From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Sep 1 10:12:06 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 03:12:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New Special video / Dermal Display with Freitas narration at Alcor conference References: <200708311528.l7VFSS95017958@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <03be01c7ec80$94972190$0200a8c0@Nano> Some of you may recall that in late 2005 I completed my collaboration with Robert A. Freitas Jr. http://www.rfreitas.com/ on the Dermal Display animation, http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/dermaldisplay.htm a concept he published in his book Nanomedicine http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI.htm. Freitas gave a presentation at the 6th Alcor conference http://www.alcor.org/conferences/2006/index.html on the topic of Nanomedicine and Medical Nanorobotics which featured a section on the Dermal Display animation and a really terrific verbal description of what is happening when you are watching it. I was fortunate enough to have been supplied the footage by Alcor http://www.alcor.org/ which I merged with the animation and edited so that you can enjoy this special feature video. Come download it here: http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/freitastalk.htm Go to the original blog post for the Dermal Display animation: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2005/09/dermal-display.html Get the Alcor conference DVD (not the same as this footage and is the full conference): https://www.shop.alcor.org/displayProductDocument.hg?productId=1 Watch Alcor 6 conference clips: http://www.alcor.org/Library/videos/conference6.html Comment about this special feature video at the blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/08/dermal-display-special-video-with.html Best wishes, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com 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." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andres at thoughtware.tv Sat Sep 1 09:50:11 2007 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 05:50:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Thoughtware.TV news: 360-degrees Holographic Display Message-ID: Check out this cool 360-degrees Holographic Display, recently seen at Siggraph: http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/show/704 Description: Researchers at USC have taken another step towards that holiest of sci-fi dreams: the 3D holographic display. Using a spinning mirror covered with a "holographic diffuser," a special DVI implementation, and a high-speed projector, the team's device can project a three-dimensional image that can be viewed from 360 degrees -- regardless of the viewer's height and distance. Yep. I know you want one :-) Andr?s, Thoughtware.TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Sep 2 17:26:09 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 13:26:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of Dust References: Message-ID: <055f01c7ed86$6c136740$38054e0c@MyComputer> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201803325 From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 2 18:00:29 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 11:00:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshka brains] In-Reply-To: <055f01c7ed86$6c136740$38054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200709021819.l82IJb4L003561@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark > Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of Dust > http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201803325 Cool John! I have been thinking about this for some time, while thinking about what is the optimal size and spacing of the nodes when creating a Bradbury-esque Matrioshka brain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/index.html I once spent a lot of mental energy trying to figure out how to do station-keeping with M-brain nodes approximately the size of a dime (but much thinner). Last spring, I was at a lecture by Dawkins. At dinner afterwards, Amara made an offhanded comment that has rattled around in my brain. She said that interplanetary space carries a small net electrical charge. I never realized that, but it makes total sense, and explains why interplanetary dust behaves the way it does. In retrospect that fact was (I think) mentioned in Amara's PhD thesis, but for some reason it didn't sink in back in January of 02 when I read that work. Since then, it occurred to me that if the processors are small enough, station keeping of individual nodes would require far less precision than Robert and I originally calculated in March 2002. Possibly they would not require station keeping at all, which would save a lot of mass and complexity. If we could make individual nodes such that the mass is sufficiently small, we could arrange for each node to carry a net electrical charge. Then the nodes would repel each other electrostatically, obviating the need for station keeping. spike From amara at amara.com Sun Sep 2 18:44:15 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 20:44:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] META: digest behavior? Message-ID: Hi extronauts, nothing urgent, but I've been wondering what changed this summer with the digest? I used to get them every day and if I wanted to check in-between the delivery time I went to the web site archive. The web archive has been stuck/broken at 2006 for one or two months though, and the digest delivery is an irregular every 2-4 days. The delivery rate is better than my random-or-never home postal delivery, but I kind of liked the daily regularity so that I could be somewhat interactive with the list, when I'm not traveling (like this moment). If there are new settings that I must change to have it work the old way, could you give me a hint where I would do that? Thanks! Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From amara at amara.com Sun Sep 2 18:32:32 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 20:32:32 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshka brains] Message-ID: >Last spring, I was at a lecture by Dawkins. At dinner afterwards, Amara >made an offhanded comment that has rattled around in my brain. She said >that interplanetary space carries a small net electrical charge. Oops! Did I say that? How many glasses of wine did I drink ? ;-) If you mean interplanetary dust instead of interplanetary space, then yes, the dust particles are usually charged 1-10 Volts. But if you really mean interplanetary space, which is another expression for "plasma", then no, overall the plasma is neutral (by definition). Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 2 19:38:18 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 20:38:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] META: digest behavior? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/2/07, Amara Graps wrote: > Hi extronauts, nothing urgent, but I've been wondering what changed this > summer with the digest? I used to get them every day and if I wanted to > check in-between the delivery time I went to the web site archive. > > The web archive has been stuck/broken at 2006 for one or two months > though, and the digest delivery is an irregular every 2-4 days. The > delivery rate is better than my random-or-never home postal delivery, > but I kind of liked the daily regularity so that I could be somewhat > interactive with the list, when I'm not traveling (like this moment). > > If there are new settings that I must change to have it work the old > way, could you give me a hint where I would do that? Thanks! > I think you might be looking at the wrong archives. These seem to be up-to-date: The lucifer.com archives died in January 2006. The digest might just be slow because there has been low list activity recently. The system might not send out a digest until it gets a sufficient volume of posts. BillK From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sun Sep 2 22:17:49 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:17:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] META: digest behavior? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DB368D.1070605@mydruthers.com> > The web archive has been stuck/broken at 2006 for one or two months > though, and the digest delivery is an irregular every 2-4 days. The > delivery rate is better than my random-or-never home postal delivery, > but I kind of liked the daily regularity so that I could be somewhat > interactive with the list, when I'm not traveling (like this moment). I looked for archives about a month ago, and all my usual links were broken. I thought for a bit, and realized I'd seen a link in the footer of recent messages. Sure enough > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Each message I get gives the link above, which continues to accrue new messages. Yours is http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-September/037473.html Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 2 22:17:00 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 15:17:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshka brains] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200709022235.l82MZIek015895@andromeda.ziaspace.com> The dust particles carry a net positive charge, ja? Makes sense that they would, since electrons seem more likely to run free than protons, flightly characters that they are, having very little mass or responsibility. Amara I may have misunderstood your comment, but I grokked you meant the dust particles are slightly net positive to 5-ish volts average. Of course the entire space is neutral (otherwise the sun would eventually have a net charge.) If so, then we could arrange M-brain nodes to hold a net charge as well. Then we use electrostatic charge to prevent their clumping together. That discussion took place before the sake arrived as I recall. {8^D Thanks for reminding me of a very pleasant evening with a most delightful and thought-stimulating group. Speaking of pleasant company, Russell Whitaker has left us for New York for graduate studies in biochemistry or something like that. Any ExI-Bayers here know the details on Russell? We in the SF area will miss that man bigtime. He was always a kick at the local extro schmoozes. When Anders was here, we went with Russell to the local sushi bar. He conversed with the waitress at length, in perfect Japanese. No mortal deserves such a generous portion of brains as he. Our loss in New York's gain. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: Amara Graps [mailto:amara at amara.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 11:33 AM > To: spike > Cc: 'ExI chat list'; 'Robert Bradbury' > Subject: RE: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshka > brains] > > >Last spring, I was at a lecture by Dawkins. At dinner afterwards, Amara > >made an offhanded comment that has rattled around in my brain. She said > >that interplanetary space carries a small net electrical charge. > > Oops! Did I say that? How many glasses of wine did I drink ? ;-) > > If you mean interplanetary dust instead of interplanetary space, then > yes, the dust particles are usually charged 1-10 Volts. > > But if you really mean interplanetary space, which is another > expression for "plasma", then no, overall the plasma is neutral > (by definition). > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 2 22:24:19 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 15:24:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] META: digest behavior? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200709022236.l82Ma0D3003287@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Hi Amara, I just checked your mail status; everything looked OK and set correctly, digest only. There were a bunch of days when there were no ExIchat messages. I think the server was down for a while in late July or early August. I sent in two posts right before I went on vacation. One of them showed up a couple weeks later while I was away. I didn't investigate, since the server appeared to be up again. So my guess is that if there is little or nothing to digest, then the digest doesn't go out that day. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 11:44 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] META: digest behavior? > > Hi extronauts, nothing urgent, but I've been wondering what changed this > summer with the digest? I used to get them every day and if I wanted to > check in-between the delivery time I went to the web site archive. > > The web archive has been stuck/broken at 2006 for one or two months > though, and the digest delivery is an irregular every 2-4 days. The > delivery rate is better than my random-or-never home postal delivery, > but I kind of liked the daily regularity so that I could be somewhat > interactive with the list, when I'm not traveling (like this moment). > > If there are new settings that I must change to have it work the old > way, could you give me a hint where I would do that? Thanks! > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From ka.aly at luxsci.net Sun Sep 2 23:15:48 2007 From: ka.aly at luxsci.net (Khaled Aly) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 02:15:48 +0300 Subject: [ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) References: <001b01c7e0f5$714512b0$55074e0c@MyComputer><710b78fc0708271830j4ce76255ja2ca2e981f005955@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008501c7edb7$3c8fe5d0$e1a367d4@pcd> Good day I've been following this since it started. I feel that a murderer should be punished to death in the easiest possible way (e.g. lethal injection), once it is proven for very sure that he/she has done so deliberately and under no external effects; for two reasons: 1) It is a relief to the victim's family unless they choose otherwise; and 2) If I were to choose, being the murderer, I'd rather go now/then than spend 20 years in jail. About therapy, I think it may work in certain sick cases (there are sick souls that could be treated why not, and there are evil souls that will not change, and there are those whose life circumstances made them go wrong way and they need social rehabilitation - every case is different). This is my entry to how effective is the overall current justice system. And the ever unresolved question about the tradeoffs between personal privacy and community security. Do any computer or IT people see a role of algorithms helping the justice system to decide (for a start; since real-life AI is a bit far ahead). What I mean for example, consider obtaining a search warrant. How difficult is it to write some code that could 'assist' the decision making. First, it will perform preliminary information analysis. Second, if it's open implementation, it will be possible to a large technical population to review it and ensure it works as intended/declared and for the benefit of justice. And third, within a digital world, it can ensure that a court order of privacy invasion for a suspect individual will actually expire; provided it began, through the use of digital certificates to be provided and revoked in time by court to law enforcement. The last of course requires that default electronic communication be secured, and be broken only using a court digital certificate. This can be as frequent as the low issuing entities would decide according to existing situation (exceptional, less exceptional, regular). An innocent whose privacy was broken deserves to be advised about it at some point. Beyond this, any computer literate person would confirm that open source code is most reliable because it had been reviewed by the expert public. Same applies to an open source algorithm that is designed to support the justice system deciding what to do with a suspect, a person in trial, or an indicted person and let that be an advisory input for trial. Unlike few people may think, computers and human minds don't work the same way. Computers are structured crunching speed machines and minds are pattern learning neural machines. They are complementary (until neural network computing make it to market and yet it will be v. hard to mimic the brain). Why does law enforcement, or as a whole the justice system use computers only for data recording purposes. What about the huge analytic power that can be made presentable to humans to evaluate and judge. I don't think any final sentence should be produced by a machine with the current state of the art, or may be never. But speaking preliminary and analytic support, incorporating digital technology can potentially resolve many issues and cases where the society disagrees about how just the outcome was. Greatest software technologies came out of open source because it is auditable. And that's much like digital democracy. Transparency does not compromise rule of law -- it rather enhances it. Sadly, digital technology is being consumed for many irrelevant but sellable applications before it is being considered to support a sound social infrastructure. And what's more relevant than justice... Cheers ka, phd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stathis Papaioannou" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment. > On 28/08/07, Emlyn wrote: > >> I was reading this, and had a hazy recollection of learning in >> undergrad psych that sociopaths are actually made worse by traditional >> therapy (it helps them learn how to fake being normal). > > There's little evidence that "therapy" helps with anything, let alone > fundamentally changing the personality you were born with. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Sep 3 00:06:23 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 01:06:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshka brains] In-Reply-To: <200709021819.l82IJb4L003561@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <055f01c7ed86$6c136740$38054e0c@MyComputer> <200709021819.l82IJb4L003561@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0709021706w76bc6179uf70fafff578fd61d@mail.gmail.com> On 9/2/07, spike wrote: > I once spent a lot of mental energy trying to figure out how to do > station-keeping with M-brain nodes approximately the size of a dime (but > much thinner). What would you see as the advantage of making them that small? Seems to me things are easier and more efficient if you agglomerate a decent amount of machinery together in a single mass, for a Dyson sphere maybe km-size nodes. We break things up into small units like cell phones because we have a particular need to make them that small, but when we just want total computing or other throughput we use smaller numbers of larger units. From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Sep 3 03:56:24 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 20:56:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshkabrains] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0709021706w76bc6179uf70fafff578fd61d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709030418.l834IRcF001147@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Russell, this turns into an interesting question of autonomous manufacturing optimization and launching of nodes, as well as optimization of the use of energy from sunlight. Going with smaller and more numerous nodes has an advantage that is related to an engineering textbook problem from a signals and systems class I took way too many years ago. Imagine you have a signal you wish to transmit distance x. You can do it with one transmitter and one receiver, but you could put another receiver at x/2, amplify the signal and retransmit another x/2 to distance x. This way you actually have two transmitters, but each one requires only one fourth as much power as in the first case, so together they only require half as much power. Now imagine three receivers and transmitters, each transmitting a distance x/3. Each requires one ninth as much power, so together they require a third as much power as in the first case. And so on. Cool, huh? Perhaps you worked the same problem. As for station keeping, as the node size scales downward, gravity becomes less the driver and electrostatic forces ever more important. My intuition tells me that building an M-brain is optimized by making the individual nodes as small as our technology permits. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace > Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:06 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and > matrioshkabrains] > > On 9/2/07, spike wrote: > > I once spent a lot of mental energy trying to figure out how to do > > station-keeping with M-brain nodes approximately the size of a dime (but > > much thinner). > > What would you see as the advantage of making them that small? Seems > to me things are easier and more efficient if you agglomerate a decent > amount of machinery together in a single mass, for a Dyson sphere > maybe km-size nodes. We break things up into small units like cell > phones because we have a particular need to make them that small, but > when we just want total computing or other throughput we use smaller > numbers of larger units. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 3 04:29:18 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 06:29:18 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshkabrains] In-Reply-To: <200709030418.l834IRcF001147@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <8d71341e0709021706w76bc6179uf70fafff578fd61d@mail.gmail.com> <200709030418.l834IRcF001147@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070903042918.GG12988@leitl.org> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 08:56:24PM -0700, spike wrote: > Russell, this turns into an interesting question of autonomous manufacturing > optimization and launching of nodes, as well as optimization of the use of It is more interesting to see what happens during long-term operation in a mature node cloud. > energy from sunlight. Going with smaller and more numerous nodes has an > advantage that is related to an engineering textbook problem from a signals > and systems class I took way too many years ago. > > Imagine you have a signal you wish to transmit distance x. You can do it > with one transmitter and one receiver, but you could put another receiver at > x/2, amplify the signal and retransmit another x/2 to distance x. This way This is implicit in each node being a router. > you actually have two transmitters, but each one requires only one fourth as > much power as in the first case, so together they only require half as much > power. Now imagine three receivers and transmitters, each transmitting a > distance x/3. Each requires one ninth as much power, so together they > require a third as much power as in the first case. And so on. Cool, huh? > Perhaps you worked the same problem. > > As for station keeping, as the node size scales downward, gravity becomes > less the driver and electrostatic forces ever more important. You have to use photonic pressure for orbit control, as anything else will cause reaction mass which is unacceptable long-term. > My intuition tells me that building an M-brain is optimized by making the > individual nodes as small as our technology permits. There's synergy in having switches nearby, due to relativistic latency, and you do need a certain sail/PV array size for orbit control. They'll probably will be a bit larger than dust, few mm at the very least, possibly cm^3 to m^3 computronium blocks, which would need much larger sails. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 3 04:36:22 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 06:36:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshka brains] In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0709021706w76bc6179uf70fafff578fd61d@mail.gmail.com> References: <055f01c7ed86$6c136740$38054e0c@MyComputer> <200709021819.l82IJb4L003561@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <8d71341e0709021706w76bc6179uf70fafff578fd61d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070903043622.GI12988@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 01:06:23AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 9/2/07, spike wrote: > > I once spent a lot of mental energy trying to figure out how to do > > station-keeping with M-brain nodes approximately the size of a dime (but > > much thinner). > > What would you see as the advantage of making them that small? Seems > to me things are easier and more efficient if you agglomerate a decent > amount of machinery together in a single mass, for a Dyson sphere > maybe km-size nodes. We break things up into small units like cell > phones because we have a particular need to make them that small, but > when we just want total computing or other throughput we use smaller > numbers of larger units. Whenever the heat production in the computation volume exceeds the rate of dissipation through the surface bounding such volume you have to fragment into computational volumes. How large the volume can become depends very much on the mode and speed of computation. We don't know yet, but km^3 would seem to be on a tall side, m^3 would seem quite doable, however, though perhaps requiring fractal cooling channels. Buckytronics does seem to like UHV and cold, though, since collisions degrade the operation by geometric distortions. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 3 04:57:39 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 06:57:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) In-Reply-To: <008501c7edb7$3c8fe5d0$e1a367d4@pcd> References: <008501c7edb7$3c8fe5d0$e1a367d4@pcd> Message-ID: <20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 02:15:48AM +0300, Khaled Aly wrote: > I've been following this since it started. I feel that a murderer should be That thread has been killed, actually. > punished to death in the easiest possible way (e.g. lethal injection), once You don't seem to know much about execution by lethal injection. Especially, since many are bungled on purpose. Say, have you ever been in jail? In terms of monetary costs, executing people is more expensive than locking them up for life. > it is proven for very sure that he/she has done so deliberately and under no You don't seem to know much about 'proving' anything outside of the realm of formal system. How do you estimate your error range in knowledge? > external effects; for two reasons: 1) It is a relief to the victim's family > unless they choose otherwise; and 2) If I were to choose, being the Do you know how clan wars start? > murderer, I'd rather go now/then than spend 20 years in jail. About therapy, Since you think that way, everyone else must also think that way. Obviously. > I think it may work in certain sick cases (there are sick souls that could > be treated why not, and there are evil souls that will not change, and there > are those whose life circumstances made them go wrong way and they need > social rehabilitation - every case is different). Interesting theories you got going there. > This is my entry to how effective is the overall current justice system. And > the ever unresolved question about the tradeoffs between personal privacy > and community security. Do any computer or IT people see a role of > algorithms helping the justice system to decide (for a start; since The legal code is already an algorithm by which the society operates (and it is really code in literal sense of the word). Fortunately, blind Justitia is executed by agents of flesh and blood, which have common sense (the law is an ass). > real-life AI is a bit far ahead). What I mean for example, consider > obtaining a search warrant. How difficult is it to write some code that > could 'assist' the decision making. First, it will perform preliminary If people need an expert system to decide such basics you should fire them. > information analysis. Second, if it's open implementation, it will be > possible to a large technical population to review it and ensure it works as > intended/declared and for the benefit of justice. And third, within a > digital world, it can ensure that a court order of privacy invasion for a > suspect individual will actually expire; provided it began, through the use People make mistakes. > of digital certificates to be provided and revoked in time by court to law > enforcement. The last of course requires that default electronic > communication be secured, and be broken only using a court digital Good idea, in theory, in practice cryptography doesn't work. > certificate. This can be as frequent as the low issuing entities would > decide according to existing situation (exceptional, less exceptional, > regular). An innocent whose privacy was broken deserves to be advised about > it at some point. > > Beyond this, any computer literate person would confirm that open source > code is most reliable because it had been reviewed by the expert public. Any code is unreliable, read Bugtraq. > Same applies to an open source algorithm that is designed to support the > justice system deciding what to do with a suspect, a person in trial, or an > indicted person and let that be an advisory input for trial. > > Unlike few people may think, computers and human minds don't work the same O'Rly? > way. Computers are structured crunching speed machines and minds are pattern > learning neural machines. They are complementary (until neural network > computing make it to market and yet it will be v. hard to mimic the brain). > Why does law enforcement, or as a whole the justice system use computers > only for data recording purposes. What about the huge analytic power that Do you know many LEOs or judges? Do you know much about system security? > can be made presentable to humans to evaluate and judge. I don't think any > final sentence should be produced by a machine with the current state of the Thank you for that. > art, or may be never. But speaking preliminary and analytic support, > incorporating digital technology can potentially resolve many issues and > cases where the society disagrees about how just the outcome was. I could see whether computer assist would be good in forensics, but in decision-making, that's ridiculous. By the time it will be useful, there be computer crime, as in: criminal computers. > Greatest software technologies came out of open source because it is > auditable. And that's much like digital democracy. Transparency does not It is so difficult to build robust electronic voting systems and people are so ignorant that currently all such attempts need to be banned. > compromise rule of law -- it rather enhances it. Sadly, digital technology > is being consumed for many irrelevant but sellable applications before it is > being considered to support a sound social infrastructure. And what's more > relevant than justice... > ka, phd You have no idea how funny you are. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 05:04:42 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 22:04:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Street Performer Protocol In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0708270602r11dd1220y9ef569f4798f3c3e@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0708270602r11dd1220y9ef569f4798f3c3e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30709022204k481bb1e5qd526a5203bc22022@mail.gmail.com> On 8/27/07, Emlyn wrote: > "We introduce the Street Performer Protocol, >http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/ Forgive the long post, but I'd like to address the different problems in Kelsey and Schneier's paper "The Street Performer's Protocol and Digital Copyrights" and Emlyn's subsequent analysis as I see them, as someone who works within the existing system daily and would love to see a new system that benefits creators and stops them from being content slaves. In general, I think the paper is exactly what you would expect cryptographers to write: it's about protection of digital information transfer, not about content and why people make it, sell it or and buy it, which is what an economic system stands on. And that's what they're proposing ? an economic system. Only it's just a system, without the economics. Who the New World is Up Against First, let me repeat what you probably already know (and if you really do, you can skip this and the next paragraph): Beyond the entrenchment of the distribution companies and the 'war on [copyright] terror' they wage hand in hand with the US Government, let's remember that the reason the war involves the US Government against the rest of the world is that most of the content being pirated/shared/appropriated is filtered through the US, who gets its cut. That is not to say that there isn't perfectly good content made in other countries that people want. It means that the US distributes more content people want than any other country on Earth. Media (which includes hardware, software and content for entertainment and information) is arguably the US's single most important industry, based on both money and influence, and if you appropriate enough of anything, you're sure to run afoul of the big guys: News Corp, CBS/Viacom, Disney, NBC/Universal, Time-Warner, Sony. Each of them is a vertically and horizontally integrated multinational corporation. Hence the major distribution companies who drive the copyright infringement train utilize US market forces and political leverage, even if their parent companies are based overseas, like Sony. They are a very united front, with extraordinary political leverage through organizations like the Motion Picture Association of America and the State Department. For instance, the MPAA was responsible for twisting the Swedish government's arm to prosecute Pirate Bay. Or no more US media product to Sweden. Think about that for a moment. You may think the MPAA, RIAA and the rest of the gang are dinosaurs, but they'll stick around longer than you think. As I write, they are systematically destroying entertainment labor unions and if they are successful at the next round of Screen Actor's Guild, Writer's Guild and Director's Guild negotiations this year, the union system will be finished for good. [Yes, yes, I know the libertarians among you are cheering.] And everyone working for them will be doubly screwed until the paradigm changes in their favor. And who knows when that will be. That's the long way of saying they won't go quickly or quietly. That's the bad news. There IS a growing group of independent, artist-owned and operated distributors developing, like record-labels, publishing houses, etc. But few of the profitable companies can resist the suitcase full of cash or stock options when the big boys come knocking. They all eventually go for the greenbacks and trade in their youthful renegade dreams for the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Bling, baby. That's what REAL social status is all about. [BTW, Bling is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It makes a culture where creators are taught to aspire to Bling. Creation is not a goal, but a means to an end. And we have to live with the mediocrity. But that's another essay.] The Real Behavior of the Economic Audience-Person Why does someone spend money for a work of art or entertainment? To bond through common experience. To escape, through mental transportation or transcendence. To experience catharsis. Only when the art/entertainment is expensive does the concept of status become an issue. Then it's about ownership and its directly proportional relationship to the increasing size of one's male genitalia, not experience. Most people own a Rolls Royce to say they own a Rolls Royce and feel like a big dog, not for the driving experience. It's the same with Picassos. Big paintings = big penises. (More on that later.) Regardless of our motives, we buy to experience happiness, however it turns us on. But how do people know that work of art/entertainment will do that, so they are ready to part with their hard-earned cash? Marketing. And how does marketing work? By someone vetting the product beforehand and promising your life will be better by consuming it. I can't emphasize this enough. Reviews, word of mouth, promises of emotions to be experienced. "You'll laugh, cry, and beg for more!" Stupid ads with quotes from people you've never heard of but assume must know something, because it's them, and not you, quoted in an ad or on a dust jacket. Images of people who look like you, have lives like you, but are happier than you. Because they bought [fill in the blank]. As for the status model, to put it even more crassly, the Wannabe Big Penis buys the Big Painting because someone with a Bigger Penis bought one before him and therefore vetted his choice. His real reason is he wants to join the Big Penis Club and wave his around. Wannabe Big Penises don't buy from unknown artists, because appreciating art for art's sake isn't the issue. If they do, then they are true art connoisseurs and patrons and they really do have big cojones. And they are increasingly rare (see the Bling argument above) and deserved to be cherished for the precious species they are. The SPP model is dependent on a wishful expectation of future output. That just doesn't cut it when parting with real money. People shop to find the best value for their money. If they blindly invested in entertainment, as the model depicts, every movie star and famous author and singer would have a hit every time they worked, just because at one time, they did something people really liked. Sure, die-hard, indiscriminant fans might, but they are not enough to generate the kind of income the authors assume. As for Emlyn's Coca Cola reference, we know Coca Cola's good because... someone told us. Then we tried it, we liked it and we had the same experience again, because the Coke experience is infinitely reproducible. If Coke came out with a new flavor, I wouldn't try it just because Coke made it (mostly because I know their other products are nowhere as successful as their first one). I'd wait to see if anyone else liked it, after the fact. But by then, based on the pre-pay SPP model, it's too late. In the movie business, part of the SPP model already exists as one of the benchmarks studios use to assess a project's worth in the first place: "Can this star open a movie?" 