just big winners, period. This assumes you have now way of predicting better outcomes or *know* that there is a better way to predict outcomes. I would argue that we are long past that point. Would you spend $200 billion on sending a spacecraft someplace potentially "colonizable" or $2 billion on where to send it to? [4] You can't miss redistribution of predispersed material which will > substitute each star with a blackbody lighthours wide very soon. Agreed. The question revolves around whether we are currently oriented towards detecting such. I would argue that we are not (yet). Though we appear to be getting closer. If they're infected, you can't miss it. Especially aggregated, they'd > be visible across the entire visible universe. This is the light-cone problem. The aren't detectable if they are spreading directly towards the outskirts of the galaxy or towards the nearest GC unless we happen to be in their path. This is similar to the GRB problem -- you can detect an "impossible" amount of energy if it happens to be focused in your direction. If it isn't focused that way you may be lucky to notice it. If the stuff has grown legs, you're an animal at sea. I'm not sure I understand this. You seem to be still presuming (a) spherical growth patterns and (b) that random distributed growth has value vs. directed growth (i.e. colonize the galaxy vs. go to where your history, skills, experience, etc. will be most useful.) [5] Robert 1. Colonization of niches which will dominate requires a high degree of precognisance, which in turn requires a high degree of simulation capability. [We will for a moment ignore the fact that you are erasing all of those unsuccessful future thoughts...] If you colonize, at least if you are somewhat above being brain dead, *or* roughly about our at our current state of evolution, you would do so hoping for a reasonable chance of success. 2. I state this on the basis of Lineweaver's assertions ~70% of solar systems are ahead of us. We are playing catchup. I will freely modify the position based on evidence in opposition. 3. You will not understand this unless you are aware of the "Are your base are belong to us." history. 4. Numbers are entirely arbitrary -- we can refine the discussion by providing more accurate estimates. 5. You *know* everything which is the 'at current state' within the galaxy (within your light perception). What you don't know is what the future will be. You have to position yourself into the future with respect to probability of survival, greatest contribution, etc. It is *no* longer about *your* survival, or your children's survival. You can choose this but you have to ask "What is the probability that this will be really important in the long run?" If you select the past -- my survival, or my children's survival, or my societies survival, you may be selecting that which is either (a) doomed to extinction; or (b) not the "best" path. Or you could, instead, opt for the non-predictable future -- one which is not based upon "make more copies of me and my offspring" but is instead based upon very far upstream efforts at value manipulation. I suspect the non-simulated futures fail in signifcant numbers compared to the simulated futures. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 01:35:48 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:35:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: <01fa01c6f85c$965f5e70$380a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> <01fa01c6f85c$965f5e70$380a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 10/25/06, John K Clark wrote: > We've known about dark matter and energy for only a few years but before > that I don't recall ET advocates predicting it, and even today nobody can > explain how dark matter can process information better than regular matter > when it interacts so weakly with itself. Yes. Nor would one expect "predictions" when one is running around with an anthropocentric perspective that "they" are like "us". This was before concepts of the evolution of computronium, JBrains, MBrains, SIs, FAIs, etc. made it clear that "they" are not like "us" and we will *never* be like "them". With respect to how Dark matter and/or energy might process information -- I will state clearly "I don't know." But if you can propose that quantum, entangled states of matter can process information faster than the speed of light then I would propose that weakly interacting states of matter processing information is *not* that so "far fetched". On the one had you have a theory (there are no ET's) that explains every > observation and needs no new physics, on the other hand you have a theory > (there are ET's) that explains no observations and needs some sort of > vague > undefined new physics to work. If you use Occam's razor the choice is > easy. First you have the presumption "needs no new physics". I would argue "weakly interacting dark matter" clearly requires "new physics". I would also argue that a presupposition that "there are ETs" requires substantial leaps to Fermi's Paradox (they should be "here"). I am perfectly comfortable with ETs are intelligent and believe that they do not go where going is pointless and this would in turn dictate why they are not "here" [1]. > The thing which *always* gets left out of the colonization perspective is > > the lack of bandwidth and communications between the stars. > > The Arecibo radio telescope could communicate with its twin at least > 10,000 > and possibly as far as 100,000 light years away, I would imagine ET could > do > a bit better. You have failed to argue the bandwidth of the channel relative to the information content of the civilizations on either end. Yes, both entities can say "Hi", but they cannot say more than that (unless one is communicating the obvious -- "Yes, I know the prime numbers up to 2^N-1 already..." or the non-communicable -- "You are speaking in a language I do not comprehend." You have also failed to deal with a fundamental question (and I would hope people on the list would engage in this)... What if the laws of physics & chemistry can be reduced to a very small information set? So you can transmit ones reduction of the universe in a very small message! Everything on top of that is (a) inventory -- e.g. what I see and when I am seeing it; or (b) synthetic -- Drexler said that the possible phase space of nanodesigns was *very* large -- more than once can transmit over a cosmic data channel -- the designs one may feel are valuable within ones context may be relatively small vs. the designs that are valuable in a different context. If they already know the "fundamental" designs then ones enhancements may be of relatively little interest (hardly enough to justify the MW used to transmit them). I would be sad to see advanced ATC doing nothing but beaming soap operas back and forth across interstellar distances. To argue this from being the case you have to make a strong argument that ATC do not understand the fundamental nature of the universe and/or do not have access to all natural information available within their light cone. (Mind you our light cone effectively becomes their light cone by the time "our" information reaches them.) And you're acting like it would take some huge commitment on > the part of ET, but sending one slow moving Von Neumann probe to one other > star would only cost pocket change. Agreed. But advanced ETs with *really* big spreadsheets do not spend "pocket change" on pointless efforts. *We* don't attempt to talk to nematodes. So the reason the Galaxy has not been engineered is because digital storage > is so incredibly bulky. Hmm. *No.* Digital storage is *very* small -- perhaps multiple bits per atom, I believe Anders would concur. The *reason* the Galaxy has *not* been engineered is that light speed and energy costs limit how rapidly you can move X quantity of photons (or atoms) [3] from point A to point B (where Point B environs have greater information density and allow more rapid thought). I am *not* going to send an endless stream of information someplace where there will be nobody will receive it (at least I hope not) -- I am going to send it where it may be received and put to use. But storage (and matter) is not infinite. Once one develops the capabilities one is going to think seriously about the best way to develop both. "And now," the commentator said in a low hushed voice, "The next member of > the ET's exist team will attempt a Mental Reverse Flying Triple Back > Somersault with a degree of difficulty of 4.3, .. and so.. ah too bad, > that > must have hurt." Yes, demonstrable of sending information where it will be pointless. Post-singularity SIs don't bother to send information to us because we know we lack the capacity and wisdom to deal with it. Pre-singularity SIs don't send us information because they are too rare and/or too far away -- they have to be within ~100 light years -- after 100 years (or less!) they stop sending information. You have to predict a crucial intersection -- what is the probability that developing civilizations will see us as a developing civilization and choose to transmit a "hello fellas" message within the window before we or they go post our window of perception? We are on the cusp of surveying the galaxy *multiple* times *every* month. That means *we* are in the window from the development of telescope to knowing where everything of significance is (perhaps 100 years). Do you *really* want to try and hit that window for a civilization 200 (or 2000, or 20,000) l.yaway? I want to see you present a case before an informed body that would say "Yes, we know civilization XYZZY will be at a state to receive *and* make use of our information stream from Y20XX to 20YY." If *you* can't make that argument then you have to present a case as to how "*they*" should be able to do so. Similarly for colonization of the galaxy -- present an argument that we should colonize everything (when you know that others are exploring the cream of the crop). Robert 1. Oh yes, we an occasional scientist/explorer may show up from time to time but one has to make strong arguments as to why they should disrupt the vector we are currently on by making themselves "known". 2. Indeed, I believe Anders and other hard core theoreticians may have pushed information storage limits beyond what can ever possibly be engineered. It would do us some good to frame the discussion in terms of what can be achieved at various states of magical capabilities. I have no problem with you having magic powers, provided, you like Harry, has the cloak in your possession which demonstrates those powers! 3. This is stretching my knowledge base to the limits -- I can see transmitting one or perhaps several bits of information per photon (existence of the photon and polarization state); I can see transmitting more bits per atom (excitation state of the electrons in the atom). But *both* of those are subject to speed-of-light bandwidth and information decay limits. If you want to transmit information reliably you have to have redundancy and that requires greater costs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Oct 25 22:39:24 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:39:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] BOOK: John Glad - Future Human Evolution Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061025173441.043faf30@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Has anyone read John Glad's book, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century? If so, can you please give your comments? Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, 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 msd001 at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 02:48:30 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:48:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> <01fa01c6f85c$965f5e70$380a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <62c14240610251948s1d5934d6re44b02bd9680a207@mail.gmail.com> On 10/25/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Agreed. But advanced ETs with *really* big spreadsheets do not spend > "pocket change" on pointless efforts. *We* don't attempt to talk to > nematodes. > We may not be talking TO them, but we keep talking ABOUT them. Apparently they make good simple models. It's amusing to imagine the whole of humanity as a simplified model of a complex civilization on the orders of magnitude equivalent to humanity over a nematode. http://www.setiai.com/archives/000050.html http://www.nyas.org/ebrief/miniEB.asp?ebriefID=384 http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=129088 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 04:38:45 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What if Dyson spheres are obsolete? (was the Drake Equation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061026043845.79050.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> One of the "possibilities" that I think you guys seem to be missing is that it may turn out that harnessing dark/vacuum/zero-point energy may actually be easier than building a Dyson sphere. If this is so, then even in the most overgrown of galaxies, one would see no "cookie monster" effect. I don't see how one would detect such an ET civ unless it was tried to communicate on purpose (other than ufos of course). Robert, I don't understand your comment about Lineweaver and earth lagging behind "70% of solar systems". What is the rationale of that? The big bang, if it actually happened and relativity is true, would be the only time that was the same time for everybody (fair start scenario). Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 05:38:23 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What if Dyson spheres are obsolete? (was the Drake Equation) In-Reply-To: <20061026043845.79050.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061026053823.47963.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> One additional note: I did a back of the envelope calculation and given the approximate gravitational binding energy of the earth as (3/5)GM/r, it would take 2.745 E 32 joules of energy to form a Dyson at 1 AU out of the earth. This is very close to the energy it would take to scatter the atoms of the earth to infinity. (Actually some new math I have been working suggests it would take more than this but I don't have time go into this here.) This is equal to one whole week of total solar output. This suggests one would need a Dyson sphere in operation for a week to construct an equivalent Dyson sphere. This would seem to indicate that any civilization CAPABLE of building a Dyson Sphere would have little use for one. Just my two cents. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From eugen at leitl.org Thu Oct 26 06:34:10 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:34:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <20061025224551.42368.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <01d801c6f69e$21519c20$fe00a8c0@cpd01> <20061025224551.42368.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061026063410.GV6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:45:51PM -0700, A B wrote: > "We" are constantly using (or at least attempting to use) our growing > technology and knowledge to help millions of suffering people (and > even a couple animal species) around the globe today. And I think that Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but more technology of the current flavour frankly means total holocaust to flora and fauna, but for a bit of roach 'n rodent. -- 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 Oct 26 06:37:18 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:37:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] A Good News (Speaking) Day for Scott Adams In-Reply-To: <453FEFC4.9020606@goldenfuture.net> References: <453FEFC4.9020606@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20061026063718.GW6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 07:14:12PM -0400, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Gotta wonder if the same sort of remapping-through-simple-repetition > would work in other areas as well. Purportedly, it seems to work for some chronic RSI pain (in this case not rhyme but gentle, harmonic flow instead of rapid jerks). -- 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 Oct 26 06:55:59 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:55:59 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] What if Dyson spheres are obsolete? (was the Drake Equation) In-Reply-To: <20061026053823.47963.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061026043845.79050.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> <20061026053823.47963.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061026065559.GX6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:38:23PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > I did a back of the envelope calculation and given the > approximate gravitational binding energy of the earth > as (3/5)GM/r, it would take 2.745 E 32 joules of > energy to form a Dyson at 1 AU out of the earth. This I don't know how you did the calculation, but I would account of lessened gravity with each incremental bucketload lifted. Also, you need a lot less than Earth mass (I haven't checked, but Robert thinks mass of Mercury is enough), the lower cloud boundary could be easily in 800 K range (SiC does fine at that temperature), and the cloud doesn't have to be completely opaque. Also, check out the Moon, Pallas, Ceres and consorts. > is very close to the energy it would take to scatter > the atoms of the earth to infinity. (Actually some new > math I have been working suggests it would take more > than this but I don't have time go into this here.) This result strikes me as somewhat implausible. > This is equal to one whole week of total solar output. Of course you do know that we've got a fully stocked asteroid belt, right? The math works out very differently if you can jump into orbit, even in a space suit. There, you don't launch. You just extrude stuff into infinity. > This suggests one would need a Dyson sphere in > operation for a week to construct an equivalent Dyson > sphere. This would seem to indicate that any > civilization CAPABLE of building a Dyson Sphere would > have little use for one. The sun is dumping 2 MT of matterenergy/s into space. Most of it goes down the drain, but orbiting material can't help but intercept it. It's 1.3 kW/m^2 hereabouts, and I'm sure you can work out the growth of the launch rate (actually, simple aramide is good enough for a tether) starting from a km^2 of lunar PV array driving a mass driver launching PV few um thick. Just for the same reason, you *can* make PV arrays on earth, even though with current primitive technology it takes several years to recover the energy for their production. > Just my two cents. -- 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 Oct 26 06:58:42 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:58:42 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] What if Dyson spheres are obsolete? (was the Drake Equation) In-Reply-To: <20061026043845.79050.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061026043845.79050.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061026065841.GY6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:38:45PM -0700, The Avantguardian wrote: > > One of the "possibilities" that I think you guys seem > to be missing is that it may turn out that harnessing > dark/vacuum/zero-point energy may actually be easier Once somebody figures out how to do it, we'll factor that into our estimates. But, I'm not holding my breath. > than building a Dyson sphere. If this is so, then even > in the most overgrown of galaxies, one would see no > "cookie monster" effect. I don't see how one would You would still fuse anything fusable into heavier elements pronto, simply because your growth is even less limited. Also, there would be giant and rapidly growing far infrared luminosity. > detect such an ET civ unless it was tried to > communicate on purpose (other than ufos of course). > > Robert, I don't understand your comment about > Lineweaver and earth lagging behind "70% of solar > systems". What is the rationale of that? The big bang, > if it actually happened and relativity is true, would > be the only time that was the same time for everybody > (fair start scenario). -- 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:28:05 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:28:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] BOOK: John Glad - Future Human Evolution In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20061025173441.043faf30@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20061025173441.043faf30@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On 10/25/06, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Has anyone read John Glad's book, *Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in > the Twenty-First Century*? If so, can you please give your comments? > Haven't read it and it doesn't seem to be in Amazon, though it seems to be available online [1]. But from the brief comment at whatwemaybe.org it sounds as if it is mired in historic concepts which are about to become invalid. For example, would people undertake the lengthy and risky process of having children if better alternatives were available? Why not take virtual entities (uploads or copies) and mix and match those instead? If Second Life is any example of where humanity is headed then that is where the selection process will take place -- not in the "real" world. Concepts such as a "planet's carrying capacity" and the entire ecological movement (which is closely tied to eugenics) are in need of a significant rewrite given the bio-nano-compu-cogno convergence [2]. I would not consider someone who is a former Russian studies professor to have much expertise in commenting on these areas. Robert 1. http://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/glad.john.2006.future_human_evolution.web.003e.en.pdf 2. We are on the verge of a huge expansion of resources at our disposal far in excess of anything humanity has previously experienced -- that resource expansion vastly exceeds the growth rate that humanity can produce unless there is large scale copying of post biological human minds. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 10:34:48 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:34:48 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What if Dyson spheres are obsolete? (was the Drake Equation) In-Reply-To: <20061026043845.79050.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061026043845.79050.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/26/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > One of the "possibilities" that I think you guys seem to be missing is > that it may turn out that harnessing dark/vacuum/zero-point energy may > actually be easier than building a Dyson sphere. I very much doubt it. At least while I'm on watch, I try to keep a "no magic physics" zone in effect. And other than when we let Anders get carried away from time to time its also a "no magic engineering" zone. *When* you show me that it exists *and* there is a way to tap it *and* you get a significant number of other physicists and engineers to agree with you -- you can bring it to the table. Until then it belongs in the nice but no cigar idea pail with Star Trek transporters and Star Gate SG-1 worm holes (IMO). Robert, I don't understand your comment about Lineweaver and earth lagging > behind "70% of solar systems". What is the rationale of that? Lineweaver and his graduate students over the last several years have published a set of papers which argue that of the "Earth's" in our galaxy ( i.e. those solar systems which should have Earth like conditions allowing for a similar evolution of life) that 70% of them are *older* than ours is (implying that their civilizations stand a significant chance of being much further along than ours is). Since many of those older civilizations may be up to several billion years older than ours they would long ago have gone past any Singularity transition from pre-KT-I to full or somewhat post KT-II [1]. Of course this make the Fermi Paradox much worse until you realize that there is no point to transitioning from a classical KT-II to a classical KT-III level. If you want to evolve along the intelligence vector you have to bring the galaxy's matter and energy into the smallest volume you can manage (before gravity crunches it and makes harvesting any information a wee bit difficult). If you want to evolve along the long term survival vector you migrate out of the galaxy entirely into intergalactic space. Or you can play around in your MBrain virtual universe and bud off mini-MBrains when close encounters with uncolonized star systems (every few million years?) allow for cheap duplication of ones collective mindset [2]. The big bang, if it actually happened and relativity is true, would be the > only time that was the same time for everybody (fair start scenario). Yes, but the evolutionary vectors are *very* much different and *very* much determined by the role of the dice. The element mix of our solar system (which plays a key role in how bacteria and subsequent life evolves) was strongly influenced by one or several nearby supernovas shortly before the formation of our solar nebula (something like 5-6 billion years ago). "Rare Earth" goes into a lot of the conditions that had to be "just right" to get us here -- but "Probability One" offsets most of those with the argument that if *we* are here then others should be as well. The current exoplanet trends seem to be providing a lot of evidence that there are lots of planets and that some solar systems are "strange" but not that systems like our own are highly improbable. With respect to Eugen's comments on converting this system to a Dyson Shell and subsequently a MBrain there are lots of paths. The first table in the paper I did for OSETI III [3] gives you some idea of the various possibilities. Within this solar system I believe that sometime in the 2030-2040 time frame relatively robust nanotech will enable the disassembly of the asteroid belt and our sun (from an external perspective) will start going dark. Whether we continue the process by going after the outer planets or the inner planets (or both) after that opens up a can-o-worms political discussion. One thing is for sure -- advanced civilizations, if they haven't predicted our development properly (i.e. we got "lucky"), *will* start to notice us at that point. Whether they will care gets back to the "we don't talk to nematodes, nor do we talk to invertebrates" conversation. Of course, unless they are sitting in the Oort cloud or closer there will not be much they can do to influence things [4]. Robert 1. A post-KT-II civilization would be one which is utilizing manufactured fusion reactors and H/He lifted out of its original sun (or harvested from interstellar gas clouds) to achieve greater than natural star power output energy scales. Such a civilization could build a externally powered MBrain which has somewhat greater thought capacity than "traditional" internally powered MBrains. 2. It is worth noting from an astronomical perspective that some think that "Blue straggler" stars are the result of stellar collisions. These are relatively rare which gives an indication of how infrequently star systems might pass close enough to allow a KT-II superintelligence replication party. It isn't that one *can't* replicate across light years of distance -- its just that the energy and matter costs of doing so are relatively high if you want to take a significant fraction of ones collective knowledge and history along with you. 3. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/OSETI3/4273-32.html 4. If you play with the numbers from the Exponential Self-Disassembly and Disassembly with 10E26 W columns of the table it becomes fairly obvious that disassembly of everything but the four gas giants can be accomplished in a matter of months. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Oct 26 10:40:51 2006 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:40:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> <20061025145004.GG6974@leitl.org> <20061025163611.GK6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20061026104051.GA6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:29:27PM -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Because the cost is low. They would not be here if they were not Forking off clones is always a costly and risky business. Yet you will notice everybody is doing it. Why? The costs of the alternative is nonexistance, long-term. > preprogrammed to spread. Their lack of exo-awareness specifies that > they cannot spread in a way which dictates probability of survival. I don't understand what this means. > You can easily colonize the marginal niches -- show me a path to > colonize the niches which will dominate! [1] Originally, we were talking about why the universe looks sterile. I've made a number of arguments about how even comparatively primitive systems would nucleate a wave of expansion which would very visibly transform the universe in its wake. Anything which can spread over interstellar distances and cause stars to gray out due to circumstellar photoplankton is reasonably dominant, at least from an astronomer's point of view. Because we can see the starry night sky, we know we're alone. > Yes. But it is sooner or later (whether it be in this galaxy or in > others as one might attempt to colonize -- one is going to have to > face up to the fact that there *are* other ("alien") footprints in > Hollywood Boulevard.) [2]. I would be very happy to see them. But, so far, we seem to become the only advanced culture in the whole visible universe (meaning, we're in nobody's advanced light cone). Anthropic principle applied to expansion waves says this is not a coincidence. The only wave we can observe is the one we ourselves will start (or pioneers meeting other pioneers). > If you have time, and there's stuff growing (fusion metabolism) in > Oort and Kuiper contamination will happen spontaneously, even if > you don't have the genome for a plasma thruster. > > I am not sure that I understand this inference. If important you > should elaborate. Stellar systems don't have sharp boundaries, and there are occasional pretty close flybys. Assuming several sustainable strain of machinery which fuses nonmetals from ice for metabolism there will be spontaneous infection even if you don't have propulsion in the genome. However, any fusion reactor venting backwards is a really really good rocket, and time is of no essence to systems which thrive in deep space. > No, at each step of the way, "colonizers" will assess the "state of > the universe" to determine whether the investment justifies the > benefit. This is the *key* factor which has not been brought into If you have colonizers which work that way, they will be completely left behind by colonizers which are much simply structured, being growth oriented. And these colonizers would be evolutionary optimized even further, with each generation. > SETI, colonization, exploration & growth discussions (at least that I > am aware of) before now. > *WHY* Grow???? We understand reproduction, we have condoms, we have > birth control pills, we understand enough about human > self-satisfaction feedback loops that we can say, "We choose not to > 'grow' -- We choose to better ourselves!" You *have* to justify You haven't happened to noticed that the birth rate about humans who subscribe to above memeset is way below replacement? And that there are subpopulations which have a really high birth rate? http://www.isteve.com/babygap.htm Isn't it richly ironic that those godless Darwinists breed themselves out of existence, whereas folks who believe the wife should be barefoot in the kitchen, when she's not busy giving birth to kids, which in turn let themselves get knocked up as teenagers? > growth across light year distances (and the delays it would impose > upon the computronium) vs. growth across solar system distances (light Adjacent cells in an organism communicate just fine, whether this is a Armillaria ostoyae covering some 8 km^2, or a daphnia. > year delays vs. light minute delays). Here is a leaf of grass. Why should a leaf of grass need to communicate to a leaf of grass 100 miles from here, or with a leaf of grass in Australia? If it does in order to thrive, you can well assume it's a goner, soon. > Of course. Unless a superior force says "All your matter (and energy) > are belong to us. Ha Ha Ha..." [3] Do you see any evidence that all visible space is anything but a sterile wilderness? > You seem to be assuming a send everything everywhere with a colonize > everything worth colonizing perspective. I would argue that you do I personally think it's a reasonably dumb idea. Unfortunately, darwinian system collectively think otherwise, so we don't have much to say in that matter. > not have enough matter or energy to do this. You have to select your > targets -- and if they are not there when you arrive its an "opps" Critters are making mistakes and dying all the time. Some of them don't, and that's enough. > situation. I am willing to entertain this approach but I would want > to see the numbers ( i.e. you have to argue that you can blanket > planetary or asterioid size areas within the surface area of a > galaxy). I am maintaining that if you miss you miss. You have to > know *in advance* with *high probability* that what you want to reach > will be there when you arrive. Otherwise you are shooting bullets Local star movements are highly predictable with Newtonian mechanics alone. Navigation is dead easy, even bacteria can do it. > into the sky -- don't you have something better to do with them? Those who're not into heavy panspermia never figure on the really long run. They might be there, but you will never run into their kind. Instead, you would have to elbow more expansive species out of the way, everywhere. > This assumes you have now way of predicting better outcomes or *know* > that there is a better way to predict outcomes. I would argue that we Smart critters have a much better chance than random, but they're still gambling. There is no perfect knowledge in an imperfect universe. In fact, in co-evolution most of the fitness function is the others, which almost completely wrecks predictability, and makes a stochastic approach be the best. People know that too, you should talk to military strategists about predictability. > are long past that point. Would you spend $200 billion on sending a > spacecraft someplace potentially "colonizable" or $2 billion on where > to send it to? [4] I understand raising a kid today takes about a megabuck. That's about the most expensive thing you can do in your life. > Agreed. The question revolves around whether we are currently > oriented towards detecting such. I would argue that we are not > (yet). Though we appear to be getting closer. You don't see such individual assemblies, but you see where such dark entities encroach on luminous matter. You might miss a single dark galaxy, but you can't miss a cluster of them. We typically see things like http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Ps/aac/images/densitys.gif which doesn't strike me as unnatural. > If they're infected, you can't miss it. Especially aggregated, > they'd > be visible across the entire visible universe. > > This is the light-cone problem. The aren't detectable if they are > spreading directly towards the outskirts of the galaxy or towards the The expansion is always a sphere, and yes, you don't see them coming precisely because they've started a relativistic expansion very soon after they hatched (became observable). And you don't see them coming because in passing through they make emergence of observers impossible/ extinguish presentient observers. That's the anthropic principle thing: you can't observe very well if you're dead (never been born). > nearest GC unless we happen to be in their path. This is similar to > the GRB problem -- you can detect an "impossible" amount of energy if > it happens to be focused in your direction. If it isn't focused that > way you may be lucky to notice it. Have you noticed that all bacteria colonies are circular, the center being the point of inoculation? In 3d medium, they're perfect little spheres. > If the stuff has grown legs, you're an animal at sea. > > I'm not sure I understand this. You seem to be still presuming (a) > spherical growth patterns and (b) that random distributed growth has Absolutely, you're always moving away from high density to low density. The highest density is always at the nucleation point. This might be slightly distorted due to local density variations of the medium and random asymmetries, but is averaged out on the long run into a pretty perfect sphere. > value vs. directed growth ( i.e. colonize the galaxy vs. go to where > your history, skills, experience, etc. will be most useful.) [5] The pioneers are almost certainly not sentient. They're just extreme specialists, begotten by some ancient culture somewhere. > Robert > 1. Colonization of niches which will dominate requires a high degree > of precognisance, which in turn requires a high degree of simulation No, darwinian optimization is enough. If you try many things, some of them will result into something with a high payoff. > capability. [We will for a moment ignore the fact that you are > erasing all of those unsuccessful future thoughts...] If you > colonize, at least if you are somewhat above being brain dead, *or* All organisms colonize. All organisms have offspring. The one which don't don't make even a trace in the fossil record. The history is full of silent have-beens, who would or could not. > roughly about our at our current state of evolution, you would do so > hoping for a reasonable chance of success. Radiation goes in all directions, both up and down. If you have a genome for a fusion reactor, you don't need to understand physics, no more than people need to know all the intricacies of biochemical pathways. > 2. I state this on the basis of Lineweaver's assertions ~70% of solar > systems are ahead of us. We are playing catchup. I will freely Where's the evidence? > modify the position based on evidence in opposition. > 3. You will not understand this unless you are aware of the "Are your > base are belong to us." history. I'm reasonably hip with the Net trivia, thanks. > 4. Numbers are entirely arbitrary -- we can refine the discussion by > providing more accurate estimates. > > 5. You *know* everything which is the 'at current state' within the > galaxy (within your light perception). What you don't know is what > the future will be. You have to position yourself into the future > with respect to probability of survival, greatest contribution, > etc. It is *no* longer about *your* survival, or your children's You're pretty alone in this world to think this. Say, do you have children? > survival. You can choose this but you have to ask "What is the > probability that this will be really important in the long run?" If > you select the past -- my survival, or my children's survival, or my > societies survival, you may be selecting that which is either (a) > doomed to extinction; or (b) not the "best" path. Or you could, > instead, opt for the non-predictable future -- one which is not based The details of the future are always nonpredictable. Co-evolution will make this so, in case it isn't this yet. > upon "make more copies of me and my offspring" but is instead based > upon very far upstream efforts at value manipulation. I suspect the > non-simulated futures fail in signifcant numbers compared to the > simulated futures. It is much too expensive to run simulations of anything. People build houses to live in them. -- 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 10:49:16 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:49:16 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. In-Reply-To: <62c14240610251948s1d5934d6re44b02bd9680a207@mail.gmail.com> References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer> <01fa01c6f85c$965f5e70$380a4e0c@MyComputer> <62c14240610251948s1d5934d6re44b02bd9680a207@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/25/06, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > We may not be talking TO them, but we keep talking ABOUT them. [snip] Interesting set of references! Yes, this gets into the discussion of precisely *what* civilization development paths can be better studied by simulating them vs. simply watching them. That of course then leads to the discussion of when simulating them gets too expensive and there isn't any natural example within the local galaxy cluster that could easily be watched and so the only solution is to setup a solar system (or many of them) from scratch and let the experiment play itself out using "natural" computronium. It is worth noting that it is not uncommon for scientists to participate in experiments that can be expected to take 5-10% of their anticipated lifespan. A 5 billion year solar system evolution experiment would be an even smaller fraction of time for an advanced civilization with an expected longevity of several hundred billion years (or more). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 13:33:56 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:33:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The End of Science ??? Message-ID: Discover Magazine Vol. 27 No. 10 October 2006 The Final Frontier Ten years after the publication of The End of Science, John Horgan says the limits of scientific inquiry are more visible than ever. Ten years ago, science journalist John Horgan published a provocative book suggesting that scientists had solved most of the universe's major mysteries. The outcry was loud and immediate. Given the tremendous advances since then, Discover invited Horgan to revisit his argument and seek out the greatest advances yet to come. Quote: Over the past decade scientists have announced countless discoveries that seem to undercut my thesis: cloned mammals (starting with Dolly the sheep), a detailed map of the human genome, a computer that can beat the world champion in chess, brain chips that let paralyzed people control computers purely by thought, glimpses of planets around other stars, and detailed measurements of the afterglow of the Big Bang. Yet within these successes there are nagging hints that most of what lies ahead involves filling in the blanks of today's big scientific concepts, not uncovering totally new ones. End quote. He doesn't think much of nanotech, immortality, fusion energy, multiverse, string theory, and many subjects popular in extropy-chat. See article for details. In his blog (lots of interesting stuff) at: http://discovermagazine.typepad.com/horganism/2006/09/whacks_pats.html> he gives severe advice to youngsters contemplating a career in science: "By all means become a scientist. But don't think you're going to top Newton or Darwin or Einstein or Watson/Crick by discovering something as monumental as gravity or natural selection or quantum mechanics or relativity or the double helix, because your chances are slim to none. The era of those sorts of big discoveries is over. Also, don't go into particle physics! Especially don't waste your time on string theory, or loop-space theory, or multi-universe theories, or any of the other pseudo-scientific crap in physics and cosmology that we science journalists love so much. And don't follow Steve Wolfram and other chaoplexologists chasing after a unified theory of matter-life-consciousness-everything-under-the-sun. That's as futile as trying to prove the existence of God. Pick a real-world problem that you have some chance of resolving, preferably in a way that improves peoples' lives. Do something useful with your talent! We need your help." ---------- I also liked his point (which I've never heard before) that assuming exponential development towards 'The Singularity' this means that science R&D will be most prolific just before the crunch point of 'Nothing left to find out'. BillK PS Isn't it nice the way the new Firefox 2 does spellcheck as you type into web forms, like gmail? At least if you type nonsense you've got to use valid dictionary words. :) From hemm at openlink.com.br Thu Oct 26 13:17:53 2006 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:17:53 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive References: <20061025224551.42368.qmail@web37411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <090701c6f901$258737e0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> I agree. And I even say that we'd have the obligation to help if we were able to. The prime directive is BS. ----- Original Message ----- From: A B To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:45 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive Hi Henrique, I just don't really agree with the philosophy behind the fictional Prime Directive. I agree with what Brian Atkins wrote on the subject. "We" are constantly using (or at least attempting to use) our growing technology and knowledge to help millions of suffering people (and even a couple animal species) around the globe today. And I think that the majority of people on and off this list are in full support of that end-goal. Assuming a desire to be kind and having the resources available, it just seems inconsistent to me to arbitrarily refuse to help/uplift an extra-solar civilization based on the criterion that they are located 150 light-years away instead of 10,000 Kilometers away (for example a third-world country on our own planet's surface). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: A B To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity (...) Personally, I generally don't agree with the Prime Directive as it has been portrayed in ST. ;-) (...) Can you elaborate on that? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 aiguy at comcast.net Thu Oct 26 14:34:40 2006 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:34:40 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive Message-ID: <102620061434.12683.4540C78000031EEB0000318B2209224627979A09070E@comcast.net> Just look at how much our technology, weapons and vices helped the Aborijines, American Indians, and South American indian tribes. We destroyed their cultures and natural environments entirely. And to say that we would not let this happen today denies recent history, our historical track record, and our basic human natures based on greed and manpulation. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" I agree. And I even say that we'd have the obligation to help if we were able to. The prime directive is BS. ----- Original Message ----- From: A B To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:45 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive Hi Henrique, I just don't really agree with the philosophy behind the fictional Prime Directive. I agree with what Brian Atkins wrote on the subject. "We" are constantly using (or at least attempting to use) our growing technology and knowledge to help millions of suffering people (and even a couple animal species) around the globe today. And I think that the majority of people on and off this list are in full support of that end-goal. Assuming a desire to be kind and having the resources available, it just seems inconsistent to me to arbitrarily refuse to help/uplift an extra-solar civilization based on the criterion that they are located 150 light-years away instead of 10,000 Kilometers away (for example a third-world country on our own planet's surface). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: A B To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity (...) Personally, I generally don't agree with the Prime Directive as it has been portrayed in ST. ;-) (...) Can you elaborate on that? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:58:23 +0000 Size: 712 URL: From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 15:25:38 2006 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <090701c6f901$258737e0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: <20061026152538.40662.qmail@web56511.mail.re3.yahoo.com> One thing you'll notice, though, is that on quite a few episodes, the Enterprise crew ends up finding "loopholes" in the Prime Directive that end up having the same end result as a blatant violation might have had. Usually through carefully directed passivity. I just watched the episode "Symbiosis" the other night, in which the crew was faced with the issue of two neighboring planets economically bound to one another through what amounted to drug trafficking and maintained addiction (shades of the Opium War?). The doctor was all in favor of directly violating the Prime Directive on the basis that it was cruel to withhold the information that one group was taking advantage of the other group. And I have to say, I agreed with her. They ended up staying within the bounds of the directive through not giving one planet repair components for their drug freighters, but the end result (the addicted group figuring out they were addicted) was almost assured. Now, in this case, I would say that once the Enterprise crew figured out that one group was addicted, they had an ethical imperative to share that information. It bothers me sometimes how the Prime Directive assumes that the Federation somehow owns, and is responsible for, information that they intercept by accident and that has tremendous ethical implications for the groups they encounter. Anyone could have intercepted that information, and I think it's a bit paternalistic for the Federation to go around assuming that they can tell, on the basis of superficial aspects of technological development, that a given race somehow cannot "handle". In a sense, the Prime Directive contradicts itself -- they're trying so hard not to be paternalistic that they end up being so unwittingly because of the judgements the directive forces them to make about other cultures. --------------------------------- 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 george at betterhumans.com Thu Oct 26 16:18:54 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:18:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <20061026152538.40662.qmail@web56511.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <090701c6f901$258737e0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> <20061026152538.40662.qmail@web56511.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This thread reminds me of the Star Trek: Enterprise episode, 'Dear Doctor.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Doctor The episode takes place prior to the establishment of a formal 'prime directive.' As Archer noted during the episode, "Someday my people are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that tells us what we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do. But until somebody tells me that they've drafted that directive, I'm going to have to remind myself every day that we didn't come out here to play God." The long-and-the-short of this episode is that the Enterprise crew could have given a species a cure for an epidemic (an illness that would guarantee the extinction of the species within 200 years), but chose not to interfere with the 'natural' evolution of the planet (there was a secondary advanced species on the planet that complicated the situation) . I was so outraged after watching this episode that I literally yelled at the TV. This fixation with naturalism resulted in a reckless indifference that imo was grossly unethical and irresponsible. For the record, I think discussions of 'prime directives' are way too speculative and sociological. It's also non-exclusive; a civ can't assume that other civs would follow suit. Cheers, George From jonkc at att.net Thu Oct 26 17:54:43 2006 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:54:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity. References: <003101c6f7b8$b47d1fe0$0a094e0c@MyComputer><01fa01c6f85c$965f5e70$380a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <004d01c6f927$ec2e0ec0$470a4e0c@MyComputer> Robert Bradbury Wrote: > Nor would one expect "predictions" when one is running around with an > anthropocentric perspective that "they" are like "us". You keep using the word "anthropocentric" like it's the worst insult in the world but its not, it's a valuable tool evolution has provided us to help us figure out what out fellow creature are going to do next, even though our fellow creatures are not just like us. ET or a Jupiter brain would be proudly different from a human, but if you insist that no idea they have ever had has the slightest similarity to any idea we have ever had then there is nothing more that can be said about them. I maintain any intelligence would have a will to power; or at least any intelligence you would want to spend time or use valuable brain cells talking to. > if you can propose that quantum, entangled states of matter can process > information faster than the speed of light Quantum, entangled states can NOT process information faster than light. It can change things at a great distance faster than light but that is not sending information, you are just changing one apparently random sequence to another apparently random sequence. It's not really random but you can only see that when you check what's been sent and what's been received, and you can only do that at the speed of light or less. If you want to propose faster than light information transfer you are proposing radical new physics. And you still haven't explain what it has to do with dark matter. My "there are no ET's" theory needs no new physics and does not need to explain dark matter. > The *reason* the Galaxy has *not* been engineered is that light speed and > energy costs limit how rapidly you can move X quantity of photons You can't have it both ways; can you transmit information faster than light or can you not? > I would argue "weakly interacting dark matter" clearly requires "new > physics". Well sure it does, but you haven't given me the slightest reason to think dark matter has anything to do with ET's or their lack. Your reasoning is that ET's are mysterious and dark matter is mysterious so they must be related. You need a hell of a lot more than that in my book. > I am perfectly comfortable with ETs are intelligent and believe that they > do not go where going is pointless and this would in turn dictate why they > are not "here" To send one Von Neumann probe to the nearest star would cost the poorest ET or smallest Jupiter Brain about what it costs us to buy a candy bar. To maintain that out of the billions of civilizations and trillions of individuals not one of them has bothered to do so is simply not credible my friend. > I want to see you present a case before an informed body that would say > "Yes, we know civilization XYZZY will be at a state to receive *and* make > use of our information stream from Y20XX to 20YY." Jupiter Brain A: Hey dude I've got the munchies, let's buy a bag of potato chips. Jupiter Brain B: Nah, let's send a Von Neumann Probe to star X20YY instead. Jupiter Brain A: Ok Dude, that would be gnarly. John K Clark From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 19:06:47 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <102620061434.12683.4540C78000031EEB0000318B2209224627979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20061026190647.72024.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi aiguy, You do have a partially valid objection, here. However, those situations were significantly different. Those outcomes were largely the result of direct competition, limited resources, racism, etc. Traveling to an intelligent star would be quite different. For one thing, it would very likely not be humans with our "greed and manipulation", but rather (hopefully) "friendly" machines - if we don't at least accomplish that much, then it's pretty much a moot point anyway - they'll just do whatever the hell they feel like and morality may not factor into it whatsoever. In a hypothetical situation: The sooner "we" arrive to help pre-industrial civilization A, the fewer inhabitants of A will die and/or suffer. As I argued in a different post, it is logically and physically *impossible* to ethically violate a conscious entity that: does not exist, has never existed, and never will exist (ie. it is impossible to violate the "future" beings of civilization A who "would have lived" if we had never intervened.) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich aiguy at comcast.net wrote: Just look at how much our technology, weapons and vices helped the Aborijines, American Indians, and South American indian tribes. We destroyed their cultures and natural environments entirely. And to say that we would not let this happen today denies recent history, our historical track record, and our basic human natures based on greed and manpulation. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" I agree. And I even say that we'd have the obligation to help if we were able to. The prime directive is BS. ----- Original Message ----- From: A B To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:45 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive Hi Henrique, I just don't really agree with the philosophy behind the fictional Prime Directive. I agree with what Brian Atkins wrote on the subject. "We" are constantly using (or at least attempting to use) our growing technology and knowledge to help millions of suffering people (and even a couple animal species) around the globe today. And I think that the majority of people on and off this list are in full support of that end-goal. Assuming a desire to be kind and having the resources available, it just seems inconsistent to me to arbitrarily refuse to help/uplift an extra-solar civilization based on the criterion that they are located 150 light-years away instead of 10,000 Kilometers away (for example a third-world country on our own planet's surface). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: A B To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Drake Equation and Spatial Proximity (...) Personally, I generally don't agree with the Prime Directive as it has been portrayed in ST. ;-) (...) Can you elaborate on that? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. --------------------------------- _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From: "Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)" To: "ExI chat list" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:58:23 +0000 _______________________________________________ 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 --------------------------------- 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 22:36:14 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:36:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <20061026190647.72024.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <102620061434.12683.4540C78000031EEB0000318B2209224627979A09070E@comcast.net> <20061026190647.72024.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/26/06, A B wrote: > > In a hypothetical situation: The sooner "we" arrive to help pre-industrial > civilization A, the fewer inhabitants of A will die and/or suffer. As I > argued in a different post, it is logically and physically *impossible* to > ethically violate a conscious entity that: does not exist, has never > existed, and never will exist (ie. it is impossible to violate the "future" > beings of civilization A who "would have lived" if we had never intervened.) > Oh, my god, you mean all those E. coli I am happily flushing down the toilet a couple of times a day (clearly "pre-industrial") deserve to be saved? [1] Shit, I'm just being an evil and bad person every time I go to the john [2]. Ok, so the only way out of this ethical swamp is to never give my ideas "consciousness". It seems feasible to transfer my ideas to the compost heap [3] on quite a regular basis and thus avoid their becoming conscious. That way I avoid the problem of "violating" their right to exist. Thus the most "moral" individuals (following the prime directive) stamp out or discard all ideas before they evolve into conscious entitites. Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for deciding what to preserve or not preserve. Yes I know -- without that our moral compass is adrift in a sea of chaos. Life is a dish almost always served cold. Robert 1. Of course there is the "minor" problem that the E. coli might actually like it in the sewers -- their potential resource base isn't limited by the body they happen to be inhabiting. Kind of like the fact that Klingons have at least in part a raison d'etre which includes fighting and winning. 2. I'm sure some of the readers have concluded this long before now... 3. The ExICh list ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From user at dhp.com Thu Oct 26 22:31:36 2006 From: user at dhp.com (Ensel Sharon) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution / selection of cells within a single body / lifespan Message-ID: Hello, I am very interested in learning more about the concept of cells or mitochondria evolving, or facing selection pressure, within a single body, and within a single human lifespan. Nick Lane speaks a little about this in his book _Power, Sex, Suicide_, but not that much. I am wondering: 1. If anyone can recommend some other sources/books that talk more about this idea/theory 2. If there is an accepted term used to describe this, that I obviously don't know. Also, any comments/discussion anyone here would like to offer would be greatly appreciated. From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Oct 26 22:56:52 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:56:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Buying votes. [Was: ... Vote Early!] In-Reply-To: <1161593150.5725.1.