'Open a movie' means enough people will see it opening weekend to make it a hit, just because the star is in it. The movie business likes to say only a handful of people in the entire world can open a movie, but in reality, no one can (well, maybe Will Farrell can...). I can name dozens of movies with Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, etc. that no one went to see. Obviously, it's the same in publishing, music, etc. There is no such thing as a "sure thing." That's why the entertainment business is structured so that one giant, blockbuster hit pays for the nine other underperformers and outright flops. Executives cling to the commonly accepted 'open a movie' fallacy so they can sleep better at night. The New Economic Landscape The coming art/info/entertainment world is a flooded landscape of endless content, where hundred-million dollar movies and a hit-maker's single compete on the same playing field as naked dancing and fart-a-thons on YouTube. There is too much product and not enough time or money to consume it all. And it's only just begun. Already, the economic model is entirely about how to get the audiences' attention long enough for them to want to buy the product. If you don't give them something to attract them, keep them and then reinforce the choice with a positive reaction, you've failed before you've started. How does the SPP model work at all in an economic system where attention, and not product, is the rare and valued commodity? The Problem with Sponsors Sponsor status only works in sub-cultures where financial influence over creativity buys social status and the buyer has money to burn. That's the nouveau riche and old money's noblesse oblige. It's possible this model could create a new social status symbol among the masses, but given their limited resources, it's not probable. At least until technoutopian nano-abundance, and then we're all artist-performers in Techno Heaven. ;-) I don't think the average person can afford to play the sponsor game when they are already up to their eyeballs in debt over status markers like shelter and transportation, which are far more crucial expenditures. Also, with money comes a desire for control and recognition. Who's going to get the press: the creator or Daddy Artbucks, who made it all possible? Already, the media itself wants to be the story and it's getting less and less interested in the product as? well, product, as opposed to promoting the brand (Disney, Fox/News Corp, etc.) it came from as the ultimate product. Again, it all comes back to the economics of attention. If PBS's model of sponsorship actually worked, the US Congress wouldn't have the power to regularly threaten to end its existence. PBS exists because of American tax dollars as much as sponsorship and is therefore beholden to politics. And most of the sponsorship is not corporate, but from educational foundations that give money to worthy causes. They are a small (and growing smaller) resource, as many foundations have discovered other worthy causes, like ending malaria and polio. Or universal literacy. I know personally how hard it is to get non-educational sponsorship for television. Unless you're giving the sponsor exactly what they want, which usually amounts to your product-as-ad for the sponsor or the promise of exclusivity with the distribution company, which is not in the distribution company's best interest, you've got a hard row to hoe ahead of you. Technological delivery systems Online books are nowhere near ready for mass acceptance, you early adopters notwithstanding. It's hard for electronic books to beat the easy, transportable and bug-free technology of a paperback or hardcover. Maybe in a few more years, but right now, the delivery systems for books suck. Below is an interesting analysis based on Stephen King's experience online-publishing The Plant? http://slashdot.org/features/00/11/30/1238204.shtml ?which Jon Katz describes as not about the technology itself, but about how publishers don't understand how the technology can be used to their best advantage. Simply put, they don't take advantage of the economics of attention. Either way, distributors are not getting it. The technology behind future media convergence already exists. It's those pesky distributors who control enough of the content, technology and pipelines who are holding it up to milk their model for as long as they can, even as it falls to bits under them. And why not? Anyone ever heard of petroleum? Yes, yes, I know the oil business is a different economic model, but one of the reasons the energy industry isn't enthusiastic about alternative sources is because the cost of infrastructure and the uncertainty of a new economic model is too high to justify not milking the old one to the end. It's the same with entertainment. Sell the proles a VHS, then a DVD, then a HD-DVD to justify selling them the same movie again and again, but don't change the economic concept of distribution. The costs and risks are far too high. Which takes us right back to the beginning. There must be an alternative to the present system. I just don't think the SPP model is it. I'd love to know your thoughts. Respectfully, PJ From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Sep 3 10:04:10 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 06:04:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) In-Reply-To: <20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org> References: <008501c7edb7$3c8fe5d0$e1a367d4@pcd> <20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org> Message-ID: <002001c7ee11$c6384660$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Eugen, It is one thing to reiterate that a thread is dead as a moderator that is within your rights. But to reply publicly and in doing so to promote your own viewpoint when you expect others to not reply because the thread has been declared dead by you is in my opinion an abuse of power. I realize that you took the moderator position because nobody else wanted it, and I thank you for that I think, but I would suggest that you do not put out fires by fanning the flames. I also think the tone of the reply was rather insulting and would have expected a better showing from a moderator representing this group. Currently this sounds more like censorship and punishment of opposing viewpoint than moderation. Gary -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 12:58 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] free-will, determinism,crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 02:15:48AM +0300, Khaled Aly wrote: > I've been following this since it started. I feel that a murderer > should be That thread has been killed, actually. > punished to death in the easiest possible way (e.g. lethal injection), > once You don't seem to know much about execution by lethal injection. Especially, since many are bungled on purpose. Say, have you ever been in jail? In terms of monetary costs, executing people is more expensive than locking them up for life. > it is proven for very sure that he/she has done so deliberately and > under no You don't seem to know much about 'proving' anything outside of the realm of formal system. How do you estimate your error range in knowledge? > external effects; for two reasons: 1) It is a relief to the victim's > family unless they choose otherwise; and 2) If I were to choose, being > the Do you know how clan wars start? > murderer, I'd rather go now/then than spend 20 years in jail. About > therapy, Since you think that way, everyone else must also think that way. Obviously. > I think it may work in certain sick cases (there are sick souls that > could be treated why not, and there are evil souls that will not > change, and there are those whose life circumstances made them go > wrong way and they need social rehabilitation - every case is different). Interesting theories you got going there. > This is my entry to how effective is the overall current justice > system. And the ever unresolved question about the tradeoffs between > personal privacy and community security. Do any computer or IT people > see a role of algorithms helping the justice system to decide (for a > start; since The legal code is already an algorithm by which the society operates (and it is really code in literal sense of the word). Fortunately, blind Justitia is executed by agents of flesh and blood, which have common sense (the law is an ass). > real-life AI is a bit far ahead). What I mean for example, consider > obtaining a search warrant. How difficult is it to write some code > that could 'assist' the decision making. First, it will perform > preliminary If people need an expert system to decide such basics you should fire them. > information analysis. Second, if it's open implementation, it will be > possible to a large technical population to review it and ensure it > works as intended/declared and for the benefit of justice. And third, > within a digital world, it can ensure that a court order of privacy > invasion for a suspect individual will actually expire; provided it > began, through the use People make mistakes. > of digital certificates to be provided and revoked in time by court to > law enforcement. The last of course requires that default electronic > communication be secured, and be broken only using a court digital Good idea, in theory, in practice cryptography doesn't work. > certificate. This can be as frequent as the low issuing entities would > decide according to existing situation (exceptional, less exceptional, > regular). An innocent whose privacy was broken deserves to be advised > about it at some point. > > Beyond this, any computer literate person would confirm that open > source code is most reliable because it had been reviewed by the expert public. Any code is unreliable, read Bugtraq. > Same applies to an open source algorithm that is designed to support > the justice system deciding what to do with a suspect, a person in > trial, or an indicted person and let that be an advisory input for trial. > > Unlike few people may think, computers and human minds don't work the > same O'Rly? > way. Computers are structured crunching speed machines and minds are > pattern learning neural machines. They are complementary (until neural > network computing make it to market and yet it will be v. hard to mimic the brain). > Why does law enforcement, or as a whole the justice system use > computers only for data recording purposes. What about the huge > analytic power that Do you know many LEOs or judges? Do you know much about system security? > can be made presentable to humans to evaluate and judge. I don't think > any final sentence should be produced by a machine with the current > state of the Thank you for that. > art, or may be never. But speaking preliminary and analytic support, > incorporating digital technology can potentially resolve many issues > and cases where the society disagrees about how just the outcome was. I could see whether computer assist would be good in forensics, but in decision-making, that's ridiculous. By the time it will be useful, there be computer crime, as in: criminal computers. > Greatest software technologies came out of open source because it is > auditable. And that's much like digital democracy. Transparency does > not It is so difficult to build robust electronic voting systems and people are so ignorant that currently all such attempts need to be banned. > compromise rule of law -- it rather enhances it. Sadly, digital > technology is being consumed for many irrelevant but sellable > applications before it is being considered to support a sound social > infrastructure. And what's more relevant than justice... > ka, phd You have no idea how funny you are. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 4:32 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 4:32 PM From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 3 10:26:30 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:26:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) In-Reply-To: <002001c7ee11$c6384660$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org> <002001c7ee11$c6384660$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20070903102630.GR12988@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 06:04:10AM -0400, Gary Miller wrote: > It is one thing to reiterate that a thread is dead as a moderator that is > within your rights. > > But to reply publicly and in doing so to promote your own viewpoint when you My viewpoint is that this was a moronic thread, and I apologize for not nipping it in the butt (yip! yip!) -- I can't camp in front of the display all day long, after all. (Or can I?) > expect others to not reply > because the thread has been declared dead by you is in my opinion an abuse > of power. > > I realize that you took the moderator position because nobody else wanted > it, and I thank you for that I think, but > I would suggest that you do not put out fires by fanning the flames. > > I also think the tone of the reply was rather insulting and would have > expected a better showing from a moderator > representing this group. I reserve the right to poke fun at particularly idiotic posters. > Currently this sounds more like censorship and punishment of opposing > viewpoint than moderation. I must admit my first impulse was to put the guy on moderation, but I figured he probably missed the killthread. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 10:44:20 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:44:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshkabrains] In-Reply-To: <200709030418.l834IRcF001147@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <8d71341e0709021706w76bc6179uf70fafff578fd61d@mail.gmail.com> <200709030418.l834IRcF001147@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0709030344g2062dad7m5f713f231e7b6083@mail.gmail.com> On 9/3/07, spike wrote: > Russell, this turns into an interesting question of autonomous manufacturing > optimization and launching of nodes, as well as optimization of the use of > energy from sunlight. *nods* Well, for initial bootstrap there are other considerations; on the one hand, you don't want the up front cost to be too big, on the other hand there'll be mining of materials from asteroids, gas giants etc, and the machines needed to do this efficiently will have a certain preferred size range. In this context I'm only considering the most efficient configuration of the final Dyson sphere. > Imagine you have a signal you wish to transmit distance x. You can do it > with one transmitter and one receiver, but you could put another receiver at > x/2, amplify the signal and retransmit another x/2 to distance x. This way > you actually have two transmitters, but each one requires only one fourth as > much power as in the first case, so together they only require half as much > power. Now imagine three receivers and transmitters, each transmitting a > distance x/3. Each requires one ninth as much power, so together they > require a third as much power as in the first case. And so on. Cool, huh? > Perhaps you worked the same problem. Ah, interesting. I don't recall having come across that one before, and your solution makes sense when transmitter count is the only variable being considered; but there are factors you're not taking into account: 1. Transmitter size matters, and with fewer larger nodes you can afford to make the transmitters bigger. A 2 meter dish at 2 megameter range gives the same beam footprint as a 1 m dish at 1 Mm (or you can take part of the benefit in the ability to use longer wavelength photons, which have less energy). 2. Similarly, receiver size also matters. 3. Most importantly, with big nodes you can eliminate most of the transmitters completely, replacing them with wires that don't spill photons into space. Alternatively you can think of this as the ultimate limiting case of your solution: if more transmitters in the chain are more efficient, use a wire = a chain of transmitters that are all in contact with each other. > As for station keeping, as the node size scales downward, gravity becomes > less the driver and electrostatic forces ever more important. Okay, but electrostatic isn't the only option, nor necessarily the best one. There's photon pressure as Eugen observes - this scales down with thickness, but doesn't care about width. There are also magnetic forces, which are arguably easier to control than electrostatic. These scale better to large sizes than electrostatic does. > My intuition tells me that building an M-brain is optimized by making the > individual nodes as small as our technology permits. *nods* Mine tells me it's optimized by making the nodes as large as reasonably practical, the above being some of the reasons. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 11:00:06 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:00:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshka brains] In-Reply-To: <20070903043622.GI12988@leitl.org> References: <055f01c7ed86$6c136740$38054e0c@MyComputer> <200709021819.l82IJb4L003561@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <8d71341e0709021706w76bc6179uf70fafff578fd61d@mail.gmail.com> <20070903043622.GI12988@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0709030400h7ac62c29p28f37e91a6b551d4@mail.gmail.com> On 9/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Whenever the heat production in the computation volume exceeds the > rate of dissipation through the surface bounding such volume you have > to fragment into computational volumes. How large the volume can become > depends very much on the mode and speed of computation. We don't know > yet, but km^3 would seem to be on a tall side, m^3 would seem quite > doable, however, though perhaps requiring fractal cooling channels. > Buckytronics does seem to like UHV and cold, though, since collisions > degrade the operation by geometric distortions. Yeah. Of course the nodes should probably be disks rather than spheres. Thickness is perhaps the primary variable... which also depends on the thickness of the whole shell. Let's look at some numbers to get a feel for the sort of magnitudes involved. Suppose there's 100 Earth masses of material to work with (if our solar system is reasonably representative, that's likely to be typical to an order of magnitude, assuming most of the hydrogen and helium isn't useful, and omitting helium fusion and starlifting as potential sources from the current analysis), and that the radius is 2 AU. m = 6e26 kg r = 3e11 m a = 4 pi r^2 = 1.13e24 m^2 m/a = 530 kg/m^2 So we're looking at on the order of a meter total thickness. Of course radius isn't a fixed constant, but this seems like at least a plausible set of figures for a starting point. Now I'll conjecture that there's no point making the thickness of the shell more than a few times that of individual nodes, because inner ones trying to cool will just be dumping waste heat into the outer ones, which are a) starved of sunlight and b) reflecting some of the heat back at the inner ones. Of course it might be useful to have a hierarchy of nodes at substantially different operating temperatures and radii, e.g. the inner shell operates at room temperature and dumps IR as waste heat, the outer shell operates at cryogenic temperature, uses IR as energy source and dumps microwaves as waste heat, to get the most computation out of every joule. How does that affect the analysis? I'll postulate for the sake of argument that the total number of nodes in all layers is no more than 100, so the thickness of an individual node will be 10 mm. 10 mm? Okay, now we are down to dime-sized nodes along the z-axis at least. But this is in space, where structures can be pancake-flimsy. I'll conjecture it would be feasible and desirable, even with that thickness, to make nodes disc-shaped and at least 1 km across. From ka.aly at luxsci.net Mon Sep 3 13:44:39 2007 From: ka.aly at luxsci.net (Khaled Aly) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:44:39 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Your response References: <008501c7edb7$3c8fe5d0$e1a367d4@pcd> <20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org> Message-ID: <001d01c7ee30$96643920$70a367d4@pcd> I wasn't aware the thread is closed, as I'm new to the list. My response within. If you are a list moderator, 'kindly' contact me in person. Please note that you made many insulting statements as an expression of your views. You could have made your points in a more objective way, or you could have put me on moderation as said, and take it in person. You chose to publicly offend me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugen Leitl" To: Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] free-will, determinism,crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) > On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 02:15:48AM +0300, Khaled Aly wrote: > >> I've been following this since it started. I feel that a murderer should >> be > > That thread has been killed, actually. > >> punished to death in the easiest possible way (e.g. lethal injection), >> once > > You don't seem to know much about execution by lethal injection. > Especially, since many are bungled on purpose. Say, have you ever been > in jail? ** No I haven't - why do you think so? It's normal to assume that long-term loss of freedom is not fun (many will actually die in jail anyway). You ignored my phrase (in the easiest possible way). I'm obviously not an execution expert, nor was any of the posters. I think the meaning is what matters. > > In terms of monetary costs, executing people is more expensive than > locking them up for life. ** Not sure how, but the thread's concern was about justice not cost. > >> it is proven for very sure that he/she has done so deliberately and under >> no > > You don't seem to know much about 'proving' anything outside of the realm > of formal system. How do you estimate your error range in knowledge? ** I did not claim any knowledge of the ways of proving guilt and innocence. You seem to be deliberately mis-reading my statements. > >> external effects; for two reasons: 1) It is a relief to the victim's >> family >> unless they choose otherwise; and 2) If I were to choose, being the > > Do you know how clan wars start? ** Sure. They start when people take justice in their hands, not when justice is done by justice system. It's expected that a victims family may want the releif of the indicted being punished, regardless of how. Though others may find the releif in forgiveness. But don't they have a right? > >> murderer, I'd rather go now/then than spend 20 years in jail. About >> therapy, > > Since you think that way, everyone else must also think that way. > Obviously. ** Did I say that? > >> I think it may work in certain sick cases (there are sick souls that >> could >> be treated why not, and there are evil souls that will not change, and >> there >> are those whose life circumstances made them go wrong way and they need >> social rehabilitation - every case is different). > > Interesting theories you got going there. ** I think this is just intuitive- no claims of theories. Same has been expressed in many posts in different ways and contexts. > >> This is my entry to how effective is the overall current justice system. >> And >> the ever unresolved question about the tradeoffs between personal privacy >> and community security. Do any computer or IT people see a role of >> algorithms helping the justice system to decide (for a start; since > > The legal code is already an algorithm by which the society operates > (and it is really code in literal sense of the word). Fortunately, blind > Justitia is executed by agents of flesh and blood, which have common > sense (the law is an ass). ** If the law is an ass, why have it at the first place? Or should it be fundamentally modified? Isn't this an insult to law and its practitioners. Common sense implies arbitrary actions and opens doors for personal-based decisions. Yes, the law itself has much similarity to mathematical algorithms, and that's where computer code may assist. > >> real-life AI is a bit far ahead). What I mean for example, consider >> obtaining a search warrant. How difficult is it to write some code that >> could 'assist' the decision making. First, it will perform preliminary > > If people need an expert system to decide such basics you should fire > them. ** Expert systems can support an analysis not replace the decision making. They could but it won't be right. > >> information analysis. Second, if it's open implementation, it will be >> possible to a large technical population to review it and ensure it works >> as >> intended/declared and for the benefit of justice. And third, within a >> digital world, it can ensure that a court order of privacy invasion for a >> suspect individual will actually expire; provided it began, through the >> use > > People make mistakes. ** Yes you said it (against some other arguments). A coded algorithm functions exactly as is written, including any bugs. Open source code has fewer bugs because it gets reviewed and fixed by public expert community. > >> of digital certificates to be provided and revoked in time by court to >> law >> enforcement. The last of course requires that default electronic >> communication be secured, and be broken only using a court digital > > Good idea, in theory, in practice cryptography doesn't work. ** Cryptography is the basis of ecommerce for both authentiction and transaction completion, including B2B, which may make the bulk of transaction values. What exactly doesn't work there? ** You keep repeating the word "theory/theoretical". Isn't this whole thread theoretical/hypothetical? Has the initiator present his ideas as a proposal for immediate implementation? > >> certificate. This can be as frequent as the low issuing entities would >> decide according to existing situation (exceptional, less exceptional, >> regular). An innocent whose privacy was broken deserves to be advised >> about >> it at some point. >> >> Beyond this, any computer literate person would confirm that open source >> code is most reliable because it had been reviewed by the expert public. > > Any code is unreliable, read Bugtraq. ** Without reading Bugtraq, and even if I never wrote code, of course any code has bugs. But the code never functions arbitrarily. > >> Same applies to an open source algorithm that is designed to support the >> justice system deciding what to do with a suspect, a person in trial, or >> an >> indicted person and let that be an advisory input for trial. >> >> Unlike few people may think, computers and human minds don't work the >> same > > O'Rly? ** Where is the problem here? From a computer architecture viewpoint, there are both similarities and complementary differences. > >> way. Computers are structured crunching speed machines and minds are >> pattern >> learning neural machines. They are complementary (until neural network >> computing make it to market and yet it will be v. hard to mimic the >> brain). >> Why does law enforcement, or as a whole the justice system use computers >> only for data recording purposes. What about the huge analytic power that > > Do you know many LEOs or judges? Do you know much about system security? ** Never said I did. Yes I know about IT system security, if that's what you meant. > >> can be made presentable to humans to evaluate and judge. I don't think >> any >> final sentence should be produced by a machine with the current state of >> the > > Thank you for that. ** Lots of mocking statements. > >> art, or may be never. But speaking preliminary and analytic support, >> incorporating digital technology can potentially resolve many issues and >> cases where the society disagrees about how just the outcome was. > > I could see whether computer assist would be good in forensics, but in > decision-making, that's ridiculous. By the time it will be useful, there > be computer crime, as in: criminal computers. ** I repeatedly wrote decision making 'support', which you're omitting. That includes forensics. How can computers make decisions? Computer crimes exist for long time. They are mostly network related. Public networks are not regulated, right? > >> Greatest software technologies came out of open source because it is >> auditable. And that's much like digital democracy. Transparency does not > > It is so difficult to build robust electronic voting systems and people > are so ignorant that currently all such attempts need to be banned. ** Or rather, invest in building more robust systems and educate/inform people about using them right. Both people and computers make mistakes, but computers do exactly what they're told to. They cannot behave arbitrarily. Why do you think that people are so ignorant- shouldn't it be more like "un-informed"! > >> compromise rule of law -- it rather enhances it. Sadly, digital >> technology >> is being consumed for many irrelevant but sellable applications before it >> is >> being considered to support a sound social infrastructure. And what's >> more >> relevant than justice... >> ka, phd > > You have no idea how funny you are. ** You probably have an idea how biased and offensive you sound. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 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 > From amara at amara.com Mon Sep 3 18:59:55 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:59:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] META: digest behavior? Message-ID: Thanks BillK, Chris and Spike. You're right, I had the archive address pointing to lucifer. The digest probably has a minimum kB it must reach before it's sent out, and it's been a slow summer probably. I can use the archives to check, now that I have the correct address. Thanks again, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 1 19:43:35 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 21:43:35 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Universal Transhumanist Bibliography Message-ID: <580930c20709011243i3641066cr4ff2a4b066cc860a@mail.gmail.com> The Associazione Italiana Transumanisti has resolved to establish through its Web site a bibliographic resource for transhumanists worldwide and for anybody interested in studying transhumanist ideas and related technological, scientific, and philosophical issues, offering full details as well as links to the appropriate pages to purchase the books and/or to access their online full-text edition or dedicated Web sites, if any. The project for the time being is limited to books containing essays and fiction which are available in print. We are especially, but of course not exclusively, interested in bibliographies including titles in languages other than English and Italian. For instance, we have sofar only *two* books either in Spanish or Portoguese out of a hundred titles... Natasha has kindly suggested that I extend the invitation to participate to this project to the members of this list, which I have recently joined. We thank in advance anybody willing to contribute with a few recommendations. Stefano Vaj National Secretary of AIT http://www.biopolitica.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 18:57:16 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:57:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) In-Reply-To: <20070903102630.GR12988@leitl.org> References: <20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org> <002001c7ee11$c6384660$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20070903102630.GR12988@leitl.org> Message-ID: <580930c20709031157w7d4b6c54h8a29e95bd71f2dc1@mail.gmail.com> On 9/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > My viewpoint is that this was a moronic thread, and I apologize for not > nipping it in the butt (yip! yip!) -- I can't camp in front of the > display all day long, after all. (Or can I?) Actually, you killed it quickly enough for me not to receive but the last few messages. Too bad, I was curious... :-) Stefano Vaj From amara at amara.com Mon Sep 3 19:10:16 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:10:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Chips The Size Of[interplanetary] Dust [and matrioshka brains] Message-ID: >As for station keeping, as the node size scales downward, gravity becomes >less the driver and electrostatic forces ever more important. At about 1 micron-sized particles, Lorenz force is a perturbing force to gravity. At about 0.01 micron, the Lorentz begins to dominate depending on the circum-whatever environment. Don't forget about radiation pressure force too, but RP not important for sizes of tens or hundreds of nanometers. What kind of magnetic fields and plasmas do you think would be in the vicinity? Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From mmbutler at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 19:25:11 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:25:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) In-Reply-To: <580930c20709031157w7d4b6c54h8a29e95bd71f2dc1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org> <002001c7ee11$c6384660$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20070903102630.GR12988@leitl.org> <580930c20709031157w7d4b6c54h8a29e95bd71f2dc1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709031225m6136fa81k8c902d55a2b7c032@mail.gmail.com> My viewpoint is that this is more fun than I can stand. See you around the universe. Spaeter. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From ka.aly at luxsci.net Mon Sep 3 20:47:20 2007 From: ka.aly at luxsci.net (Khaled Aly) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 23:47:20 +0300 Subject: [ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) References: <20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org><002001c7ee11$c6384660$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20070903102630.GR12988@leitl.org> Message-ID: <00ab01c7ee6b$a1d990d0$70a367d4@pcd> Further to my last mail, I strongly felt that the initiator's views were academic and unrealizable. I didn't think they needed to be mocked. There were tens of posts and I've read only some. You could obviously judge and choose which ones were moronic. Whether you are an official moderator or a volunteer, and though being new to the list, I ask you to read the "EXTROPY-CHAT" LIST AGREEMENT" and apply same to your response. I ask you to check your own multiple policy violations and if it is within your mandate to advise me of my violations that resulted in your considering to put me on moderation for my post. Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugen Leitl" To: Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] free-will, determinism,crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy ) > On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 06:04:10AM -0400, Gary Miller wrote: > >> It is one thing to reiterate that a thread is dead as a moderator that is >> within your rights. >> >> But to reply publicly and in doing so to promote your own viewpoint when you > > My viewpoint is that this was a moronic thread, and I apologize for not > nipping it in the butt (yip! yip!) -- I can't camp in front of the > display all day long, after all. (Or can I?) > >> expect others to not reply >> because the thread has been declared dead by you is in my opinion an abuse >> of power. >> >> I realize that you took the moderator position because nobody else wanted >> it, and I thank you for that I think, but >> I would suggest that you do not put out fires by fanning the flames. >> >> I also think the tone of the reply was rather insulting and would have >> expected a better showing from a moderator >> representing this group. > > I reserve the right to poke fun at particularly idiotic posters. > >> Currently this sounds more like censorship and punishment of opposing >> viewpoint than moderation. > > I must admit my first impulse was to put the guy on moderation, but I > figured he probably missed the killthread. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Mon Sep 3 20:42:53 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 22:42:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] health expenditure vs mortality References: <008501c7edb7$3c8fe5d0$e1a367d4@pcd><20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org> <001d01c7ee30$96643920$70a367d4@pcd> Message-ID: <000a01c7ee6b$00c96b20$f7941f97@archimede> interesting chart (excel) - OECD health data 2007 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/36/38979632.xls (mortality stat is at the end) From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 00:13:34 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:43:34 +0930 Subject: [ExI] [geek] good commercial svn hosts? Message-ID: <710b78fc0709031713m7a3656es9a63c557737b0af7@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, I've recently been successful in convincing some commercial entities not to use in-house source control, but to use an externally hosted subversion repository. And now I've been asked the hard question, which service do you recommend? I had thought that sourceforge had a closed-source hosting service as well as open source, but I can't see any sign of that. So I'm stuck with choosing a commercial entity. Anyone got ideas/experience of such services? The only one I've personally used, and only minimally at that, is cvsdude.org. This is for closed source hosting, has to be secure (for some reasonable value of "secure"). Recommendations? Emlyn From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Sep 4 01:49:51 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:49:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [geek] good commercial svn hosts? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0709031713m7a3656es9a63c557737b0af7@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709031713m7a3656es9a63c557737b0af7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000901c7ee95$e2a8a770$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Emlyn, Just curious, why put your reputation on the line with these commercial entities unless you've used one or more of these services enough to be confident in their security, longevity and data integrity. Open source is one thing. It tends to proliferate and end up in multiple repositories so a single group going belly up does not endanger the source's existence. And security is not an issue there. But I can't imaging a commercial enterprise entrusting it's critical development software, a major asset for most companies to a service unless they were insured, bonded, escrowed and had an established track record to insure that if the service goes belly up that their company doesn't go along with it. In addition most companies I deal with would not even allow their source code to cross the internet unless it was via a VPN or some other encrypted format. Just my opinion but backing out gracefuly may be the best couse of action. Gary -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 8:14 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] [geek] good commercial svn hosts? Hi all, I've recently been successful in convincing some commercial entities not to use in-house source control, but to use an externally hosted subversion repository. And now I've been asked the hard question, which service do you recommend? I had thought that sourceforge had a closed-source hosting service as well as open source, but I can't see any sign of that. So I'm stuck with choosing a commercial entity. Anyone got ideas/experience of such services? The only one I've personally used, and only minimally at that, is cvsdude.org. This is for closed source hosting, has to be secure (for some reasonable value of "secure"). Recommendations? Emlyn _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 4:32 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 4:32 PM From andres at thoughtware.tv Tue Sep 4 02:10:03 2007 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 22:10:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Transhuman Targeted Advertisement Message-ID: Now with all the futuristic ads running around, we at Thoughtware.TVwondered what a *real* Transhumanist Ad would look like and more importantly, who would be in it. Our guess is it would look a little bit something like this. Enjoy! (Please Note: This is not a real advertisment, it was created for H+ humor. Thoughtware.TV has no relationships with Heineiken nor do we aim to imply that any of those depicted in this video endorse said company or any of its products. Should anyone depicted in this video wish to have it taken offline, please contact us at the following address: andres, at thoughtware dot TV) Andres, Thoughtware.TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andres at thoughtware.tv Tue Sep 4 02:39:37 2007 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (Andres Colon) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 22:39:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Transhuman Targeted Advertisement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/3/07, Andres Colon wrote: > > Now with all the futuristic ads running around, we at Thoughtware.TVwondered what a *real* Transhumanist Ad would look like and more > importantly, who would be in it. > > Our guess is it would look a little bit something like this. Enjoy! > > (Please Note: This is not a real advertisment, it was created for H+ > humor. Thoughtware.TV has no relationships with Heineiken nor do we aim to > imply that any of those depicted in this video endorse said company or any > of its products. Should anyone depicted in this video wish to have it taken > offline, please contact us at the following address: andres, at thoughtware > dot TV) > > Andres, > Thoughtware.TV > You can't get very far without a link, can you? So here it is! http://thoughtware.tv/videos/show/735 Andres, Thoughtware.TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 03:37:48 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:07:48 +0930 Subject: [ExI] [geek] good commercial svn hosts? In-Reply-To: <000901c7ee95$e2a8a770$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <710b78fc0709031713m7a3656es9a63c557737b0af7@mail.gmail.com> <000901c7ee95$e2a8a770$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <710b78fc0709032037i47cf51cbya9ece9911adbc99e@mail.gmail.com> Now that's very old school of you Gary! (of course, I could come back crying some time in the future, but I'm relatively confident). On 04/09/07, Gary Miller wrote: > Emlyn, > > Just curious, why put your reputation on the line with these commercial > entities unless you've used one or more of these services enough to be > confident in their security, longevity and data integrity. Well, I've used svn over the internet for commercial work before. Specifically, my previous employer is geographically distributed all over Australia (developers in 4 states by the time I left). We took the decision early on to hire based on talent rather than location, and expect geographic separateness in the design of the team structure. Now, even though the company was heavily distributed, it wasn't even a medium sized business from a USians point of view. It never got beyond 15 full time employees while I was there. So, doing something cost effective was always going to be necessary. I was also dead against a VPN, because they're clunky things that break the flow of work. What we ended up doing was hosting our own svn repository in one of the state offices, and making it visible online (via Apache+ssl). Using that plus TortoiseSVN for the source control client (plus IM and remote meeting tools for collaboration) led to a very tight little setup, short development times, very low friction environment. (Out of interest, we also used NUnit and CruiseControl.Net to get automated build, unit testing, and release to a web portal, that's the good stuff!). Also of note was the use of SSH for remote access to other services, without requiring a VPN. Was it secure enough? We think so. How can you ever know such things for sure? Our code doesn't appear to be posted on haxxor sites... The new case I have is two commercial entities which are only very loosely related (contract specifies that entity A develops core product for entity B, and B then owns the product, and does in-house development of plugins). A source control repository is mandatory (I refuse to work without one), but must be accessible to developers employed by A and B. For various reasons, hosting internally to either A or B is impractical (well, it could be done, but neither is set up for it, internal bureacratic nightmare), so a commercial host outside of both would be a great alternative technical solution, and somewhat to my surprise, looks as though it may be acceptable to all parties involved. > > Open source is one thing. It tends to proliferate and end up in multiple > repositories so a single group going belly up does not endanger the source's > existence. And security is not an issue there. > > But I can't imaging a commercial enterprise entrusting it's critical > development software, a major asset for most companies to a service unless > they were insured, bonded, escrowed and had an established track record to > insure that if the service goes belly up that their company doesn't go along > with it. Well, there are three issues I can see here: reliability of service, external access security, and trustworthiness of service supplier. Reliability is easy. It's an svn repository, so it's already known reliable software. You can't control for the service provider's hardware setup and practices, but many allow you to periodically download a backup dump of the whole thing. What I intend to add to that is to schedule nightly (more frequent?) repository dumps to a machine under one or the other entities' control (this can be done remotely and can include all history, everything). So losing code isn't a problem. And if the service is flaky, well we'll notice that pretty quickly, and switch supplier. External access security should be straightforward too. Access must be via ssl, and then it's just about account management (being anal about everyone having their own account, making sure to disable accounts when they should no longer have access, even using folder level security to enforce people only accessing what they need). Trustworthiness of the supplier is the tricky part, as you've said above. There seems to be some openmindedness on this score between the parties involved, but finding a reputable service provider is really important, which is why I'm starting to ask around. Honestly, I don't really know how to verify this besides being recommended a service by someone sensible, then researching the service they provide, terms and conditions, all that stuff. > > In addition most companies I deal with would not even allow their source > code to cross the internet unless it was via a VPN or some other encrypted > format. SSL is an encrypted format. > > Just my opinion but backing out gracefuly may be the best couse of action. > > Gary I see this mentality a lot in large corporates. It's the corporate castle model of IT, with DMZs and firewalls and possibly MEC (Man Eating Crocodiles). That stuff is all fine and dandy, but contributes a *massive* overhead to any project which has to interact with it, basically because it's about taking a perfectly functional connection to the internet and reducing its functionality in many wonderfully diabolical ways. Security is important of course(!), but it's in a tradeoff relationship with cost & functionality. In my opinion, many companies err vastly too far on the side of security. Why do they do that? Because we have this model of *** OUR COMPANY *** -> barrier -> barrier -> ... -> barrier -> evil internet cloud rather than INTERNET comprises (OUR COMPANY, EVERYONE ELSE) The internet is seen as a dangerous thing out there that companies must go to massive lengths to keep out of their corporate castle, rather than something which the company is part of and contributes to and benefits from being involved with. I've done a lot of remote technical consulting work for big orgs in recent years, which has required me to interact with their internal IT systems from outside. By far the biggest headache is getting remote access and then keeping it functioning, and it drives their IT guys to distraction. The biggest complaint I would get from the internal people was that so many people want remote access, it's a huge burden. And I think, well, it's only a burden because you architected your systems to keep people out, and now fight running battles against yourselves to circumvent your own systems. Wow, rant, apologies... I'm a supporter of the ASP model. I think as time moves on, successful organisations will need to outsource more and more of their IT systems to ASPs, where hosting internally provides no extra value (which it doesn't, in most cases). And much of this stuff is critical, just as critical as source code or moreso. Plenty of organisations do all their banking online... you'd think money was pretty critical. Hell, email is the most critical app in practise, just turn off your email server and wait for the executive level guys to ride in guns blazing. And they send that across the net in the clear! ROFL! Summary ... there's definitely risk in putting your source code with a third party. But there's benefit too. So it's about balance, to my mind. Emlyn > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 8:14 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [ExI] [geek] good commercial svn hosts? > > Hi all, > > I've recently been successful in convincing some commercial entities not to > use in-house source control, but to use an externally hosted subversion > repository. And now I've been asked the hard question, which service do you > recommend? > > I had thought that sourceforge had a closed-source hosting service as well > as open source, but I can't see any sign of that. So I'm stuck with choosing > a commercial entity. > > Anyone got ideas/experience of such services? The only one I've personally > used, and only minimally at that, is cvsdude.org. This is for closed source > hosting, has to be secure (for some reasonable value of "secure"). > Recommendations? > > Emlyn > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 > 4:32 PM > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 > 4:32 PM > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From ka.aly at luxsci.net Tue Sep 4 04:46:29 2007 From: ka.aly at luxsci.net (Khaled Aly) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 07:46:29 +0300 Subject: [ExI] [geek] good commercial svn hosts? References: <710b78fc0709031713m7a3656es9a63c557737b0af7@mail.gmail.com> <000901c7ee95$e2a8a770$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <004101c7eeae$916e65c0$81e8dbc4@pcd> Gents I worked for years for a multinational network service provider. Providers are now emphasizing IT hosting services as bandwidth got cheaper and connctivity services aren't generating revenues as used to. Any service could be outsourced by a client, to cut cost as seems to be the case here too, and hosted by the service provider where it can be managed and supported centrally with other clients' services. Messaging is one example, but another interesting one is the security applicances themselves. Some clients choose to host their firewalls and anti-virus software at a "trusted third party" service provider. If they do, they have to 'trust' the third party, which configures and maintains their appliances. Typically those clients would be also IP VPN clients too. Oherwise, any remote access through the Internet is via IPsec VPN, which is not costly. It's really the client's decision to trade eficiency/cost vs. trust. I know that didn't answer the main question of what are suitable hosts as I haven't come across hosted source control. But I mean to say that many enterprises at all scales do trust their sensitive traffic and IT services to reputable third parties. It's a choice. Re remote access, the company staff was dispersed all over, for historical reasons. They also promoted teleworking. I worked for a year in a virtual team of 10 people located in several countries, out of home office, within IPSec tunnel and using a soft IPT with an ext. nr. Had no complaint and the setup worked perfectly. Of course there was the benefit of the large scale consistent setup and the round-the-clock internal 'IT' support. Cheers ka ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Miller" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] [geek] good commercial svn hosts? > Emlyn, > > Just curious, why put your reputation on the line with these commercial > entities unless you've used one or more of these services enough to be > confident in their security, longevity and data integrity. > > Open source is one thing. It tends to proliferate and end up in multiple > repositories so a single group going belly up does not endanger the > source's > existence. And security is not an issue there. > > But I can't imaging a commercial enterprise entrusting it's critical > development software, a major asset for most companies to a service unless > they were insured, bonded, escrowed and had an established track record to > insure that if the service goes belly up that their company doesn't go > along > with it. > > In addition most companies I deal with would not even allow their source > code to cross the internet unless it was via a VPN or some other encrypted > format. > > Just my opinion but backing out gracefuly may be the best couse of action. > > Gary > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 8:14 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [ExI] [geek] good commercial svn hosts? > > Hi all, > > I've recently been successful in convincing some commercial entities not > to > use in-house source control, but to use an externally hosted subversion > repository. And now I've been asked the hard question, which service do > you > recommend? > > I had thought that sourceforge had a closed-source hosting service as well > as open source, but I can't see any sign of that. So I'm stuck with > choosing > a commercial entity. > > Anyone got ideas/experience of such services? The only one I've personally > used, and only minimally at that, is cvsdude.org. This is for closed > source > hosting, has to be secure (for some reasonable value of "secure"). > Recommendations? > > Emlyn > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 > 4:32 PM > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 > 4:32 PM > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Sep 4 04:45:25 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 00:45:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) Message-ID: <826641.72762.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I had the privilege last weekend to attend my first gay marriage. Before the wedding, I thought deeply about what my conviction was regarding gay marriage. (Of course this led me back to what I had written a year ago, see below.) This particular wedding will forever be in my thoughts. It's amazing how one experience can alter a belief perception. After seeing them together, it seems silly to me to have wasted time even debating such an issue. Who am I to decide what is better for one than the other? Who am I to judge? Anyhow, didn't mean to bore anybody but I did feel the need to apologize to those that may have been offended by some of my remarks. Hope everyone on the Extropy List has had a wonderful summer. Anna:) Anna wrote on Mon Oct 30: >>> >Why wouldn't the gay communities want their own >>> >word for their union and still keep the basic >>> >laws for spouse and marital? On 10/31/06, Terry Colvin forwarded: >> Maybe because they're forming a union, joined for >>life, and creating a family -- so there's a perfectly >>good word for that already in existence. That word is already taken. It describes the "Union" between male and female. >>In any case, it's not "scriptural" -- the >>institution predates and is independent of any >>particular scripture. No. Laws are institutions that predate. If gays want to be married, I again will repeat, I have no problem with that. I believe they should have every right to the same benefits and laws as a "married" couple should have but I think it should be defined by a different word. >>>I can't presume 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 word "marriage"?. >> Sure you do. Your marriage won't suddenly become >>a "flerm" just because someone else got married. Did >>all heterosexual marriages suddenly change somehow >>in 1989, when Denmark recognized gay marriage? It's not about recognizing gay marriage. I have the up most respect for gays, I would never disrespect any choice of sexual behaviour unless it violates rights. I feel using the word "marriage" as a symbol of the union between 2 men or 2 women violates my right as a heterosexual female. Why is that so wrong? >> What you don't necessarily have is the right to >>deny the word to other people. Why? If the word had already been established, why wouldn't I have the right to keep it just the way it is? The "Union" between man and woman. What I don't understand is why the gay community would not choose to represent itself as a self-sufficient member of society and choose a word that describes what their future "union" may one day represent. I am aware that most don't believe in the sanction of a woman and a man. That's their choice. I do. Not the laws, not the piece of paper but the choice to want to procreate with somebody and evolve as humans. It's not my scenario, at the present time, but I do believe that it should be a right and that "right" is the term defined by the word "marriage". Just an opinion. Anna Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Sep 4 05:25:54 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:25:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <826641.72762.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <826641.72762.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070904002419.02237de8@satx.rr.com> Congratulations, Anna! It's a brave thing to announce publicly that experience has modified one's opinions! Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 4 05:38:31 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 22:38:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <826641.72762.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200709040538.l845cVTC023208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anna Taylor > Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) > > I had the privilege last weekend to attend my first > gay marriage. Before the wedding, I thought deeply > about what my conviction was regarding gay marriage. ... > Anna I have some questions for the legal eagles of the group. It would be even more interesting if the Brits and Europeans comment. If a spouse perishes, I understand that the surviving spouse gets the social security payment that is the higher of the two. So if the survivor made more money longer, then no change in benefits. But if the lower paid spouse is the survivor, he or she gets a raise when the richer spouse perishes. What a racket this could be, for high earners to marry a low earner when the rich person has only months to live. An old rich person could marry a young low earner, and thus the social security system could be looted. It isn't clear to me what the rich terminal person could be given in exchange. Questions: If gay marriage becomes legal, would that problem be worse? Could a sick rich person marry her grandson's girlfriend in order to provide them with a generous pension while they are in their twenties? Is it any different than the kinds of abuses that could theoretically be pulled off now? For instance, an old sick person could marry her granddaughter's boyfriend in a fake marriage, while the young couple still carries on as before. So from a social security pension point of view (the only reason I care about who is allowed to marry) would gay marriage have any impact? Does Europe have similar issues? spike From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Sep 4 05:59:39 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 01:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <200709040538.l845cVTC023208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <672982.6964.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Spike, I have no idea how if gay marriage becomes legal could affiliate with the rest of your post. Can you help me out. --- spike wrote: If gay marriage becomes legal, would that problem be worse? Could a sick rich person marry her grandson's girlfriend in order to provide them with a generous pension while they are in their twenties? Is it any different than the kinds of abuses that could theoretically be pulled off now? For instance, an old sick person could marry her granddaughter's boyfriend in a fake marriage, while the young couple still carries on as before. So from a social security pension point of view (the only reason I care about who is allowed to marry) would gay marriage have any impact? Does Europe have similar issues? Get news delivered with the All new Yahoo! Mail. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. Start today at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 08:42:10 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 18:12:10 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <200709040538.l845cVTC023208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <826641.72762.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709040538.l845cVTC023208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0709040142l11ba34c5v301cd84d6ccd3e8e@mail.gmail.com> On 04/09/07, spike wrote: > If gay marriage becomes legal, would that problem be worse? Could a sick > rich person marry her grandson's girlfriend in order to provide them with a > generous pension while they are in their twenties? Is it any different than > the kinds of abuses that could theoretically be pulled off now? For > instance, an old sick person could marry her granddaughter's boyfriend in a > fake marriage, while the young couple still carries on as before. So from a > social security pension point of view (the only reason I care about who is > allowed to marry) would gay marriage have any impact? Does Europe have > similar issues? > > spike Fake marriages are something that various government institutions deal with already (eg: for immigration, and here for family payment, austudy (that loophole might be closed now), many other miscellaneous welfare benefits). One of the big motivators for legalising gay marriage, of course, is that there are a whole bunch of entirely reasonable benefits available only to married couples, not the least of which is being treated as family members in hospital, and estate going to the spouse in case of no will (that's correct no?). Bring it on, I say, it's just ridiculous that gay marriages don't have the same standing as hetero ones. Emlyn -- http://emlynoregan.com From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 10:38:51 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 12:38:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <826641.72762.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <826641.72762.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709040338w28bce47eoea98e610355478c1@mail.gmail.com> On 9/4/07, Anna Taylor wrote: > No. Laws are institutions that predate. If gays want > to be married, I again will repeat, I have no problem > with that. I believe they should have every right to > the same benefits and laws as a "married" couple > should have but I think it should be defined by a > different word. Why, as long as married couples do not have any, that would be fine also with me. Which does not mean of course that I think that "marriage" should be conserved even for "straights", besides and beyond everybody's freedom to "unite" in couples, as well as in triplets, monades, quartets, including with descendants, pets, computers, or whatever they like. Stefano Vaj From scerir at libero.it Tue Sep 4 18:44:01 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:44:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [ART] softwart References: <008501c7edb7$3c8fe5d0$e1a367d4@pcd><20070903045739.GJ12988@leitl.org><001d01c7ee30$96643920$70a367d4@pcd> <000a01c7ee6b$00c96b20$f7941f97@archimede> Message-ID: <000401c7ef23$9933ef80$bf961f97@archimede> [move your mouse here] http://lab.andre-michelle.com/instable-connections http://lab.andre-michelle.com/color-traces http://lab.andre-michelle.com/particle-explosion [do not move the mouse here :-)] http://lab.andre-michelle.com/cable-clock From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 19:12:25 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 12:12:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <200709040538.l845cVTC023208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <826641.72762.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709040538.l845cVTC023208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30709041212s1d61fe9cif739ef95a94e6257@mail.gmail.com> On 9/3/07, spike wrote: > If gay marriage becomes legal, would that problem be worse? Could a sick > rich person marry her grandson's girlfriend in order to provide them with a > generous pension while they are in their twenties? Is it any different than > the kinds of abuses that could theoretically be pulled off now? For > instance, an old sick person could marry her granddaughter's boyfriend in a > fake marriage, while the young couple still carries on as before. So from a > social security pension point of view (the only reason I care about who is > allowed to marry) would gay marriage have any impact? Does Europe have > similar issues? The key word you used is "theoretically." Spike, there are only 800,000 same sex couples in the entire country. Where's the huge rip off of the system by the straight couples? When my retirement money is being pilfered by every straight Tom, Dick and Henrietta, then I'll be worried. Emlyn's right. This is a non-issue. Gays deserve the same rights straights get. And I thought you were a math wiz... ;-) PJ From scerir at libero.it Tue Sep 4 19:12:48 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:12:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) References: <200709040538.l845cVTC023208@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000801c7ef27$959ff680$bf961f97@archimede> Does Europe have similar issues? spike Fake marriage? Here illegal immigrants became legal with a fake (and very short) marriage. Its cost (for the immigrant)? It depends on how old, sick, and poor is the partner to be married. Parliament is discussing a sort a 'weak' marriage (for gay or non gay people living together since long time, say 5 years). s. From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Sep 4 21:06:28 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:06:28 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) Message-ID: <090420072106.25960.46DDC8D4000349DD000065682207300033979A09070E@comcast.net> Come on Spike if Anna Nicole Smith could figure this out, I'm sure you can too! Spike asked... >> What a racket this could be, for high earners to marry a low earner when the rich person has only months to live. An old rich person could marry a young low earner, and thus the social security system could be looted. It isn't clear to me what the rich terminal person could be given in exchange. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "spike" > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anna Taylor > > Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) > > > > I had the privilege last weekend to attend my first > > gay marriage. Before the wedding, I thought deeply > > about what my conviction was regarding gay marriage. > ... > > Anna > > > > I have some questions for the legal eagles of the group. It would be even > more interesting if the Brits and Europeans comment. > > If a spouse perishes, I understand that the surviving spouse gets the social > security payment that is the higher of the two. So if the survivor made > more money longer, then no change in benefits. But if the lower paid spouse > is the survivor, he or she gets a raise when the richer spouse perishes. > > What a racket this could be, for high earners to marry a low earner when the > rich person has only months to live. An old rich person could marry a young > low earner, and thus the social security system could be looted. It isn't > clear to me what the rich terminal person could be given in exchange. > > Questions: > > If gay marriage becomes legal, would that problem be worse? Could a sick > rich person marry her grandson's girlfriend in order to provide them with a > generous pension while they are in their twenties? Is it any different than > the kinds of abuses that could theoretically be pulled off now? For > instance, an old sick person could marry her granddaughter's boyfriend in a > fake marriage, while the young couple still carries on as before. So from a > social security pension point of view (the only reason I care about who is > allowed to marry) would gay marriage have any impact? Does Europe have > similar issues? > > 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 spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 5 01:42:18 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 18:42:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709041212s1d61fe9cif739ef95a94e6257@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709050153.l851rqIp009466@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of PJ Manney > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:12 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) > > On 9/3/07, spike wrote: > > If gay marriage becomes legal, would that problem be worse? Could a > sick > > rich person marry her grandson's girlfriend ... > > The key word you used is "theoretically." > > Spike, there are only 800,000 same sex couples in the entire country. > Where's the huge rip off of the system by the straight couples? When > my retirement money is being pilfered by every straight Tom, Dick and > Henrietta, then I'll be worried. Emlyn's right. This is a non-issue. > Gays deserve the same rights straights get. > > And I thought you were a math wiz... ;-) > > PJ PJ, the ripoffs I was describing have little or nothing to do with gay or straight, so the actual number of gay couples is irrelevant. The grandmother who marries her grandson's girlfriend is presumed straight. She goes into a fake marriage to provide her new spouse (and presumably her grandson) with a pension that lasts their lifetimes. These sorts of scams could occur already, but perhaps allowing gay marriage would double the opportunities, or possibly more than double them. Consider for instance that an elderly woman would likely feel more comfortable with a young woman living in her home than she would with a young man. If grandma entered the arrangement in exchange for the young woman providing elderly care, then both women benefit. Society pays dearly. You and I pay for that. When we need that social security, it might be bankrupt for paying off our younger fellow citizens who married an elderly (and long since perished) person in their 20s. As to the question of how this is relevant to gay marriage, it seems to me that opening this door invites this sort of abuse. We know that elderly men often marry young women, and we can easily imagine what is in it for both. But we do not see elderly women marrying young men. If this world's societies decide to allow same sex marriage, it allows or even invites elderly women and young women to play this game ever more to their own advantage, for grandma would surely be unopposed to her wife having male friends. The debate seems to be chronically sidetracked on irrelevant sexual morality issues. Totally beside the point are these. What really does matter, PJ is what it costs. I don't care (no one should care) what people do with whom in their bedrooms. But I care bigtime if it contributes in any way to plundering my pension fund. Seems to me that Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia would face a similar (if not more severe) problem, for all the same reasons. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 5 01:44:15 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 18:44:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] belgium doesn't like them either Message-ID: <200709050159.l851xv8U028495@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Perhaps Keith should have gone to Belgium instead of Canada: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295693,00.