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <200610262307.k9QN794m016459@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Buying votes. [Was: ... Vote Early!] > > On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 09:52 -0700, spike wrote: > > > ...We could pair up people of vaguely opposite > > political persuasions. Samantha and I could watch a polling place > together > > for instance... > > > > I am a bit curious what you think my political persuasion is. Libertarian from the left? I am libertarian from the right. We would make a good poll watching pair because there are few libertarians on the ballots that have much chance of being elected this time. The political discussions this time around have me thinking of the many paradoxes presented by democracy. One such paradox is the fact that few libertarians start out that way: most come in from one of the extremes. Consequently the libertarian party is an odd mixture of voters with some similar positions that they came at from opposite directions. For instance, some libertarians started as traditional leftists who wished to see all drugs legalized and the military draft illegalized. Some libertarians start as traditional rightists who become convinced that in order to stimulate the economy (job one for legitimate governments) the tax rate must be cut on business and the rich, reasoning that taxing business is exactly equal to taxing the already tax-weary consumers, and that cutting taxes on the rich encourage them to spend more, creating more jobs, etc, (Reagan's trickle down economics.) spike From velvethum at hotmail.com Thu Oct 26 23:30:10 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:30:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive References: <102620061434.12683.4540C78000031EEB0000318B2209224627979A09070E@comcast.net><20061026190647.72024.qmail@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > On 10/26/06, A B wrote: >> In a hypothetical situation: The sooner "we" arrive to help pre-industrial >> civilization A, the fewer inhabitants of A will die and/or suffer. As I >> argued in a different post, it is logically and physically *impossible* to >> ethically violate a conscious entity that: does not exist, has never >> existed, and never will exist (ie. it is impossible to violate the "future" >> beings of civilization A who "would have lived" if we had never intervened.) Robert Bradbury: > Oh, my god, you mean all those E. coli I am happily flushing down the toilet > a couple of times a day (clearly "pre-industrial") deserve to be saved? [1] > Shit, I'm just being an evil and bad person every time I go to the john [2]. I doubt that's what he meant. > Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for deciding what to > preserve or not preserve. Yes I know -- without that our moral compass is > adrift in a sea of chaos. Life is a dish almost always served cold. Ok, what is, in your opinion, "correct" criterion for deciding what to preserve or not to preserve and why? Slawomir From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Oct 27 00:07:36 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:07:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] rehi to exi-chat In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890610240108vac854eci179a57ee98070f1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200610270007.k9R07uqI008956@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Mike Butler! How the hail are ya man? Where are ya? You disappeared, what three years ago? I asked around, no one knew where you went, and I recall your saying you were having some health issues but you didn't go into detail, so I feared the worst. Welcome back man! spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Michael M. Butler > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 1:08 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] rehi to exi-chat > > Hello especially to Anders, Robert and Spike. How are things? > > MMB > > -- > Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m > > 'Piss off, you son of a bitch. Everything above where that plane hit > is going to collapse, and it's going to take the whole building with it. > I'm getting my people the fuck out of here." > -- Rick Rescorla (R.I.P.), cell phone call, 9/11/2001 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From mmbutler at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 00:43:27 2006 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:43:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] rehi to exi-chat In-Reply-To: <200610270007.k9R07uqI008956@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7d79ed890610240108vac854eci179a57ee98070f1d@mail.gmail.com> <200610270007.k9R07uqI008956@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890610261743k7cb7d3c6r344429e1893fc973@mail.gmail.com> On 10/26/06, spike wrote: > Mike Butler! How the hail are ya man? Where are ya? You disappeared, what > three years ago? I asked around, no one knew where you went, and I recall > your saying you were having some health issues but you didn't go into > detail, so I feared the worst. Welcome back man! spike I'm doing OK now. Still have to handle some things, but then, don't we all? Living in the W(h)ine Country, working part time at an electronics surplus store (HSC has a location up here in Rohnert Park). Not feeling stimulated enough. Thanks for the welcome. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m 'Piss off, you son of a bitch. Everything above where that plane hit is going to collapse, and it's going to take the whole building with it. I'm getting my people the fuck out of here." -- Rick Rescorla (R.I.P.), cell phone call, 9/11/2001 From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 00:39:45 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Robert, Robert writes: "Oh, my god, you mean all those E. coli I am happily flushing down the toilet a couple of times a day (clearly "pre-industrial") deserve to be saved?" That's why I included the "conscious" qualifier. I think it is a safe presumption that a single E. Coli is not conscious (it is subject to causality/(basic algorithms) and that's about all). A bacterium, a lump of dirt, a rock, a palm tree - don't have rights and don't "deserve" rights because they are not conscious in that form. As such, I have no problem with you doing anything you want to with any of these items or any other item that we can all confidently conclude is not conscious. It is my personal philosophy that no person should be forced or obligated to do "nice" things for others (other conscious beings), however a person should be prevented from doing "evil" (where "evil" can be clearly agreed upon by a *majority* of denizens eg. murder, torture, rape, etc.) things to others. To my mind, that is the most reasonable and inclusive conception of what it means to be "free" while also preserving the "freedom" of others. Robert writes: "Ok, so the only way out of this ethical swamp is to never give my ideas "consciousness". It seems feasible to transfer my ideas to the compost heap [3] on quite a regular basis and thus avoid their becoming conscious. That way I avoid the problem of "violating" their right to exist. Thus the most "moral" individuals (following the prime directive) stamp out or discard all ideas before they evolve into conscious entitites." I don't really understand this paragraph, or the point you are trying to make. But I can say that it seems to me that the ideas can never arise in the first place except through consciousness. Robert writes: "Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for deciding what to preserve or not preserve. Yes I know -- without that our moral compass is adrift in a sea of chaos. Life is a dish almost always served cold." Should we just abandon the quaint notion of ethics altogether? Should we just leave physics as the only judge of what is morally acceptable or abhorrent? Surely you can foresee that doing so would make this a rather unpleasant and/or unjust Universe for the majority of conscious beings. That doesn't bother you? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Robert Bradbury wrote: On 10/26/06, A B wrote: In a hypothetical situation: The sooner "we" arrive to help pre-industrial civilization A, the fewer inhabitants of A will die and/or suffer. As I argued in a different post, it is logically and physically *impossible* to ethically violate a conscious entity that: does not exist, has never existed, and never will exist (ie. it is impossible to violate the "future" beings of civilization A who "would have lived" if we had never intervened.) Oh, my god, you mean all those E. coli I am happily flushing down the toilet a couple of times a day (clearly "pre-industrial") deserve to be saved? [1] Shit, I'm just being an evil and bad person every time I go to the john [2]. Ok, so the only way out of this ethical swamp is to never give my ideas "consciousness". It seems feasible to transfer my ideas to the compost heap [3] on quite a regular basis and thus avoid their becoming conscious. That way I avoid the problem of "violating" their right to exist. Thus the most "moral" individuals (following the prime directive) stamp out or discard all ideas before they evolve into conscious entitites. Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for deciding what to preserve or not preserve. Yes I know -- without that our moral compass is adrift in a sea of chaos. Life is a dish almost always served cold. Robert 1. Of course there is the "minor" problem that the E. coli might actually like it in the sewers -- their potential resource base isn't limited by the body they happen to be inhabiting. Kind of like the fact that Klingons have at least in part a raison d'etre which includes fighting and winning. 2. I'm sure some of the readers have concluded this long before now... 3. The ExICh list ? _______________________________________________ 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 01:22:46 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution / selection of cells within a single body / lifespan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061027012246.82048.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Ensel Sharon wrote: > > Hello, > > I am very interested in learning more about the > concept of cells or > mitochondria evolving, or facing selection pressure, > within a single body, > and within a single human lifespan. > > Nick Lane speaks a little about this in his book > _Power, Sex, Suicide_, > but not that much. I am wondering: > > 1. If anyone can recommend some other sources/books > that talk more about > this idea/theory Lots of academic stuff like immunology text books, cancer biology books, articles like: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4260/23?ijkey=810a8276b318c3fbfb91f9c30f34c002eaa675e5&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/5/1165 The idea has been around for some time amongst biologists. Unfortunately I don't know of any popular books that explain the concept very well. > 2. If there is an accepted term used to describe > this, that I obviously > don't know. "Clonal selection" (although this term is more often used to describe adaptive immunology and tolerance) Clonal selection: there are two versions of this idea, one from immunology and the other from cancer biology. The immunological clonal selection theory is about how white blood cells over the course of your life time *evolve* or alternatively *learn* to recognize self from non-self (or traitors to the self) in order to defend the body against diseases like viruses and cancer. The clonal selection theory of carcinogenesis is the theory of how cells mutate to become cancer cells, gradually developing adaptations that allow them to escape or overwhelm the body's defenses and commandeer more resources for themselves at the expense of the rest of the body. Although if you get bogged down in detail, the two forms of clonal selection may seem to differ but the general theme is the same. It is an evolutionary arms race going on between cells of the self, non-self cells (microbes), and defector cells within the context of a single organism's body during its life span. Other terms I have seen used in the literature specifically in regards to cancer cells are "somatic evolution" and "clonal evolution" which are more reflective of the constant Darwinian struggle going on within your body. In no other way is the illusion of "you" made more apparent than when you learn that you are a collective of factions competing with one another as well as foreign invaders for the holy grail of another sunrise. In any case it is a facinating subject which certainly deserves a book. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 04:30:50 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What if Dyson spheres are obsolete? (was the Drake Equation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061027043050.71111.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > On 10/26/06, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > One of the "possibilities" that I think you guys > seem to be missing is > > that it may turn out that harnessing > dark/vacuum/zero-point energy may > > actually be easier than building a Dyson sphere. > > I very much doubt it. At least while I'm on watch, > I try to keep a "no > magic physics" zone in effect. And other than when > we let Anders get > carried away from time to time its also a "no magic > engineering" zone. > *When* you show me that it exists *and* there is a > way to tap it *and* you > get a significant number of other physicists and > engineers to agree with you > -- you can bring it to the table. Until then it > belongs in the nice but no > cigar idea pail with Star Trek transporters and Star > Gate SG-1 worm holes > (IMO). Both you and Eugen make this point although I thought the scientific consensus was that the cassimir force was a manifestation of said vacuum energy. What else could it be? Quantum gravity? The fifth fundamental force? Cassimir's experiments have been replicated enough times that I don't "disbelieve" his results so to speak. And Adrian Tymes seemed to be onto some interesting, with his cassimir micro-turbines. (What ever happened to Adrian anyways?) > Lineweaver and his graduate students over the last > several years have > published a set of papers which argue that of the > "Earth's" in our galaxy ( > i.e. those solar systems which should have Earth > like conditions allowing > for a similar evolution of life) that 70% of them > are *older* than ours is > (implying that their civilizations stand a > significant chance of being much > further along than ours is). Your explanation is still rather data-free. I am not big fan of appealing to authority for my arguments. And authoritative speculation in the complete absense of data is not much more accurate than a layman's. Beyond that there is a certain dellusory aspect to speculating upon the speculations of others. By the time you get around to the third recursive iteration of speculation, you are firmly in the realm of unicorns and fairies. Three steps beyond a definitive mathematical proof or conclusive experiment and you are on the yellow-brick road to Oz. That's my philosophy at any rate. I tried to look up the links you posted but they didn't work. Let me know when they are back online. I will reserve my comments until I have read them. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Oct 27 09:11:40 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:11:40 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> A B wrote: > Robert writes: > > "Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for deciding what > to preserve or not preserve. Yes I know -- without that our moral compass > is adrift in a sea of chaos. Life is a dish almost always served cold." > > Should we just abandon the quaint notion of ethics altogether? Should we > just leave physics as the only judge of what is morally acceptable or > abhorrent? Surely you can foresee that doing so would make this a rather > unpleasant and/or unjust Universe for the majority of conscious beings. > That doesn't bother you? I also wonder why consciousness, of all properties, should be ethically important. Why not the ability to experience love, or having six legs? What is it about consciousness that makes it so special? Kant had the idea that rationality was the important thing for moral agency. A being unable to make rational considerations would be unable to behave morally (and certainly unable to formulate an ethics, a theory of moral behavior). This doesn't mean that one ought to treat non-rational entities in any way one likes, but the moral restrictions are much lesser than for interactions with other moral agents. One can argue for example that hurting animals is bad both because it breaks aesthetic values and makes the person hurting the animals a more brutal person. I wonder if we really would end up with a mostly unpleasant (it can't really become unjust in this case) universe if we acknowledged physics as the underlying basis for morality. Sure, a stupid "might makes right" world is upleasant. But with sufficient rationality among all the rational entities they would be able to foresee consequences well. All the entities who would be badly off in the might makes right world would hence band together to ensure that it would not occur (e.g. by resisting the strong or by making it irrational to pursue that world because they would irrevocably blow up a doomsday device if it did occur, etc). While we today do not have any great theory of how one should behave we can still as moderately rational beings construct systems of heuristics that have good evidence and reasoning behind them that promote wellbeing. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Oct 27 09:31:51 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:31:51 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] What if Dyson spheres are obsolete? (was the Drake Equation) In-Reply-To: <20061026043845.79050.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061026043845.79050.qmail@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <57167.86.143.247.179.1161941511.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The Avantguardian wrote: > > One of the "possibilities" that I think you guys seem > to be missing is that it may turn out that harnessing > dark/vacuum/zero-point energy may actually be easier > than building a Dyson sphere. To join with the choir, why do you think this? I could make the claim that breaking the law of conservation of angular momentum is even easier than building an electric motor - but without any idea of how to do it the claim just becomes an unsupported claim. Vaccum and zero-point energy appears to be highly entropic and/or isotropic and you need a difference to set up a thermodynamic engine. It is unlikely you could get any energy from suffling them around within their own domains. If ZPE or dark energy are to be regarded as istropic heat reservoirs with a different temperature than the reservoir of the visible universe then one could get energy by having a heat flow between them. But if this was easily possible it would have happened a long time ago, likely during the big bang. There might still be some clever way of doing it that doesn't naturally occur, but I haven't seen any convincing idea of how to do it. One of the funnier approaches I've seen was to use Casimir forces to extract energy from two horisontal plates by having them move together vertically, then slide them apart horisontally, returning them to the original position. Alas, a careful analysis (I have the paper *somewhere*) show that there is Casimir forces resiting the return to the original state in such a way as to make the energy gain zero. I'm open for the possibility that there is some magical physics out there, because I think the universe looks even M-brain empty. There ought to be a few von Neumanns out there anyway, and we are not seeing anything. My guess is that there is some physics that once discovered leads to a very discreet civilization. Hopefully it is of the baby universe or moving down to the Planck scale kind, and not of the kind that any sufficiently advanced civilization can wipe out any other civ it knows about instantly anywhere and hence keep very, very quiet. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 13:08:58 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:08:58 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] Message-ID: On 10/26/06, BillK wrote: > PS > Isn't it nice the way the new Firefox 2 does spellcheck as you type > into web forms, like gmail? > At least if you type nonsense you've got to use valid dictionary > words. :) Since *you* brought it up, I'll simply copy my comments to Digg regarding people finding bugs in Firefox 2. "Firefox 2.0 is just like Firefox 1.5.0.4-7 -- NOT READY FOR PRODUCTION USE! I managed to produce 3 core dumps and file 3 Talkback incidents in the first half hour of using it. All you have to do (under Linux) is use "ulimit -Sv ###000" to limit the amount of virtual memory to ### MB. Depending upon how many extensions you have installed it generally crashes when its memory usage hits between 100 and 120 MB of memory. This will crash it quickly. You can set your limit to 1.3 GB and push it up into that range of memory consumption over several days of normal use (50-100 windows, 300-700 tabs) and it will dump at that level as well (of course taking 30+ minutes to restore its state when you restart it -- grrrrr...). Production level software fails gracefully when it hits system limits (close a tab, close a window, print an error, etc. -- it doesn't abort the program completely)! Firefox (at least 1.5.0.7) doesn't handle its heap memory properly over days of use to avoid memory fragmentation (I can push it up to 1.2 GB, exit it and restart all of the same windows & tabs and have it consuming 800MB). Until the memory limit core dump and excessive memory usage problems are fixed it should be presented as a "toy" browser." So long as they continue to add things (like spelling checkers) which are bells and whistles without addressing fundamental issues like being a robust and reliable piece of software I will not be singing its praises. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george at betterhumans.com Fri Oct 27 13:40:38 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:40:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: > A B wrote: > > Robert writes: > > "Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for deciding what > > to preserve or not preserve. Yes I know -- without that our moral compass > > is adrift in a sea of chaos. Life is a dish almost always served cold." And Anders Sandberg wrote: > I also wonder why consciousness, of all properties, should be ethically > important. Why not the ability to experience love, or having six legs? > What is it about consciousness that makes it so special? [George shakes his head incredulously]: What's so important about consciousness!? Well, it's through consciousness that the Universe has this little thing that we like to call observers -- and without them there is nothing in the Universe that's self-reflexive. Hell, it's arguable (via quantum theory) that without observers there is no Universe! Anders, how can love be experienced by an unconscious, non-self-referential, non-subjective agent? What you're suggesting is absurd. Consciousness is the measure of all ethics because subjectivity is the only thing that truly exists - esse est percipi. George From user at dhp.com Fri Oct 27 14:47:01 2006 From: user at dhp.com (Ensel Sharon) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution / selection of cells within a single body / lifespan In-Reply-To: <20061027012246.82048.qmail@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello, On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I am very interested in learning more about the > > concept of cells or > > mitochondria evolving, or facing selection pressure, > > within a single body, > > and within a single human lifespan. (snip) > Although if you get bogged down in detail, the two > forms of clonal selection may seem to differ but the > general theme is the same. It is an evolutionary arms > race going on between cells of the self, non-self > cells (microbes), and defector cells within the > context of a single organism's body during its life > span. > > Other terms I have seen used in the literature > specifically in regards to cancer cells are "somatic > evolution" and "clonal evolution" which are more > reflective of the constant Darwinian struggle going on > within your body. > > In no other way is the illusion of "you" made more > apparent than when you learn that you are a collective > of factions competing with one another as well as > foreign invaders for the holy grail of another > sunrise. > In any case it is a facinating subject which certainly > deserves a book. I am interested in the topic, generally, but I was specifically thinking about the "athletes paradox" as it relates to aging (how athletes produce more metabolism, and consume more calories, but seem to gain the same benefits as those practicing calorie reduction, among other things) ... and it occurred to me that perhaps placing exercise stress on the body produces a selection effect in the body - marginal cells that would otherwise survive and promote decline in a non-stressed body get quickly weeded out when the body is stressed, as in exercise. Comments ? If this were true, it would seem that exercise would need to be started early in life _and_ maintained throughout life, or else you would end up stressing cells/systems/genes that had already declined due to lack of selection pressure. This reminds me, of course, of the proposed theory that CR only works when you begin young, and further, that CR is perhaps just another form of stress on a bodily system ... perhaps fostering intra-body selection. From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 27 14:33:29 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:33:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: References: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061027093011.044e6c70@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:40 AM 10/27/2006, George wrote: >Anders, how can love be experienced by an unconscious, >non-self-referential, non-subjective agent? What you're suggesting is >absurd. Since Anders is an extraordinarily creative thinker, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and simply ask him to explain rather than to assume it is absurd. :-) I don't know - sometimes what seems absurd is not. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, 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 Oct 27 15:54:16 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20061027155416.88006.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Anders, Anders writes: ..."What is it about consciousness that makes it so special?" I agree completely with what George Dvorsky wrote. I would also add that it is only through consciousness that pleasure is possible (which most beings would choose to maximize), and alternatively, it is only through consciousness that suffering is possible (which most beings would choose to minimize). That alone makes consciousness pretty darned important, in my book. Anders writes: "Kant had the idea that rationality was the important thing for moral agency. A being unable to make rational considerations would be unable to behave morally (and certainly unable to formulate an ethics, a theory of moral behavior). This doesn't mean that one ought to treat non-rational entities in any way one likes, but the moral restrictions are much lesser than for interactions with other moral agents. One can argue for example that hurting animals is bad both because it breaks aesthetic values and makes the person hurting the animals a more brutal person." Although that makes a bit of sense in a very cold and removed way, it still doesn't address for example, the needless subjective suffering of the tortured animal. Another issue that's going to throw a wrench into the engine, is that before too long we will be able to technologically uplift the original non-rational beings to super-rational levels - the undeveloped *potential* of a conscious being will also become a major ethical issue. Anders writes: "I wonder if we really would end up with a mostly unpleasant (it can't really become unjust in this case) universe if we acknowledged physics as the underlying basis for morality."... I think you can be assured of that outcome. Just take a quick survey of what physics/Darwinian selection has given us so far - an extremely top-heavy ratio of total suffering : to total pleasure. Anders writes: "But with sufficient rationality among all the rational entities they would be able to foresee consequences well." That's among our biggest obstacles. By any chance have you ever seen an episode of the TV show "Jerry Springer" ? ............................... Anders writes: "All the entities who would be badly off in the might makes right world would hence band together to ensure that it would not occur (e.g. by resisting the strong or by making it irrational to pursue that world because they would irrevocably blow up a doomsday device if it did occur, etc)." That strategy might have worked in 16th century Earth, for example. But in the age of exponential recursive self-improvement (and other rapid bootstrapping techniques), methinks it ain't gonna happen. Anders writes: "... we can still as moderately rational beings construct systems of heuristics that have good evidence and reasoning behind them that promote wellbeing." That is certainly true, but it won't be enough for that "might makes right" Universe. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Anders Sandberg wrote: A B wrote: > Robert writes: > > "Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for deciding what > to preserve or not preserve. Yes I know -- without that our moral compass > is adrift in a sea of chaos. Life is a dish almost always served cold." > > Should we just abandon the quaint notion of ethics altogether? Should we > just leave physics as the only judge of what is morally acceptable or > abhorrent? Surely you can foresee that doing so would make this a rather > unpleasant and/or unjust Universe for the majority of conscious beings. > That doesn't bother you? I also wonder why consciousness, of all properties, should be ethically important. Why not the ability to experience love, or having six legs? What is it about consciousness that makes it so special? Kant had the idea that rationality was the important thing for moral agency. A being unable to make rational considerations would be unable to behave morally (and certainly unable to formulate an ethics, a theory of moral behavior). This doesn't mean that one ought to treat non-rational entities in any way one likes, but the moral restrictions are much lesser than for interactions with other moral agents. One can argue for example that hurting animals is bad both because it breaks aesthetic values and makes the person hurting the animals a more brutal person. I wonder if we really would end up with a mostly unpleasant (it can't really become unjust in this case) universe if we acknowledged physics as the underlying basis for morality. Sure, a stupid "might makes right" world is upleasant. But with sufficient rationality among all the rational entities they would be able to foresee consequences well. All the entities who would be badly off in the might makes right world would hence band together to ensure that it would not occur (e.g. by resisting the strong or by making it irrational to pursue that world because they would irrevocably blow up a doomsday device if it did occur, etc). While we today do not have any great theory of how one should behave we can still as moderately rational beings construct systems of heuristics that have good evidence and reasoning behind them that promote wellbeing. -- 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 --------------------------------- 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 asa at nada.kth.se Fri Oct 27 16:38:39 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:38:39 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: References: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <1884.163.1.72.81.1161967119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> George Dvorsky wrote: > And Anders Sandberg wrote: >> I also wonder why consciousness, of all properties, should be ethically >> important. Why not the ability to experience love, or having six legs? >> What is it about consciousness that makes it so special? > > [George shakes his head incredulously]: What's so important about > consciousness!? Well, it's through consciousness that the Universe has > this little thing that we like to call observers -- and without them > there is nothing in the Universe that's self-reflexive. Hell, it's > arguable (via quantum theory) that without observers there is no > Universe! I'll leave quantum theory out of this, since I think decoherence does the job better than observers. If observerdom means that there exists subsystems of the universe that mirrors parts of the whole in a nontrivial way then it is not obvious that they need to be conscious to do this. If one believes in philosophical zombies then they may be wonderfully self-reflexive without having the least consciousness. If one don't think they can exist (my own view), then consciousness might simply be the effect of being a self-reflexive system. But then self-relfection is the primary thing that might be important, not consciousness. > Anders, how can love be experienced by an unconscious, > non-self-referential, non-subjective agent? What you're suggesting is > absurd. Well, I'm at a philosophy department. The absurd is my job :-) Looking at love, I don't see anything that couldn't be achieved by the unconscious, non-self-referential non-subjective agent (except of cource experiencing it). Imagine these agents swarming around, with internal representations of other agents (but not of themselves). Some attraction decision process make agent A court agent B, and if both agent interactions click they go into a state of establishing a pair bond. They learn how to track each other, pursue goals together and so on. >From the outside we might say that these agents are mere dolls not experiencing anything, and that the key part of love is the subjective emotional aspect. But human love is clearly much more than the subjective feeling - if you love someone you would behave and think in certain different ways from normal, just experiencing the feeling and not changing anything would not be love. Being obsessed by another, trying to be close, helping the other to flourish for its own sake, such behaviors are quite doable by nonconscious agents and I think they constitute an essential part of love. > Consciousness is the measure of all ethics because subjectivity is the > only thing that truly exists - esse est percipi. But in that case non-conscious objects have no rights, or everything have rights if you are a panpsychist. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Oct 27 16:46:17 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:46:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: George Dvorsky wrote: > > > Robert writes: > > > "Might I suggest that "consciousness" is a poor criteria for > > > deciding what to preserve or not preserve. Yes I know -- without > > > that our moral compass is adrift in a sea of chaos. Life > is a dish almost always served cold." > > And Anders Sandberg wrote: > > I also wonder why consciousness, of all properties, should be > > ethically important. Why not the ability to experience > love, or having six legs? > > What is it about consciousness that makes it so special? > > [George shakes his head incredulously]: What's so important > about consciousness!? Well, it's through consciousness that > the Universe has this little thing that we like to call > observers -- and without them there is nothing in the > Universe that's self-reflexive. Hell, it's arguable (via > quantum theory) that without observers there is no Universe! > > Anders, how can love be experienced by an unconscious, > non-self-referential, non-subjective agent? What you're > suggesting is absurd. > > Consciousness is the measure of all ethics because > subjectivity is the only thing that truly exists - esse est percipi. I'll jump in at this point since (as is apparent from almost any of my posts) I see confusion surrounding subjective vs. objective points of view, and how to effectively apply them, as central to issues of ethical thinking. There is a memetic attractor, characterized by such works as _The Tao of Physics_, _The Dancing Wu-Li Masters_, and more recently, _What the Bleep do we Know_, that emphasizes the role of consciousness as central to the universe. This point of view predominates within certain communities, perhaps most notably Berkeley, California, named after George Berkeley, the originator of the phrase "esse est percipi", or "to be is to be perceived." It's an attractive, or rather, seductive, point of view, promising limitless creative potential and universal meaning, ostensibly based on hard empirical laws of physics. Believers in this memetic system naturally see themselves as more enlightened, more sympathetic, and more in touch with the true laws of the universe and typically use labels like "reductionist" to describe those who "don't get it." However, regardless of viewpoint, one continues to bump up against the hard edges of reality, and thereby test and refine ones model of that which exists regardless of ones beliefs. One can look at the statement "arguably, without observers there is no Universe", and be struck by the magical importance of the observer that this implies. Alternatively, one can see this statement as an example of a concept begging for a larger context providing a better fit with empirical observation. And with the word "observation" we touch upon the crux of the matter; that to describe something implies an approach toward objectivity. But since any "description" must be the "output" of some intentional process, we are necessarily left with subjectivity at the center. So people commonly reason, as did Berkeley and Descartes (with his "cogito ergo sum"), that the observer (consciousness) is key to existence. But such reasoning *assumes* the existence of an independent observer, privileged to make valid observations about reality. [If the concept of recursion has been commonly appreciated during their times I think we would now be much further along the road of ethical development.] The subjective point of view *is* all-important, in the domain of meaning: values, categories, classification etc. The objective point of view *is* all important, in the domain of description: modeling, predicting, etc. Put them together and you have an increasingly effective agent, making increasingly effective decisions to increasingly promote its values over increasing scope. [Recursion--it can't be avoided.] Love is derivative of a more fundamental principle which I refer to as "synergetic growth." Within a competitive coevolutionary environment (which describes ours if you view at the appropriate scale), that which persists and grows is that which is increasingly effective at promoting its own identity (we are defined by our values.) "Love" is a word describing a class of behavior that has been evolutionarily advantageous due to the increased fitness it provides at the group level, thus extending to the individual genes which code for this behavior. A superclass of "love" might be "cooperation" and a superclass of "cooperation" might be synergetic growth. While love might properly apply only to humans and some other mammals, synergetic growth applies to interactions all the way back to the Big Bang (or perhaps the two H atoms fell in love to form a He?) To use the analogy of a team playing a completive sport (or perhaps business, or life?) I would rather be teammates with a group that shared my values and had an increasingly accurate model of effective play, than to be teammates with a group who shared a belief in the power of believing in winning. [The implicit belief there is deliberate.] All of the foregoing cannot be proved. Any attempt to do so would be recursive. And to understand that last sentence is to understand the foregoing. And understanding the foregoing applies to understanding life. And better understanding leads to better decision-making. And better decision-making leads to better outcomes. And better outcomes we call "good". And that we call "morality." - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Oct 27 16:48:59 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:48:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <20061027155416.88006.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: AB wrote: I agree completely with what George Dvorsky wrote. I would also add that it is only through consciousness that pleasure is possible (which most beings would choose to maximize), and alternatively, it is only through consciousness that suffering is possible (which most beings would choose to minimize). That alone makes consciousness pretty darned important, in my book. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Oct 27 16:56:46 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:56:46 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <20061027155416.88006.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061027155416.88006.qmail@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1956.163.1.72.81.1161968206.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> A B wrote: > I agree completely with what George Dvorsky wrote. I would also add that > it is only through consciousness that pleasure is possible (which most > beings would choose to maximize), and alternatively, it is only through > consciousness that suffering is possible (which most beings would choose > to minimize). That alone makes consciousness pretty darned important, in > my book. Well, what is so important about pleasure and suffering then? If we say they are important because we have evolved that way, and that pleasure and suffering are signals about imminent potential or risk for our fitness, then it seems that we should try to maximize fitness instead of consciousness or pleasure, or minimizing pain. If they are important because they are subjective states of attraction/repulsion, then again it begs the question why we would aim for a world where we follow our subjective attractions and lack any repulsions. I'm not denying that pleasure is a good thing, it is just that I have so far never seen a really convincing justification of it. > Another issue that's going to throw a wrench into > the engine, is that before too long we will be able to technologically > uplift the original non-rational beings to super-rational levels - the > undeveloped *potential* of a conscious being will also become a major > ethical issue. Again, why is the potential important? There is undeveloped potential for great art in blocks of marble, but I don't think it is a crime that artists don't free it as much as they can. > "I wonder if we really would end up with a mostly unpleasant (it can't > really become unjust in this case) universe if we acknowledged physics as > the underlying basis for morality."... > > I think you can be assured of that outcome. Just take a quick survey of > what physics/Darwinian selection has given us so far - an extremely > top-heavy ratio of total suffering : to total pleasure. Acknowledging hydrodynamics as the basis for your engineering project doesn't mean that you have to make it behave like water does in nature. A computer built by fluidistors is utterly un-lakelike but yet based on the same principles and material. My point was that starting from physics and empirical observations we can rationally construct ethical systems that work practically. Basing morality on non-physics means basing it on non-reality. (It should be noted that I regard logical reasoning and concepts as being physical processes, rather than some kind of platonic abstractions. They are as real as language and culture, patterns embedded in our physical neural substrate). > "All the entities who would be badly off in the might makes right world > would hence band together to ensure that it would not occur (e.g. by > resisting the strong > or by making it irrational to pursue that world because they would > irrevocably blow up a doomsday device if it did occur, etc)." > > That strategy might have worked in 16th century Earth, for example. But > in the age of exponential recursive self-improvement (and other rapid > bootstrapping techniques), methinks it ain't gonna happen. Because the natural power distribution would be highly uneven? Assuming this is true, it does not follow that it would be rational for the most powerful entities to use their powers in a might makes right fashion. It might be possible, it might be tempting, but it might not be a logical necessity. I think a lot of game theory and economics actually suggests the reverse. But this is always going to be scenario-dependent. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From scerir at libero.it Fri Oct 27 17:17:49 2006 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:17:49 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive References: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com><57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <000901c6f9eb$d4b39ed0$e8951f97@nomedxgm1aalex> George Dvorsky > Hell, it's arguable (via quantum theory) that > without observers there is no Universe! Observers ... do you mean human observers? Or observers in general, i.e. pigs, dogs, and trees? Because they also collapse state vectors (or are supposed to 'split' the reality, or to create the reality). s. From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Oct 27 17:35:53 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:35:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry, I sent the previous excerpt accidentally. But since we're on the topic, let me ask AB then: Would you rather maximize your pleasure or maximize the promotion of your values? You might respond that you would choose to maximize your pleasure by means that include promotion of your values, but if that were the case, I would then ask whether you wouldn't better maximize your pleasure via IV drip in some secluded room for as long as possible. Such a line of thought leads inexorably to the absurdity of being dead in order to avoid suffering. Regarding consciousness, you have no way of measuring whether anyone is conscious. We all could be zombies but behave exactly the same. Occam's razor implies that all have consciousness similar to your own, but in any case you have absolutely no access to others subjective experience. So how is consciousness relevant to your decision-making? It might be only a distraction, but I could point out that direct access to even your own subjective experience is an illusion. Think distorted memory, fabricated memory, Libet experiments, etc. Despite the assumption of Descartes and others, there is no "you" who has privileged access to the experience of being you. If you were to enquire as to what it's like to be you, you would be querying a physical system that would respond based on its particular functional characteristics including its model of the world (with you in it) from the past. [Recursion, ad infinitum, from the subjective POV] - Jef AB wrote: I agree completely with what George Dvorsky wrote. I would also add that it is only through consciousness that pleasure is possible (which most beings would choose to maximize), and alternatively, it is only through consciousness that suffering is possible (which most beings would choose to minimize). That alone makes consciousness pretty darned important, in my book. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 18:24:45 2006 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:24:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62c14240610271124l258de074h478b7a88cc84a9f9@mail.gmail.com> On 10/27/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 10/26/06, BillK wrote: > > "Firefox 2.0 is just like Firefox 1.5.0.4-7 -- NOT READY FOR PRODUCTION > USE! > I managed to produce 3 core dumps and file 3 Talkback incidents in the > first half hour of using it. > > Production level software fails gracefully when it hits system limits > (close a tab, close a window, print an > > So long as they continue to add things (like spelling checkers) which are > bells and whistles without addressing fundamental issues like being a robust > and reliable piece of software I will not be singing its praises. > 1. You are of course trying to break things when you set artificial limits on memory, and open hundreds of tabs... 2. That is absolutely true. General consumers don't care. If you believe otherwise, see what WalMart is selling. 3. You don't think bells and whistles are what people (other than a small minority like yourself) are asking for? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 18:36:00 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:36:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] In-Reply-To: <62c14240610271124l258de074h478b7a88cc84a9f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <62c14240610271124l258de074h478b7a88cc84a9f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610271136w24edef7dlbd425835e7a0ac4c@mail.gmail.com> On 10/27/06, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > 1. You are of course trying to break things when you set artificial limits > on memory, and open hundreds of tabs... > 2. That is absolutely true. General consumers don't care. If you believe > otherwise, see what WalMart is selling. > 3. You don't think bells and whistles are what people (other than a small > minority like yourself) are asking for? > And if we really believe even a tenth of the talk about uploading, AGI, Singularity etc this century, we shouldn't be quibbling about a tiny amount of memory used by a web browser of all things. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 18:35:28 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <1884.163.1.72.81.1161967119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20061027183528.89182.qmail@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Anders, Anders writes: ..."But in that case non-conscious objects have no rights..." Non-conscious objects *don't* have rights. Nor should they. Certainly not to the extent that the "right" of a non-conscious object trumps the right of a conscious being. A dispute between two conscious beings regarding the fate of a specified non-conscious object is a dispute of the rights of the *conscious beings*, not a dispute about the (non-existent) "rights" of the object. 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 george at betterhumans.com Fri Oct 27 19:30:59 2006 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <1884.163.1.72.81.1161967119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <1884.163.1.72.81.1161967119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 10/27/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > I'll leave quantum theory out of this, since I think decoherence does the > job better than observers. This doesn't make sense to me and runs against my conception of quantum mechanics, the role of the observer, and how decoherence works. Please explain, as I don't think this should be hand-waved away. > If observerdom means that there exists > subsystems of the universe that mirrors parts of the whole in a nontrivial > way then it is not obvious that they need to be conscious to do this. If > one believes in philosophical zombies then they may be wonderfully > self-reflexive without having the least consciousness. If one don't think > they can exist (my own view), then consciousness might simply be the > effect of being a self-reflexive system. But then self-relfection is the > primary thing that might be important, not consciousness. Sure, you can have a system that it self-reflexive in the sense that it is programmed to monitor its status on an ongoing basis. This is autonomous self-reflection without awareness of the "I" in self-reflection. I think we're lacking a working definition of consciousness here, and that's posing problems in this discussion. According to John Searle, "Consciousness, so defined, has three remarkable characteristics. First, there is always a qualitative feel to our conscious experiences. Think of the difference between listening to music and tasting wine. Second, consciousness is always subjective in the sense that it only exists as experienced by human or animal subjects. It has a first-person mode of existence that requires some "I" that actually experiences the conscious states. And third, pathologies apart, each conscious state comes to us as part of a single, unified con-scious field. So we don't just have the taste of the wine and the sound of the music, but both of these are part of one large conscious experience." What Searle argues is that these three features are *not* independent, "They are different aspects of the essential character of consciousness that can be accurately called qualitative subjectivity." If I'm reading you correctly, Anders, you're suggesting that these aspects are independent and that you could have an agent living some kind of a meaningful existence with only part of the whole of what Searle would regard as consciousness. > Well, I'm at a philosophy department. The absurd is my job :-) I'm thinking it's the Oxford air ;-) > Looking at love, I don't see anything that couldn't be achieved by the > unconscious, non-self-referential non-subjective agent (except of cource > experiencing it). Well, if nobody is experiencing it, what's the point? > But in that case non-conscious objects have no rights, or everything have > rights if you are a panpsychist. Bingo. Non-conscious objects have no rights. The only entites in the universe that should be ascribed moral status are ones with subjective, qualitative awareness. I'm not about to grant my pet rock rights. And corporate personhood is an agreed upon fiction for legalistic purposes. As for panpsychism, that's not an entirely fair representation (although some panpsychists do contend that all matter is somehow 'conscious'). Modern panpsychists like A. N. Whitehead and David Chalmers argue that the interplay between reality and consciousness is indelibly linked, and that stringed 'occassions' or moment slices as observed by a conscious entity is very much what reality is made of. Further, there's this idea in protopanpsychism that consciousness is a fundamental of the Universe not unlike electromagnetism or gravity -- we still need to nail this one and figure out how the mechanisms in the brain are oriented such that they take advantage of this aspect of physics. Cheers, George From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 19:05:58 2006 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <1956.163.1.72.81.1161968206.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20061027190558.6368.qmail@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Anders, Anders writes: ..."If they [ pleasure and suffering ] are important because they are subjective states of attraction/repulsion, then again it begs the question why we would aim for a world where we follow our subjective attractions and lack any repulsions." I don't have any problems with a world with repulsions. If a free and unmolested conscious being derives pleasure from *causing itself* to suffer, that's perfectly fine with me. I wish him well. But I have a major problem when one conscious being tries to impose agreeable suffering on another *unwilling* conscious being. Anders writes: "Again, why is the potential important? There is undeveloped potential for great art in blocks of marble, but I don't think it is a crime that artists don't free it as much as they can." But blocks of marble aren't conscious, and thus have no rights. Again, consistent with my beliefs, no person should be forced to be kind and helpful if they don't want to, by uplifting an animal for example, but they should be prevented from severely violating the consciousness of that animal (as can be agreed upon by a majority of conscious beings). IOW, it should not be a crime to choose not to help the animal, that should be a matter of personal judgment. Anders writes: "My point was that starting from physics and empirical observations we can rationally construct ethical systems that work practically. Basing morality on non-physics means basing it on non-reality. (It should be noted that I regard logical reasoning and concepts as being physical processes, rather than some kind of platonic abstractions. They are as real as language and culture, patterns embedded in our physical neural substrate)." Yeah, I can go with that. But you were entertaining the idea of a "might makes right" Universe that was basically devoid of any agreed upon ethical system, and that's why I disagreed. Anders writes: "Because the natural power distribution would be highly uneven? Assuming this is true, it does not follow that it would be rational for the most powerful entities to use their powers in a might makes right fashion. It might be possible, it might be tempting, but it might not be a logical necessity. I think a lot of game theory and economics actually suggests the reverse. But this is always going to be scenario-dependent." Again, I was basing my disagreement with you on your hypothetical "might makes right" Universe. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Anders Sandberg wrote: A B wrote: > I agree completely with what George Dvorsky wrote. I would also add that > it is only through consciousness that pleasure is possible (which most > beings would choose to maximize), and alternatively, it is only through > consciousness that suffering is possible (which most beings would choose > to minimize). That alone makes consciousness pretty darned important, in > my book. Well, what is so important about pleasure and suffering then? If we say they are important because we have evolved that way, and that pleasure and suffering are signals about imminent potential or risk for our fitness, then it seems that we should try to maximize fitness instead of consciousness or pleasure, or minimizing pain. If they are important because they are subjective states of attraction/repulsion, then again it begs the question why we would aim for a world where we follow our subjective attractions and lack any repulsions. I'm not denying that pleasure is a good thing, it is just that I have so far never seen a really convincing justification of it. > Another issue that's going to throw a wrench into > the engine, is that before too long we will be able to technologically > uplift the original non-rational beings to super-rational levels - the > undeveloped *potential* of a conscious being will also become a major > ethical issue. Again, why is the potential important? There is undeveloped potential for great art in blocks of marble, but I don't think it is a crime that artists don't free it as much as they can. > "I wonder if we really would end up with a mostly unpleasant (it can't > really become unjust in this case) universe if we acknowledged physics as > the underlying basis for morality."... > > I think you can be assured of that outcome. Just take a quick survey of > what physics/Darwinian selection has given us so far - an extremely > top-heavy ratio of total suffering : to total pleasure. Acknowledging hydrodynamics as the basis for your engineering project doesn't mean that you have to make it behave like water does in nature. A computer built by fluidistors is utterly un-lakelike but yet based on the same principles and material. My point was that starting from physics and empirical observations we can rationally construct ethical systems that work practically. Basing morality on non-physics means basing it on non-reality. (It should be noted that I regard logical reasoning and concepts as being physical processes, rather than some kind of platonic abstractions. They are as real as language and culture, patterns embedded in our physical neural substrate). > "All the entities who would be badly off in the might makes right world > would hence band together to ensure that it would not occur (e.g. by > resisting the strong > or by making it irrational to pursue that world because they would > irrevocably blow up a doomsday device if it did occur, etc)." > > That strategy might have worked in 16th century Earth, for example. But > in the age of exponential recursive self-improvement (and other rapid > bootstrapping techniques), methinks it ain't gonna happen. Because the natural power distribution would be highly uneven? Assuming this is true, it does not follow that it would be rational for the most powerful entities to use their powers in a might makes right fashion. It might be possible, it might be tempting, but it might not be a logical necessity. I think a lot of game theory and economics actually suggests the reverse. But this is always going to be scenario-dependent. -- 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 --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 19:51:37 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] What if Dyson spheres are obsolete? (was the Drake Equation) In-Reply-To: <57167.86.143.247.179.1161941511.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20061027195137.86663.qmail@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Anders Sandberg wrote: > > The Avantguardian wrote: > > > > One of the "possibilities" that I think you guys > seem > > to be missing is that it may turn out that > harnessing > > dark/vacuum/zero-point energy may actually be > easier > > than building a Dyson sphere. > > To join with the choir, why do you think this? I > could make the claim that > breaking the law of conservation of angular momentum > is even easier than > building an electric motor - but without any idea of > how to do it the > claim just becomes an unsupported claim. I think you are missing my point. I wasn't necessarily making a positive claim about vacuum energy so much as offering the negative claim that the reason that the universe is not over-run with Dyson Shells blotting out the stars is that such technology is less practical then something else. What that something else is, I don't know. I threw vacuum energy out there because at least it is something that is *observed* if not well-understood. Vacuum energy may be a total bust, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something better than Dyson-tech waiting to be discovered. You guys remind me of 18th century scientists plotting to use steam engines to take over the world, not realizing that internal combustion would be right around the corner. > Vaccum and zero-point energy appears to be highly > entropic and/or > isotropic and you need a difference to set up a > thermodynamic engine. It > is unlikely you could get any energy from suffling > them around within > their own domains. If ZPE or dark energy are to be > regarded as istropic > heat reservoirs with a different temperature than > the reservoir of the > visible universe then one could get energy by having > a heat flow between > them. While I wasn't actually intending to get into a nuts and bolts discussion about potential ways to utilize ZPE, since you brought it up and it is an interesting subject to me, I will humor you. I agree that the biggest problem with vacuum energy is its isotropy or as I like to think about it, symmetry. While this is obviously the default in free-space, there could very well be a way to break this symmetry and generate an isotropy. One way that is pretty well established is Hawking radiation. If you can throw half your vacuum fluctuation into a black hole, you could theoretically use the other half to scoot around the galaxy. Unfortunately this is not very practical as we can't carry black holes around in our pockets and there are no known ways of generating an artificial event horizon. (Except for relativistic speeds but if we had that, we wouldn't need vacuum energy) > But if this was easily possible it would have > happened a long time > ago, likely during the big bang. There might still > be some clever way of > doing it that doesn't naturally occur, but I haven't > seen any convincing > idea of how to do it. Well I dare say it won't be easy. Life seldom is. They have been doing a lot research on the casimir effect lately and there are some interesting developments. For one thing they have found that the vector of the force seems to be highly dependent on geometry. Some geometries leading to attractive forces and some geometries leading to repulsive forces. Perhaps their is some magic geometry that will allow the generation of an asymmetric force. Another possiblity I have been thinking about is to use phase cancellation on the vacuum energy. Kind of like when you hook up one of your speakers backwards and don't hear anything because the peaks of sound from one speaker correspond with the valleys from the other speaker. If you could emit 180 degree phase-shifted EM waves from your front side, the normally phased vacuum fluctuations behind you should theoretically be able to push you around. How you would generate the right mix of phase-shifted frequencies to do this, however, I don't know. > One of the funnier approaches I've seen was to use > Casimir forces to > extract energy from two horisontal plates by having > them move together > vertically, then slide them apart horisontally, > returning them to the > original position. Alas, a careful analysis (I have > the paper *somewhere*) > show that there is Casimir forces resiting the > return to the original > state in such a way as to make the energy gain zero. While it is MUCH easier to perform calculations of the casimir force on flat plates, it is probably the geometry that is least likely to yield useful work for us. > I'm open for the possibility that there is some > magical physics out there, > because I think the universe looks even M-brain > empty. *Some* magical physics? All physics is magic . . . just ask the aborigines or the nematodes. ;) > There ought to be a > few von Neumanns out there anyway, and we are not > seeing anything. My > guess is that there is some physics that once > discovered leads to a very > discreet civilization. Or perhaps a very lazy one. Even as we speak, there may be intelligent beings out there debating our existence momentarily before going back to playing Chi-box. > Hopefully it is of the baby > universe or moving down > to the Planck scale kind, and not of the kind that > any sufficiently > advanced civilization can wipe out any other civ it > knows about instantly > anywhere and hence keep very, very quiet. That is a possibility. But it would actually only be a possibility if there were MORE than one other civilization out there and they already knew about at least one other civilization each. To destroy a civilization, no matter how easy it is, would be a waste of time unless that civilization had something you wanted (like land to colonize). For what it is worth, there are probably very few technological civilizations out there. While the universe is certainly not sterile and there are probablly billions of planets with life, if Gould was right, increasing complexity is not the vector of evolution, just a happy tangent. But then again . . . who says Gould was right? :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 21:03:04 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:03:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/27/06, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > "Firefox 2.0 is just like Firefox 1.5.0.4-7 -- NOT READY FOR PRODUCTION USE! > I managed to produce 3 core dumps and file 3 Talkback incidents in the > first half hour of using it. All you have to do (under Linux) is use "ulimit > -Sv ###000" to limit the amount of virtual memory to ### MB. Depending upon > how many extensions you have installed it generally crashes when its memory > usage hits between 100 and 120 MB of memory. This will crash it quickly. You > can set your limit to 1.3 GB and push it up into that range of memory > consumption over several days of normal use (50-100 windows, 300-700 tabs) > and it will dump at that level as well (of course taking 30+ minutes to > restore its state when you restart it -- grrrrr...). > Now, you're just being a very very naughty boy, Robert. :) Seriously, I think you are in a very small minority who are having problems with Firefox 2. The overwhelming reaction on the net is very positive. How can you possibly remember what you've got open in 100 windows / 700 tabs? Finding the one you want will take longer than closing a tab when you've finished with it and reopening it again if you find you need it again. That's like complaining your car engine breaks when you do 100 mph in first gear, with twenty passengers hanging on and towing a trailer. I manage fine with around 10 tabs open. Maybe 20 tabs when I'm doing a bit of searching. 16 extensions installed. And my pc only has 256MB memory in total. Firefox 2 has never crashed for me on Linux or Windows. I power everything off overnight, so I get a fresh start every morning. Saves money, electricity, aggravation, no waste heat and the pc is not left online as a target for hackers. It boots up as I get my morning coffee, so no precious minutes are wasted :) I now use Swiftfox on Linux as it is noticeably faster on an AMD pc. (Firefox 2 tuned for Linux on AMD processors). > > So long as they continue to add things (like spelling checkers) which are > bells and whistles without addressing fundamental issues like being a robust > and reliable piece of software I will not be singing its praises. > Spellcheck is not a frill. Having it built in saves doing a separate spellcheck pass. Firefox 2 is a definite improvement over Firefox 1.5. Not world-shaking, just an improvement. BillK From velvethum at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 21:33:04 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:33:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive References: Message-ID: Jef Allbright: "But since we're on the topic, let me ask AB then: Would you rather maximize your pleasure or maximize the promotion of your values? You might respond that you would choose to maximize your pleasure by means that include promotion of your values, but if that were the case, I would then ask whether you wouldn't better maximize your pleasure via IV drip in some secluded room for as long as possible. Such a line of thought leads inexorably to the absurdity of being dead in order to avoid suffering." I'm having hard time seeing the absurdity here and how the last sentence follows from the rest of the paragraph. Is there something wrong with choosing death in order to avoid suffering? More importantly, the above implies that promotion of values is somehow more important than ability to experience them. It suggests that values could exist in absence of experience, that is, they could still exist even with all the humans in the world wiped out. Ability to experience values has priority over values as values cannot exist without the ability to experience them. Jef Allbright: "Regarding consciousness, you have no way of measuring whether anyone is conscious. We all could be zombies but behave exactly the same. Occam's razor implies that all have consciousness similar to your own, but in any case you have absolutely no access to others subjective experience. So how is consciousness relevant to your decision-making?" How is decision-making relevant to consciousness? Anyway, "consciousness" is a very messy word that could mean a lot of things. In order to have a discussion people have to synch their referents for the all the terms used during a discussion first. Otherwise, they will talk past each other. So, what you call "consciousness" I'd rather replace with "ability to process reality/information." This should bring much more clarity to this discussion. Jef Allbright: "It might be only a distraction, but I could point out that direct access to even your own subjective experience is an illusion. Think distorted memory, fabricated memory, Libet experiments, etc. Despite the assumption of Descartes and others, there is no "you" who has privileged access to the experience of being you. If you were to enquire as to what it's like to be you, you would be querying a physical system that would respond based on its particular functional characteristics including its model of the world (with you in it) from the past. [Recursion, ad infinitum, from the subjective POV]" I interpret Descartes' "I think therefore I am" strictly as, "I'm able to process reality/information therefore I am." That recursion process has plenty of base cases to make us feel something instead of nothing. If what you're saying were true, you would not be able to understand this sentence because infinite recursion would prevent you from *processing* characters on the screen. Slawomir From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Oct 27 22:34:41 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:34:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Slawomir wrote: > line of thought leads inexorably to the absurdity of being > dead in order to avoid suffering." > I'm having hard time seeing the absurdity here and how the > last sentence follows from the rest of the paragraph. Is > there something wrong with choosing death in order to avoid suffering? Correct, that was poorly worded. Should have said something like "the absurdity of choosing death to avoid all suffering." The point is that pleasure and suffering don't really really act as goals, but as feedback signals to keep the system operating in homeostasis. Lock the feedback at some fixed state and the system will tend towards failure. On the other hand, modify the system itself to use the feedback differently or use other types of feedback and open up a world of new transhuman possibilities. > More importantly, the above implies that promotion of values > is somehow more important than ability to experience them. It > suggests that values could exist in absence of experience, > that is, they could still exist even with all the humans in > the world wiped out. Yes, my point is that values are what influence rational decision-making, and one can (and we often do) choose to promote our values extending beyond any expectation of experience. For example, parents sacrificing for children, philanthropy, heroic sacrifice of life. There's a meta-understanding of this as well--the superrational idea that if we each were to act altruistically, in such a way as to bring about the kind of world we would prefer but without the requirement of direct payoff, then we *would* in fact each enjoy living in a better world. However, this doesn't work within the context of our current society for obvious reasons. > > Ability to experience values has priority over values as > values cannot exist without the ability to experience them. I think the difficulty here begins with semantics. Let me know whether the preceding explanation clarifies. > Jef Allbright: > "Regarding consciousness, you have no way of measuring > whether anyone is > conscious. We all could be zombies but behave exactly the same. > Occam's razor implies that all have consciousness similar to your own, > but in any case you have absolutely no access to others subjective > experience. So how is consciousness relevant to your decision-making?" > > > How is decision-making relevant to consciousness? Anyway, > "consciousness" is a very > messy word that could mean a lot of things. In order to have > a discussion people > have to synch their referents for the all the terms used > during a discussion first. > Otherwise, they will talk past each other. > > So, what you call "consciousness" I'd rather replace with > "ability to process > reality/information." This should bring much more clarity to > this discussion. I agree that the term is grossly misused and I prefer a systems view as well. > I interpret Descartes' "I think therefore I am" strictly as, > "I'm able to process > reality/information therefore I am." That recursion process > has plenty of base > cases to make us feel something instead of nothing. If what > you're saying were > true, you would not be able to understand this sentence > because infinite recursion > would prevent you from *processing* characters on the screen. In an algorithmic universe round wheels still turn smoothly even though the universe doesn't have time to compute the infinite series of digits in pi. Approximate models work quite well within suitable context. But my point was about recursion in the modeling of the universe by a system within the universe. - Jef From sentience at pobox.com Fri Oct 27 22:53:08 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:53:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: References: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <1884.163.1.72.81.1161967119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <45428DD4.6090107@pobox.com> George Dvorsky wrote: > On 10/27/06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > >>I'll leave quantum theory out of this, since I think decoherence does the >>job better than observers. > > This doesn't make sense to me and runs against my conception of > quantum mechanics, the role of the observer, and how decoherence > works. Please explain, as I don't think this should be hand-waved > away. I don't have time myself to explain, but I'll chime in briefly to say that, indeed, the purely physical phenomenon of decoherence is now the "most standard" explanation for what was, in previous decades, waved off with much confusion as observer-caused quantum collapse, etc. *How* this is so, is a whole long separate story - but the most standard version of modern physics no longer grants any privileged role to conscious observers. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Oct 27 22:27:29 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:27:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] SALON: Camila Paglia Interview Message-ID: <380-2200610527222729890@M2W040.mail2web.com> Camila Paglia, whether I agree with her or not, is one of my favorite cultural critics. Years ago she had a column at Salon.com. Today she is back, but this time she is interviewed by Salon: "Oct. 27, 2006 | It's been a while since Salon last heard from our favorite intellectual and one of our founding contributors, Camille Paglia. But with so much tumult in the air, we felt the need to ask her to survey the strange tectonic shifts in our political and cultural landscape, and interpret as much as she could." http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/27/paglia/ Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Oct 27 22:28:27 2006 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:28:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] SALON: Camila Paglia Interview Message-ID: <380-2200610527222827328@M2W012.mail2web.com> Camila Paglia, whether I agree with her or not, is one of my favorite cultural critics. Years ago she had a column at Salon.com. Today she is back, but this time she is interviewed by Salon: "Oct. 27, 2006 | It's been a while since Salon last heard from our favorite intellectual and one of our founding contributors, Camille Paglia. But with so much tumult in the air, we felt the need to ask her to survey the strange tectonic shifts in our political and cultural landscape, and interpret as much as she could." http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/27/paglia/ Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From brian at posthuman.com Fri Oct 27 23:34:23 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:34:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <45428DD4.6090107@pobox.com> References: <20061027003945.43978.qmail@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <57135.86.143.247.179.1161940300.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <1884.163.1.72.81.1161967119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <45428DD4.6090107@pobox.com> Message-ID: <4542977F.5090407@posthuman.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From velvethum at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 00:08:12 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:08:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive References: Message-ID: Jef Allbright wrote: >> Slawomir wrote: >> I'm having hard time seeing the absurdity here and how the >> last sentence follows from the rest of the paragraph. Is >> there something wrong with choosing death in order to avoid >> suffering? > > Correct, that was poorly worded. Should have said something like "the > absurdity of choosing death to avoid all suffering." I still fail to see the absurdity here. If *all* humans were to suffer unspeakable and endless torture, what would be wrong with avoiding that suffering? >> More importantly, the above implies that promotion of values >> is somehow more important than ability to experience them. It >> suggests that values could exist in absence of experience, >> that is, they could still exist even with all the humans in >> the world wiped out. Jef Allbright: > Yes, my point is that values are what influence rational > decision-making, and one can (and we often do) choose to promote our > values extending beyond any expectation of experience. For example, > parents sacrificing for children, philanthropy, heroic sacrifice of > life. But please realize that expectation of experience *is* a type of direct experience. People do those seemingly selfless acts because it makes them "feel" better at the time. So even though it seems like promotion of values is removed from direct experience of these values, the action of promoting them is still motivated by real and immediate benefits of direct experience. People promote these values because it makes them more "happy" to promote them. The extreme case of this is a suicide bomber who promotes his religion by blowing himself up. In reality, the "sacrifice" is not motivated by anything other than the happiness and pride that the suicide bomber experiences directly *before* dying. Preservation of ability to process reality/information has (or should have) priority over preservation of values. (I have no ability to enjoy a cookie being eaten by someone in China. I can't appreciate a beautiful sunrise when I'm in a coma. I derive no benefit from seeing other people happy *after* I'm dead.) Slawomir From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Oct 28 01:01:57 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:01:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/27/06, BillK wrote: I'll make this brief so hopefully people will see I'm not trying to cause trouble (though I realize it may be hard to know when I am... :-)) > > How can you possibly remember what you've got open in 100 windows / 700 > tabs? I have a big mind? (partially true). Though right now I'm using a 22 window, 125 tab session because the larger session was so slow it was unusable (strange how 100 *minimized* windows require anywhere from 40-90% of the CPU time -- one would think that good programmers would understand things like "queues" or "interrupt driven functions"). My work strategy is to go to page summaries (/., Physorg, Science Daily, PNAS contents emails, etc.) look through them to find what is interesting and open those pages in tabs. Downloading a page can take seconds to minutes depending upon the DNS lookups, network bottlenecks, CSS pages, images, etc.) [1]. So I open a lot of them quickly and return to reading them when downloading is complete (this is a simple time optimization strategy) and something else is going to take a while (linux builds [20 minutes], firefox builds [an hour?], etc.). It is not unusual for me to be working on multiple areas of interest and to have windows and tabs open dedicated to each area. I generally separate them into workspaces under Gnome (I have a personal (email/social network) workspace, a "corporate" workspace, a "news of interest" workspace, a medical research workspace, a Linux development workspace, a Firefox sucks and someday I'm going to determine precisely why workspace, etc.). Because the machine functions as my web & email server I do not like to reboot it unless absolutely necessary. Because Firefox takes so long to restore its former session state (10-20 minutes with a lot of windows and tabs) I don't like to close and restart it either. If I open 15 windows and 50 tabs a day after a week I'm pushing the numbers mentioned above. If Firefox had better page caching strategies (Netscape 4.7 allowed control of this) reopening pages could be nearly instantaneous and I might be more inclined to limit my session state size. But it doesn't. If it had better heap management it wouldn't be such a memory hog that it requires people to increase the memory size on their machines (its *supposed* to be *free*) -- to date its cost me $80 and it looks like I may need to buy another GB. And *NO* program which is in "production" should crash the way Firefox does [2]. Do you want the software handling the data being read out of your frozen brain being slowly disassembled to crash during the middle of your upload? I think not. Until the problems I've mentioned are fixed its a *toy* and not a *tool*. Robert 1. I am not working in a sub-slowsky environment -- I've got a DSL connection and the machine is a Pentium 4 with 1.5 GB of memory (after upgrading it from 512 MB which Firefox ran out of quite quickly). 2. They are *not* catching memory allocation failures in C++. A robust system or program will tolerate hardware failures (say a swap drive dies and/or no more paging space is available). This is not the case with Firefox as it is currently written. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Oct 28 01:17:59 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:17:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Slawomir wrote: J: > "the absurdity of choosing death to avoid all suffering." S: > I still fail to see the absurdity here. If *all* humans were > to suffer unspeakable and endless torture, what would be wrong > with avoiding that suffering? I thought it was already clear that the scenario was about a single individual making choices relative to his personal pleasure versus suffering. Would you, Slawomir, choose to die with the intention that it would effectively end all your suffering? Wouldn't that be absurd? Consider that there is always a time difference between the decision (now) and the reward (future). So you must be making your decision based on how much you *value* the expected outcome (experience or otherwise). As occurs occasionally, a grenade falls into a squad of soldiers and one of them uses his body to shield the others. Do you really want us to believe that he chose that action in order to receive the benefit of feeling good about his heroism? Or might it explain more to say that he acted based on his values? J: > >> More importantly, the above implies that promotion of values > >> is somehow more important than ability to experience them. It I'm saying that rational choice is about promoting ones values into the future. How the expected outcomes will be experienced, and by whom, is related, but not primary. S: > >> suggests that values could exist in absence of experience, > >> that is, they could still exist even with all the humans in > >> the world wiped out. Sometimes I think you make statements such as the above just for the immediate pleasure you experience in making them, but with little regard for their potential value. ;) - Jef From riel at surriel.com Sat Oct 28 02:09:31 2006 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:09:31 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4542BBDB.40704@surriel.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: > 2. They are *not* catching memory allocation failures in C++. A robust > system or program will tolerate hardware failures (say a swap drive dies > and/or no more paging space is available). This is not the case with > Firefox as it is currently written. If there's anything I've learned from being a software engineer, it is that creating software is not an engineering field. At least, not in the traditional sense. People building bridges know exactly how every piece of a bridge interacts with every other part of a bridge. Software tends to have a lot of complex interactions between components that were not predicted when the software was created. Most software creations end up being a surprise, even to the people who created it. You know roughly what it does, but cannot predict the corner cases. Unlike say, bridges, where the engineers tend to know the corner cases in advance. I know there are programming and management strategies that are supposed to result in more reliable software. However, most of the software built using the highly controlled methods tends to be rather limited in functionality. I have not heard of any highly complex pieces of software that were created in a more controlled way, or are rumored to have very few bugs. Maybe the more controlled methods of creating software are simply too expensive to be feasible for most software? I have noticed that peer review tends to result in better code, but that is no panacea either since people tend to not want to look at bad code :) Code in some fields appears to be bad regardless of who wrote it. For example, I have never seen nice code for IRC, and only one of the dozen or so email programs that I looked at has remotely nice code... In short, I am not convinced people know how to put together a feature rich computer program in a relatively bug free way. Firefox is more complex than usual, and more buggy than usual... Maybe the complexity is the problem. Not sure how to fix that though. -- Who do you trust? The people with all the right answers? Or the people with the right questions? From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 28 02:04:54 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:04:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution / selection of cells within a single body / lifespan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610280222.k9S2M33O008804@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ensel Sharon ... > ... the "athletes paradox" as it relates to aging (how athletes produce > more metabolism, and consume more calories, but seem to gain the same > benefits as those practicing calorie reduction, among other things) ... This athlete's paradox does not seem paradoxical to my understanding of how CR improves health. One benefit of both athleticism and CR is being thin. If one is thin, one does not waste one's limited supply of stem cells in the creation of useless and harmful flab, so there are more of them available for regenerating damaged tissues and for keeping one well. spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Oct 28 02:23:16 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 03:23:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] In-Reply-To: <4542BBDB.40704@surriel.com> References: <4542BBDB.40704@surriel.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610271923j1d06b614t5fdf463cf9382ad0@mail.gmail.com> On 10/28/06, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Firefox is more complex than usual, and more buggy than usual... And its ratio of complexity to bugs strikes me as if anything somewhat better than average. Maybe the complexity is the problem. Not sure how to fix that > though. I have some ideas. Number one on the list is to stop programming in mega macro assembler (which is what C++ is) (except obviously for small embedded systems where mega macro assembler is what's called for). Which in turn means we need to stop fretting about a few gigabytes of memory consumption :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 28 02:15:30 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:15:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive In-Reply-To: <1884.163.1.72.81.1161967119.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200610280234.k9S2YZbx011774@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Prime Directive ... > > > Anders, how can love be experienced by an unconscious, > > non-self-referential, non-subjective agent? What you're suggesting is > > absurd. > > Well, I'm at a philosophy department. The absurd is my job :-)... > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University Anders you are an extropic treasure. The bane of entropy are you. Thanks man. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 28 02:46:43 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:46:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] dawkins booksigning at kepler's In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890610261743k7cb7d3c6r344429e1893fc973@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200610280259.k9S2xAun001703@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Bay area Extropians and others, do forgive my using bandwidth on the main list for a local event. My fault, I was supposed to organize a meeting this weekend, but I was called away with short notice on business all this week. Richard Dawkins is having a talk and book signing this Sunday, 29 October, 5:30 PM at Keplers Books in Menlo Park: http://www.richarddawkins.net/event,52,Keplers-Books-and-Magazines Amara Graps is in town. I propose we hit Keplers at 5:30, listen to that, buy some books, then wander over next door for burritos afterwards, strap on the old feedbag, poke our noses into the oats, visit and carry on. Apologies for not organizing this better and sooner. If I were an organizer, I would be the boss instead of just another one of the underpaid rocket scientists. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 28 04:25:02 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:25:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] dawkins booksigning at kepler's In-Reply-To: <200610280259.k9S2xAun001703@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200610280442.k9S4gYCO021938@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Please someone post the proposed Dawkins at Keplers and the subsequent strapping on of the feedbag to ExiBay, thanks. spike ... > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > Subject: [extropy-chat] dawkins booksigning at kepler's ... > Richard Dawkins is having a talk and book signing this Sunday, 29 October, > 5:30 PM at Keplers Books in Menlo Park: > http://www.richarddawkins.net/event,52,Keplers-Books-and-Magazines > > Amara Graps is in town. I propose we hit Keplers at 5:30, listen to that, > buy some books, then wander over next door for burritos afterwards, strap > on the old feedbag, poke our noses into the oats, visit and carry on... > > spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 04:45:22 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution / selection of cells within a single body / lifespan In-Reply-To: <200610280222.k9S2M33O008804@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20061028044522.35656.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ensel > Sharon > ... > > ... the "athletes paradox" as it relates to aging > (how athletes produce > > more metabolism, and consume more calories, but > seem to gain the same > > benefits as those practicing calorie reduction, > among other things) ... > > This athlete's paradox does not seem paradoxical to > my understanding of how > CR improves health. One benefit of both athleticism > and CR is being thin. > If one is thin, one does not waste one's limited > supply of stem cells in the > creation of useless and harmful flab, so there are > more of them available > for regenerating damaged tissues and for keeping one > well. Very perceptive and very correct, Spike. I would further add that exercising to much, too young and or CR too young will both stunt ones growth. This is exemplified by women marathon runners who lose their menses while in training. (They usually get it back, but there is a definite correlation between surplus calories and fertility.) In nematodes (heh I love that word) CR causes a dauer form which is a variant phenotype that is sexually immature but lives a long time. My advice is you are never too old to either exercise or CR but you definately can be too young. The changes wrought in the body by both of these methods are evolutionarily traits that originally evolved to get organisms through tough times by sacrificing fertility for survivability. (Did you know if you fry a nematodes testis off with a laser, it lives longer?) While the dauer nematode can put their development on hold to pick it up later, I don't think mammals can do that. At least I wouldn't risk it. It just goes to show that even in biology there are hard choices and trade-offs for everything and no free lunch to be had. Also it may be worth noting that about a third of papers that can be found by key word searching on "athlete paradox" involve young healthy athletes keeling over dead for no apparent reason. The rest are about fatty acid metabolism and insulin sensitivity in athletes versus obese diabetics. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. ____________________________________________________________________________________ We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com) From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Oct 28 14:32:51 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:32:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610271923j1d06b614t5fdf463cf9382ad0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4542BBDB.40704@surriel.com> <8d71341e0610271923j1d06b614t5fdf463cf9382ad0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/27/06, Russell Wallace wrote: > I have some ideas. Number one on the list is to stop programming in mega > macro assembler (which is what C++ is) > That much you got right. They should have used a *real* systems programming language, namely C, as was done with the Linux Kernel and the X Windows system. But it doesn't matter if you are programming in C, Perl, Python or Java -- one should elegantly handle resource limits -- particularly running out of memory. (except obviously for small embedded systems where mega macro assembler is > what's called for). Which in turn means we need to stop fretting about a few > gigabytes of memory consumption :) > Ok, I'll stop worrying. I'll go get an AMD Opteron with a 64-bit address space and put 16GB of main memory on it and add an entire 160GB hard drive for swap space (probably only set me back $1000 or $1500). Then I'll put together a list of about 200,000 URLs, stick them in a session file and tell Firefox to open it. (PubMed has millions of abstracts so this shouldn't be a big problem). Since I'm guessing I'm running about 1MB per URL after about a week of waiting for the pages to download and be rendered Firefox *should* crap out the same way it craps out now when I set the virtual memory ulimit to 150MB. This is because it will run out of swap space and the unhandled out-of-memory allocation errors will blow it out of the water. Software either works reliably or it doesn't. Software either works efficiently or it doesn't. It has little to do with complexity or the programming language involved. It mostly has to do that most of the focus is on bells and whistles and trying to compete with I.E. rather than making it reliable and efficient. I strongly suspect that this is because the core Firefox developers include more than a few former Netscape employees that want to get even with Microsoft for taking away the Netscape browser crown years ago. They have failed to learn what Google clearly demonstrated. Make it work well enough and make it work fast and you can beat those who happened to be first and had a greater market share (e.g. Altavista). [1] Robert 1. I'll note as an aside that this is what made Oracle the leader in databases back in the 80s and 90s as well. A strong focus was placed on the TPS performance results. Fortunately there was a well defined SQL "standard" and less emphasis was placed on bells and whistles to differentiate one from the competition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Oct 28 17:08:02 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:08:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evolution / selection of cells within a singlebody / lifespan In-Reply-To: <20061028044522.35656.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200610281710.k9SHAF9U027774@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Riff alert: those in a somber mood, do hit delete forthwith, thanks. > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] evolution / selection of cells within a > singlebody / lifespan > > > > --- spike wrote: > > > ... > > > ... the "athletes paradox" as it relates to aging... ... > > If one is thin, one does not waste one's limited > > supply of stem cells in the > > creation of useless and harmful flab... > > Very perceptive and very correct, Spike. Cool! Thanks Avant, has the medical establishment weighed in on this? > I would further add that exercising to much, too young > and or CR too young will both stunt ones growth... Ja, but growth is overrated. Look at Yoda: a runt he was. For centuries he lived. Funny he talked. > This is exemplified by women marathon runners who lose > their menses while in training. That explains why one would go out to the track after the women's marathon team had been working out, find menses lying about. > In nematodes (heh I love that word)... Ja, that is a cool word. I know an even better one: nudibranch. It's actually a sea slug, but it always makes me think of a bank featuring naked tellers. What a concept! I would put my money there in a heartbeat. We could have special pictorial nudibranch checks, which might not even be cashed because they would be collector's items. On the other hand, people might take out loans, then intentionally not pay in order to be visited at home by nude collections agents. > ...if you fry a nematodes testis off with a laser, it > lives longer?) I will do a lot to live longer, starve myself, whatever, but there are some lengths to which I refuse to go. And quite frankly I am suspicious of the "scientist" who discovered this fact. What gave her the idea in the first place? There may be other explanations for why the laser-neutered nematodes lived longer. They might have merely been more mellow, less likely to participate in dangerous behaviors, such as hanging out in rough nematode bars. Picture a bunch of testosterone-juiced nematodes sitting around guzzling Buuud-Wiise-Urrr, debating over who is tougher, toads or frogs. Toads are bigger, fatter and uglier than frogs, but frogs are faster and more athletic. Pretty soon some drunken nematode proposes starting a rumble with the frog bar across the pond. Injuries or serious death may result. > While the dauer nematode can put their development on > hold to pick it up later, I don't think mammals can do > that... I have put my mental development on hold a number of times, but was always able to resume it later. To some extent. > ... young healthy athletes > keeling over dead for no apparent reason... The news agencies covered it up. The deaths were from medical complications stemming from fried testes and lost menses. > "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I > have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common > sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. Buddha tells me to believe nothing, even if he said it. So in order to disbelieve that comment, I hafta believe everything. End riff, back to our regular program. {8^D spike From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 02:36:45 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] SALON: Camila Paglia Interview In-Reply-To: <380-2200610527222827328@M2W012.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <20061028023645.78005.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Paglia sincerely believes in universal freedom, and that's not a common a trait as some might think; most want freedom for themselves, family, and friends-- but not particularly for those outside their circles. Paglia is a libertarian in the positive sense. > Camila Paglia, whether I agree with her or not, is > one of my favorite > cultural critics. Years ago she had a column at > Salon.com. Today she is > back, but this time she is interviewed by Salon: > > "Oct. 27, 2006 | It's been a while since Salon last > heard from our favorite > intellectual and one of our founding contributors, > Camille Paglia. But with > so much tumult in the air, we felt the need to ask > her to survey the > strange tectonic shifts in our political and > cultural landscape, and > interpret as much as she could." > > http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/27/paglia/ > > Natasha > > Natasha Vita-More ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates (http://voice.yahoo.com) From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Oct 30 01:25:11 2006 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:25:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mongols of the Information Age - Los Angeles Times Opinion section Message-ID: <31522524.2064991162171511816.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From user at dhp.com Mon Oct 30 04:30:26 2006 From: user at dhp.com (Ensel Sharon) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:30:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution / selection of cells within a single body / lifespan In-Reply-To: <200610280222.k9S2M33O008804@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ensel Sharon > ... > > ... the "athletes paradox" as it relates to aging (how athletes produce > > more metabolism, and consume more calories, but seem to gain the same > > benefits as those practicing calorie reduction, among other things) ... > > This athlete's paradox does not seem paradoxical to my understanding of how > CR improves health. One benefit of both athleticism and CR is being thin. > If one is thin, one does not waste one's limited supply of stem cells in the > creation of useless and harmful flab, so there are more of them available > for regenerating damaged tissues and for keeping one well. Is that really how that works ? I agree that one benefit of both CR and athleticism is thinness, or more specifically, denseness. But is it really a question of stem cell usage ? I thought the number of fat cells in our bodies were largely constant, and that it was just the size of those fat cells that changed, growing much larger in obese individuals. Are you sure maintaining extra body weight causes a correlating depletion of stem cells ? From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 05:11:02 2006 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:11:02 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] scepticism: "BBC abandons science... and falls into singularity-shaped hole" Message-ID: <3642969c0610292111s6595e47fn2200dd33e2678c3a@mail.gmail.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/27/bbc_horizon/ in reaction to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/singularity/ good to see the singularity starting to hit the mainstream; hopefully the criticism will provide the needed counterbalance to the hype of both utopian and dystopian flavours. It's fitting that El Reg clobbers Human2.0 with the same enthusiasm it reserves for Web2.0... and I must say Kurzweil comes out of this looking particularly shoddy From brian at posthuman.com Mon Oct 30 05:59:07 2006 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:59:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] scepticism: "BBC abandons science... and falls into singularity-shaped hole" In-Reply-To: <3642969c0610292111s6595e47fn2200dd33e2678c3a@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0610292111s6595e47fn2200dd33e2678c3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <454594AB.5020506@posthuman.com> El Reg and its clones arise naturally from the wasteland of press release marketing-speak, so it's perfectly understandable they have a negative knee-jerk reaction to something as potentially utopia-like as this subject. That's their job. But after watching this particular program I have to agree it was quite poorly done no matter what angle you want to look at it from. Not worth seeking it out if you missed it. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 30 06:33:53 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:33:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] evolution / selection of cells within a single body / lifespan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610300646.k9U6keoE018882@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ensel Sharon > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:30 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] evolution / selection of cells within a single > body / lifespan > > > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, spike wrote: > ... > > If one is thin, one does not waste one's limited supply of stem cells in > the creation of useless and harmful flab... > > Is that really how that works ? I agree that one benefit of both CR and > athleticism is thinness, or more specifically, denseness. ... > Are you sure maintaining extra body weight causes a correlating depletion > of stem cells ? No, I don't know how CR works. I just tossed that out as wishful thinking, because I am not a serious CRer, but I am a boney sort. Ensel, you are newish around here, so I should comment that many of my posts are meant as much to entertain as to actually inform. Only in rocket science should you invest a modicum of consideration to my stuff. {8^D Perhaps you already realized this after the nudibranch post?* spike *Actually I still think that whole naked teller notion is a wicked cool idea. You could offer the lowest interest rates in town while charging the highest, you wouldn't need to even invest in an ATM because no one would use it anyway, your branch would have the longest lines but paradoxically the least complaints about it, etc. From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 30 08:02:33 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:02:33 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030020206.0218d8e8@satx.rr.com> This is hilarious: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/806 Saturday, 28 October 2006 by Pierre-Henry Deshayes Agen?e France-Presse OSLO: A Norwegian museum exhibit of homosexual behaviour in the animal world has sparked consternation among conservative Christians. It shows giraffes mounting, aroused whales mating and dragonflies copulating - all perfectly normal, tender scenes - although perhaps not for all, since in this case the animals are of the same sex. Breaking what is taboo for some, the Natural History Museum in Oslo is currently showing an exhibition on homosexuality in the animal kingdom which organisers say is the first of its kind in the world. "As homosexual people are often confronted with the argument that their way of living is against the principles of nature, we thought that ... as a scientific institution, we could at least show that this is not true," said exhibition organiser Geir Soeli. ... While the images displayed at the Natural History Museum wash over passing school children, the exhibition has sparked consternation in conservative Christians. A Lutheran priest said he hoped the organisers would "burn in hell," and a Pentecostal priest lashed out at the exhibition saying tax payers' money used for it would have been better spent helping the animals correct "their perversions and deviances". From amara at amara.com Mon Oct 30 10:01:18 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:01:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! Message-ID: Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com : >This is hilarious: >http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/806 For more info on that topic: (There is some good data supporting the view of the exhibit) http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php Amara From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Oct 30 14:38:11 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 06:38:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030020206.0218d8e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200610301454.k9UEs4Kw008790@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 12:03 AM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! > > This is hilarious: > > http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/806 > OSLO: A Norwegian museum exhibit of homosexual > behaviour in the animal world has sparked > consternation among conservative Christians. Damien, this may surprise some here, but farm people or those who grew up around a lot of animals have known of it all along. As a child I witnessed gay male rabbits for instance. A friend had a female beagle that would mount your leg and attempt to copulate if you let her, which is an example both of presumably homosexual behavior and bestiality in a beast. Nature does things like that. If otherwise, we would have a hard time explaining its absence. spike From ben at goertzel.org Mon Oct 30 15:19:42 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:19:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <200610301454.k9UEs4Kw008790@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030020206.0218d8e8@satx.rr.com> <200610301454.k9UEs4Kw008790@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150610300719y4a0cecc1u90afe45e5ffd1535@mail.gmail.com> > > This is hilarious: > > > > http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/806 > > > OSLO: A Norwegian museum exhibit of homosexual > > behaviour in the animal world has sparked > > consternation among conservative Christians. > > > Damien, this may surprise some here, but farm people or those who grew up > around a lot of animals have known of it all along. Spike, I am quite sure that what Damien found hilarious was not the fact that animals enjoy gay sex-play, but rather the fact that various religious leaders had such an insane reaction to the museum display with this theme... I mean ... " A Lutheran priest said he hoped the organisers would "burn in hell," and a Pentecostal priest lashed out at the exhibition saying tax payers' money used for it would have been better spent helping the animals correct "their perversions and deviances". " Uhhhh ... I don't want these people contributing to the Coherent Extrapolated Volition!!!!! -- Ben >As a child I witnessed > gay male rabbits for instance. A friend had a female beagle that would > mount your leg and attempt to copulate if you let her, which is an example > both of presumably homosexual behavior and bestiality in a beast. Nature > does things like that. If otherwise, we would have a hard time explaining > its absence. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 30 16:29:13 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:29:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610300719y4a0cecc1u90afe45e5ffd1535@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030020206.0218d8e8@satx.rr.com> <200610301454.k9UEs4Kw008790@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <638d4e150610300719y4a0cecc1u90afe45e5ffd1535@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030102724.02424f20@satx.rr.com> At 10:19 AM 10/30/2006 -0500, Ben wrote: > > Damien, this may surprise some here, but farm people or those who grew up > > around a lot of animals have known of it all along. > >Spike, I am quite sure that what Damien found hilarious was not the >fact that animals enjoy gay sex-play, but rather the fact that various >religious leaders had such an insane reaction to the museum display >with this theme... Precisely. Damien From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Oct 30 15:56:28 2006 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:56:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030020206.0218d8e8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030020206.0218d8e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20061030095314.04b255f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:02 AM 10/30/2006, Damien wrote: >A Lutheran priest said he hoped the organisers >would "burn in hell," and a Pentecostal priest >lashed out at the exhibition saying tax payers' >money used for it would have been better spent >helping the animals correct "their perversions and deviances". HAHAHA! LOL! WOW! Falling off my chair! Hahahahahah! I can't wait for comics to have fun with this! I'm going to send this link to a "The Simpsons" writer that I know right now! Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, 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 Oct 30 18:12:05 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:12:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030020206.0218d8e8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030020206.0218d8e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45464075.9030508@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > A Pentecostal priest > lashed out at the exhibition saying tax payers' > money used for it would have been better spent > helping the animals correct "their perversions and deviances". That's pretty damned amusing. So now suddenly Nature is perverted and deviated, instead of a normative standard. One suspects that some pre-existing, Nature-independent criterion is in use here to decide whether Nature is a "good" or "bad" example in any given case. This case is worth remembering and citing whenever someone drags up Nature as an example. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 01:14:20 2006 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:14:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <45464075.9030508@pobox.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061030020206.0218d8e8@satx.rr.com> <45464075.9030508@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 10/30/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Damien Broderick wrote: > > A Pentecostal priest > > lashed out at the exhibition saying tax payers' > > money used for it would have been better spent > > helping the animals correct "their perversions and deviances". > Sigh. Even within the Christian worldview, those outraged priests are hopelessly confused. They demonstrate quite clearly that, even within their own professed worldview, they have no idea what sin actually is. Sin, to the Christian, is NOT "unnatural behavior". Quite the opposite. Christians believe that, as a result of certain ancient events, the natural world, including humanity, is afflicted by a systemic bias towards evil. Homosexuality, as demonstrated by this exhibition, may very well be perfectly natural. This, if demonstrated, would in NO WAY WHATSOEVER affect whether or not homosexual behavior was sinful. There are many, many perfectly natural human behaviors that are unambiguously sinful, within the Christian worldview. Lying, selfishness, hatred, promiscuity, adultery, rape, murder. These are all perfectly "natural" behaviors. They occur spontaneously throughout the animal kingdom, and even among human children. No child, anywhere, has ever needed to be taught to be selfish, or to lie. It comes perfectly naturally, to all of us. To suggest, as these "Christians" do, that a behavior must be unnatural for it to be sinful, or conversely, that if a behavior can be proved to be natural would disqualify it as sin, is. as Pauli said, "not even wrong." Within the Christian worldview, this is why everyone needs a savior. We all have this built in bias towards evil behaivior, and we all do these things instinctively, on a continuous, ongoing basis. > That's pretty damned amusing. So now suddenly Nature is perverted and > deviated, instead of a normative standard. One suspects that some > pre-existing, Nature-independent criterion is in use here to decide > whether Nature is a "good" or "bad" example in any given case. Yes. As someone raised within the Orthodox Jewish tradition you know all about this one. It's called, in English, the Ten Commandments. 1. You shall have no other Gods beore me. 2. You shall not worship idols. 3. You shall not blaspheme God. 4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. 5. Honor your mother and father. 6. You shall not kill. 7. You shall not commit adultery. 8. You shall not steal. 9. You shall not lie. 10. You shall not covet. We all break these, to one extent or another, on a continuous, ongoing basis. It's natural to us. But it being natural doesn't make it right. That we do wrong things on a regular basis, and don't even seem to care, and even if we care, we don't seem able to stop, and that there are eternal consequences for this, is the problem Christianity offers a solution for. >> This case is worth remembering and citing whenever someone drags up > Nature as an example. Agreed. It's also worth remembering (always worth remembering) that one can't judge a movement by the fools it attracts. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 31 01:26:53 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:26:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610300719y4a0cecc1u90afe45e5ffd1535@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200610310139.k9V1dwIA019892@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ben Goertzel > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! > > > > This is hilarious: ... > Spike, I am quite sure that what Damien found hilarious was not the > fact that animals enjoy gay sex-play, but rather the fact that various > religious leaders had such an insane reaction to the museum display > with this theme... > > I mean ... > > " > A Lutheran priest said he hoped the organisers > would "burn in hell," and a Pentecostal priest > lashed out at the exhibition saying tax payers' > money used for it would have been better spent > helping the animals correct "their perversions and deviances". > " > > Uhhhh ... I don't want these people contributing to the Coherent > Extrapolated Volition!!!!! > > -- Ben Ben I am pretty sure those bits by the Lutheran priest and Pentacostal minister were actually penned by a gay hipster. They were quite funny, ja. spike From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 31 02:23:02 2006 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:23:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <45464075.9030508@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20061031022302.36048.qmail@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> My sister and I had a discussion recently regarding an issue with the word "marriage". I don't know if this is relevant, but I was curious what the general thought is on the subject. My mother is voting within the church if the word "marriage" should be used when two men or women get "married". (This is not a religious debate) This confuses me. My opinion and questions: I think that gay people should have every right to be "married", i'm just not sure whether it should be called a "marriage"?. The word "marriage" is described as a union, joined for life, creating a family, it's been around for centuries, it's scriptural, and so on, it's already been named. Why change it? Why wouldn't the gay communities want their own word for their union and still keep the basic laws for spouse and marital? I can't pressume to understand the relationship between 2 men or 2 women and who am I to judge what "Union" they want but as a heterosexual woman, don't I have every right to keep the word "marriage"?. Does it really matter? Just curious Anna:) Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving. Dale Carnegie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Oct 31 03:11:44 2006 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:11:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200610310324.k9V3OKqV019912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Yesterday the local bookstore had Richard Dawkins as a guest for a lecture and book signing. An excellent talk it was, a most wonderful time was this. The usual transhumanist suspects met for dinner afterwards. Since the talk was about superstition, it seemed appropriate that Amara showed us a good- luck talisman known as the Evil Eye. It was a curious object that actually looked a bit like an eye. I was unclear on what it meant to give someone the Evil Eye until she pointed out that the object actually functions to scare away evil spirits, bringing good luck to the bearer of the device. Clearly it worked for I noticed that no evil spirits were present. Presumably it has no adverse effect on non-evil spirits, so it would not create any panic at Google. It may result in great discomfort at Microsoft however, or at least the PowerPoint division. Spirits might be a bit like people in which the moral status is far less clear, perhaps a 50-50 mixture of good and evil. Surely as a companion talisman to the Evil Eye we need another device for dealing with these ambiguously moral spirits. In keeping with the alliteration of evil eye, I propose the Neutral Nose. Chemistry minded people are accustomed to thinking in terms of protons, neutrons and electrons. To fill out our talisman trilogy, surely we need some device for driving out those spirits that are positively not evil. It isn't clear why exactly, other than to maintain symmetry. The opposite of evil is righteous, so what could we have? A retina is part of the eye, which is already taken, and a radius without the ulna seems incomplete, but I just don't think we should go with the Righteous Rectum. It is unclear what such a talisman would look like, although it might actually be rather effective in repelling spirits. OK well, the letter R is difficult when searching for names of body parts. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate opposite of evil, such as good. Good versus evil, double plus good, OK. Let's see then, Good Groi... aaah no. Good Gona... hmmm not that either. OK R then. Righteous... From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 03:45:59 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:45:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <20061031022302.36048.qmail@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> May I put in my tangential two cents worth? Organized religion is a necessary fiction that helps keep families intact. Though a religion may have no real meaning, it gives families a purpose; for instance on Sunday morning a family dresses up, goes to church, prays, and sings hymns-- breaking up the commercially-oriented week and giving the family a more positive attitude. --------------------------------- Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Tue Oct 31 05:16:05 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:16:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye In-Reply-To: <200610310324.k9V3OKqV019912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610310324.k9V3OKqV019912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4546DC15.3030606@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > Spirits might be a bit like people in which the moral status is far less > clear, perhaps a 50-50 mixture of good and evil. Surely as a companion > talisman to the Evil Eye we need another device for dealing with these > ambiguously moral spirits. In keeping with the alliteration of evil eye, I > propose the Neutral Nose. > > Chemistry minded people are accustomed to thinking in terms of protons, > neutrons and electrons. To fill out our talisman trilogy, surely we need > some device for driving out those spirits that are positively not evil. It > isn't clear why exactly, other than to maintain symmetry. The opposite of > evil is righteous, so what could we have? A retina is part of the eye, > which is already taken, and a radius without the ulna seems incomplete, but > I just don't think we should go with the Righteous Rectum. It is unclear > what such a talisman would look like, although it might actually be rather > effective in repelling spirits. Holy Hair Benevolent Brow Excellent Ear Righteous Retina Goody Glare Perfect Pupil Nice Nostril Loving Lips Cheerful Cheek -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Tue Oct 31 05:16:39 2006 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:16:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye In-Reply-To: <200610310324.k9V3OKqV019912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200610310324.k9V3OKqV019912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4546DC37.2080607@pobox.com> PS: Sunny Sclera -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Oct 31 05:15:25 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:15:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indexical Uncertainty Message-ID: <01f801c6fcab$c80c6320$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Let's take a step back and talk about a couple of hypothetical cases. I assume that almost everyone here allows that we are interested in what is *objectively* true. Suppose that John McCain is killed in an airplane crash and the next second a "Luckiest Man in the Universe" (cf. Max More) occurs and a new individual comes into existence who has 99.99% of George Washington's memories and .01% of John McCain's. But the circumstances favor the invocation of John McCain's habits and memories: the new person has (by my hypothesis) all the short term memories of Senator McCain, and also finds himself in the Senate chamber talking to several people who (by my hypothesis) are visually very familiar. Suddenly, he says to himself---"WAIT! What is all this?? I'm George Washington and all this is strange and new, yet I know these people and this building!" Clearly he's uncertain as to who he is. But the *FACT* is that he's really George Washington, and the superficial .01% memories of McCain's would be quickly overwhelmed. In this case we are *allowed* to say that he REALLY IS George Washington because of the particulars I have hypothesized. But one easily considers other cases where he's 50% G.W. and 50% J. Mc., or some substantial mix of memories like that. In the latter case there simply is *not* a correct answer to who he is (either George Washington or John McCain). Yet we have all the facts of the matter. Here, such a person would deserve to be uncertain as to who he is. But in my first example, there was indeed a definite "he" there: George Washington. And if he were confused for a moment as to who he was, it would quickly pass, as on waking from the kind of dream discussed earlier in this thread. Lee From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Oct 31 04:58:15 2006 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:58:15 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <20061031022302.36048.qmail@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061031022302.36048.qmail@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1089.86.130.24.207.1162270695.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Anna Taylor wrote: > I can't pressume to understand the relationship > between 2 men or 2 women and who am I to judge what > "Union" they want but as a heterosexual woman, don't I > have every right to keep the word "marriage"?. Do certain groups have rights to words? I don't know... words have meanings that are defined socially and culturally. Sometimes they often refer to things one group does, but this may not mean that group has any more possession of them than anybody else using the term. It is a bit like how transhumanists might dislike misuse or derogatory uses of the term transhuman, but that they do not have any moral power over the usage. The whole marriage-union thing is so parochial. Among ancient romans marriage was a sacred religious thing and *at the same time* an entirely informal thing, depending on social class. Patricians celebrated confarreatio with full pomp, including offerings to the gods and ten witnesses representing the ten tribes etc. Plebs had usus, where people lived together as man and wife - but it was not recognized as marriage by the patricians. It was later outcompeted by coemptio, where the father sold the bride for a sum of money (manus) - coemptio was seen as better than usus because it involved property! As marriage evolved, it seems that it became more and more seen as a private contractual situation, not even state officials were needed. http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/marrcustwom.html I have no problem with people inventing arbitrary new terms. But we will need a term to refer to all the marriage-like structures that are legally and socially binding. In the long run I think the best would be to make sure this term is separate from whatever religious terms are used. Then people can get usused and coempt to their hearts content. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Oct 31 04:49:07 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:49:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ENVY (was: humor: evil eye) References: <200610310324.k9V3OKqV019912@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <01ef01c6fca7$ff407470$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes > Yesterday the local bookstore had Richard Dawkins as a guest for a lecture > and book signing. An excellent talk it was, a most wonderful time was this. > The usual transhumanist suspects met for dinner afterwards. Since the talk > was about superstition, it seemed appropriate that Amara showed us a good- > luck talisman known as the Evil Eye. It was a curious object that actually > looked a bit like an eye. I was unclear on what it meant to give someone > the Evil Eye until she pointed out that the object actually functions to > scare away evil spirits, Historically, the "Evil Eye" is the evil eye of envy. Our book group is reading Helmut Schoek's book "ENVY". Alas because so many of us here are so--- dare I invoke the wrath of the gods by boasting?---pretty much above envy, it is enormously difficult to consider what a powerful force it truly appears to be in the world. Depending in a yet unknown-way (to me) on spatial and temporal distribution! Evidently Americans tend to be more free from envy than others (witness the line in the Oklahoma song "Everything's going my way..."), and modern people far more free than our ancestors. But what is the distrubution??? Are young Germans today freer of malicious envy that their forefathers? Is England truly in a much worse situation envy-wise because of the heavy influence of the class structure? Are Californians more free from envy than other Americans? Are Arizonans even freer than Californians? (I have very meagre evidence that these things are true.) And is it practically an *unconscious conspiracy* among modern sociologists and anthropologists, as the author contends, to ignore the powerful phenomenon of (malicious) envy? (I have to use "malicious envy" rather than just envy because Amercans (and other English speakers?) are prone to say things like "I sure am envious of your new car" when all they're really expressing is admiration.) Lee > bringing good luck to the bearer of the device. > Clearly it worked for I noticed that no evil spirits were present. > Presumably it has no adverse effect on non-evil spirits, so it would not > create any panic at Google. It may result in great discomfort at Microsoft > however, or at least the PowerPoint division. > > Spirits might be a bit like people in which the moral status is far less > clear, perhaps a 50-50 mixture of good and evil. Surely as a companion > talisman to the Evil Eye we need another device for dealing with these > ambiguously moral spirits. In keeping with the alliteration of evil eye, I > propose the Neutral Nose. > > Chemistry minded people are accustomed to thinking in terms of protons, > neutrons and electrons. To fill out our talisman trilogy, surely we need > some device for driving out those spirits that are positively not evil. It > isn't clear why exactly, other than to maintain symmetry. The opposite of > evil is righteous, so what could we have? A retina is part of the eye, > which is already taken, and a radius without the ulna seems incomplete, but > I just don't think we should go with the Righteous Rectum. It is unclear > what such a talisman would look like, although it might actually be rather > effective in repelling spirits. > > OK well, the letter R is difficult when searching for names of body parts. > Perhaps we should come up with an alternate opposite of evil, such as good. > Good versus evil, double plus good, OK. Let's see then, Good Groi... aaah > no. Good Gona... hmmm not that either. OK R then. Righteous... > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue Oct 31 05:17:27 2006 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:17:27 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! References: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> From: Al Brooks Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:45 PM > May I put in my tangential two cents worth? Organized religion is a necessary fiction that helps keep families intact. Begging your pardon - I'm not certain if you meant this seriously or not. Presently, families of agnostics and atheists have lower divorce rates that Christians ... especially evangelical Christians. > Though a religion may have no real meaning, it gives families a purpose; for instance on Sunday morning a family dresses up, goes to church, prays, and sings hymns-- breaking up the commercially-oriented week and giving the family a more positive attitude. OK, OK ... I'm starting to get it. You're joking. Tee hee. Olga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Oct 31 05:34:48 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:34:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Tyranny in place References: <200609302126.k8ULQbBM005673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <451F134E.8030706@goldenfuture.net> <45203945.1030206@goldenfuture.net> <8d71341e0610012204p203bbfb2gabd206c5fae84994@mail.gmail.com> <051501c6e5e8$2c5243c0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610012326y66fde0f3h3795e07362235e64@mail.gmail.com> <059801c6e90d$1753c390$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0610060912n29ce3919obe40cec30f1b43f5@mail.gmail.com> <00b001c6efad$dba54560$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <012d01c6f065$54a2db00$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1160945327.5671.9.camel@localhost> <015d01c6f0c4$ff139ed0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> <3CAE0AEF-541D-4950-B007-A2D914D6F829@mac.com> Message-ID: <01fb01c6fcae$4f0c8f10$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha wrote (Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:58 AM) >>> I don't believe Al Qaeda is or ever was a >>> significant enough problem justify what has >>> been and is being done in this idiotic war on a >>> form of asymmetric warfare. Bush has repeadely >>> even lowered the priority of finding bin Laden. >> >> Why was the bombing of Pearl Harbor any different? > > Actual country with clear war like intentions. Clear definition of > victory. Formal declaration of war. How was it all that similar? > How is the question relevant? It's mainly relevant in that I was---and definitely am---interested in answers to the particular questions I asked: >> Why was the bombing of Pearl Harbor any different? Fewer lives were >> lost than on 9-11, and wouldn't the mature thing to do have been to >> just sit down with the Japanese and ask them what their problem was? >> (They were upset about the oil sanctions.) We could just have just >> negotiated it out with them, do you think? Could you please indulge me and answer exactly why such a "reasonable" approach would not have been wise? I know some people thought that I was making a very reasonable suggestion here, because one off-line correspondent wrote to commend me for my suggestion. I'd appreciate it very much if you could carefully explain what's wrong with my suggestion, thanks! >> Am I to infer that you don't think Al Qaeda >> attacks on the West will be endless? You >> suppose that they'll just fade away over time? > > Bush declared this is a never-ending war, not I. I don't believe it > is or should be a "war" at all. Specifically: if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq and cut off any aid to Israel, the Islamic Fundamentalist threat to the west would dissolve? If so, what about the bombs in Spain, England, and Bali? (I'm really not trying to make points here; I really want to know your views and the views of those like you.) Consider that Islam tried to conquer the West and the whole world from 632 AD through about 1800 AD. High points were the conquest of Spain in 711, and nearly capturing Vienna once in the 16th century IIRC and once in the 18th century. They ceased to be a threat only from 1800 to 1990 because of their total military impotence. But thanks to C4 and its friends, they're back. Also don't forget that to them the loss of Spain, for example, was yesterday. So their basic behavior has lasted for all but 2 of the last 14 centuries, and it matches their current rhetoric to a T. > I think we will have a lot less > terrorist attacks if we refrain from some of our more asinine foreign > entanglements and get out of Iraq. Whether people want to hear it or > not the US has been asking for major blowback in the Middle East for > decades now. We will not and cannot eliminate terrorism by turning > the world into a complete police state. Personally I would not want > to inhabit that kind of world even if such measures actually could > remotely be workable with deep enough total surveillance. But the larger issue---of which this is only the first sign---is Brin's Transparent Society. Soon any disaffected group or individual will be able to kill millions because his girlfriend dumped him. Something along the lines of your "complete police state" has always seemed to me to be an eventual necessity, though via transparency of government too might not be totally insufferable. >> But look on the bright side: in terms of per capita deaths, this [war] >> looks to be one of the gentlest in history. > > In terms of damage to fundamental rights and freedoms and the growth > of unchecked power it is very dangerous. I don't see much bright side > to the near total perversion of US concerns by the terrorism trump card. Of course it's dangerous. There is danger from terrorists. There is danger that Bush will label certain political enemies "enemy combattants" and the full reign of terror will be on. But on the whole, whether it's about the Islamic Nazis, or about the tyrants in Washington and London who've taken over the governments, or whether it's about global warming and ozone holes, we do worry way too much. We've become pathologically risk averse. Lee P.S. Sorry about the lack of spell-checking. I've a new machine and need to do something about that. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 06:22:04 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:22:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> References: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> <001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: To go off on a real tangent -- think of it in fundamental terms -- survival and reproduction -- no survival = no reproduction; no reproduction = no survival. All of the rest of it is layered on top of that. Tribes -- promote survival and reproduction. Marriages (or families) -- promote survival and reproduction. Religions -- promote survival and reproduction. Poltical parties -- promote survival and reproduction. Humanity is in the process of transitioning from survival and reproduction at the gene level to survival and reproduction at the body level to survival and reproduction at the tribe level to survival and reproducation at the meme level. So the debate over "marriage" (promoting gene or body or tribe) survival and reproduction vs. "social unions" (promoting body or tribe or meme) survival is a level debate. The root debate (homosexual animals being natural or 'social unions' being natural) is the debate over genes being inherently more valuable than memes. I would tend to question that as I view software as being more flexible (and therefore has higher survival probabilities) than hardware. As the rate of change increases (the singularity) it is likely that only those who adopt the path of greatest flexibility will survive. You must be willing to give up everything you are for what you might become [1]. Robert 1. Unfortunately very very few individuals in the world today grasp this -- they are more concerned with being who or what they "are" than simply "being". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Oct 31 06:31:02 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:31:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye Message-ID: spike wrote: >Yesterday the local bookstore had Richard Dawkins as a guest for a lecture >and book signing. An excellent talk it was, a most wonderful time was this. >The usual transhumanist suspects met for dinner afterwards. Since the talk >was about superstition, it seemed appropriate that Amara showed us a good- >luck talisman known as the Evil Eye. It was a curious object that actually >looked a bit like an eye. I was unclear on what it meant to give someone >the Evil Eye until she pointed out that the object actually functions to >scare away evil spirits, bringing good luck to the bearer of the device. The evil eye is an ancient tradition in Turkey. (Usually when I see it around someone during my travels, then I know that they have a link to Turkey.) The evil eye is a superstition that probably goes back a thousand+ years. It's everywhere you go in Turkey, that symbol is far more pervasive than mosques. Every restaurant has an evil eye or two, it is hanging from the mirrors in people's cars, tacked to the sides of buildings, worn as earrings, as a part of good luck necklaces on babies... Here is a short history: http://www.business-with-turkey.com/tourist-guide/evil_eye_amulet_nazar_boncuk.shtml Religion is mixed in Turkey, the evil eye is just another clue. If you visit, you'll find Christian churches scattered throughout the countryside. Kids playing in school yards are watched by mothers wearing anything from full veil to mini-skirts. The most sacred mosque in the Moslem world Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (a Christian church which burned down a few times in riots, was rebuilt and 1000 years later converted to a mosque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aya_sofya.jpg http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/europe/ayasofia.shtml displays on the ceiling of the dome the symbol of Allah next the frescoes of Madonna and Child with Christian mosaics scattered here and there. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mosaics_in_Hagia_Sophia > Spirits might be a bit like people in which the moral status is far less > clear, perhaps a 50-50 mixture of good and evil. Surely as a companion > talisman to the Evil Eye we need another device for dealing with these > ambiguously moral spirits. In keeping with the alliteration of evil eye, I > propose the Neutral Nose. Spike, you can find your neutral noses in the Museum of Noses serving Pincio Park in Rome. In the gardens of Pincio Park Pincio are ~245 busts, representing important Italian personalities. The first 60 busts were there since 1851-1852. During the initial establishment of the statues/busts in the park, there was a war between the 'Stato Pontificio' (the Pope) and the 'Repubblica Romana', which decided that the Pincio had to be embellished by those busts representing important Italians but not religious authorities. Recall that in ancient Rome's time, a favorite past-time was to knock off the Emperor's head of the relief sculpture on the Arch of Constantine. This favorite Roman past-time has not subsided through time, as Roma-Italians today like to knock off and/or steal heads and noses of the busts in Rome's parks. From the very beginning (1852) of the busts' placement in Pincio Park, Romans have vandalized those busts stealing those noses. For example, from 1998-2000, ninety-eight stolen noses were replaced at the cost of 1,300 euros for every each nose. A depository of noses (casts of noses) was established in Rome, for that purpose. In other words, Rome has a Museum of Noses for those statues in the park that are missing a nose or head or two. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Oct 31 06:42:21 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:42:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! References: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com><001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <021e01c6fcb7$fbbab5d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Robert writes > think of it in fundamental terms -- survival and reproduction -- > no survival = no reproduction; no reproduction = no survival. > All of the rest of it is layered on top of that. Tribes -- promote > survival and reproduction. Marriages (or families) -- promote > survival and reproduction. Religions -- promote survival and > reproduction. Political parties -- promote survival and reproduction. Superb summary! No kidding! I could hardly fail to disagree less! > Humanity is in the process of transitioning from survival and > reproduction at the gene level to survival and reproduction at > the body level to survival and reproduction at the tribe level to > survival and reproducation at the meme level. Let me rephrase that (or into today's most fashionable jargon: "unpack" it). Humanity is in the process of transitioning from (gene survival + reproduction) to (body survival + reproduction) to (tribe survival + reproduction) to, finally, (meme survival + reproduction). But what happened to *me* in there? I'm more than my memes, pal. Don't forget my memories. > As the rate of change increases (the singularity) it is likely that only > those who adopt the path of greatest flexibility will survive. > You must be willing to give up everything you are for what you might > become: Unfortunately very very few individuals in the world today > grasp this -- they are more concerned with being who or what they > "are" than simply "being". That's me, maybe. I don't want to "become", especially if the end product is not me. I would rather "are". As you put it. Secondly, if the Singularity tarries, there won't be any people, me or like me either one, you or like you, se?or Bradbury. La ilaha ila Allah; Muhammadur-rasul Allah. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Oct 31 07:09:57 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:09:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye References: Message-ID: <038d01c6fcbb$c5372fd0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Amara writes > The evil eye is an ancient tradition in Turkey. (Usually when I see it > around someone during my travels, then I know that they have a link to > Turkey.) Yes, but keep in mind WHY it's there and WHAT it's for! > The evil eye is a superstition that probably goes back a thousand+ > years. It's everywhere you go in Turkey, that symbol is far more > pervasive than mosques. Every restaurant has an evil eye or two, it is > hanging from the mirrors in people's cars, tacked to the sides of > buildings, worn as earrings, as a part of good luck necklaces on babies... > > Here is a short history: > > http://www.business-with-turkey.com/tourist-guide/evil_eye_amulet_nazar_boncuk.shtml Yes, but let me quote the meat from that: Have you just had a new child? Bought a new car? Built a new office building? Worried that your "friends" and others are filled with envy about your good fortune? The protection of the Nazar is used for anything new or likely to attract praise. The belief is that even well-intentioned compliments include a conscious or unconscious dose of envy and resentment. The bead reflects the evil intent back to the onlooker. It somewhat resembles an eye and it is said the typical blue color is a factor in protecting the user. So it's *not* a superstition, as you wrote above. It's real: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_eye It's other name is Envy. It's interesting that not *one* of the messages in this thread mentioned the word "envy". Not one. I think that the author of a book I'm reading, "Envy" by Helmut Shoeck, is onto something: There is an ongoing unconscious conspiracy to ignore the role of envy in human affairs and as an explanation for much of human conduct. I attribute this mainly to the reluctance by anthropologists and other sensitive people to criticize primitive societies, in which envy plays such an overpowering role. And is probably playing a vastly understated role even in ours. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 07:08:31 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:08:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] it's not natural! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061031070831.78314.qmail@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Darin Sunley wrote: > Sigh. Even within the Christian worldview, those > outraged priests are > hopelessly confused. They demonstrate quite clearly > that, even within > their own professed worldview, they have no idea > what sin actually is. If I had to try on a daily basis to reconcile my 21st century world with the world as it is portrayed in a mideval translation of a bronze-age text, I too would be confused. > Sin, to the Christian, is NOT "unnatural behavior". > Quite the > opposite. Christians believe that, as a result of > certain ancient > events, the natural world, including humanity, is > afflicted by a > systemic bias towards evil. What ancient events - the fall of man? Are you saying that what is natural is inherently evil? Is then nature purely evil or merely mostly so? Why would God create nature to be evil? Was the fall of man then, the fall of all nature as well? By disobeying God, did Adam doom the hummingbirds to evil and death along with himself and his children? > Homosexuality, as demonstrated by this exhibition, > may very well be > perfectly natural. This, if demonstrated, would in > NO WAY WHATSOEVER > affect whether or not homosexual behavior was > sinful. Then for a Christian, God should be the final judge of sin, correct? For Jesus clearly tells us to "judge not lest ye be judged yourself." So on what basis is consentual homosexuality borne of love wrong? > There are many, many perfectly natural human > behaviors that are > unambiguously sinful, within the Christian > worldview. Lying, > selfishness, hatred, promiscuity, adultery, rape, > murder. So if I give a terrorist the wrong directions to a school, I am commiting an unambiguous sin? > These are > all perfectly "natural" behaviors. They occur > spontaneously throughout > the animal kingdom, and even among human children. > No child, anywhere, > has ever needed to be taught to be selfish, or to > lie. It comes > perfectly naturally, to all of us. Yet Jesus tells us, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." So if children are naturally born evil, because they are born in a state of nature instead of a state of grace, why would Jesus say that emulating their behavior is the key to salvation? > Within the Christian worldview, this is why everyone > needs a savior. > We all have this built in bias towards evil > behaivior, and we all do > these things instinctively, on a continuous, ongoing > basis. So within the Christian world-view, it is more important to have a savior then to actually control ones behavior? More important to be forgiven for wrongs already commited then to train ones mind to not commit them at all? Because it is impossible to not do them? Thus we are relieved of all responsibility for our actions except to feel remorse for them afterwards? > Yes. As someone raised within the Orthodox Jewish > tradition you know > all about this one. It's called, in English, the Ten > Commandments. > > 1. You shall have no other Gods before me. > 2. You shall not worship idols. > 3. You shall not blaspheme God. > 4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. > 5. Honor your mother and father. > 6. You shall not kill. > 7. You shall not commit adultery. > 8. You shall not steal. > 9. You shall not lie. > 10. You shall not covet. > > We all break these, to one extent or another, on a > continuous, ongoing > basis. Why is it so ingrained into you that you must continue to do these things that you know are wrong? As if you had no choice but to cheat old ladies out of their social security, pop a cap into your neighbor, and sleep with your best friend's girl? BTW which of these commandments does homosexuality fall under? "Coveting thy neighbor's ass?" :) > It's natural to us. But it being natural > doesn't make it right. > That we do wrong things on a regular basis, and > don't even seem to > care, and even if we care, we don't seem able to > stop, and that there > are eternal consequences for this, is the problem > Christianity offers > a solution for. So then Josef Stalin may have gotten into heaven if the night before he died, he prayed to God for forgiveness? Yet a Hindu like Gandhi, who followed his Dharma and did no wrong for fear of bad Karma, will roast in hell because of the ill-fortune of thinking God's name was Krishna instead of Jesus? And if you still think that homosexuality is wrong, please explain what Apostle Paul means when he writes in 1 Corinthians 16:20 "All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss." Is he just refering to the female brethren? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates (http://voice.yahoo.com) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 09:53:05 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:53:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye In-Reply-To: <038d01c6fcbb$c5372fd0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20061031095305.26430.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > There is an ongoing unconscious conspiracy to ignore > the role of envy in human affairs > and as an explanation for much of human conduct. I > attribute this mainly to the reluctance > by anthropologists and other sensitive people to > criticize primitive societies, in which envy > plays such an overpowering role. > > And is probably playing a vastly understated role > even in ours. Well I would almost say that modern consumerism is the very institutionalization of envy and a healthy dose of greed. If there's a conspiracy, it is the promulgation of the myth that it is not sufficient to have enough, one must always have MORE than ones neighbor. So whatever came of Spike's hypothesis regarding the Evil Eye, the Neutral Nose, and the Righteous Rectum? Does it match the Standard Model? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta) From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 10:09:17 2006 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:09:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061031100917.27302.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > > Spike, you can find your neutral noses in the Museum > of Noses serving > Pincio Park in Rome. [. . .] > In > other words, Rome has a Museum of Noses for those > statues in the > park that are missing a nose or head or two. Yikes this is starting to sound like the Da Vinci Code! If the "evil eyes" are in Instanbul/Constantinople and the "neutral noses" are in Rome, where are the "righteous rectums"? And if we find out, will our lives be in danger? :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."- Siddhartha Guatama aka Buddha. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates (http://voice.yahoo.com) From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 11:06:28 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:06:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye In-Reply-To: <20061031100917.27302.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061031100917.27302.qmail@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/31/06, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yikes this is starting to sound like the Da Vinci > Code! If the "evil eyes" are in > Instanbul/Constantinople and the "neutral noses" are > in Rome, where are the "righteous rectums"? And if we > find out, will our lives be in danger? :) > The 'righteous rectum' is probably the 'colossal colon' that tours round the US. "Coco," as the Colossal Colon(r) is affectionately known, is a 40-foot long, 4-foot tall oversized model of the human colon that is designed to educate about colorectal cancer and other diseases of the colon. Visitors who crawl through the Colossal Colon(r) will see Crohn's disease, diverticulosis, ulcerative colitis, hemorrhoids, cancerous and non-cancerous polyps, and various stages of colon cancer. ---------------- Sounds like a fun day out! BillK From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Oct 31 11:50:23 2006 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:50:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061031022302.36048.qmail@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <34082.72.236.102.104.1162295423.squirrel@main.nc.us> > for instance on Sunday morning a family dresses up, > goes to church, prays, and sings hymns-- breaking up the commercially-oriented week > and giving the family a more positive attitude. > > ... very nice, unless you end up at a church that is so filled with devisiveness that you end up fighting with your spouse on the way home... every Sunday. I finally said I wasn't going again. There was great consternation, and guilt throwing, but I quit. I need to be *refreshed* and *rested* and in a good frame of mind to face the next week, not angry and confused and resentful and tired and arguing. I found that organized religion generally had one major purpose: raising money. That's what went on in *our* church! :( Regards, MB, the unchurched... From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Oct 31 12:54:00 2006 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:54:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] humor: evil eye References: <20061031095305.26430.qmail@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03a201c6fceb$d3ff0ee0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart writes > --- Lee Corbin wrote: >> There is an ongoing unconscious conspiracy to ignore >> the role of envy in human affairs >> and as an explanation for much of human conduct. I >> attribute this mainly to the reluctance >> by anthropologists and other sensitive people to >> criticize primitive societies, in which envy >> plays such an overpowering role. >> >> And is probably playing a vastly understated role >> even in ours. > > Well I would almost say that modern consumerism is the > very institutionalization of envy and a healthy dose of greed. I do want it understood that "envy" as traditionally spoken about is what you might call "malicious envy". It is the desire, hidden or overt, that *harm* come to someone who has something more than I have. A slightly lesser form of it is a mere gladness when my neighbor comes to grief, or someone vandalizes his new car which had caused me the envy. You are not talking about envy above; the "modern consumerism" doesn't necessarily contain an element of envy (read malicious envy) at all. It's perhaps at most an admiration of what someone else has or what they have accomplished. When that serves as a motivator for someone to match or exceed those accomplishments (or possessions), it's probably even a good thing. Greed, too, as narrowly understood, is actually a virtue. Ayn Rand had to write an entire book, as you know, on "The Virtue of Selfishness". If you are speaking here of "self-interest", then there can't be any doubt that this is a powerful and natural force without which there would be little or no human progress. Of course, there can be such a thing as overly narrow or excess and blatant self-interest, which is rightly called greed and denounced. But I'm sure you don't include by your term "greed" the desire of an individual to keep what he's earned, and not simply share it with all the world's undeserving. > If there's a conspiracy, it is the promulgation of the myth that it > is not sufficient to have enough, one must always have MORE > than one's neighbor. That's more a widespread feeling than a myth. People have competed for status in this wise since before the pleistocene, and according to many now, the status-seeking attending it is what drove the acquisition of greater human intelligence all throughout the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness). What true envy does---and why it is so denigrated in societies where it exists, particularly in the mediterranean area as Amara and the wikipedia article metioned---is to greatly retard any progress: it makes people afraid to get ahead of their neighbors. For fear of the Evil Eye. Lee From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 13:16:57 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:16:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <021e01c6fcb7$fbbab5d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> <001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> <021e01c6fcb7$fbbab5d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 10/31/06, Lee Corbin wrote: > > But what happened to *me* in there? I'm more than my memes, pal. > Don't forget my memories. > Well memories are memes and at least some of them are essential components of the survival and reproduction processes. (Think of being a teenager and how many strategies you tried before you got some booty...) That's me, maybe. I don't want to "become", especially if the end > product is not me. I would rather "are". As you put it. > Then you will be fighting a continual and probably eventually lose the battle. I have yet to see a strategy that guarantees avoidance of the external hazard function. For many the breaking point will be the decisions involving when and how to upload. For others it may be managing the "self"-collective after uploading. The problem is deciding when losing some part of oneself (some genes, reproduction behaviors, ones tribe, some ideas, etc.) constitutes "no longer surviving". For some it involves the "destruction" of memes derived from very old books programmed into them before they ever learned how to *think* about them. Lord forbid that animals simply like to "do it" (even if they sometime get the target wrong -- for one of my mother's dogs it was her leg). The 'perfect' omnipotent sysadmin would never have designed such a messed up system! Secondly, if the Singularity tarries, there won't be any people, > me or like me either one, you or like you, *se?or *Bradbury. > *La ilaha ila Allah; Muhammadur-rasul Allah. * > I've been thinking a lot about inertia. I like to remember there are many more people leaning towards the saner primary meme frameworks than the less sane frameworks. I'm not sure you could say that rational frameworks are dominant yet but the populations leaning that way do outnumber and carry significantly more throw weight than those leaning in the other direction [1]. The trick will be to shift things so ones near term survival interests that tend to trump the more ethereal "promises". Also bear in mind -- because the singularity will crunch a significant fraction of those ideas attached to entities people believe themselves to be a faster singularity (one which exceeds the rate of people adapting) could end up causing much more death and destruction compared with a slower one. The human social and political components are the least well understood parts of Kurzweil's "Law of Accelerating Returns". "We", for the most part, haven't even started the discussion of how fast we should go. I tend to be more worried about a backlash against the Singularity than it not arriving soon enough. Robert 1. E.g. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China, Thailand, much of Russia & India, AU, NZ, Canada, a large fraction of Europe, the blue states in the U.S., some significant parts of Africa (usually S. of the equator) . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Tue Oct 31 13:31:54 2006 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:31:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: References: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> <001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <638d4e150610310531p34f4eff7p74b5b85c69802e27@mail.gmail.com> > You must be willing to give up everything you are for what you might become > [1]. > > Robert > > 1. Unfortunately very very few individuals in the world today grasp this -- > they are more concerned with being who or what they "are" than simply > "being". Robert, it's a digression upon a digression, but I feel this may be an oversimplistic philosophy. Valuing "simply being" is important, yet does not give one any explicit guidance for choosing actions -- as no matter what one does, one will still be "simply being" ;-) ... However, an interesting point is that beings that greatly value "simply being" may statistically choose to make different decisions than those that do not -- so there may be *implicit* guidance involved.... Among these statistical biases may be the one you note: highly valuing "simply being" may bias one toward goal systems that involve the replacement of one's current patterns-of-being with entirely different ones that are judged to maximize some goal function... However, I wonder if it's possible to look at the issue (long-term future goals, in a transhumanist context) in a different sort of way. Rather than a) striving to preserve the current self, or b) striving to create something new according to a goal-function that basically ignores the current self and just talks about what is "optimal" according to some abstract criteria perhaps it is possible to c) strive for something new that embodies the right sort of **generalization** of the judged-most-important parts of the current self I know this is not very well-specified and I'm running out to a meeting so I don't have time to even try to specify it at this moment, but I just wanted to point out that a) and b) are not the only possible categories of philosophical attitude regarding future-looking goals... -- Ben From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 13:50:04 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:50:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) References: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com><001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> <021e01c6fcb7$fbbab5d0$6701a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Robert Bradbury: "Unfortunately very very few individuals in the world today grasp this -- they are more concerned with being who or what they "are" than simply "being"." For years I've been saying that it doesn't matter who you are as long as you are. It seems like you are saying something very similar but considering that so far I've met not a single soul that has been able to grasp this I doubt what you mean by those words produces the same meaning when I read them. Lee Corbin: "But what happened to *me* in there? I'm more than my memes, pal. Don't forget my memories." I'm with you on the second sentence but not the third. While it's almost trivial to show that you are not the memes (or values) you support, the same logic applies to memories. Say, you decide to take a stroll in the park. When you go there you find hundreds of people executing the same plan. Next day it rains so all the folks sit at home and fondly recall the time spent at the park the day before. Now, would the memories of the "park experience" really be that much different between the people who visited the park? If your brain expired, the memories of the "park experience" would certainly survive inside other people's brains. There's absolutely nothing special about individual values, beliefs and memories. It's a virtual certainty that all your values, beliefs, and memories will always overlap with values, beliefs and memories of some other people in the world. Then you might just as well say that you survive as long as humanity survives yet personal survival is not quite the same as survival of the species. There's a point beyond which further abstraction loses the essence of the thing that it's supposed to abstract. Reducing a person to his values, beliefs and memories goes way past that point. Slawomir From amara at amara.com Tue Oct 31 13:56:49 2006 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:56:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] not humor: evil eye Message-ID: Lee Corbin >Yes, but keep in mind WHY it's there and WHAT it's for! I think you missed the humor point of Spike's post. You changed the subject title to make a different point and wrote that, and then you proceed to pound your same message in Spike's humor thread too. Amara From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 14:23:22 2006 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:23:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <638d4e150610310531p34f4eff7p74b5b85c69802e27@mail.gmail.com> References: <20061031034559.71308.qmail@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> <001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> <638d4e150610310531p34f4eff7p74b5b85c69802e27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10/31/06, Ben Goertzel wrote: [snipping, perhaps too much -- see the original comment] perhaps it is possible to > > c) strive for something new that embodies the right sort of > **generalization** of the judged-most-important parts of the current self > > ... I just wanted to point out that a) and b) are not the only possible > categories of philosophical attitude regarding future-looking goals... I agree. The devil would appear to be in the recursive aspects of this. Its the "current self" which is judging "most important parts" and creating the generalization. Its the problem of why are leaves green or why does the production of ATP involve the production of free radicals? One would think that for maximal energy harvesting potential leaves should be *black* and programs should not produce free radicals which end up *corrupting* the program. The problem is that you get into locally optimal states the departure from which is virtually impossible [1,2]. I would be concerned that the "right sort" is going to need to involve some external measures (complexity?, variety?, longevity?, greatest "good"???) that allow one to at least hold up the "self" and say -- "Ok that is the best we can do in that part of the phase space. And now for something completely different..." Robert 1. See "simplex algorithm" and "linear programming" in Wikipedia. 2. For the most part it is only in cyanobacteria that more efficient light harvesting systems using a greater variety of photopigments, are widespread, and dealing with the free radical problem in a robust way would require completely reengineering the mitochondrial respiratory system in *all* eukaryotic cell based species and perhaps even much of the biochemistry in *all* bionanosystems. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 31 14:46:07 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:46:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Bradbury wrote: > You must be willing to give up everything you are for what you might become [1]. Excellent statement! Before I add this to my quote file with attribution to Robert, can anyone tell me of the existence of a more original source of this powerful insight? - Jef > 1. Unfortunately very very few individuals in the world today grasp this -- they are more concerned with being who or what they "are" than simply "being". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 16:05:17 2006 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:05:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/31/06, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Robert Bradbury wrote: > > You must be willing to give up everything you are for what you might > > become. > > > Excellent statement! Before I add this to my quote file with attribution to > Robert, can anyone tell me of the existence of a more original source of > this powerful insight? It is pretty common among the New Age consciousness, self-development, enlightenment-seeking movements. Robert may have come across it from his est self-development training courses. It is quoted in Love Precious Humanity: The Collected Wisdom Of Harry Palmer A few examples of what you can find inside: * Wisdom is like stiff clay; you have to work it with your own hands before it becomes useful. * What is the real work to be done on this planet?...It's to make ourselves more aware, to remind ourselves that our essential nature is nonviolent, and to increase the amount of compassion and cooperation on the planet. * Fear is a belief in your inadequacy to deal with something. * A limit can be either a frontier or a boundary. * Because your existence in time and space is unique, there are lives that only you can touch. * Don't let what you are being get in the way of what you might become. * What a fabulous moment, to realize that no word or thought can truly describe you. ----------------- Harry Palmer is an ex-Scientologist who now sells the Avatar personal development course, which apparently has many similarities to the Scientologist training routines. --------------------- If anyone starts talking to you about how you can become a super-power enlightened human being by taking their training course (only x thousand dollars) just tell them to f*** off! BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 31 16:57:07 2006 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:57:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031105302.021c3850@satx.rr.com> > > You must be willing to give up everything you are for what you > might become [1]. > >Excellent statement! Before I add this to my quote file with >attribution to Robert, can anyone tell me of the existence of a more >original source of this powerful insight? >- Jef Erm... John 12:24 ? "Most certainly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit." Not *quite* the same, and rather primitive botany, but still. Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 31 17:28:48 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:28:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Slawomir - As requested, I'll point out this example of your use of fallacious argument. Note that whether or not an argument is logically fallacious says nothing about the truth of any assertion. > There's absolutely nothing special about individual values, > beliefs and memories. > It's a virtual certainty that all your values, beliefs, and > memories will always overlap with values, beliefs and > memories of some other people in the world. Essentially agreed, with some quibble about the reference to memories. We can perfectly share values and beliefs to the extent that they can be defined as abstract concepts, but memories are defined in relation to the observer. We can have effectively similar memories though, which is probably your intended meaning. > Then you might > just as well say that you survive as long as humanity > survives yet personal survival is not quite the same as > survival of the species. There's a point beyond which further > abstraction loses the essence of the thing that it's supposed > to abstract. Reducing a person to his values, beliefs and > memories goes way past that point. So you're saying (1) "Values, beliefs and memories (VBM) are not necessarily unique (they're quite commonly shared) therefore they do not uniquely define a person." (2) Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBM is tantamount to saying that each person is all persons. (3) This is clearly absurd, therefore the unique essence of a thing must be defined elsewise. Is this a correct summary of your statements? My response: (1) Note that this is logically consistent with what many of us have been saying; that there can be a gradient of personal identity and that there can be duplicates of personal identity. (2) Non sequitur. Fallacy of the undistributed middle leading to affirming the consequent (a form of circular reasoning). A->B does not imply B->A. Also, same comments as (1). (3) Non sequitur. Affirming the consequent (circular). Where is it logically shown that all persons must have unique identity? As you know, circular reasoning means assuming what you're trying to prove. This form of argument is invalid because it's circular. Would you agree with the logic of the previous two sentences? If so, then you _don't_ understand about circular reasoning. Slawomir, this kind of illogic is rampant in your statements about your belief in unique personal identity. Your belief might be correct, but your statements don't support your assertion. Suggest you google "affirming the consequent", "denying the antecedent", "circular reasoning", "logical fallacy" for more. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 31 17:59:43 2006 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:59:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031105302.021c3850@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Thanks BillK and Damien. I see Robert's statement as very powerful because it highlights the very general principle that there is no growth without change, despite popular sentiment to the contrary. I also agree with BillK's caveats about the misuse (overextension) of the concept (and similar ideas from quantum physics) by "New Age" types. Some of this misuse can be very seductive to transhumanists. For example, the idea of unlimited *human* potential, or the apparently quite benevolent idea that "I am becoming my greater self." While Scientology and Avatar promise (and deliver) growth within a limited, internal, context, they are dangerous because they restrict growth beyond their own context. [I know, they have polished and emotionally persuasive arguments to the contrary.] Buddhism, on the other hand (if you can escape the traditional trappings), provides similar benefits of realization while insisting on openness to the greater, external context. L. Ron and Harry Palmer might say (as did Buddha) that "it's not about me", but the Buddha never insisted on secrecy and payments. - Jef From alex at ramonsky.com Tue Oct 31 20:00:31 2006 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:00:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] You must be willing to give up everything References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061031105302.021c3850@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4547AB5F.5060608@ramonsky.com> "Forgo what is near; win what is afar" -in the I Ching is translated as meaning something like this. Of course, nobody knows who wrote the I Ching...it could have been Robert? AR ****** Damien Broderick wrote: >>> You must be willing to give up everything you are for what you >>> >>> >>might become [1]. >> >>Excellent statement! Before I add this to my quote file with >>attribution to Robert, can anyone tell me of the existence of a more >>original source of this powerful insight? >>- Jef >> >> > >Erm... John 12:24 ? > >"Most certainly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the >earth and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears >much fruit." > >Not *quite* the same, and rather primitive botany, but still. > >Damien Broderick > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 21:28:37 2006 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:28:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Firefox 2 [was: The End of Science] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0610271923j1d06b614t5fdf463cf9382ad0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4542BBDB.40704@surriel.com> <8d71341e0610271923j1d06b614t5fdf463cf9382ad0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0610311328v15381f51k4701ec66fccc13f9@mail.gmail.com> Installed Firefox 2 last night on the promise of the "restore session" feature, and _very_ well worth it for that alone! No more having to try to manually recover tens of tabs on every reboot. (If you install it, make sure to set the option for restore session on regular shutdown as well as crash.) It's a nice example of a general point: Technological progress isn't just about making things possible that weren't before; Firefox 2 can't do anything earlier web browsers couldn't do in principle. It's also, very much, about increasing the range of things you can _take for granted_ so you don't have to worry about them anymore and you can use them as building blocks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 22:58:02 2006 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:58:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!) References: Message-ID: Jef Allbright: > So you're saying > > (1) "Values, beliefs and memories (VBM) are not necessarily unique > (they're quite commonly shared) therefore they do not uniquely define a > person." > > (2) Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBM is > tantamount to saying that each person is all persons. > > (3) This is clearly absurd, therefore the unique essence of a thing > must be defined elsewise. > > Is this a correct summary of your statements? (2) should be, "Therefore, to say that a person is defined by their VBMs implies that a person can survive as long as these same VBMs distributed among other people's heads survive." > My response: > > (1) Note that this is logically consistent with what many of us have > been saying; that there can be a gradient of personal identity and that > there can be duplicates of personal identity. But that's just like saying that 1 can also mean 2 or that "blue sky" can sometimes be red. The words imply certain conditions you must follow when assigning the referents. If you violate these conditions you're just end up using a wrong referent for a word and, consequently, should be using a different word. So, for example, there's no such thing as "duplicates of personal identity" or a "gradient of personal identity" just like there's no such thing as "two originals" or "23% of being pregnant." > (2) Non sequitur. Fallacy of the undistributed middle leading to > affirming the consequent (a form of circular reasoning). A->B does not > imply B->A. Also, same comments as (1). Let's really get into this, Jef. Before I acknowledge my fault please state precisely what your A and B are. > (3) Non sequitur. Affirming the consequent (circular). Where is it > logically shown that all persons must have unique identity? Again. I've always assumed that, by definition, "identity" can have at most one referent. Are you really saying that we can stretch the meaning of this word to include more than one thing? > As you know, circular reasoning means assuming what you're trying to > prove. This form of argument is invalid because it's circular. > Slawomir, this kind of illogic is rampant in your statements about your > belief in unique personal identity. You keep saying that but the truth is that (as I've tried to explain it to you privately) it is *your* personal interpretation of the argument that makes it circular since you continue to substitute arbitrary referents for the terms that don't allow such freedom. Slawomir From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 06:48:19 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:48:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061031064819.41080.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> In the back of my mind I always-- every day-- think of what Richard Brookhiser wrote, "...the intrusion of previous eras into their successors... our notions of warfare and masculinity were shaped by the era of hunting and gathering". Think of it: the prevalent conception of what it means to be a male today has been very heavily influenced by hunters who eons ago, for many hours, many days, would lie in wait to ambush animals with razor-sharp spears. Brookhiser went onto write, "dying and reviving gods, the myths of agriculture, haunt Christmas trees and the Wasteland". The collective mind of humanity (with apologies to wiccans) is a witch's brew. > 1. Unfortunately very very few individuals in the > world today grasp this -- > they are more concerned with being who or what they > "are" than simply > "being". >Robert Bradbury __________________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta) From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 06:24:41 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:24:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <1089.86.130.24.207.1162270695.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20061031062441.82209.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> Anne, naturally you have the right to keep the word marriage. It's important to know why it is homosexuals want full marriage rights and will not be satisfied with mere civil unions: homosexuals want the right of making serious medical decisions (as Terry Schiavo's husband had in her case); they want full interitance rights; etc. They want, in short, complete marital parity with straights. > Anna Taylor wrote: > > I can't pressume to understand the relationship > > between 2 men or 2 women and who am I to judge > what > > "Union" they want but as a heterosexual woman, > don't I > > have every right to keep the word "marriage"?. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates (http://voice.yahoo.com) From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 06:52:42 2006 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:52:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, it's not natural! In-Reply-To: <001401c6fcab$dbd3dd20$6600a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20061031065242.90753.qmail@web51610.mail.yahoo.com> But 86 percent of Americans believe in a God, and from everything I've seen the religious still dominate society. > Begging your pardon - I'm not certain if you meant > this seriously or not. Presently, families of > agnostics and atheists have lower divorce rates that > Christians ... especially evangelical Christians... > [...]OK, OK >I'm starting to get it. You're joking. > Tee hee. >Olga Bourlin ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the New Yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com/preview)