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed Sep 5 02:34:43 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:34:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I Want Your Pictures :) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070822185237.023b3c70@satx.rr.com><62c14240708221707x25e1b132l2aa5616835d7fd82@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070822200433.021cf698@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00ea01c7ef65$51daaf10$6401a8c0@brainiac> Hello Transhumanists and Extropians: Yesterday - on a lark - I set up this new FLICKR account because I wanted something like this to refer to at times, and I thought it could be fun and educational. I noticed there was nothing like it on FLICKR (I was searching for something like this - before the idea came to me to start one up myself). http://www.flickr.com/photos/12628996 at N03/ My request of *any of you who may wish to have your picture with a little blurb or quote underneath your picture* (it doesn't have to be a head shot necessarily - more casual pictures will do nicely) is this: Please email me (fauxever at sprynet.com) a jpg picture of yourself with 1) either something about yourself (with your URL if you want to have that published, as well); or 2) an original quote from you (something that you've written before, or make one up especially for this ... right now!). Should you do this now and then decide you would like me to delete your picture at any time in the future - it's easy enough for me to do, and I will honor your request pronto. Remember, this account is a little over 24 hours old. I've only just begun ... I would LOVE to see what some of y'all look like - and I hope to hear from some of you! All best, Olga From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Sep 5 03:16:31 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:16:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] belgium doesn't like them either In-Reply-To: <200709050159.l851xv8U028495@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709050159.l851xv8U028495@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070904221508.024c0980@satx.rr.com> At 06:44 PM 9/4/2007 -0700, spike wrote: >Perhaps Keith should have gone to Belgium instead of Canada: > >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295693,00.html "The church, founded in 1954, counts actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta among its 10 million members." I wonder how many members they really have? 20 or 30 thousand worldwide? From rpicone at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 04:15:09 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:15:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <200709050153.l851rqIp009466@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <29666bf30709041212s1d61fe9cif739ef95a94e6257@mail.gmail.com> <200709050153.l851rqIp009466@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 9/4/07, spike wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of PJ Manney > > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:12 PM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) > > > > On 9/3/07, spike wrote: > > > If gay marriage becomes legal, would that problem be worse? Could a > > sick > > > rich person marry her grandson's girlfriend ... > > > > The key word you used is "theoretically." > > > > Spike, there are only 800,000 same sex couples in the entire country. > > Where's the huge rip off of the system by the straight couples? When > > my retirement money is being pilfered by every straight Tom, Dick and > > Henrietta, then I'll be worried. Emlyn's right. This is a non-issue. > > Gays deserve the same rights straights get. > > > > And I thought you were a math wiz... ;-) > > > > PJ > > > PJ, the ripoffs I was describing have little or nothing to do with gay or > straight, so the actual number of gay couples is irrelevant. The > grandmother who marries her grandson's girlfriend is presumed straight. She > goes into a fake marriage to provide her new spouse (and presumably her > grandson) with a pension that lasts their lifetimes. > In some hypothetical future in which bisexuality doesn't carry any stigma amongst any social group, maybe it would be irrelevant, but this isn't the case. This isn't likely to make any change in the way things are not because of what could legally be technically done, but due to the state of society. Marrying across a large age gap already carries a major stigma, especially if one openly admits to it, and it is only a fairly minor problem these days because of the social complications. Marrying a member of the same sex carries an even more social problems, and one wouldn't able to admit it is a sham without being guilty of defrauding the state... What are the odds that someone that was willing to go through the marriage for this knows members of the same sex that wouldn't mind publicly claiming to change their sexual orientation and doesn't know a member of the opposite sex who would have to deal with a whole lot less hassle?... Would you marry a man and openly admit homosexuality (assuming you don't already profess it) for monetary gains?... > These sorts of scams could occur already, but perhaps allowing gay marriage > would double the opportunities, or possibly more than double them. Consider > for instance that an elderly woman would likely feel more comfortable with a > young woman living in her home than she would with a young man. If grandma > entered the arrangement in exchange for the young woman providing elderly > care, then both women benefit. Society pays dearly. You and I pay for > that. When we need that social security, it might be bankrupt for paying > off our younger fellow citizens who married an elderly (and long since > perished) person in their 20s. > How many old women do you know that would be more comfortable talking about their wives than their younger husbands?.... > The debate seems to be chronically sidetracked on irrelevant sexual morality > issues. Totally beside the point are these. What really does matter, PJ is > what it costs. I don't care (no one should care) what people do with whom > in their bedrooms. But I care bigtime if it contributes in any way to > plundering my pension fund. The fact that a large chunk of the morality issues in of itself blocks these problems though... Outside of San Francisco, gays tend to deal with quite a bit of shit that Io wouldn't be willing to choose for a paycheck down the road. From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 5 04:55:34 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:55:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200709050455.l854tXDE016572@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Picone ... > > Would you marry a man and openly admit homosexuality (assuming you > don't already profess it) for monetary gains?... As a society, we appear to be in the process of opening the definition of marriage. Currently heterosexuality is not required to enter a marriage, only that the couple is opposite sex. Similarly, if the legal system allows same sex marriage, it would not require the partners to be homosexual. In either case, there is no practical way to prove the orientation of the partners. Regarding a sham marriage, I know of no rules that require the partners to engage in any form of sexual contact. The law does not require the partners to hold any particular feelings for each other. So a marriage set up in order to perpetuate a social security pension appears to me to be within legal bounds currently. As a society, we are broadening our definition of the marriage contract. The irony of all this is that the relionistas claiming that gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage. It appears to me that the institution of social security is actually what threatens traditional marriage. >... Outside of San Francisco, gays tend to > deal with quite a bit of shit that Io wouldn't be willing to choose > for a paycheck down the road. Ja, I do forget that at times, being a San Francisco area resident for most of my adult life. Around here one can be perfectly OK with gays, even cheer them on, yet still be considered politically far to the right. {8^D spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 5 05:21:09 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 22:21:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <200709050455.l854tXDE016572@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200709050521.l855L7Ss006366@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > > > >... Outside of San Francisco, gays tend to > > deal with quite a bit of shit that Io wouldn't be willing to choose > > for a paycheck down the road. > > > Ja, I do forget that at times, being a San Francisco area resident for > most > of my adult life. Around here one can be perfectly OK with gays, even > cheer > them on, yet still be considered politically far to the right. {8^D > > spike > Upon reading my own comment, I realize it is an understatement. In the Santa Clara valley, anyone who firmly believes that tax cuts are the answer to most social ills, and believes that all citizens besides felons should own guns is pretty much automatically considered right wing. Under those definitions probably most of us here would get that label, regardless of how socially libertarian we might be. spike From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 07:37:39 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:37:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <200709050153.l851rqIp009466@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <29666bf30709041212s1d61fe9cif739ef95a94e6257@mail.gmail.com> <200709050153.l851rqIp009466@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 9/5/07, spike wrote: > PJ, the ripoffs I was describing have little or nothing to do with gay or > straight, so the actual number of gay couples is irrelevant. The > grandmother who marries her grandson's girlfriend is presumed straight. She > goes into a fake marriage to provide her new spouse (and presumably her > grandson) with a pension that lasts their lifetimes. > > These sorts of scams could occur already, but perhaps allowing gay marriage > would double the opportunities, or possibly more than double them. Consider > for instance that an elderly woman would likely feel more comfortable with a > young woman living in her home than she would with a young man. If grandma > entered the arrangement in exchange for the young woman providing elderly > care, then both women benefit. Society pays dearly. You and I pay for > that. When we need that social security, it might be bankrupt for paying > off our younger fellow citizens who married an elderly (and long since > perished) person in their 20s. > I don't think this rip-off exists. In the UK, the state pension is commonly called the 'old-age pension'. You don't get it if you are under pension age. And you have to have built up credits during your working life to get the full state pension, otherwise you get a reduced pension. Marriage doesn't come into it. Except that if a wife has never worked, then when she reaches pension age, she can claim some pension based on her husband's working credits. The actual rules are horrifyingly complex. And if you only get a small pension, then you enter the labyrinthine system of claiming some of the thousands of supplementary benefits, all with complex rules. And some of the benefits clash with other benefits, so you have to find the best path for your circumstances. And there is an ongoing process of changing the rules and benefits constantly, just to keep the claimants on their toes. BillK From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 07:51:12 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:21:12 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <200709050521.l855L7Ss006366@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709050455.l854tXDE016572@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200709050521.l855L7Ss006366@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0709050051n478b269ayd97785696cc6f78a@mail.gmail.com> > Upon reading my own comment, I realize it is an understatement. In the > Santa Clara valley, anyone who firmly believes that tax cuts are the answer > to most social ills, and believes that all citizens besides felons should > own guns is pretty much automatically considered right wing. Under those > definitions probably most of us here would get that label, regardless of how > socially libertarian we might be. > > spike Isn't that what people normally consider to be right wing? I know an Australian would consider that to be a right wing position. There might be a slight disconnect there actually - would I be right in assuming that right wing in the US very strongly implies the idea of legislating private morality, as would be the case with the christian right? Here, I think we don't have so much of that represented in our political spectrum (the christian right isn't much of a force, more of a lunatic fringe), our main parties behave a lot more like your neocons. Emlyn -- Human female: "And so with two weeks left in the campaign, the question on everyone's mind is, who will be the president of Earth? Jack Johnson or bitter rival John Jackson? Two terrific candidates, Morbo?" Morbo: "All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo." (Futurama) -- http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 07:53:10 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:23:10 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: References: <29666bf30709041212s1d61fe9cif739ef95a94e6257@mail.gmail.com> <200709050153.l851rqIp009466@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0709050053k1ac6986fr6f17fb284f135d74@mail.gmail.com> > And there is an ongoing process of changing the rules and benefits > constantly, just to keep the claimants on their toes. > > BillK If it's anything like Australia, the fine detail of these rules is mostly unpublished most of the time. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Sep 5 03:57:53 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:57:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I Want Your Pictures :) In-Reply-To: <00ea01c7ef65$51daaf10$6401a8c0@brainiac> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070822185237.023b3c70@satx.rr.com> <62c14240708221707x25e1b132l2aa5616835d7fd82@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070822200433.021cf698@satx.rr.com> <00ea01c7ef65$51daaf10$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200709050358.l853w6ju015819@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> Hi Olga, Good idea. here is mine - I'm a transhumanist who respects the concept of extropy as imperative to our future well being. At 09:34 PM 9/4/2007, you wrote: >Hello Transhumanists and Extropians: > >Yesterday - on a lark - I set up this new FLICKR account because I wanted >something like this to refer to at times, and I thought it could be fun and >educational. I noticed there was nothing like it on FLICKR (I was searching >for something like this - before the idea came to me to start one up >myself). > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/12628996 at N03/ > >My request of *any of you who may wish to have your picture with a little >blurb or quote underneath your picture* (it doesn't have to be a head shot >necessarily - more casual pictures will do nicely) is this: > >Please email me (fauxever at sprynet.com) a jpg picture of yourself with > >1) either something about yourself (with your URL if you want to have that >published, as well); or > >2) an original quote from you (something that you've written before, or make >one up especially for this ... right now!). > >Should you do this now and then decide you would like me to delete your >picture at any time in the future - it's easy enough for me to do, and I >will honor your request pronto. > >Remember, this account is a little over 24 hours old. I've only just begun >... > >I would LOVE to see what some of y'all look like - and I hope to hear from >some of you! > >All best, >Olga > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: >9/3/2007 9:31 AM Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NVM - Spain.JPG Type: application/octet-stream Size: 85134 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 09:48:27 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:48:27 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0709050053k1ac6986fr6f17fb284f135d74@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30709041212s1d61fe9cif739ef95a94e6257@mail.gmail.com> <200709050153.l851rqIp009466@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0709050053k1ac6986fr6f17fb284f135d74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 05/09/07, Emlyn wrote: > > And there is an ongoing process of changing the rules and benefits > > constantly, just to keep the claimants on their toes. > > > > BillK > > If it's anything like Australia, the fine detail of these rules is > mostly unpublished most of the time. The social security system in Australia is relatively simple: everyone gets the aged pension if they pass a means test, and it's the same amount regardless of how much or how little they have worked; similarly with the disability pension and unemployment benefits. The spouse does not get the partner's pension if he dies. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ;-) -- Stathis Papaioannou From fauxever at sprynet.com Wed Sep 5 14:47:56 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 07:47:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I Want Your Pictures :) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070822185237.023b3c70@satx.rr.com><62c14240708221707x25e1b132l2aa5616835d7fd82@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070822200433.021cf698@satx.rr.com><00ea01c7ef65$51daaf10$6401a8c0@brainiac> <200709050358.l853w6ju015819@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <008101c7efcb$c064a790$6401a8c0@brainiac> Thanks, Natasha! I have to run off to work now, but will get to this tonight ... :) Until later ... Olga ----- Original Message ----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: ExI chat list Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] I Want Your Pictures :) Hi Olga, Good idea. here is mine - I'm a transhumanist who respects the concept of extropy as imperative to our future well being. At 09:34 PM 9/4/2007, you wrote: Hello Transhumanists and Extropians: Yesterday - on a lark - I set up this new FLICKR account because I wanted something like this to refer to at times, and I thought it could be fun and educational. I noticed there was nothing like it on FLICKR (I was searching for something like this - before the idea came to me to start one up myself). http://www.flickr.com/photos/12628996 at N03/ My request of *any of you who may wish to have your picture with a little blurb or quote underneath your picture* (it doesn't have to be a head shot necessarily - more casual pictures will do nicely) is this: Please email me (fauxever at sprynet.com) a jpg picture of yourself with 1) either something about yourself (with your URL if you want to have that published, as well); or 2) an original quote from you (something that you've written before, or make one up especially for this ... right now!). Should you do this now and then decide you would like me to delete your picture at any time in the future - it's easy enough for me to do, and I will honor your request pronto. Remember, this account is a little over 24 hours old. I've only just begun ... I would LOVE to see what some of y'all look like - and I hope to hear from some of you! All best, Olga _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: 9/3/2007 9:31 AM Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Sep 5 16:03:47 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:03:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pensions In-Reply-To: References: <29666bf30709041212s1d61fe9cif739ef95a94e6257@mail.gmail.com> <200709050153.l851rqIp009466@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0709050053k1ac6986fr6f17fb284f135d74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070905105036.0231c788@satx.rr.com> At 07:48 PM 9/5/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote: >The social security system in Australia is relatively simple: everyone >gets the aged pension if they pass a means test, and it's the same >amount regardless of how much or how little they have worked; >similarly with the disability pension and unemployment benefits. The >spouse does not get the partner's pension if he dies. When I wrote THE SPIKE, I made some comments about pensions and life extension that baffled or infuriated Americans readers (an editor should have noticed and pulled me up) because somehow I'd assumed the Aussie paradigm was a widespread default. It had escaped my parochial notice that for USians the govt-provided pension is a form of state-backed individual savings account, with (of course) no means test, rather than an egalitarian safety-net share of consolidated revenue that could be incrementally reduced as your personal wealth made it unnecessary for your survival in old age. This is so drastic a difference that I don't know if the same word should be applied to both. (It's a bit like "public school" meaning expensive posh uppercrust education in the UK and often rubbishy prole govt schools in some other countries.) Damien Broderick From bjk at imminst.org Wed Sep 5 16:43:34 2007 From: bjk at imminst.org (Bruce Klein) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:43:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] CFP: Artificial General Intelligence Conference Message-ID: <46DEDCB6.7090704@imminst.org> The following is our main AGI-08 CFP (deadline Oct 15). Please feel free to share w/ colleagues ;-) Thanks so much! Bruce -- In cooperation with AAAI, The University of Memphis is hosting the first conference on Artificial General Intelligence, March 1-3, 2008: www.agi-08.org The conference is explicitly open to all the various techniques used in seeking to realize general intelligence ? for instance, symbolic, connectionist, evolutionary, robotic, mathematical, or integrative approaches (... or new approaches that the conference organizers have never heard of!). We are particularly interested in papers describing concrete, reasonably well-fleshed-out AGI projects ? meaning, research projects that * are based on a coherent theory about "intelligence" as a whole * involve a concrete engineering plan oriented toward implementing the relevant conception of general intelligence in a computer system * have already produced some concrete results, either practical or theoretical The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was initially directly aimed at the construction of ?thinking machines? ? that is, computer systems with human-like general intelligence. But this task proved very difficult, and so as steps in this direction, AI researchers focused on producing AI systems displaying intelligence regarding specific tasks in relatively narrow domains. In recent years, however, the situation has been changing. More and more researchers have recognized the necessity ? and feasibility ? of returning to the original goals of the field. Increasingly, there is a call for a transition from the current focus on highly specialized ?narrow AI? problem solving systems, back to confronting the more difficult issues of ?human level intelligence? and more broadly ?artificial general intelligence (AGI).? If interested, please inform your colleagues that our Call For Papers Deadline is Oct 15, 2007: www.agi-08.org/call.php Warm regards, Prof. Stan Franklin - www.cs.memphis.edu/~franklin Email: contact at agi-08.org AGI-08 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE * Stan Franklin (Chair), University of Memphis * Sidney D'Mello, University of Memphis * Ben Goertzel, Novamente LLC * Bruce Klein, Novamente LLC * Lee McCauley, University of Memphis * Pei Wang, Temple University AGI-08 SPONSORS: * Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute * Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence * The University of Memphis * The FedEx Institute of Technology * Institute for Intelligent Systems * Atlantis Blue & Novamente AGI-08 PROGRAM COMMITTEE * Ben Goertzel (Co-Chair), Novamente LLC * Pei Wang (Co-Chair), Temple University * Sam S. Adams, IBM Research * James Anderson, Brown University * Mike Anderson, Franklin & Marshall College * Mark H. Bickhard, Lehigh University * Yaneer Bar-Yam, New England Complex Systems Institute * Eric Baum, Baum Research Enterprises * Henry Brighton, Max Planck Institute for Human Development * Nick Cassimatis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute * Hernan Castro, Intel Corporation * Andrew Coward, Australian National University * Hugo de Garis, Wuhan University * Debbie Duong, Science Applications International Corporation * Wlodzislaw Duch, Nicolaus Copernicus University * Richard Duro, Universidade da Coru?a * Stan Franklin, University of Memphis * David Friedlander, Behavior Recognition Systems * Phil Goetz, National Library of Medicine * Josh Storrs Hall, Institute for Molecular Manufacturing * Marcus Hutter, Australian National University * Cliff Joslyn, Los Alamos National Laboratory * Nikola Kasabov, Auckland University of Technology * Randal Koene, Boston University * Christian Lebiere, Carnegie Mellon University * Soo-Young Lee, Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology * Douglas Lenat, Cycorp * Moshe Looks, Science Applications International Corporation * Bruce MacLennan, University of Tennessee * Don Perlis, University of Maryland * Matthias Scheutz, Indiana University * Juergen Schmidhuber, Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence * Lokendra Shastri, International Computer Science Institute * Aaron Sloman, University of Birmingham * David G. Stork, Ricoh Innovations * John Gerald Taylor, King's College London * Karin Verspoor, Los Alamos National Laboratory * Paul Vogt, Tilburg University * Mark Waser, Books International * Mary-Anne William, University of Technology, Sydney From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 6 01:03:23 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 18:03:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pensions In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070905105036.0231c788@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200709060104.l8613UHS002638@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > > At 07:48 PM 9/5/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote: > > >The social security system in Australia is relatively simple: everyone > >gets the aged pension if they pass a means test... > > ... baffled or infuriated Americans readers (an editor > should have noticed and pulled me up) because somehow I'd assumed the > Aussie paradigm was a widespread default. It had escaped my parochial > notice that for USians the govt-provided pension is a form of > state-backed individual savings account, with (of course) no means > test... Damien Broderick Ja I confess I was puzzled by this, but didn't press the issue, since THE SPIKE is a book about future tech, not government pensions. The social security system in the US was set up during a time of intense debate on welfare. We have a sizeable population in the states who would fall dead of starvation face first in a shallow grave before accepting a dime of welfare. The social security system was set up not as a welfare program but rather as a forced savings for old age. Consequently it has no means test for collecting benefits; in that system any means test is specifically forbidden. Politicians have occasionally suggested a means test. Result: they have been thrown from office unceremoniously. Damien your comment above is understated sorta. Even the term "govt-provided pension" makes me squirm a bit. True, the government sends the checks, but we the people sprovide that money, our own money, earned when we were younger, dumber and poorer than we are when we retire (ideally). To each according to her ability, from each as little as possible. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Sep 6 02:01:07 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:01:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pensions References: <200709060104.l8613UHS002638@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <011201c7f029$ca3c18d0$6401a8c0@brainiac> From: "spike" To: "'ExI chat list'" > ...We have a sizeable population in the states who would fall dead of > starvation face first in a shallow grave before accepting a dime of > welfare. ... or give it. Olga From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu Sep 6 02:06:51 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:06:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!) In-Reply-To: <826641.72762.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <577631.27302.qm@web30415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> BTW, in case I in any way, gave notion, that this was a political issue, I wasn't aware. I was referring to the moral aspect of my decision. This was simply an experience that made me aware that maybe all my beliefs aren't always true, right and exact. I'm thankful of that. Thanks for listening. Anna --- Anna Taylor wrote: > I had the privilege last weekend to attend my first > gay marriage. Before the wedding, I thought deeply > about what my conviction was regarding gay marriage. > (Of course this led me back to what I had written a > year ago, see below.) > > This particular wedding will forever be in my > thoughts. It's amazing how one experience can alter > a > belief perception. > > After seeing them together, it seems silly to me to > have wasted time even debating such an issue. Who > am > I to decide what is better for one than the other? > Who > am I to judge? > > Anyhow, didn't mean to bore anybody but I did feel > the > need to apologize to those that may have been > offended > by some of my remarks. > > Hope everyone on the Extropy List has had a > wonderful > summer. > > Anna:) > > Anna wrote on Mon Oct 30: > >>> >Why wouldn't the gay communities want their own > >>> >word for their union and still keep the basic > >>> >laws for spouse and marital? > > On 10/31/06, Terry Colvin mindspring.com> > forwarded: > >> Maybe because they're forming a union, joined for > >>life, and creating a family -- so there's a > perfectly > >>good word for that already in existence. > > That word is already taken. It describes the > "Union" > between male and female. > > >>In any case, it's not "scriptural" -- the > >>institution predates and is independent of any > >>particular scripture. > > No. Laws are institutions that predate. If gays > want > to be married, I again will repeat, I have no > problem > with that. I believe they should have every right > to > the same benefits and laws as a "married" couple > should have but I think it should be defined by a > different word. > > >>>I can't presume 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 word > "marriage"?. > > >> Sure you do. Your marriage won't suddenly become > >>a "flerm" just because someone else got married. > Did > >>all heterosexual marriages suddenly change somehow > >>in 1989, when Denmark recognized gay marriage? > > It's not about recognizing gay marriage. I have the > up most respect for gays, I would never disrespect > any > choice of sexual behaviour unless it violates > rights. > I > feel using the word "marriage" as a symbol of the > union between 2 men or 2 women violates my right as > a > heterosexual female. Why is that so wrong? > > >> What you don't necessarily have is the right to > >>deny the word to other people. > > Why? If the word had already been established, why > wouldn't I have the right to keep it just the way it > is? The "Union" between man and woman. > What I don't understand is why the gay community > would > not choose to represent itself as a self-sufficient > member of society and choose a word that describes > what their future "union" may one day represent. > > I am aware that most don't believe in the sanction > of > a woman and a man. That's their choice. I do. Not > the laws, not the piece of paper but the choice to > want to procreate with somebody and evolve as > humans. > It's not my scenario, at the present time, but I do > believe that it should be a right and that "right" > is > the term defined by the word "marriage". > > Just an opinion. > Anna > > > > > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard > is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new > Yahoo! Mail at > http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 03:03:21 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:33:21 +0930 Subject: [ExI] pensions In-Reply-To: <200709060104.l8613UHS002638@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070905105036.0231c788@satx.rr.com> <200709060104.l8613UHS002638@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0709052003p40ea9352hefb8155e05a49095@mail.gmail.com> On 06/09/07, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > ... > > > > At 07:48 PM 9/5/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote: > > > > >The social security system in Australia is relatively simple: everyone > > >gets the aged pension if they pass a means test... > > > > ... baffled or infuriated Americans readers (an editor > > should have noticed and pulled me up) because somehow I'd assumed the > > Aussie paradigm was a widespread default. It had escaped my parochial > > notice that for USians the govt-provided pension is a form of > > state-backed individual savings account, with (of course) no means > > test... Damien Broderick > > > Ja I confess I was puzzled by this, but didn't press the issue, since THE > SPIKE is a book about future tech, not government pensions. The social > security system in the US was set up during a time of intense debate on > welfare. We have a sizeable population in the states who would fall dead of > starvation face first in a shallow grave before accepting a dime of welfare. > > > The social security system was set up not as a welfare program but rather as > a forced savings for old age. Consequently it has no means test for > collecting benefits; in that system any means test is specifically > forbidden. Politicians have occasionally suggested a means test. Result: > they have been thrown from office unceremoniously. > > Damien your comment above is understated sorta. Even the term > "govt-provided pension" makes me squirm a bit. True, the government sends > the checks, but we the people sprovide that money, our own money, earned > when we were younger, dumber and poorer than we are when we retire > (ideally). > > To each according to her ability, from each as little as possible. > > spike We actually have a dual system in Australia; government provided pension + superannuation. Super is a lot like the pension you describe above. Working stiffs such as myself contribute money (well, in fact the government forces employers to contribute 9% of salary to employees super funds, which of course is in fact a burden born by both employee and employer), and past a certain age (or some such - rules are Byzantine), you can get your super as a lump sum or annuity. The govt provided pension is pretty low I think, and functions as a fallback; if you don't have the personal wealth to provide for yourself, the government provides a safety net pension. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 02:55:32 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Immortality Comes to TV In-Reply-To: <001101c7eb91$a33c45d0$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <687673.74861.qm@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This news article more than anything shows how protecting literary intellectual property can be a nightmare. I recently went to a Comic book Convention and some of the writers on the panels there had some doozies to tell. John Grigg Olga Bourlin wrote: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2003860020_webimmortal30.html _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 04:13:16 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 21:13:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality Comes to TV In-Reply-To: <687673.74861.qm@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <001101c7eb91$a33c45d0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <687673.74861.qm@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30709052113w36db9d9aq1d36b3026d06d4d7@mail.gmail.com> On 9/5/07, John wrote: > This news article more than anything shows how protecting literary > intellectual property can be a nightmare. I recently went to a Comic book > Convention and some of the writers on the panels there had some doozies to > tell. >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2003860020_webimmortal30.html Honey, let me tell you, it's a jungle out there. I've got plenty of horror stories of my own. And people wonder why I'm bitter... PJ From brian at posthuman.com Thu Sep 6 04:53:23 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:53:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pensions In-Reply-To: <200709060104.l8613UHS002638@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709060104.l8613UHS002638@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <46DF87C3.4090200@posthuman.com> spike wrote: > > True, the government sends > the checks, but we the people sprovide that money, our own money, earned > when we were younger > Not quite since the US system is a pay-as-you-go system. So the money you've been paying in has gone mainly every paycheck direct to other folks currently drawing benefits. Any excess is given to the rest of the federal government to spend immediately - the Social Security Trust Fund gets IOUs essentially in return. $2 trillion of them so far... conveniently kept off the official federal accounting debt total. When it comes time for you to retire, you will be receiving cash payments directly from the pockets of the current US workforce at that time, plus hopefully the government will be able to afford to pay back some of the IOUs using its tax income or increased debt at that time. Not a penny of it though will be money you or the current workforce paid in; that money is already spent and gone. Also if as expected in the future the ratio of retirees to workers increases, and/or the government has trouble coming up with $2 trillion to pay back the IOUs, then this whole ponzi-esque scheme runs into problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 6 06:16:16 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:16:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Immortality Comes to TV In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709052113w36db9d9aq1d36b3026d06d4d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <001101c7eb91$a33c45d0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <687673.74861.qm@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <29666bf30709052113w36db9d9aq1d36b3026d06d4d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <04F6AB85-1886-4242-823E-11A163B75976@mac.com> Is protecting literary IP a reasonable model? Is protecting nearly any IP reasonable in the world we hope to soon inhabit? Consider, a bit of imbedded computational ability could give each of us the ability to remember anything we experience in perfect fidelity. Fast networks would enable us to share anything we have experienced in full fidelity with as many people as we wish. It would enable us to re-experience, data mine, remix any and all of that content any way we found interesting or beneficial. If we keep current models of IP though it would be illegal to even have such capabilities much less share hardly any of the contents or results with others without countless permissions and possible horrendous financial charges. If we want a world where human potential is maximized, not to mention maximizing the potential of AGIs, it is crucial that access to information and resources be as unencumbered as possible. I don't see that a world of IP, DMCA, RIAA etc and much worse that technological implementation of such notions could bring is conducive to maximization of human potential and maximization of infosphere wide intelligence. If all of this is so then the question becomes how to insure everyone is sufficiently compensated (or not) to have reasonably full access to all the necessities and many of the luxuries of life and to have more rewards for their creativity and contributions. I believe these problems are solvable while opening up access and not criminalizing things we wish to increase. I don't believe the notion of "intellectual property" is viable in a transhuman future. - samantha On Sep 5, 2007, at 9:13 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > On 9/5/07, John wrote: >> This news article more than anything shows how protecting literary >> intellectual property can be a nightmare. I recently went to a >> Comic book >> Convention and some of the writers on the panels there had some >> doozies to >> tell. >> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2003860020_webimmortal30.html > > > Honey, let me tell you, it's a jungle out there. I've got plenty of > horror stories of my own. And people wonder why I'm bitter... > > PJ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Thu Sep 6 07:14:40 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:14:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] pensions In-Reply-To: <46DF87C3.4090200@posthuman.com> References: <200709060104.l8613UHS002638@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46DF87C3.4090200@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <20070906071440.GZ4005@leitl.org> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:53:23PM -0500, Brian Atkins wrote: > Also if as expected in the future the ratio of retirees to workers increases, > and/or the government has trouble coming up with $2 trillion to pay back the > IOUs, then this whole ponzi-esque scheme runs into problems. That fraud is not particular to the U.S., though. Elsewhere it bites even more, though, since the social security pays a lot more, and we're taxed heavily to finance that. This prevents the currently working generation to build up any savings, so predictably they will be screwed, when they attempt to retire. What is interesting, that we know by name the criminals responsible, yet they are never even identified as such, nevermind persecuted. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 7 01:50:52 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:50:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again Message-ID: <200709070150.l871olQm005880@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Doh! The bee disease causing colony collapse may have come from Australia, mate. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/06/bee.disorder/index.html It makes sense in a way. Australian bees have been bred for less time than American and European bees. They tend to be only so-so pollinators and honey makers, but they have a lot of natural resistance to diseases. This article suggests that Australian bees introduced a virus into the American domestic hives to which the Aussie bees were themselves immune. When I found eleven dying bees this spring, I noticed they all had symptoms that look like what they are describing, yet I saw no varroa mites or trachea mites on any of the bees. I only managed to successfully dissect one bee to verify it had no trachea mites. This ruins a business idea I had: to breed Australian bees and sell or rent the colonies. I wouldn't be surprised if it soon becomes illegal to import Australian bees. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Sep 7 01:59:42 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:59:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <200709070150.l871olQm005880@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709070150.l871olQm005880@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070906205726.0225e858@satx.rr.com> At 06:50 PM 9/6/2007 -0700, spike wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised if it soon becomes illegal to import > Australian bees. If this theory is correct, and all the local bees die off, I wouldn't be surprised if it soon becomes *mandatory* to import Australian bees. Damien B. From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 02:21:51 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:21:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <200709070150.l871olQm005880@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709070150.l871olQm005880@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709061921g4f6ca2d7i903c936474d60120@mail.gmail.com> On 9/6/07, spike wrote: > When I found eleven dying bees this spring, I noticed they all had symptoms > that look like what they are describing, yet I saw no varroa mites or > trachea mites on any of the bees. I only managed to successfully dissect > one bee to verify it had no trachea mites. I thought about your weak bees this summer as several yellow jackets chased me from my yard when I was mowing the lawn. Nasty little buggers. I know these are wasps and not really bees, but I have to admit I had much less sympathy for bees while their angrier wasp cousins were repeatedly stinging me. I think the poison ivy is a preferable lawn threat - at least it can't follow you as you run away from it. :) From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 7 03:16:58 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:16:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <62c14240709061921g4f6ca2d7i903c936474d60120@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709070317.l873H3Uh004176@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty ... > > I thought about your weak bees this summer as several yellow jackets > chased me from my yard when I was mowing the lawn. Nasty little > buggers. I know these are wasps and not really bees, but I have to > admit I had much less sympathy for bees while their angrier wasp > cousins were repeatedly stinging me...Mike Mike, the wasp cousins are not the bees but rather the ants. The ants are much more closely related to the wasps than the bees are to either. Do feel free to feel antipathy towards ants and wasps. Aggressive sons a bitches are these. We might be able to arrange other pollinators besides bees, but we would be hard pressed indeed to get another beast that is as little bother to humans as the bees. Flies can be coaxed to cross pollinate flowers to a limited extent, but we don't want flocks of flies, ja? Bees are not aggressive, they don't get in your food, they don't spread disease, they are good neighbors. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 04:13:01 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:13:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <200709070317.l873H3Uh004176@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <62c14240709061921g4f6ca2d7i903c936474d60120@mail.gmail.com> <200709070317.l873H3Uh004176@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709062113p2ebd3c48tf4ca95698c7aac71@mail.gmail.com> On 9/6/07, spike wrote: > Mike, the wasp cousins are not the bees but rather the ants. The ants are > much more closely related to the wasps than the bees are to either. Do feel > free to feel antipathy towards ants and wasps. Aggressive sons a bitches > are these. > > We might be able to arrange other pollinators besides bees, but we would be > hard pressed indeed to get another beast that is as little bother to humans > as the bees. Flies can be coaxed to cross pollinate flowers to a limited > extent, but we don't want flocks of flies, ja? Bees are not aggressive, > they don't get in your food, they don't spread disease, they are good > neighbors. I remember wasps from 25 years ago being mostly content to have some Hi-C poured on the picnic table in exchange for leaving us alone. Thanks for the fyi on the ant/wasp connection. I saw an ant swarm on the corner of the pavement today - it was a little disturbing to see about an 8 inch square of roiling small black ants. Should we be looking more generally at the impact of the smallest organisms' impact on global ecology? From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Sep 5 22:07:58 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:07:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com> <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> <40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <1189135514_28791@S4.cableone.net> Serious disk failure while in jail, trying to revive mail. Keith From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 7 04:46:35 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 21:46:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189135514_28791@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200709070446.l874kU34021902@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Wooohooo, Keith! Welcome back pal! We missed the hell outta you man. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:08 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [ExI] reconnect > > Serious disk failure while in jail, trying to revive mail. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 7 04:45:12 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 21:45:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <62c14240709062113p2ebd3c48tf4ca95698c7aac71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709070446.l874kU33021902@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty ... > > Thanks for the fyi on the ant/wasp connection. I saw an ant swarm on > the corner of the pavement today - it was a little disturbing to see > about an 8 inch square of roiling small black ants. Ja. Actually I like ants too. Bugs are my friends. Ants are cool in how they sting. They have strong mandibles with which they bite into the flesh. Examine an attacking ant closely. Admittedly this takes a certain amount of discipline to do this while they are in the process of biting your ass. What they are actually doing is using their powerful bite to hold on, so they can plunge their stinger into your skin. The bite doesn't hurt much. It's the sting that causes you to commit blammisphy. > Should we be looking more generally at the impact of the smallest > organisms' impact on global ecology? Ants help clean up messes. Consider all those bees that I found perished this past spring. After I finished examining the dead bees, I placed them in the back yard garden wall in order to determine how long it takes before the ants remove all evidence that the bee was ever there. The answer is, as close as I can determine it, about 30 hours, plus or minus about 10 hours. This estimate is based on only 8 data points with plenty of observational uncertainty as to when the last fragment disappeared. I may repeat the experiment next spring, setting up a time lapse camera to record the bee disassembly. If we had no ants to clean up dead stuff, we would have a lot of rotting dead stuff all over the place. Ants and bees are our friends. I don't know what wasps are good for, if anything. spike From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Sep 7 05:28:57 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:28:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ScienceDaily: 'Lucky Camera' Takes Sharpest Ever Images Of Stars References: <200707162329.l6GNT3IW029721@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070716184138.02237098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <052501c7f10f$fed9d280$6401a8c0@brainiac> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904082539.htm From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 06:31:43 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 23:31:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <200709070446.l874kU34021902@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1189135514_28791@S4.cableone.net> <200709070446.l874kU34021902@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Indeed. Thought about you last few days. Figured your time should be up soon. So are you free and clear? If so, welcome back to the regular world. -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles On 9/6/07, spike wrote: > Wooohooo, Keith! Welcome back pal! We missed the hell outta you man. > > spike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson > > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:08 PM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: [ExI] reconnect > > > > Serious disk failure while in jail, trying to revive mail. > > > > Keith > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 06:47:24 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 23:47:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pensions In-Reply-To: <20070906071440.GZ4005@leitl.org> References: <200709060104.l8613UHS002638@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46DF87C3.4090200@posthuman.com> <20070906071440.GZ4005@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 9/6/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > What is interesting, that we know by name the criminals responsible, > yet they are never even identified as such, nevermind persecuted. Rule of law? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From nanogirl at halcyon.com Fri Sep 7 07:21:29 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:21:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect References: <200709070446.l874kU34021902@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <008501c7f120$48c9ca20$0200a8c0@Nano> Welcome home Keith, we all missed you. Hugs, G` Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com 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: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:08 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [ExI] reconnect > > Serious disk failure while in jail, trying to revive mail. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 08:31:11 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:01:11 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Tightest security in the history of APEC? ... Message-ID: <710b78fc0709070131v735cfa45k9c6d889d5184610f@mail.gmail.com> And yet, some Australian comedians managed to penetrate the security by posing as a Canadian motorcade: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070906/APEC_osama_070906/20070906?hub=CTVNewsAt11 "Sydney has apparently put in place the tightest security measures in history for the summit. But despite those measures, eyebrows were raised when 11 members of an Australian comedy show were arrested Thursday after duping APEC officials with a fake motorcade, carrying an actor dressed up as Osama bin Laden. The motorcade, bearing a Canadian flag, got within metres of Sydney's InterContinental Hotel where Bush was staying before it was stopped. At that point, it had already passed two security checkpoints when guards waved them on. The show, "The Chaser's War on Everything" is an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program. The public network released a statement shortly after the cast and crew members were arrested, saying it was never their attention to enter a restricted zone. " ... "One of the cast members told the media that Canada was chosen because they thought it was a country police wouldn't scrutinize too closely and could get away with having a small motorcade. " -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Sep 7 10:39:32 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 06:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <200709070446.l874kU33021902@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709070446.l874kU33021902@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <49585.72.236.103.72.1189161572.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > > > If we had no ants to clean up dead stuff, we would have a lot of rotting > dead stuff all over the place. Ants and bees are our friends. I don't know > what wasps are good for, if anything. > Wait, spike - here's a useful wasp: http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/sheets/tomhornworm.html I had several tomato hornworms in my garden this summer, and all were affected by these guys! :) I left them alone, I want the next generation of wasp to do well. Unfortunately, the hummingbird moth (whose caterpillar this is) is cool too, so I'm in a quandry. Regards, MB From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 11:29:17 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:29:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <49585.72.236.103.72.1189161572.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <200709070446.l874kU33021902@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <49585.72.236.103.72.1189161572.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <62c14240709070429x5dd4de1bi1954064b811d3d7b@mail.gmail.com> On 9/7/07, MB wrote: > Unfortunately, the hummingbird moth (whose caterpillar this is) is cool too, so I'm > in a quandry. This year seems to have produced more caterpillar "nests" than I ever remember. Since they seem to be constructed on the ends of tree branches and are whispy around a crudely spherical nest, I imagine they have contributed to a few ghost stories by the less-observant traveller being afraid of them on a moonlit night. This year though, it seems they number more than 5 times what I saw last year. Also, this seemed noteworthy: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/30/spider.web.ap/ From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Sep 7 11:54:04 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <62c14240709070429x5dd4de1bi1954064b811d3d7b@mail.gmail.com> References: <200709070446.l874kU33021902@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <49585.72.236.103.72.1189161572.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <62c14240709070429x5dd4de1bi1954064b811d3d7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49664.72.236.102.92.1189166044.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > This year seems to have produced more caterpillar "nests" than I ever > remember. Since they seem to be constructed on the ends of tree > branches and are whispy around a crudely spherical nest, I imagine > they have contributed to a few ghost stories by the less-observant > traveller being afraid of them on a moonlit night. This year though, > it seems they number more than 5 times what I saw last year. > Ha! That's what *I* thought too, but most everybody I've said anything to looks at me like I've been blind all my life. "These are "bag worms" and they're here every autumn." Well sure. But *I* have never seen so many. Apparently you and I are a minority. > Also, this seemed noteworthy: > http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/30/spider.web.ap/ Yes, that was cool, but it mostly blew away in the recent storms they had. My understanding is the spiders are busy building new webs. :) Even though all those legs make my skin crawl, spiders are cool. :) I try my best to rescue them from inside my house and carry them out to where they'll surely be more comfortable. Regards, MB From amara at amara.com Fri Sep 7 13:00:29 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:00:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Comedians changing the government (was: Tightest security in the history of APEC? ...) Message-ID: Emlyn: >Australian comedy show were arrested Thursday after duping APEC >officials with a fake motorcade, carrying an actor dressed up as Osama >bin Laden. I suggest to pay attention to the world news tomorrow (Saturday). A very popular Italian comedian named Beppe Grillo is trying to change Parliament laws with a grass-root effort. He wants people to sign a petition for three changes in the laws, to "Clean Up Parliament" 1) No Italian citizen can be a candidate for Parliament if convicted (there are presently a couple dozen Parliamentarians in that position) 2) The eligibility for election to Parliament must be limited to 2 terms of office. (Many in this position) 3) Direct preferences should be restored for the election of Parliamentarians (Berlusconi changed this, I think) He asked members of Parliament for their opinion, agreement or not, on these three points and some of their answers are telling. For example, on point 2), one answer he received is: "No [I don't agree]. There are many reasons: if I thought it was a bad thing to serve more than two terms of office I wouldn't have put myself forward to serve the third." hmmm. Tommorrow is called: Vaffanculo Day (or "V-day") http://www.beppegrillo.it/vaffanculoday/ Ciao, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From pjmanney at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 15:31:18 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:31:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Tightest security in the history of APEC? ... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0709070131v735cfa45k9c6d889d5184610f@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709070131v735cfa45k9c6d889d5184610f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30709070831x348c25ffr163a104da0efc771@mail.gmail.com> On 9/7/07, Emlyn wrote: > And yet, some Australian comedians managed to penetrate the security > by posing as a Canadian motorcade: >http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070906/APEC_osama_070906/20070906?hub=CTVNewsAt11 Bloody brilliant, mate! Thanks for the morning laugh! Enjoy these videos of the event with The Chaser: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JR7I_XIZuck&mode=related&search= (make sure you watch at least from 4:30 to end, where one of the cast pretends he's a policeman and rousts real Sidneysiders in the name of security. Priceless... although I love the zoo sequence at 3:30 -- silly, silly, silly) These are parts 1 & 2 of ABC news coverage of the arrest. I like how the anchors are trying to sound so serious, but the reporters can't help but sound like members of the comedy troupe: http://youtube.com/watch?v=i-DDWGKqGmI&mode=related&search= http://youtube.com/watch?v=eXYrIH-ZXhQ&mode=related&search= PJ From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 7 16:08:25 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 09:08:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200709071608.l87G8hiZ015304@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > Subject: Re: [ExI] reconnect > > Indeed. Thought about you last few days... ... The yellow ribbon committee is cheering wildly. {8-] >... Figured your time should be up soon. I always thought people only had to serve a third of their sentence, then they get paroled. I guess one must be an actual criminal for such a deal to apply. {8-[ If one is jailed on trumped up charges made by a criminal organization, then one must serve one's entire sentence. > If so, welcome back to the regular world. > > -- > Best, Jeff Davis... Keith I see your buddies the $cientologists are having a showdown with the Belgian government. Go Belgians! http://www.lermanet.com/LRonHubbard5.htm spike From bkdelong at pobox.com Fri Sep 7 20:03:09 2007 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:03:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] BrainStream: Subvocally-controlled, augmented-reality geospatial interactions Message-ID: I got hit with a BrainStream around lunch today this fine Fri afternoon. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com/192221.html Would love comments, thoughts, contributions, suggestions and any corrections. Often times my mind goes for a loop and gets lost in fantasy and impracticality. ------------------ I've been waiting to write about this all morning (via BoingBoing). It seems a bunch of intrepid researchers at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago have taken work done on subvocal recognition (SVR) and applied it in such a fashion that one can drive/control a wheelchair through "thinking" about where they want it to move. (NB: I've contributed heavily to the SVR wikipedia entry and liberally link to said service below. I acknowledge that most entries are not that of expert research so YMMV.) I first got excited about SVR after reading Cory Doctorow's "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" in which the protagonist makes phone calls and interacts with his PDA subvocally. That is to say, the device detects electric signals sent from his brain to his larynx which would normally be translated into speech in the vocal tract. NASA and DARPA both had done some work in the past few years through the subject wearing a collar which detects the signals. I think my endgame with SVR is really what Cory had in mind in "Down and Out" - be able to not only talk silently on the phone but to control a PDA, surf the web etc. The phone hardware or service would convert the signals to speech - think of it; ring-tones now and in the future voice profiles - make your voice sound like anyone in any language. Somehow I don't think the Intelligence Community would appreciate that. It makes it difficult to determine who is who on the phone and would kill Voice Stress Analysis. I'm guessing the FCC and/or the ITU would want to have some say in how that works. Other issues include protecting ones own voice profile and the damage this could do to voice-based biometrics. I wouldn't worry - voice recognition as it stands today is still complete rubbish (kestrell any thoughts on that from the accessibility side of things?). I still think the need to continually train any new piece of voice recognition software is a waste of time and they should all be required to adhere to a voice profile standard. Said standard would, in theory, allow you to train something once and export to an open format importing it into the same software (got to love the lack of portability of licenses!) or any other similar products. At a minimum, it should at least bring the user half-way to training the program to work well. The big risk again is someone stealing this profile to break voice-based biometrics. Surely that can be mitigated with some nifty encrypted token of some-sort with decent key recovery. There has been some interesting work done on voice translation technology for the soldiers in the streets of Iraq that would have commercial applications in the future. Think of babelfish meets voice recognition and be able to speak with anyone regardless of their native language. Can you say "Universal Translator" ? But back to the sci-fi. Combine subvocal recognition with augmented reality, GPS and gesture recognition (think Tom Cruise's manipulation of a multi-input virtual screen in "Minority Report") tied into a Net-connected PDA with a Head-Mounted Display (HMD). Hot damn. The SVR would allow you to interact with the PDA silently. The GPS combined with augmented reality as visualized through the PDA's HMD would allow the user to view the entire physical world as annotated by Semantic Web, metadata addicts similar to some of the art installations touched upon in William Gibson's "Spook Country" (current reading). The gesture recognition which would be determined through sensors on clothes as well as the HMD would allow one to interact with the augmented reality to manipulate the objects only existent in the geotagged cyberspace environment. Absolutely mind-blowing. Ye gods I love taking lunch to paddle down a brain-stream. -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org From sentience at pobox.com Fri Sep 7 20:20:01 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:20:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189135514_28791@S4.cableone.net> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com> <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> <40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us> <1189135514_28791@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <46E1B271.4060206@pobox.com> hkhenson wrote: > Serious disk failure while in jail, trying to revive mail. I'm very glad to hear you're still alive. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Fri Sep 7 14:57:34 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:57:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect Message-ID: <46E166DE.8020605@thomasoliver.net> Subject: [ExI] reconnect From: hkhenson Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:07:58 -0700 To: ExI chat list Serious disk failure while in jail, trying to revive mail. Keith Hey Keith, Good to see you back. Hope your health didn't suffer too much. It brightens my day to hear from you. Gently, Thomas From mmbutler at gmail.com Sat Sep 8 07:16:58 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 00:16:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] belgium doesn't like them either In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070904221508.024c0980@satx.rr.com> References: <200709050159.l851xv8U028495@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070904221508.024c0980@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709080016s3e58f8cl56c1841476f76d7a@mail.gmail.com> On 9/4/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:44 PM 9/4/2007 -0700, spike wrote: > >Perhaps Keith should have gone to Belgium instead of Canada: > > > >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295693,00.html > > "The church, founded in 1954, counts actors Tom Cruise and John > Travolta among its 10 million members." > > I wonder how many members they really have? 20 or 30 thousand worldwide? All the credible numbers are well below 100k active, down from perhaps twice that at peak. If you count as a member everyone who ever paid for a course, the number is a lot higher. If you count as a member anyone who ever, e.g., had dealings with Narconon or who knows something like the "Integrity Tone Scale", the number is probably significantly larger still. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From amara at amara.com Sat Sep 8 10:29:55 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 12:29:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Tightest security in the history of APEC? ... Message-ID: PJ >Bloody brilliant, mate! Thanks for the morning laugh! Enjoy these >videos of the event with The Chaser: >http://youtube.com/watch?v=JR7I_XIZuck&mode=related&search= >http://youtube.com/watch?v=i-DDWGKqGmI&mode=related&search= >http://youtube.com/watch?v=eXYrIH-ZXhQ&mode=related&search= Dear Emlyn and PJ, That is one of the best gags I've ever seen. They deserve a Nobel. :-) (Peace Prize, for showing how ridiculous is the security stuff) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From amara at amara.com Sat Sep 8 11:52:31 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:52:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] A loose collection of evolutionary psychology references Message-ID: In case it's useful to anyone here - I recently collected some references for beginning to learn about Evolutionary Psychology with links to some of Keith Henson's articles too: http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/my-1987-interview-with-vishy-anand/#comment-68867 ciao, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From amara at amara.com Sat Sep 8 13:57:42 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:57:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] What do you think about buying extraterrestrial property? ; -) Message-ID: A serious question (really) with very funny answers. Such a question _does_ show you the expansive thinking that our species is doing nowadays. "What do you think about buying extraterrestrial property?" http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/property-law/LAW_PRL/84078-5427158?browseIdx=19&sik=1189258878394&goback=%2Eabq_2_1189258878394_n_c_INT (However, I think one must be 'linked in' to read? .. not sure) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Sep 8 06:07:59 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:07:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <46E1B271.4060206@pobox.com> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com> <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> <40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us> <1189135514_28791@S4.cableone.net> <46E1B271.4060206@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> At 01:20 PM 9/7/2007, Eliezer wrote: >hkhenson wrote: > > Serious disk failure while in jail, trying to revive mail. > >I'm very glad to hear you're still alive. You may not be when you find out how much I have changed. The difference between the people on the inside of the cells and the guards is not worth talking about. There are damn few of them, though not zero, on either side who you would want to have lunch with, though in my opinion more of them are locked up than are guards. It was a humbling experience in another way. I was not the only political prisoner in that jail and not even the worst case of injustice. I figure the various levels of government in two states spent at least $70,000 to get me there and keep me locked up for the last four months. For they got a method to make plutonium 239 that I had kept silent about for ten years released. It should make a better grade (less Pu 240) than any a government made since the 1940s. And more fun yet, I am making public a method to reduce the cost and difficulty of using this stuff to the point a well funded street gang could make their own. It's simple, put a pit with a sphere of uniform explosive around it at once foci of an ellipsoidal reflector and a few pound of flash powder at the other. (String them on monofilament nylon to keep them in the right places.) Pop the flash and the light will detonate the entire surface all at once at the other foci. The makers avoid all the complicated electronics, krytrons, and hydrocode design problems. Figured this one out while locked in a shower by the guards for over an hour. Was working on a way (space elevators) to get the world out of bleak future mode, but probably will not go back to working on that. The other way to deal with the world's problems is gigadeath. Not going to oppose that, writing a novel instead where the president makes a decision so awful that he takes a drug to wipe out his last 12 hours of memory. Kind of ultimate denial. If someone wants to create an unfriendly AI, that's ok too. The vast majority of people are not worth saving. Keith Henson From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Sep 9 01:28:53 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:28:53 +1000 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com> <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> <40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us> <1189135514_28791@S4.cableone.net> <46E1B271.4060206@pobox.com> <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 08/09/07, hkhenson wrote: > Was working on a way (space elevators) to get the world out of bleak > future mode, but probably will not go back to working on that. The > other way to deal with the world's problems is gigadeath. Not going > to oppose that, writing a novel instead where the president makes a > decision so awful that he takes a drug to wipe out his last 12 hours > of memory. Kind of ultimate denial. > > If someone wants to create an unfriendly AI, that's ok too. The vast > majority of people are not worth saving. If this is what prison does to Keith, what must it do to criminals? -- Stathis Papaioannou From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Sep 9 05:09:21 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:09:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What do you think about buying extraterrestrial property? ; -) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E9498F4-E1FE-4776-A824-4E304189B375@mac.com> On Sep 8, 2007, at 6:57 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > A serious question (really) with very funny answers. > > Such a question _does_ show you the expansive thinking > that our species is doing nowadays. Homesteading would be fine. Your claim is valid as long as you make some improvement to the land within N years. :-) - samantha From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 9 04:23:05 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 00:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] reconnect Message-ID: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Keith, I would ask if you are doing well but that would be rather dubious of me. I have a friend that is in jail in Montreal that is facing extradition to California. I hear that there is no comparison between a Montreal jail and a California prison. Already I feel his pain as I wonder how the law seems unjust and cruel. Like many, he is no saint but the games played by the law are a lot more cynical than I once was led to believe. I fear if sent to California he will never be the same. I don't know if you are aware but when I heard your story about Scientology I went out of my way to research what I could find. It takes courage to stand up to a Goliath especially one as big as Scientology. I don't promote memes that make people pay to enhance there spirituality, there is a huge difference between an offering and a payment. I wonder why they don't describe it as a club rather than a religion as I have always believed that memes are to be used as a source of inspiration for the rational. I see nothing rational in making people pay to make feel that they are enlightened. hkhenson hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Sep 8 06:07:59 UTC 2007 wrote: >Was working on a way (space elevators) to get the >world out of bleak future mode, but probably will >not go back to working on that. The other way to >deal with the world's problems is gigadeath. Not >going to oppose that, writing a novel instead where >the president makes a decision so awful that he >takes a drug to wipe out his last 12 hours of >memory. Kind of ultimate denial. I'm sorry to hear that you won't be working on your ideas concerning space elevators. I always enjoyed listening to your thoughts as well as reading your science fiction. >If someone wants to create an unfriendly AI, that's >ok too. The vast majority of people are not worth >saving. I think that's a strong statement coming from someone that has just experienced what you have. I don't agree but then again I didn't spend the last four months in a prison cell. As I can only understand but a mere glimpse of what you have been through, I hope that in time, this will not be your final belief. I don't know if your aware but I think many thought of you, i'm happy to hear you are all right. Anna:) Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with what happens to him Aldous Huxley Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 9 05:37:47 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:37:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > hkhenson hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Sep 8 06:07:59 UTC > 2007 wrote: > > >Was working on a way (space elevators) to get the > >world out of bleak future mode, but probably will > >not go back to working on that. The other way to > >deal with the world's problems is gigadeath. Not > >going to oppose that, writing a novel instead ... Keith Hi Keith! That dark novel is an idea, but do consider writing a nonfiction book about your experience, from end to end. A bunch of people followed your case. I notice it made slashdot and some of the mainstream news media. I speculate that far more people want to know the details of that struggle than will read the sci-fi. Please consider this, and do refraining from posting your ideas regarding Pu239. I am already sleepless and worried and trying to think of any chemical principle I know of that would refute your previous comments on the subject, but have been unable to do so. Had you not posted that, I would be blissfully ignorant. I will buy your book on the struggle with Co$. We can have a name the book contest, something snappy like Keith's Kampf, or Bet You Never Knew Picketing Was Illegal. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 9 05:47:47 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:47:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] baldness correlates with... In-Reply-To: <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200709090611.l896BxHG003566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Today the Singularity Summit in San Francisco, as I sat in the back row, I noticed something striking. No, not that it looked like Second Life except with far fewer women. Well, that too, but I noticed that a high proportion of the men there were bald, higher than the general population once age is taken into account. Tomorrow, summiteers, please try to verify or refute. Taking age into account, one can estimate if a man is more bald than average for his age, or less. Apparently, baldness correlates positively with interest in the singularity. If I want to push the data a bit harder, I would claim that the singularity crowd is very brainy. Therefore today's observation would suggest that baldness correlates positively with brainy. What say ye? Has this been suggested before? spike From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Sep 9 06:37:24 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 07:37:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] baldness correlates with... In-Reply-To: <200709090611.l896BxHG003566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> <200709090611.l896BxHG003566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0709082337x2081e2f0w57ec9554f3b38933@mail.gmail.com> The version I've heard is that baldness correlates with testosterone, and testosterone correlates with willingness to spend a decade in a basement with one's face glued to a screen. Ergo, us former Singularitarians are virile! Well, I'm no counterexample anyway (what do you mean "at least to the baldness part"? :)) From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun Sep 9 07:17:04 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 00:17:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] baldness correlates with... In-Reply-To: <200709090611.l896BxHG003566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709090611.l896BxHG003566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2007, at 10:47 PM, spike wrote: > If I want to push the data a bit harder, I would claim that the > singularity > crowd is very brainy. Therefore today's observation would suggest > that > baldness correlates positively with brainy. This has not been studied in sufficient detail and rigor to assert a strong correlation, though correlations have supposedly been noted. However, it is a very common bit of folk lore. It is correlated with a significant *perception* of intelligence by other people, but that is a different measure. J. Andrew Rogers From moses2k at gmail.com Sat Sep 8 19:53:32 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 14:53:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com> <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> <40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us> <1189135514_28791@S4.cableone.net> <46E1B271.4060206@pobox.com> <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <3aff9e290709081253l16f921fel3a6d3e24f2f28f85@mail.gmail.com> On 9/8/07, hkhenson wrote: > If someone wants to create an unfriendly AI, that's ok too. The vast > majority of people are not worth saving. > > Keith Henson > Oh. That's a load off. It would have been an awful lot of work otherwise. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nymphomation at gmail.com Sun Sep 9 12:41:27 2007 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (Nymph0) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 13:41:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] baldness correlates with... In-Reply-To: <200709090611.l896BxHG003566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> <200709090611.l896BxHG003566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7e1e56ce0709090541q3eb3fd6cw1a78f3786dca4e73@mail.gmail.com> On 09/09/2007, spike wrote: > > Today the Singularity Summit in San Francisco, as I sat in the back row, I > noticed something striking. No, not that it looked like Second Life except > with far fewer women. Well, that too, but I noticed that a high proportion > of the men there were bald, higher than the general population once age is > taken into account. > > Tomorrow, summiteers, please try to verify or refute. Taking age into > account, one can estimate if a man is more bald than average for his age, or > less. Apparently, baldness correlates positively with interest in the > singularity. > > If I want to push the data a bit harder, I would claim that the singularity > crowd is very brainy. Therefore today's observation would suggest that > baldness correlates positively with brainy. > > What say ye? Has this been suggested before? Maybe they all look a lot younger than they really are, aside from the baldness part? That could be even more significant.. Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation [CEO Nano Rug Weave International] From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Sep 9 13:38:11 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:38:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com><0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us><40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us><1189135514_28791@S4.cableone.net> <46E1B271.4060206@pobox.com> <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <001601c7f2e6$b0552b40$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Hi Keith, I'm sure your whole experience was life wrenching and very traumatic. But please don't go supervillain on us and start releasing masterplans that will punish the innocent along with the guilty. Noone doubts your genius. And be careful also that some petty dictator doesn't decide that you would be an asset to him and advance his nuclear program by 20 years voluntary or otherwise. I'm sorry I know this sounds like the plot to the next Austin Powers movie but your karma seems to attracting this kind of bad mojo as of late. I know the first instinct after going though something like this is outrage and the desire for revenge on everyone and everything but there is a proverb that is found among several Asian cultures - Chinese, Japanese, Indian - to the effect that if you sit by the river long enough, you will see the bodies of your enemies as they drift past. I don't think you want your friends and family to join that stream with them. Healing takes time, give yourself that time and pick your battles wisely. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 2:08 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] reconnect At 01:20 PM 9/7/2007, Eliezer wrote: >hkhenson wrote: > > Serious disk failure while in jail, trying to revive mail. > >I'm very glad to hear you're still alive. You may not be when you find out how much I have changed. The difference between the people on the inside of the cells and the guards is not worth talking about. There are damn few of them, though not zero, on either side who you would want to have lunch with, though in my opinion more of them are locked up than are guards. It was a humbling experience in another way. I was not the only political prisoner in that jail and not even the worst case of injustice. I figure the various levels of government in two states spent at least $70,000 to get me there and keep me locked up for the last four months. For they got a method to make plutonium 239 that I had kept silent about for ten years released. It should make a better grade (less Pu 240) than any a government made since the 1940s. And more fun yet, I am making public a method to reduce the cost and difficulty of using this stuff to the point a well funded street gang could make their own. It's simple, put a pit with a sphere of uniform explosive around it at once foci of an ellipsoidal reflector and a few pound of flash powder at the other. (String them on monofilament nylon to keep them in the right places.) Pop the flash and the light will detonate the entire surface all at once at the other foci. The makers avoid all the complicated electronics, krytrons, and hydrocode design problems. Figured this one out while locked in a shower by the guards for over an hour. Was working on a way (space elevators) to get the world out of bleak future mode, but probably will not go back to working on that. The other way to deal with the world's problems is gigadeath. Not going to oppose that, writing a novel instead where the president makes a decision so awful that he takes a drug to wipe out his last 12 hours of memory. Kind of ultimate denial. If someone wants to create an unfriendly AI, that's ok too. The vast majority of people are not worth saving. Keith Henson _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.9/994 - Release Date: 9/7/2007 4:40 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 PM From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Sun Sep 9 13:55:56 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:55:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] reconnect Message-ID: <380-22007909135556751@M2W025.mail2web.com> From: Gary Miller "I'm sure your whole experience was life wrenching and very traumatic. But please don't go supervillain on us and start releasing masterplans that will punish the innocent along with the guilty. Noone doubts your genius. And be careful also that some petty dictator doesn't decide that you would be an asset to him and advance his nuclear program by 20 years voluntary or otherwise. I'm sorry I know this sounds like the plot to the next Austin Powers movie but your karma seems to attracting this kind of bad mojo as of late. I know the first instinct after going though something like this is outrage and the desire for revenge on everyone and everything but there is a proverb that is found among several Asian cultures - Chinese, Japanese, Indian - to the effect that if you sit by the river long enough, you will see the bodies of your enemies as they drift past. I don't think you want your friends and family to join that stream with them. Healing takes time, give yourself that time and pick your battles wisely." ____________________________ Insightful observations and excellent advice. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Sep 9 14:07:04 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 10:07:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] baldness correlates with... In-Reply-To: <200709090611.l896BxHG003566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1189231570_71116@S3.cableone.net> <200709090611.l896BxHG003566@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001701c7f2ea$b3973a10$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> I've not heard it suggested on the list before but... The believed cause of male balding is a hormone known as 5?-reductase, produced in the hair follicles, which changes the male sex hormone testosterone into dihydrotestosterone (or DHT). This hormone binds to receptors on the follicles, preventing them from ever leaving telogen (their normal dormant growth phase). Surprisingly, only the follicles on top of the head are affected; DHT causes some facial and body hair to grow. Thus we have the apparent "migration" of hair from the scalp to other places. Since male balding (androgenic alopecia) has been linked to heart disease. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/01.27/bald.html and so has high testosterone levels baldness should probably be considered a risk factor for heart disease. One interesting study back in May of this year suggests that the scalp can be tricked back into an embryonic state and regenerate new hair follicles. http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/05/16/new-finding-may-remedy-human-ba ldness/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.xinhuanet.com%2Fenglish%2F2007-05%2F17%2Fconte nt_6111519.htm&frame=true Another thought is as I sit here partially bald at my computer is that all that excess testosterone may explain a lot of the aggressiveness that rears its head on this chat list on an almost daily basis. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:48 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [ExI] baldness correlates with... Today the Singularity Summit in San Francisco, as I sat in the back row, I noticed something striking. No, not that it looked like Second Life except with far fewer women. Well, that too, but I noticed that a high proportion of the men there were bald, higher than the general population once age is taken into account. Tomorrow, summiteers, please try to verify or refute. Taking age into account, one can estimate if a man is more bald than average for his age, or less. Apparently, baldness correlates positively with interest in the singularity. If I want to push the data a bit harder, I would claim that the singularity crowd is very brainy. Therefore today's observation would suggest that baldness correlates positively with brainy. What say ye? Has this been suggested before? spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 PM From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 9 15:54:28 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 08:54:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] baldness correlates with... In-Reply-To: <001701c7f2ea$b3973a10$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <200709091554.l89FsK9n005550@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gary Miller > Subject: Re: [ExI] baldness correlates with... > > The believed cause of male balding is a hormone known as 5?-reductase, ... > that excess testosterone may explain a lot of the aggressiveness that > rears its head on this chat list on an almost daily basis... Gary OK this is cool. I propose and unscientific but possibly insightful survey. Men, compared with other guys your age, do you consider yourself more bald or less bald? I am a less, Max would be a More. (PI) {8^D spike From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Sep 9 16:02:00 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 12:02:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] baldness correlates with... In-Reply-To: <200709091554.l89FsK9n005550@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <001701c7f2ea$b3973a10$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <200709091554.l89FsK9n005550@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <002801c7f2fa$c1a5c1c0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Since you inherit baldness from your mother's father. If you're young but your mother's father was bald you should probably include that too. Because you still have the same testosterone profile even though it might not have started killing off your follicles yet. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 11:54 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] baldness correlates with... > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gary Miller > Subject: Re: [ExI] baldness correlates with... > > The believed cause of male balding is a hormone known as 5?-reductase, ... > that excess testosterone may explain a lot of the aggressiveness that > rears its head on this chat list on an almost daily basis... Gary OK this is cool. I propose and unscientific but possibly insightful survey. Men, compared with other guys your age, do you consider yourself more bald or less bald? I am a less, Max would be a More. (PI) {8^D spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 PM From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Sep 9 18:19:38 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:19:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> At 10:37 PM 9/8/2007, spike wrote: > > > > hkhenson hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Sep 8 06:07:59 UTC > > 2007 wrote: > > > > >Was working on a way (space elevators) to get the > > >world out of bleak future mode, but probably will > > >not go back to working on that. The other way to > > >deal with the world's problems is gigadeath. Not > > >going to oppose that, writing a novel instead ... Keith > > >Hi Keith! That dark novel is an idea, but do consider writing a nonfiction >book about your experience, from end to end. My lawyers tell me I can't write or post about a cult I can no longer even name. Considering the amount of trouble I got in thinking that free speech was a real right, you should not expect me to write about it. >A bunch of people followed >your case. I notice it made slashdot and some of the mainstream news media. >I speculate that far more people want to know the details of that struggle >than will read the sci-fi. If you or anyone else thinks there should be a book about it I can't do anything about it. >Please consider this, and do refraining from posting your ideas regarding >Pu239. It's out, been out for months and can be found with Google. So is the follow on of a way to use it that could be done by a reasonably competent street gang. > I am already sleepless and worried and trying to think of any >chemical principle I know of that would refute your previous comments on the >subject, but have been unable to do so. Had you not posted that, I would be >blissfully ignorant. Professionals in the business have not found a hole in the idea either, or if they have they have not told me about it. They are mostly surprised it was not used decades ago. I think I know why, hot uranyl nitrate solution is very corrosive but it was used in homogenous reactors. I was a good guy and kept those thoughts to myself for at least a decade. You can thank law enforcement in two states for motivating me to share it. It just chemistry and physics, no matter how dire the potential results. You can't get in trouble for that like you can for trying to draw attention to two cases of "depraved indifference murder." >I will buy your book on the struggle with XXX. We can have a name the book >contest, something snappy like Keith's Kampf, or Bet You Never Knew >Picketing Was Illegal. Nothing I write has enough commercial value to pay minimum wage. I have that from multiple editors. Keith From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Sep 9 19:55:29 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:55:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Comedians changing the government (was: Tightest security in the history of APEC? ...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <580930c20709091255v35ede449r6dc1045f909905e9@mail.gmail.com> Let me add that Mr. Grillo's initiative has been a grand success. But, no, the ability of the voting body to indicate personal, along with party, preference, was abolished three years through a referendum before Mr. Berlusconi decided to enter the political arena On 9/7/07, Amara Graps wrote: > Emlyn: > >Australian comedy show were arrested Thursday after duping APEC > >officials with a fake motorcade, carrying an actor dressed up as Osama > >bin Laden. > > I suggest to pay attention to the world news tomorrow (Saturday). A > very popular Italian comedian named Beppe Grillo is trying to change > Parliament laws with a grass-root effort. He wants people to sign a > petition for three changes in the laws, to "Clean Up Parliament" > > 1) No Italian citizen can be a candidate for Parliament if convicted > (there are presently a couple dozen Parliamentarians in that position) > > 2) The eligibility for election to Parliament must be limited to 2 terms > of office. (Many in this position) > > 3) Direct preferences should be restored for the election of > Parliamentarians (Berlusconi changed this, I think) > > He asked members of Parliament for their opinion, agreement or not, on > these three points and some of their answers are telling. For example, > on point 2), one answer he received is: > > "No [I don't agree]. There are many reasons: if I thought it was a bad > thing to serve more than two terms of office I wouldn't have put myself > forward to serve the third." > > hmmm. > > Tommorrow is called: Vaffanculo Day (or "V-day") > http://www.beppegrillo.it/vaffanculoday/ > > > Ciao, > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From dharris234 at mindspring.com Sun Sep 9 18:56:10 2007 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:56:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] baldness correlates with... In-Reply-To: <002801c7f2fa$c1a5c1c0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <001701c7f2ea$b3973a10$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <200709091554.l89FsK9n005550@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <002801c7f2fa$c1a5c1c0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <46E441CA.3080607@mindspring.com> My maternal grandfather had a head like a billiard ball. I have distinctly longer 4th (ring) fingers compared to the 2nd (pointing) fingers (a sign of testosterone). And I have classical male pattern baldness at age 63. That's somewhat more bald than the average 63, I think. And I'm interested in the details of that Chinese rejuvenation study. - David Harris, Palo Alto, CA Gary Miller wrote: > Since you inherit baldness from your mother's father. > > If you're young but your mother's father was bald you should probably > include that too. > > Because you still have the same testosterone profile even though it might > not have started killing off your follicles yet. > > ... > > OK this is cool. I propose and unscientific but possibly insightful survey. > Men, compared with other guys your age, do you consider yourself more bald > or less bald? I am a less, Max would be a More. (PI) {8^D > > spike > > From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 02:59:49 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:59:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] AP on epidemic of brain damaged soldiers Message-ID: <29666bf30709091959tc63bdf7m7e8f5f58fdeee63e@mail.gmail.com> There's a new epidemic in the US. It's brain damaged soldiers sent back from Iraq, victims of bomb blasts and mortar rounds: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_on_he_me/coming_home_wounded_brain_injuries They currently number in the thousands and those are only the ones the US government knows about. There are multiple layers to the problem: many are not even diagnosed, but still suffer and their commanders are reluctant to release any serviceman or woman who appears fit for battle, even if they are mentally compromised. Others are misdiagnosed with personality disorders. And even those diagnosed correctly often don't have a good prognosis, since their doctors don't understand the neurological problems adequately or have many options for them. Tragic... PJ From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 10 10:11:52 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:11:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <46E51868.2020700@mac.com> hkhenson wrote: > > I was a good guy and kept those thoughts to myself for at least a > decade. You can thank law enforcement in two states for motivating > me to share it. It just chemistry and physics, no matter how dire > the potential results. You can't get in trouble for that like you > can for trying to draw attention to two cases of "depraved > indifference murder." > > I am very sorry for how badly you were treated. Having once upon a time spent some time in jail (thankfully very short) I have some small understanding of how bad it can be. That said, you choose your actions as much now as you ever did. So why these particular choices? Surely it is no great surprise to you of all people that humanity includes some seriously nasty and animalistic (or worse) individuals. So how can having to deal with that too upfront and personal so affect what you choose to do with your abilities? >> I will buy your book on the struggle with XXX. We can have a name the book >> contest, something snappy like Keith's Kampf, or Bet You Never Knew >> Picketing Was Illegal. >> > > Nothing I write has enough commercial value to pay minimum wage. I > have that from multiple editors. > Yeah, well, multiple editors have been wrong quite often in the history of successful books. If you have something in you that is book length you want to say and saying it is as important as anything else you may currently care to do, then by all means do so. Editors be damned. - s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 10 04:03:09 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:03:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com><200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> From: "hkhenson" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] reconnect > My lawyers tell me I can't write or post about a cult I can no longer > even name. Considering the amount of trouble I got in thinking that > free speech was a real right, you should not expect me to write about it. etcetera ... etcetera ... Keith, I have read through some of the responses to you (the one from Natasha was very good), and several times I started to write my own perceptions on your disturbing diatribe, but have stopped myself each time. What keeps churning in my mind are the many people - famous and not - about whom I've read, who've been killed or have suffered unspeakable injustices due to ... the times they lived in ... the color of their skin ... being the wrong age, the wrong sex, in the wrong place ... being caught in the crosshairs of war ... While I'm sorry for your experiences, I cannot understand why you would spew such hate, vituperation ... and arrogance. And all I have to say is, Keith, you're no Nelson Mandela. Olga From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Sep 10 05:25:15 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:25:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> At 09:03 PM 9/9/2007, Olga wrote: snip >While I'm sorry for your experiences, I cannot understand why you would spew >such hate, vituperation ... and arrogance. You misread my intent. I was a loyal citizen, indoctrinated into it from childhood, believed in the virtue of the US government in all it's levels. I have for more than a decade tried to draw attention to a group that is in reality organized crime, a group that has seriously corrupted local, state and federal government. For my effort I was locked up in the most drastic punishment the state has available short of death (solitary confinement). Eventually I was put in with a guy who was even more of a boy scout than I am who had been shafted by some of the same people. This guy has a head full of high security information. Setting up the conditions to make *him* disloyal is even more obviously stupid than pissing me off. If the state and the people who create the state have to deal with the consequences of being stupid and irresponsible, that just what reasonable people would expect. As to arrogance, most of the people on this list have the right to be arrogant. It's tempered in my case by the fact that I know lots of people who are both smarter than I am and more dangerous, in some cases a lot more dangerous. How many domestic CIA assassins have you known? I've known two, JL and MT. >And all I have to say is, Keith, you're no Nelson Mandela. Never claimed to be. Keith From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Sep 10 13:04:26 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:04:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <46E540DA.2060509@mac.com> hkhenson wrote: > > If the state and the people who create the state have to deal with > the consequences of being stupid and irresponsible, that just what > reasonable people would expect. > The trouble is that you didn't limit it to the guilty parties but wished ill on humanity at large. That's a problem. Are you sure you want to go there? - samantha From fauxever at sprynet.com Mon Sep 10 06:21:19 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:21:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com><200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com><1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net><003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac><1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <46E540DA.2060509@mac.com> Message-ID: <000601c7f372$cd788f00$6401a8c0@brainiac> From: "Samantha Atkins" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:04 AM > The trouble is that you didn't limit it to the guilty parties but wished > ill on humanity at large. That's a problem. Are you sure you want to > go there? That's the problem, exactly (... the big elephant in the room - how can anyone miss it? unless they're trying not to pay attention to it ...). Olga From fm1 at amug.org Mon Sep 10 07:14:59 2007 From: fm1 at amug.org (Frederick Mann) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:14:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Keith, Consider the possibility that the s...s, bad as they might be, are angels compared to the g...s, that the s...s have caused the deaths of maybe a few dozen, while the g...s have caused the deaths of hundreds of millions. ("g...s" = governmentologists -- members of possibly the deadliest and most destructive cult of all!) See: #TL15A: The Good and the Bad http://buildfreedom.com/tl/tl15a.html #TL07B: The Nature of Government http://buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07b.shtml Frederick Mann --On Sunday, September 09, 2007 10:25:15 PM -0700 hkhenson wrote: > At 09:03 PM 9/9/2007, Olga wrote: > > snip > >> While I'm sorry for your experiences, I cannot understand why you would spew >> such hate, vituperation ... and arrogance. > > You misread my intent. I was a loyal citizen, indoctrinated into it > from childhood, believed in the virtue of the US government in all > it's levels. I have for more than a decade tried to draw attention > to a group that is in reality organized crime, a group that has > seriously corrupted local, state and federal government. > > For my effort I was locked up in the most drastic punishment the > state has available short of death (solitary > confinement). Eventually I was put in with a guy who was even more > of a boy scout than I am who had been shafted by some of the same > people. This guy has a head full of high security > information. Setting up the conditions to make *him* disloyal is > even more obviously stupid than pissing me off. > > If the state and the people who create the state have to deal with > the consequences of being stupid and irresponsible, that just what > reasonable people would expect. > > As to arrogance, most of the people on this list have the right to be > arrogant. It's tempered in my case by the fact that I know lots of > people who are both smarter than I am and more dangerous, in some > cases a lot more dangerous. How many domestic CIA assassins have you > known? I've known two, JL and MT. > >> And all I have to say is, Keith, you're no Nelson Mandela. > > Never claimed to be. > > Keith From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 07:52:57 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:52:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Message-ID: On 9/10/07, Frederick Mann wrote: > Consider the possibility that the s...s, bad as > they might be, are angels compared to the g...s, > that the s...s have caused the deaths of maybe > a few dozen, while the g...s have caused the > deaths of hundreds of millions. ("g...s" = > governmentologists -- members of possibly the > deadliest and most destructive cult of all!) > I thought g....s was a reference to the god squads. Religions have killed millions throughout history, or have been used as the excuse for killing millions. Government deaths are just human selfishness writ large. 'If there is more of us than them, then we can take their stuff'. Just human nature. BillK From amara at amara.com Mon Sep 10 11:00:23 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:00:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] reconnect Message-ID: Samantha: >Editors be damned. I agree! I would buy the book, Keith, and I would encourage my friends to buy it, as well. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From dagonweb at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 14:13:03 2007 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:13:03 +0200 Subject: [ExI] pensions In-Reply-To: References: <200709060104.l8613UHS002638@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46DF87C3.4090200@posthuman.com> <20070906071440.GZ4005@leitl.org> Message-ID: It may be me, but I have a hard time visualizing how all this will work for me, somewhere in the 2030s, when the world has almost certainly experienced some of the most fundamental paradigm shifts in history. I mean, there will have to be some effects of nanotechnology, advanced prototyping, fabbers, robotics and rejuvenation by then. And then some. Even a modest effect of demographics (workforce, people living "a few" decades longer) will throw the pension logic in most countries in complete disarray. I know it's sisyphean to try and impress that idea onto *politicians*, who thing in terms of months or at best a year or two. I worry about longterm survival. From there on I'll see if there's anything left to live off meaningfully. I can only hope something like abundance comes along and gives me a tai massage along the way. I do not have the luxury of being abundantly able to anticipate on any such developments, because of restrictive personal circumstances, but anyone has any thoughts on how to make it beyond the likely social ordeals to come in the 20s? My first bet is focusing on being a creative mind, and having a few months of food & water and a chainsaw hidden away (my guess it may become revolutionary, with legions of moaning zombies roaming the streets) but what else? Duct tape? From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Sep 10 14:52:47 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:52:47 +0000 Subject: [ExI] FW: [agi] Burning Saltwater - This Could Change Everything and a possible Cancer Cure to Boot Message-ID: <091020071452.10168.46E55A3F000B806F000027B82200761438979A09070E@comcast.net> The popular press in Pennsylvania is just now catching wind of this. It appeared in the Pittsburgh paper this morning and said they were doing demos at Penn State. Unfortunately none of these articles are publishing the amount of energy required to produce the reaction efficiency. It looks like the frequency generator will have to be more tightly coupled with the water chamber to attain maximum efficiency. And even then the trillion dollar question is will the energy input be significantly less than that required by normal electrolysis http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-53/1189374047157160.xml&storylist=penn http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm http://www.scienceinreview.com/2007/salt-water-as-fuel-a-closer-reality.html http://www.glumbert.com/media/saltwater (video) http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Sep 10 16:02:20 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:02:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] FW: [agi] Burning Saltwater - This Could Change Everything and a possible Cancer Cure to Boot In-Reply-To: <091020071452.10168.46E55A3F000B806F000027B82200761438979A09070E@comcast.net> References: <091020071452.10168.46E55A3F000B806F000027B82200761438979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20070910160220.GJ4005@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 02:52:47PM +0000, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: > > Unfortunately none of these articles are publishing the amount of > energy required to produce the reaction efficiency. How is this different from an inferior version of a plasma torch? > It looks like the frequency generator will have to be more tightly > coupled with the water chamber to attain maximum efficiency. What's wrong with a simple electric arc? > And even then the trillion dollar question is will the energy input > be significantly less than that required by normal electrolysis I don't understand that question. Are you expecting more energy than you input? From fm1 at amug.org Mon Sep 10 17:55:07 2007 From: fm1 at amug.org (Frederick Mann) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:55:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Message-ID: <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> --On Monday, September 10, 2007 08:52:57 AM +0100 BillK wrote: > On 9/10/07, Frederick Mann wrote: >> Consider the possibility that the s...s, bad as >> they might be, are angels compared to the g...s, >> that the s...s have caused the deaths of maybe >> a few dozen, while the g...s have caused the >> deaths of hundreds of millions. ("g...s" = >> governmentologists -- members of possibly the >> deadliest and most destructive cult of all!) >> > > I thought g....s was a reference to the god squads. Religions have > killed millions throughout history, or have been used as the excuse > for killing millions. > > Government deaths are just human selfishness writ large. 'If there is > more of us than them, then we can take their stuff'. Just human > nature. > > BillK If you do some research, you may find that during the past 100 years, governmentologists have caused many more deaths than godologists. I suspect that governmentologists have outscored godologists by a factor of more than 10 to 1. R.J. Rummel (frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize) coined the term "democide" for death by government: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ His number for democide victims during the 20th century is 262,000,000. However, he doesn't seem to include people killed by governmentologists during wars. If you add the latter, the total probably comes to about 300,000,000: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM (Of course, some governmentologists are also godologists.) Given that the s...s have caused the deaths of maybe a few dozen, compared to about 300,000,000 by governmentologists, exposing the evils of which cult is most pressing? See also: #TL15A: The Good and the Bad http://buildfreedom.com/tl/tl15a.html #TL07B: The Nature of Government http://buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07b.shtml Frederick Mann From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Sep 10 17:59:11 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:59:11 +0000 Subject: [ExI] FW: [agi] Burning Saltwater - This Could Change Everything and a possible Cancer Cure to Boot Message-ID: <091020071759.14970.46E585EF0000C8BF00003A7A2207020853979A09070E@comcast.net> I am not a chemist or physicist so I am definately at a disadvantage in this conversation but lets say that the amount of energy created by burning the hydrogen in the water is X. The amount of energy required to break the bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen in the water using electrolysis is greater than X or Y so Y > X so there is a net energy loss, but Since breaking the bonds and releasing hydrogen is not equal to X then why can't there be another variable Z that represents the amount of energy that it takes to sonicly seperate the hydrogen in salt water where Z < X and there is energy gain. The law of conservation of energy may not being violated since the amount of energy created by burning hydrogen X, does not not have to be less than the energy required to break it's bonds to oxygen. If the salt is in fact the magical ingredient and what they are seeing is a new chemical phenomena, perhaps the salt acts as a catalyst why then is it impossible for X to < Z. Aren't catalysts used commonly in chemistry to increases the rate of a chemical reaction by reducing the activation energy, but which is left unchanged by the reaction. They state in one of the articles that very little of the salt is lost. Isn't it possible that sonic exposure could combine with the salt to create an unknown catalytic reation? Catalyst Definition: A subtance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction by reducing the activation energy, but which is left unchanged by the reaction. Examples: A piece of platinum foil is a catalyst for the combustion of methane in air. -------------- Original message -------------- From: Eugen Leitl > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 02:52:47PM +0000, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: > > > > Unfortunately none of these articles are publishing the amount of > > energy required to produce the reaction efficiency. > > How is this different from an inferior version of a plasma torch? > > > It looks like the frequency generator will have to be more tightly > > coupled with the water chamber to attain maximum efficiency. > > What's wrong with a simple electric arc? > > > And even then the trillion dollar question is will the energy input > > be significantly less than that required by normal electrolysis > > I don't understand that question. Are you expecting more energy than > you input? > _______________________________________________ > 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 desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 17:48:45 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <46E540DA.2060509@mac.com> Message-ID: <770490.57281.qm@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Keith, I just want to say how sorry I am for all you have been through and I hope you can rebuild your life and somehow find a certain level of contentment & happiness, despite everything. I realize it is MUCH easier said than done. I have been through my own personal hell since coming to Arizona and I feel for you. > > Serious disk failure while in jail, trying to revive mail. > >I'm very glad to hear you're still alive. your reply: >You may not be when you find out how much I have changed. I hope you can take all your anger and somehow use it constructively. I sometimes wish life for men like you could be more like this old TV series with Jack Scalia: http://www.tv.com/show/2020/summary.html Best wishes and hang in there, John Grigg --------------------------------- Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 18:50:44 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:50:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Message-ID: On 9/10/07, Frederick Mann wrote: > If you do some research, you may find that > during the past 100 years, governmentologists > have caused many more deaths than godologists. > I suspect that governmentologists have outscored > godologists by a factor of more than 10 to 1. > > R.J. Rummel (frequently nominated for the Nobel > Peace Prize) coined the term "democide" for > death by government: > http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ > > His number for democide victims during the 20th > century is 262,000,000. However, he doesn't seem > to include people killed by governmentologists > during wars. If you add the latter, the total > probably comes to about 300,000,000: > > http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM > > (Of course, some governmentologists are also > godologists.) > > Given that the s...s have caused the deaths > of maybe a few dozen, compared to about > 300,000,000 by governmentologists, exposing > the evils of which cult is most pressing? > I'm not sure what you are claiming here. I can see that if everyone lived as a primitive self-sufficient farmer family, occasionally trading with the family two miles down the road, then large scale wars and genocides would not happen. But obviously we would lose all the benefits of civilization, and people will never choose to live like this. And they would be helpless against an invading army. This is not what Rummel is claiming either. He seems to be all in favour of government. But it has to be what he calls democratic government. He has his critics, of course. Michael Mann (no relation, I presume) has pointed out that most of the 20thC genocides were produced by massively popular governments where the people were filled with nationalistic fervour. Genocide is defined as the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. It is very likely that religious motivations will be called in to justify the slaughter. But I think you probably need to get Keith Henson to comment on the ep causes of wars and genocides. And governments aren't the cause. They may be necessary, but are not sufficient on their own. BillK From nymphomation at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 18:55:46 2007 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (Nymph0) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:55:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Message-ID: <7e1e56ce0709101155i58729660hed071043485452f0@mail.gmail.com> On 10/09/2007, Frederick Mann wrote: > --On Monday, September 10, 2007 08:52:57 AM +0100 BillK wrote: > > > On 9/10/07, Frederick Mann wrote: > >> Consider the possibility that the s...s, bad as > >> they might be, are angels compared to the g...s, > >> that the s...s have caused the deaths of maybe > >> a few dozen, while the g...s have caused the > >> deaths of hundreds of millions. ("g...s" = > >> governmentologists -- members of possibly the > >> deadliest and most destructive cult of all!) > >> > > > > I thought g....s was a reference to the god squads. Religions have > > killed millions throughout history, or have been used as the excuse > > for killing millions. > > > > Government deaths are just human selfishness writ large. 'If there is > > more of us than them, then we can take their stuff'. Just human > > nature. > > > > BillK > > If you do some research, you may find that > during the past 100 years, governmentologists > have caused many more deaths than godologists. > I suspect that governmentologists have outscored > godologists by a factor of more than 10 to 1. While this may be true in absolute numbers, one has to remember that in the last 100 years there has been both many more people around *to* kill and many new mechanised ways of killing them very quickly. If the Spanish inquisition had access to automatic firearms, zyklon b, mustard gas and Mark-77 napalm substitute who knows what the body count would be! =:o/ Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation 'the patient was, in ambulance speak, purple plus' http://www.neenaw.co.uk From fm1 at amug.org Mon Sep 10 20:34:01 2007 From: fm1 at amug.org (Frederick Mann) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:34:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Message-ID: <76CB2392EE0A592087627645@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> --On Monday, September 10, 2007 07:50:44 PM +0100 BillK wrote: > > I'm not sure what you are claiming here. > Members of the scientology cult believe that scientology is necessary and they would be lost without it. Members of the godology cult believe that god exists (or is necessary) and they would be lost without it. Members of the governmentology cult believe that government exists (or is necessary) and they would be lost without it. Members of he scientology cult have caused the deaths of maybe a few dozen. Members of the godology cult have caused the deaths of I don't know how many, say 30,000,000. Members of the governmentology cult have caused the deaths of maybe 300,000,000. I'm claiming degrees of evil with scientology being the least and governmentology the worst. I suggest that belief in government is about 10 times as evil and destructive as belief in god. See: #TL07B: The Nature of Government http://buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07b.shtml BTW, Max T. O'Connor (aka Max More) wrote DEEP ANARCHY -- AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF "THE STATE http://buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07d.shtml (To be fair to him, I understand that he no longer believes what he wrote in the above article.) Frederick Mann From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Sep 10 20:40:30 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:40:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Message-ID: <1189456726_18065@S1.cableone.net> At 11:50 AM 9/10/2007, billk wrote: snip >Genocide is defined as the deliberate and systematic destruction of an >ethnic, religious or national group. It is very likely that religious >motivations will be called in to justify the slaughter. > >But I think you probably need to get Keith Henson to comment on the ep >causes of wars and genocides. The model is here: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 In short the model proposes evolved psychological mechanisms that turn up the gain on the circulation of xenophobic memes when a population group foresees a bleak future. The xenophobic memes (very often of the religious meme class) serve to synch a group's warriors for an attack on neighbors. The model makes a number of predictions about where wars are likely to happen and what side will start them. It accounts for situations from the dying out of the IRA to the intractable problems in the middle east. >And governments aren't the cause. They >may be necessary, but are not sufficient on their own. True. Chimpanzees carry out genocides against neighboring bands waging something akin to wars and do it without what we would recognize as a government. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Sep 10 20:48:24 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:48:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <46E51868.2020700@mac.com> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <46E51868.2020700@mac.com> Message-ID: <1189457198_18216@S1.cableone.net> At 03:11 AM 9/10/2007, Samantha wrote: snip >Yeah, well, multiple editors have been wrong quite often in the >history of successful books. If you have something in you that is >book length you want to say and saying it is as important as >anything else you may currently care to do, then by all means do >so. Editors be damned. It's a moot point. My lawyers tell me I should not write on the topic spike wants to read. Keith From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Sep 10 21:17:46 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:17:46 +0000 Subject: [ExI] FW: [agi] Burning Saltwater - This Could Change Everything and a possible Cancer Cure to Boot Message-ID: <091020072117.14584.46E5B47A000B41F3000038F82200750330979A09070E@comcast.net> I found the following article at http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2424.msg47374;topicseen This catalyst found by researchers at Purdue Univesity was able to seperate hydrogen and oxygen by adding water to an aluminum gallium catalyst. Unfortunately the catalyst is only partially preserved and the alumina must be reprocessed periodically. But the expensive Gallium potion of the catalyst is preserved. Does anyone here have access to their paper on this discovery that was presented at the September 7th Nanotechnolgy International Conference in Santa Clara California? Thanks, Gary Re: John Kanzius: saltwater can burn! ? Reply #52 on: August 28, 2007, 11:34:01 PM ? Here's an article on some researchers at Purdue using aluminum (plus gallium) as a catalyst to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water. It might be that the RF (& its harmonic) for aluminum is more efficient than platinum. See below. (for further info see http://nick2.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/saltwater-into-fire/) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1887852/posts Hydrogen-generating Technology Closer Than Ever http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070827174310.htm ^ | 8/27/07 Posted on 08/28/2007 11:50:05 AM PDT by BlueSky194 Researchers at Purdue University have further developed a technology that could represent a pollution-free energy source for a range of potential applications, from golf carts to submarines and cars to emergency portable generators. Purdue researchers demonstrate their method for producing hydrogen by adding water to an alloy of aluminum and gallium. The hydrogen could then be used to run an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell. The reaction was discovered by Jerry Woodall, center, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering. Charles Allen, holding test tube, and Jeffrey Ziebarth, both doctoral students in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, are working with Woodall to perfect the process. The technology produces hydrogen by adding water to an alloy of aluminum and gallium. When water is added to the alloy, the aluminum splits water by attracting oxygen, liberating hydrogen in the process. The Purdue researchers are developing a method to create particles of the alloy that could be placed in a tank to react with water and produce hydrogen on demand. The gallium is a critical component because it hinders the formation of an aluminum oxide skin normally created on aluminum's surface after bonding with oxygen, a process called oxidation. This skin usually acts as a barrier and prevents oxygen from reacting with aluminum. Reducing the skin's protective properties allows the reaction to continue until all of the aluminum is used to generate hydrogen, said Jerry Woodall, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue who invented the process. Since the technology was first announced in May, researchers have developed an improved form of the alloy that contains a higher concentration of aluminum. Recent findings are detailed in the first research paper about the work, which will be presented on Sept. 7 during the 2nd Energy Nanotechnology International Conference in Santa Clara, Calif. The paper was written by Woodall, Charles Allen and Jeffrey Ziebarth, both doctoral students in Purdue's School of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Because the technology could be used to generate hydrogen on demand, the method makes it unnecessary to store or transport hydrogen - two major obstacles in creating a hydrogen economy, Woodall said. The gallium component is inert, which means it can be recovered and reused. "This is especially important because of the currently much higher cost of gallium compared with aluminum," Woodall said. "Because gallium can be recovered, this makes the process economically viable and more attractive for large-scale use. Also, since the gallium can be of low purity, the cost of impure gallium is ultimately expected to be many times lower than the high-purity gallium used in the electronics industry." As the alloy reacts with water, the aluminum turns into aluminum oxide, also called alumina, which can be recycled back into aluminum. The recycled aluminum would be less expensive than mining the metal, making the technology more competitive with other forms of energy production, Woodall said. In recent research, the engineers rapidly cooled the molten alloy to make particles that were 28 percent aluminum by weight and 72 percent gallium by weight. The result was a "metastable solid alloy" that also readily reacted with water to form hydrogen, alumina and heat, Woodall said. Following up on that work, the researchers discovered that slowly cooling the molten alloy produced particles that contain 80 percent aluminum and 20 percent gallium. "Particles made with this 80-20 alloy have good stability in dry air and react rapidly with water to form hydrogen," Woodall said. "This alloy is under intense investigation, and, in our opinion, it can be developed into a commercially viable material for splitting water." The technology has numerous potential applications. Because the method makes it possible to use hydrogen instead of gasoline to run internal combustion engines, it could be used for cars and trucks. Combusting hydrogen in an engine or using hydrogen to drive a fuel cell produces only water as waste. "It's a simple matter to convert ordinary internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen. All you have to do is replace the gasoline fuel injector with a hydrogen injector," Woodall said. The U.S. Department of Energy has set a goal of developing alternative fuels that possess a "hydrogen mass density" of 6 percent by the year 2010 and 9 percent by 2015. The percent mass density of hydrogen is the mass of hydrogen contained in the fuel divided by the total mass of the fuel multiplied by 100. Assuming 50 percent of the water produced as waste is recovered and cycled back into the reaction, the new 80-20 alloy has a hydrogen mass density greater than 6 percent, which meets the DOE's 2010 goal. Aluminum is refined from the raw mineral bauxite, which also contains gallium. Producing aluminum from bauxite results in waste gallium. "This technology is feasible for commercial use," Woodall said. "The waste alumina can be recycled back into aluminum, and low-cost gallium is available as a waste product from companies that produce aluminum from the raw mineral bauxite. Enough aluminum exists in the United States to produce 100 trillion kilowatt hours of energy. That's enough energy to meet all the U.S. electric needs for 35 years. If impure gallium can be made for less than $10 a pound and used in an onboard system, there are enough known gallium reserves to run 1 billion cars." The researchers note in the paper that for the technology to be used to operate cars and trucks, a large-scale recycling program would be required to turn the alumina back into aluminum and to recover the gallium. "In the meantime, there are other promising potential markets, including lawn mowers and personal motor vehicles such as golf carts and wheelchairs," Woodall said. "The golf cart of the future, three or four years from now, will have an aluminum-gallium alloy. You will add water to generate hydrogen either for an internal combustion engine or to operate a fuel cell that recharges a battery. The battery will then power an electric motor to drive the golf cart." Another application that is rapidly being developed is for emergency portable generators that will use hydrogen to run a small internal combustion engine. The generators are likely to be on the market within a year, Woodall said. The technology also could make it possible to introduce a non-polluting way to idle diesel trucks. Truck drivers idle their engines to keep power flowing to appliances and the heating and air conditioning systems while they are making deliveries or parked, but such idling causes air pollution, which has prompted several states to restrict the practice. The new hydrogen technology could solve the truck-idling dilemma. "What we are proposing is that the truck would run on either hydrogen or diesel fuel," Woodall said. "While you are on the road you are using the diesel, but while the truck is idling, it's running on hydrogen." The new hydrogen technology also would be well-suited for submarines because it does not emit toxic fumes and could be used in confined spaces without harming crew members, Woodall said. "You could replace nuclear submarines with this technology," he said. Other types of boats, including pleasure craft, also could be equipped with such a technology. "One reason maritime applications are especially appealing is that you don't have to haul water," Woodall said. The Purdue researchers had thought that making the process competitive with conventional energy sources would require that the alumina be recycled back into aluminum using a dedicated infrastructure, such as a nuclear power plant or wind generators. However, the researchers now know that recycling the alumina would cost far less than they originally estimated, using standard processing already available. "Since standard industrial technology could be used to recycle our nearly pure alumina back to aluminum at 20 cents per pound, this technology would be competitive with gasoline," Woodall said. "Using aluminum, it would cost $70 at wholesale prices to take a 350-mile trip with a mid-size car equipped with a standard internal combustion engine. That compares with $66 for gasoline at $3.30 per gallon. If we used a 50 percent efficient fuel cell, taking the same trip using aluminum would cost $28." The Purdue Research Foundation holds title to the primary patent, which has been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and is pending. An Indiana startup company, AlGalCo LLC., has received a license for the exclusive right to commercialize the process. In 1967, while working as a researcher at IBM, Woodall discovered that liquid alloys of aluminum and gallium spontaneously produce hydrogen if mixed with water. The research, which focused on developing new semiconductors for computers and electronics, led to advances in optical-fiber communications and light-emitting diodes, making them practical for everything from DVD players to television remote controls and new types of lighting displays. That work also led to development of advanced transistors for cell phones and components in solar cells powering space modules like those used on the Mars rover, earning Woodall the 2001 National Medal of Technology from President George W. Bush. Also while at IBM, Woodall and research engineer Jerome Cuomo were issued a U.S. patent in 1982 for a "solid state, renewable energy supply." The patent described their discovery that when aluminum is dissolved in liquid gallium just above room temperature, the liquid alloy readily reacts with water to form hydrogen, alumina and heat. Future research will include work to further perfect the solid alloy and develop systems for the controlled delivery of hydrogen. The 2nd Energy Nanotechnology International Conference is sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and ASME Nanotechnology Institute. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Sep 10 21:35:29 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:35:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science Message-ID: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> Does anyone have thoughts about anti-aging belonging to literature rather than science? And if so,please explain your thoughts and references. best, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 23:26:20 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:26:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science In-Reply-To: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> References: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200709101826.20692.kanzure@gmail.com> Natasha, Anti-aging has always seemed to be a task of engineering to me, rather than one of literary commentary. Is there evidence to the contrary? And can a topic Belong? (That brings up another thread of discussion.) - Bryan From aiguy at comcast.net Tue Sep 11 00:02:05 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:02:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science In-Reply-To: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> References: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <004c01c7f406$fda50520$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Natasha, I believe it belongs in both literature and science. Literature lets us explore the ethical, moral and practical implications of anti-aging long before science will be able to achieve it. That is the nature of science fiction. It allows us to imagine and prepare for the future. It entices us and encourages us to work towards that future and make science fiction science fact. I am convinced that aging is a matter of information loss due to inadequate replication and error correction at the body's cellular level. Eventually we should be able to recapture the correct information by stimulating the growth of fresh cells through stimulating regeneration of cells from stem cells once we understand the chemical activation codes used in the maturation process. We are also now learning how to regress cells back to the stem cell state so that they can be rebooted so to speak and allow the same or an alternate cell types program to be reinitialized in them. I have no doubt this will happen. I work towards the singularity that we might see it in our lifetimes. Gary -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 5:35 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science Does anyone have thoughts about anti-aging belonging to literature rather than science? And if so,please explain your thoughts and references. best, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.12/997 - Release Date: 9/9/2007 10:17 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.12/997 - Release Date: 9/9/2007 10:17 AM From sentience at pobox.com Tue Sep 11 00:20:44 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:20:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science In-Reply-To: <200709101826.20692.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> <200709101826.20692.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <46E5DF5C.7080804@pobox.com> http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/science-as-lite.html -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 00:52:35 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:52:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189456726_18065@S1.cableone.net> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <1189456726_18065@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <62c14240709101752v7ad2d3b9u2cca140fc73fe57c@mail.gmail.com> On 9/10/07, hkhenson wrote: > > In short the model proposes evolved psychological mechanisms that > turn up the gain on the circulation of xenophobic memes when a > population group foresees a bleak future. The xenophobic memes (very > often of the religious meme class) serve to synch a group's warriors > for an attack on neighbors. The model makes a number of predictions > about where wars are likely to happen and what side will start > them. It accounts for situations from the dying out of the IRA to > the intractable problems in the middle east. > where does the Singularity fall in the EP ratings for xenophobic memes? Are the singularitarians a type of intellectual warrior preparing for an exponentially fast approaching Great Unknown which lesser mortals are unable to see? Keith, I didn't comment earlier on your proclaimation to reverse your karma: Perhaps when you feel you have done an equal measure to oppose your humanitarian ideals of youth, you can go in another direction and simply plot a course to suit yourself. That may not sound very extropian, I know. I think I am suggesting something more Objectivist. Rather than working for or against the system, leave it to its own crapulence and work for yourself. I'm not saying you'll launch your own space elevator, but it'd be really sweet if you did. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Sep 10 23:00:08 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:00:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science Message-ID: <380-2200791102308914@M2W027.mail2web.com> From: Jef Allbright >>Does anyone have thoughts about anti-aging belonging to literature rather >>than science? And if so,please explain your thoughts and references. >In the interest of productive responses and discussion, what do you >mean by "belonging to"? "Anti-aging" properly "belongs to" many >categories. Good question. I think "belongs to" is meant as an historical reference. In other words, which domain generated the notion of anti-aging. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft? Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Sep 11 00:20:46 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:20:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science Message-ID: <380-22007921102046602@M2W011.mail2web.com> From: Bryan Bishop >Anti-aging has always seemed to be a task of engineering to me, rather >than one of literary commentary. Is there evidence to the contrary? I suppose that literature did cover anti-aging in folklore and mythic tales long before it became a science or engineering project. But cancer has a history too and perhaps anti-aging "belongs" or cancer since cancer cells produce the telomerase enzyme which lengthens telomeres. >And can a topic Belong? (That brings up another thread of discussion.) Yes, probably. But I'm not someone who thinks that topics are descriptively belonging to any one domain. I think historically a domain can give birth or rise to a topic but a topic, once set free, is shared and becomes trans/multi-disciplinary. FYI: this question was brought up in some research I was doing and a response I received is that anti-aging belongs to literature not science. I am not sure this is correct thinking and am both confused and, frankly, annoyed by this statement and am not sure if I will challenge it. Maybe it is a "right" thought/statement. I don't know -- but I do know that this list has some of the smartest minds to toss it around with. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 01:30:09 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:30:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science In-Reply-To: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> References: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709101830i5e30cb4bjb00aa434a154c489@mail.gmail.com> On 9/10/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Does anyone have thoughts about anti-aging belonging to literature rather > than science? And if so,please explain your thoughts and references. I don't believe the concept of anti-aging can 'belong to' a single discipline any more than geometry can belong to math. The ideas contained within the anti-aging label are going to thrive on work done in other fields as much as it will stimulate seemingly unrelated research. To illustrate this I need only look as far as the sponsored links that appear as google ads around my gmail: everything from "umbilical cord banking" to "diabetes literature" to cosmetic applications. Segregating ideas into simple disciplines will disrupt the cross-pollination of research that often yields progress. The general public may not be able to follow the science of anti-aging research, but the appearance of anti-aging memes in literature helps prepare the zeitgeist for the eventual success of science. That may be an equally important effort for the writers as for the scientists? From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 01:32:21 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:32:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science In-Reply-To: <380-22007921102046602@M2W011.mail2web.com> References: <380-22007921102046602@M2W011.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0709101832p5f253966mc42d8d48f672ca22@mail.gmail.com> I don't think an idea can "belong", but if the question is one of first discovery... the earliest reference I know of off the top of my head is in the story of Gilgamesh (which is one of the earliest stories of any kind that's been preserved to this day). However, I'm pretty sure it predates writing by a long way. I wouldn't be surprised if it predates Homo sapiens; IIRC, there's evidence the Neanderthals buried their dead with some form of ceremony, which suggests they were able to hold some form of religious belief, and it wouldn't surprise me if that included belief in immortal gods, an afterlife or somesuch. So the answer is that the idea was discovered by neither literature nor science, but predates both. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 01:34:56 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:04:56 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Energy from salt water Message-ID: <710b78fc0709101834y3b14a017xab438dd5ab023310@mail.gmail.com> Warning: probably bogus. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm "For obvious reasons, scientists long have thought that salt water couldn't be burned. So when an Erie man announced he'd ignited salt water with the radio-frequency generator he'd invented, some thought it a was a hoax. John Kanzius, a Washington County native, tried to desalinate seawater with a generator he developed to treat cancer, and it caused a flash in the test tube. Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies." ... "Dr. Roy said the salt water isn't burning per se, despite appearances. The radio frequency actually weakens bonds holding together the constituents of salt water -- sodium chloride, hydrogen and oxygen -- and releases the hydrogen, which, once ignited, burns continuously when exposed to the RF energy field. Mr. Kanzius said an independent source measured the flame's temperature, which exceeds 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting an enormous energy output." -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Sep 11 01:34:15 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:34:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <46E5DF5C.7080804@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> This will set the record to date for the most mainstream media coverage of stuff that we have been discussing for years: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296324,00.html Congrats Eliezer. From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 01:46:48 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:46:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science In-Reply-To: <46E5DF5C.7080804@pobox.com> References: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> <200709101826.20692.kanzure@gmail.com> <46E5DF5C.7080804@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200709102046.48146.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 10 September 2007 19:20, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/science-as-lite.html That's interesting. I think this brings up the question of how many are interested in anti-aging versus how many are actually doing productive research and have been setting up labs in basements (or the equivalent) and reading the literature to get a feel for what they can do to help. From my end of the perspective, it looks like more are interested in using it as an attire, but maybe that's just because the most of the people had their bursts of productivity earlier than I arrived on the scene. - Bryan From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Sep 10 22:46:23 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:46:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science In-Reply-To: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> References: <380-22007911021352934@M2W029.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 9/10/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Does anyone have thoughts about anti-aging belonging to literature rather > than science? And if so,please explain your thoughts and references. Natasha - In the interest of productive responses and discussion, what do you mean by "belonging to"? "Anti-aging" properly "belongs to" many categories. - Jef From max at maxmore.com Mon Sep 10 21:09:48 2007 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:09:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Deep Anarchy [was: Re: reconnect] In-Reply-To: <76CB2392EE0A592087627645@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <76CB2392EE0A592087627645@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> Message-ID: <200709102109.l8AL9631018778@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> I haven't looked at that piece (written 17 years ago), but I can't immediately think of anything basic that I'd repudiate now. I no longer feel comfortable accepting the term "libertarian" but that doesn't mean I believe in a "state". Cheers, Max At 03:34 PM 9/10/2007, you wrote: >BTW, Max T. O'Connor (aka Max More) wrote >DEEP ANARCHY -- AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF "THE STATE >http://buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07d.shtml > >(To be fair to him, I understand that he >no longer believes what he wrote in the >above article.) > >Frederick Mann >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 11 06:56:26 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:56:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] FW: [agi] Burning Saltwater - This Could Change Everything and a possible Cancer Cure to Boot In-Reply-To: <091020072117.14584.46E5B47A000B41F3000038F82200750330979A09070E@comcast.net> References: <091020072117.14584.46E5B47A000B41F3000038F82200750330979A09070E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20070911065626.GM4005@leitl.org> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 09:17:46PM +0000, aiguy at comcast.net wrote: > > I found the following article at > [1]http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2424.msg47374;topicseen Please refrain from posting material from kook sites in future. Consider this an official warning. > This catalyst found by researchers at Purdue Univesity was able to > seperate hydrogen and oxygen by adding water to an aluminum gallium > catalyst. Sigh. It's not a catalyst. Aluminum is highly reactive, but passivated by Al2O3, which sticks to the metal. Simply amalgamating the metal (or add gallium) doesn't make the oxide stick, and it will start reacting with water. Sodium hydroxide is doing something similiar; dissolving the oxyde layer. http://www.google.com/search?q=aluminum+water+reaction > Unfortunately the catalyst is only partially preserved and the alumina It's not a catalyst. > must be reprocessed periodically. It's a stupid idea. > But the expensive Gallium potion of the catalyst is preserved. Do you realize how expensive gallium is? > Does anyone here have access to their paper on this discovery that was > presented at the September 7th Nanotechnolgy International Conference > in Santa Clara California? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 11 07:17:49 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:17:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Energy from salt water In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0709101834y3b14a017xab438dd5ab023310@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709101834y3b14a017xab438dd5ab023310@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070911071749.GO4005@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:04:56AM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a > candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies." How complicated. I don't even need water to have a ball of free burning plasma, in my kitchen microwave. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 13:31:15 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:31:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Energy from salt water In-Reply-To: <20070911071749.GO4005@leitl.org> References: <710b78fc0709101834y3b14a017xab438dd5ab023310@mail.gmail.com> <20070911071749.GO4005@leitl.org> Message-ID: <62c14240709110631g5723e602maaa6979113474586@mail.gmail.com> On 9/11/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > How complicated. I don't even need water to have a ball of free > burning plasma, in my kitchen microwave. are you microwaving grapes again? From brent.allsop at comcast.net Tue Sep 11 14:53:44 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:53:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> Yes, Eliezer, congratulations. This is indeed exciting to see this kind of coverage. As a lessor issue, it is still of my opinion that you are making a big mistake with what I believe to be mistaken and irrational fear mongering about "unfriendly AI" that is hurting the Transhumanist, and the strong AI movement. Especially in popular media like this. And apparently, I'm not alone in my POV. So far, 100% of the people that have weighed in on this issue here at the Canonizer: http://karolisr.canonizer.com/topic.asp?topic_num=16 also believe such fear mongering is not good, though for different reasons. We discussed this earlier on this list. I seem to remember there were several other points of view expressed than currently exists in the Canonizer, but I can't remember what they were, or the reasons for such beliefs? Wouldn't et be great if we could get a comprehensive and concise survey of just what everyone believes on this issue and why? Eliezer, I don't think I have ever seen a concise statement of why you have such fears and make such a big deal about them. Could I be correct in arguing that you fear mongers are in the minority, even amongst transhumanists, and others that believe there will soon be very smart AI? It would sure be nice to know, quantitatively, just how much of a minority this was so we could also point out things like this to Fox News when they start going on about things like a "nerdocalypse"? Brent Allsop spike wrote: > This will set the record to date for the most mainstream media coverage of > stuff that we have been discussing for years: > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296324,00.html > > Congrats Eliezer. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From jonkc at att.net Tue Sep 11 15:25:18 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:25:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A disruptive technology References: <091020072117.14584.46E5B47A000B41F3000038F82200750330979A09070E@comcast.net> <20070911065626.GM4005@leitl.org> Message-ID: <00dd01c7f488$0762e600$2d094e0c@MyComputer> >From the New York Times September 11, 2007 Reshaping the Architecture of Memory By John Markoff SAN JOSE, Calif. - The ability to cram more data into less space on a memory chip or a hard drive has been the crucial force propelling consumer electronics companies to make ever smaller devices. It shrank the mainframe computer to fit on the desktop, shrank it again to fit on our laps and again to fit into our shirt pockets. Now, if an idea that Stuart S. P. Parkin is kicking around in an TBM lab here is on the money, electronic devices could hold 10 to 100 times the data in the same amount of space. That means the iPOD that today can hold up to 200 hours of video could store every single TV program broadcast during a week on 120 channels. The tech world, obsessed with data density, is taking notice because Mr. Parkin has done it before. An I.B.M. research fellow largely unknown outside a small fraternity of physicists, Mr. Parkin puttered for two years in a lab in the early 1990s, trying to find a way to commercialize an odd magnetic effect of quantum mechanics he had observed at supercold temperatures. With the help of a research assistant, he was able to alter the magnetic state of tiny areas of a magnetic data storage disc, making it possible to store and retrieve information in a smaller amount of space. The huge increases in digital storage made possible by giant magnetoresistance, or GMR, made consumer audio and video iPods, as well as Google-style data centers, a reality. Mr. Parkin thinks he is poised to bring about another breakthrough that could increase the amount of data stored on a chip or a hard drive by a factor of a hundred. If he proves successful in his quest, he will create a "universal" computer memory, one that can potentially replace dynamic random access memory, or DRAM, and flash memory chips, and even make a "disk drive on a chip" possible. It could begin to replace flash memory in three to five years, scientists say. Not only would it allow every consumer to carry data equivalent to a college library on small portable devices, but a tenfold or hundredfold increase in memory would be disruptive enough to existing storage technologies that it would undoubtedly unleash the creativity of engineers who would develop totally new entertainment, communication and information products. Currently the flash storage chip business is exploding. Used as storage in digital cameras, cellphones and PCs, the commercially available flash drives with multiple memory chips store up to 64 gigabytes of data. Capacity is expected to reach about 50 gigabytes on a single chip in the next half-decade. However, flash memory has an Achilles' heel. Although it can read data quickly, it is very slow at storing it. That has led the industry on a frantic hunt for alternative storage technologies that might unseat flash. Mr. Parkin's new approach, referred to as "racetrack memory," could outpace both solid-state flash memory chips as well as computer hard disks, making it a technology that could transform not only the storage business but the entire computing industry. "Finally, after all these years, we're reaching fundamental physics limits," he said. "Racetrack says we're going to break those scaling rules by going into the third dimension." His idea is to stand billions of ultrafine wire loops around the edge of a silicon chip - hence the name racetrack - and use electric current to slide infinitesimally small magnets up and down along each of the wires to be read and written as digital ones and zeros. His research group is able to slide the tiny magnets along notched nanowires at speeds greater than 100 meters a second. Since the tiny magnetic domains have to travel only submolecular distances, it is possible to read and write magnetic regions with different polarization as quickly as a single nanosecond, or one billionth of a second - far faster than existing storage technologies. If the racetrack idea can be made commercial, he will have done what has so far proved impossible - to take microelectronics completely into the third dimension and thus explode the two-dimensional limits of Moore's Law, the 1965 observation by Gordon E. Moore, a co-founder of INTEL , that decrees that the number of transistors on a silicon chip doubles roughly every 18 months. Just as with Mr. Parkin's earlier work in GMR, there is no shortage of skeptics at this point. Giant storage companies like Seagate Technology are starting to turn toward flash to create a generation of hybrid storage systems that combine silicon and rotating disk technologies for speed and capacity. But Seagate is still looking in the two-dimensional realm for future advances. "There are a lot of neat technologies, but you have to be able to make them cost-effectively," said Bill Watkins, Seagate's chief executive. So far, the racetrack idea is far from the Best Buy shelves and it is very much still in Mr. Parkin's laboratory here. His track record, however, suggests that the storage industry might do well to take notice of the implications of his novel nanowire-based storage system in the not too distant future. "Stuart marches to a little bit of a different drummer, but that's what it takes to have enough courage to go off the beaten path," said James S. Harris, an electrical engineering professor at Stanford University and co-director of the I.B.M.-Stanford Spintronic Science and Applications Center. A visit to Mr. Parkin's crowded office reveals him to be a 51-year-old British-American scientist for whom the term hyperactive is a modest understatement at best. During interviews he is constantly in motion. When he speaks publicly at scientific gatherings, his longtime technology assistant, Kevin Roche, is careful to see that Mr. Parkin empties the change from his pockets, lest he distract his audience with the constant jingling of coins and keys. Today, a number of industry analysts think there are important parallels between Mr. Parkin's earlier GMR research and his new search for racetrack materials. "We're on the verge of exciting new memory architectures, and his is one of the leading candidates," said Richard Doherty, director of the Envisioneering Group, a computing and consumer electronics consulting firm based in Seaford, N.Y. Mr. Parkin said he had recently shifted his focus and now thought that his racetracks might be competitive with other storage technologies even if they were laid horizontally on a silicon chip. I.B.M. executives are cautious about the timing of the commercial introduction of the technology. But ultimately, the technology may have even more dramatic implications than just smaller music players or wristwatch TVs, said Mark Dean, vice president for systems at I.B.M. Research. "Something along these lines will be very disruptive," he said. "It will not only change the way we look at storage, but it could change the way we look at processing information. We're moving into a world that is more data-centric than computing-centric." This is just a hint, but it suggests that I.B.M. may think that racetrack memory could blur the line between storage and computing, providing a key to a new way to search for data, as well as store and retrieve data. And if it is, Mr. Parkin's experimental physics lab will have transformed the computing world yet again. From mmbutler at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 15:54:41 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:54:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709110854t575ce005t716554759e42cd38@mail.gmail.com> On 9/11/07, Brent Allsop wrote: > you are making a big > mistake with what I believe to be mistaken and irrational fear mongering > about "unfriendly AI" that is hurting the Transhumanist, and the strong > AI movement. Especially in popular media like this. And apparently, > I'm not alone in my POV. So far, 100% of the people that have weighed > in on this issue here at the Canonizer: > > http://karolisr.canonizer.com/topic.asp?topic_num=16 I apologize for the tone, but this needs to be said more than you need it sugar coated: Self-selecting sample. Doesn't prove anything, any more than many Wikipedia entries. Also, honest inquiry is not and should not be driven by consensus, even were there one, because criticism is the only known remedy for error. That people focus on the negative is at least as old as the Faustus story and Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_. Until this moment, I haven't looked at the Canonizer because I'd told myself that it's never going to amount to much -- people like to argue using the old methods far too much to ever adopt anything like what you seem to be proposing. Analogies: How many people adopted Doug Engelbart's NLS? How many people actually appreciate true bidirectional linking in hypertext? So I figure(d) your Canonizer was another voice crying in the wilderness. This view that I have held might be unfair, but there you have it; and it's self selecting the other way, or I'd have posted there, in a way that drops your 100% figure. But if you'd like, I'll take up the hobby of _evangelizing_ entries in favor of the possibility of Evil AI. How will such an effort contribute to your desired aims? :) It just might change your 100% statistic even more than one post from me would. So what does that statistic really indicate? I guess it's time I took a look at this Canonizer thing. It might get to be as big as Wikipedia! Cordially, M -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From mmbutler at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 16:24:36 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:24:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890709110854t575ce005t716554759e42cd38@mail.gmail.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <7d79ed890709110854t575ce005t716554759e42cd38@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709110924vd247045wa62195c46eb63999@mail.gmail.com> Yep. I've looked at the Canonizer, and it's 'way too hard to use. How many contributors do you actually have? -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From amara at amara.com Tue Sep 11 22:56:45 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:56:45 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Dawn Launch: Dawn has returned to the Pad Message-ID: Next and last try. Dawn returning to the launch pad pics: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173 For some science on the two asteroids: Ceres and Vesta: http://www.scientificblogging.com/amaragraps/dawns_early_light_ceres_and_vesta Onward to Launch! A more optimistic vision for this day, I think. ================================================================== NEWS RELEASE: 2007-099 September 11, 2007 Dawn One Step Away From Asteroid Belt Trip The Dawn spacecraft completed the 25-kilometer (15-mile) journey from Astrotech Space Operations in Titusville, Fla., to Pad-17B of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station at 5:10 a.m. EDT today. The launch period for Dawn, NASA's eight-year, more than 5-billion-kilometer (3.2-billion-mile) odyssey into the heart of the asteroid belt, opens Sept. 26. "From here, the only way to go is up," said Dawn project manager Keyur Patel of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "We are looking forward to putting some space between Dawn and Mother Earth and making some space history." Dawn's goal is to characterize the conditions and processes of the solar system's earliest epoch 4.5 billion years ago by investigating in detail the massive asteroid Vesta and the dwarf planet Ceres. They reside between Mars and Jupiter in the asteroid belt. Scientists theorize these were budding planets never given the opportunity to grow. However, Ceres and Vesta each followed a very different evolutionary path during the solar system's first few million years. By investigating two diverse asteroids during the spacecraft's eight-year flight, the Dawn mission aims to unlock some of the mysteries of planetary formation. Dawn will be the first spacecraft to orbit an object in the asteroid belt and the first to orbit two bodies after leaving Earth. Recent images taken by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope raise further intriguing questions about the evolution of these asteroids. Now that the Dawn payload is atop the Delta II 7925-H, a heavier-lift model of the standard Delta II that uses larger solid rocket boosters, a final major test will be conducted. This integrated test of the Delta II and Dawn working together will simulate all events as they will occur on launch day, but without propellants aboard the vehicle. The Sept. 26 launch window is 4:25 to 4:54 a.m. PDT (7:25 to 7:54 a.m. EDT). Should the launch be postponed 24 hours for any reason, the launch window will extend from 4:20 to 4:49 a.m. PDT (7:20 to 7:49 a.m. EDT). For a 48-hour postponement, the launch window will be from 4:14 to 4:43 a.m. PDT (7:14 to 7:43 a.m EDT). Dawn's launch period closes Oct. 15. The Dawn mission to Vesta and Ceres is managed by JPL for the NASA Science Mission Directorate in Washington. The University of California Los Angeles is responsible for overall Dawn mission science. Other scientific partners include Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico; German Aerospace Center, Berlin; Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Katlenburg, Germany; and Italian National Institute of Astrophysics, Palermo. Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles, Va., designed and built the Dawn spacecraft. The NASA Launch Services Program at Kennedy Space Center and the United Launch Alliance are responsible for the launch of the Delta II. Additional information about Dawn is online at: http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From rpicone at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 03:26:58 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:26:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189457198_18216@S1.cableone.net> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <46E51868.2020700@mac.com> <1189457198_18216@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 9/10/07, hkhenson wrote: > At 03:11 AM 9/10/2007, Samantha wrote: > > snip > > >Yeah, well, multiple editors have been wrong quite often in the > >history of successful books. If you have something in you that is > >book length you want to say and saying it is as important as > >anything else you may currently care to do, then by all means do > >so. Editors be damned. > > It's a moot point. My lawyers tell me I should not write on the > topic spike wants to read. > > Keith Any chance they'd be okay with you dealing with a "biographer"?... There definitely is a market for the book, even if you can't be directly responsible for it. From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Sep 12 05:05:50 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:05:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200709120506.l8C55xxH012348@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I venture to guess that more people learned of the singularity yesterday from FoxNews than the total number of people who had heard of it before yesterday. Ja? spike From eugen at leitl.org Wed Sep 12 07:24:36 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:24:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <200709120506.l8C55xxH012348@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200709120506.l8C55xxH012348@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070912072436.GB4005@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:05:50PM -0700, spike wrote: > I venture to guess that more people learned of the singularity yesterday > from FoxNews than the total number of people who had heard of it before > yesterday. Ja? Given the average profile of a Faux News viewer, I don't know whether that's a boon or a bane. Apropos Faux: I can no longer even listen to the official local radio, without noticing how ridiculously biased they are. (The private sector is even worse: they only do insipid entertainment). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amara at amara.com Wed Sep 12 07:33:01 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:33:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Comedians changing the government (was: Tightest security in the history of APEC? ...) Message-ID: Stefano >Let me add that Mr. Grillo's initiative has been a grand success. 300,000 signatures is remarkable. After 4 years and 8 months here (Italy), I've seen in detail what this young person describes: http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2007/09/piazza_maggiore_bologna_8_sept.html#comment-13138 I _would like_ to be optimistic that 300,000 signatures signals a new beginning for this country. Instead, I'll just say: "let's see". Amara P.S. Many here already know, but for those who don't: I'll be moving Stateside for a little while: to work at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, starting in later November. It was a very long chain of reasoning driven by my bank account, my science, some serendipitious events with friends and colleagues, seeing a good environment to recover and my past good experience living in Boulder. To be sure, Europe will be pulling me back the instant I step off of the plane. -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From rpicone at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 07:50:49 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:50:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <20070912072436.GB4005@leitl.org> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200709120506.l8C55xxH012348@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070912072436.GB4005@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 9/12/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:05:50PM -0700, spike wrote: > > > I venture to guess that more people learned of the singularity yesterday > > from FoxNews than the total number of people who had heard of it before > > yesterday. Ja? > > Given the average profile of a Faux News viewer, I don't know whether > that's a boon or a bane. > It was an AP story, Fox News is just one of the networks that covered it, from a quick google, the story was also picked up by: Yahoo News, MSN/MSNBC/CNBC, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, Forbes, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle. The Sun Herald, The Miami Herald, The Inquirer, etc. etc. etc. From pharos at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 11:54:32 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? Message-ID: An AI professor in the UK has made a presentation that sounded unusual to me. He sees narrow AI proliferating wildly, until we are surrounded by thousands of invisible helpers, all doing their own tiny process. Quote - He believes that we are now seeing the emergence of Assistive Intelligence which can be characterized as a different kind of AI. 'These results can be seen everywhere,' he says. 'Rather than being conscious brains in a box, as Hollywood would have it, they are in fact small pieces of adaptive and flexible software that help drive our cars, diagnose disease and provide opponents in computer games.' And he sees this as a trend that will continue. 'There will be micro-intelligences all around us ? systems that are very good and adaptive at particular tasks, and we will be immersed in environments stuffed full of helpful devices.' --------------- This is a form of human augmentation that I haven't heard before. More like augmenting the environment around humans, so that the matter around us is gradually becoming intelligent. Quite a thought. Hmmmmm. BillK From rpwl at lightlink.com Wed Sep 12 14:10:32 2007 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:10:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E7F358.80404@lightlink.com> BillK wrote: > > > An AI professor in the UK has made a presentation that sounded unusual > to me. He sees narrow AI proliferating wildly, until we are > surrounded by thousands of invisible helpers, all doing their own tiny > process. > > Quote - > He believes that we are now seeing the emergence of Assistive > Intelligence which can be characterized as a different kind of AI. > 'These results can be seen everywhere,' he says. 'Rather than being > conscious brains in a box, as Hollywood would have it, they are in > fact small pieces of adaptive and flexible software that help drive > our cars, diagnose disease and provide opponents in computer games.' > > And he sees this as a trend that will continue. 'There will be > micro-intelligences all around us ? systems that are very good and > adaptive at particular tasks, and we will be immersed in environments > stuffed full of helpful devices.' > --------------- > > This is a form of human augmentation that I haven't heard before. > More like augmenting the environment around humans, so that the matter > around us is gradually becoming intelligent. Quite a thought. > Hmmmmm. There is nothing different in this: it is the same old Narrow AI message: let's *brand* it with the word "intelligence" even if we cannot really build an intelligence yet. If you take some human knowledge, freeze it into a machine, what you've got is ..... a piece of technology. For example, a governor (you know those things that were on old steam engines, with four metal balls attached to a shaft, flying outward to regulate the speed of the shaft?) is a human idea about controlling spin that has been frozen into a piece of hardware: a person could make the balls move out and in to dampen the spin of the shaft, but the mechanism is designed to do that control task automatically. So it is with all the Narrow AI mechanisms: they lack the fundamental feature of true intelligence (the ability to build representations of any aspect of the world, sight unseen, then use those representations in the pursuit of sophisticated, adaptable goals), so instead they just freeze a piece of knowledge that has been acquired by a real intelligence, together with perhaps a smattering of adaptibility (so they can refine the human-built frozen knowledge just a little). This announcement from Nigel Shadbolt is just more puffery from the Narrow AI crowd, pretending that *lots* of Narrow AI will somehow be the same as real AI (artificial general intelligence, AGI). Problem is, you can go around freezing bits of human intelligence until the cows come home, but why would a million pieces of frozen intelligence be the same as an adaptable, general intelligence that creates its own knowledge? Not gonna happen, sorry. They were saying the same thing back in the Knowledge Based Systems period of AI, and FWIW Shadbolt came to prominence in that era. Richard Loosemore. From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Sep 12 15:54:14 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:54:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070912105252.021f4650@satx.rr.com> At 12:54 PM 9/12/2007 +0100, BillK wrote: >And he sees this as a trend that will continue. 'There will be >micro-intelligences all around us ? systems that are very good and >adaptive at particular tasks, and we will be immersed in environments >stuffed full of helpful devices.' >--------------- > >This is a form of human augmentation that I haven't heard before. >More like augmenting the environment around humans, so that the matter >around us is gradually becoming intelligent. Quite a thought. This is pretty much Rudy Rucker's current view, although he pushes it further into emergent panpsychism. Damien Broderick From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 16:24:54 2007 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:24:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] CRN conference liveblogging Message-ID: <51ce64f10709120924o416cb5e6v7e6f41f56d92a1cb@mail.gmail.com> Check out my liveblogging coverage of the Center for Responsible Nanotech conference in Tucson: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=550 Also, I have some notes from the Singularity Summit: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=549 -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Sep 12 16:41:10 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:41:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] CRN conference liveblogging In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10709120924o416cb5e6v7e6f41f56d92a1cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <51ce64f10709120924o416cb5e6v7e6f41f56d92a1cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9/12/07, Michael Anissimov wrote: > Check out my liveblogging coverage of the Center for Responsible Nanotech > conference in Tucson: > > http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=550 > > Also, I have some notes from the Singularity Summit: > > http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=549 Thanks Michael for this valuable service, and to Tyler and others for making the Singularity Summit a success. The presentations, generally intelligent and quite diverse, provided the best public exposure to date. - Jef From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 17:14:34 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:14:34 +0200 Subject: [ExI] reconnect In-Reply-To: <1189456726_18065@S1.cableone.net> References: <429741.48276.qm@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200709090537.l895beIJ012225@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1189362543_16792@S4.cableone.net> <003401c7f35f$802fafc0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <1189401807_1001@S4.cableone.net> <96171258287DD16F1E1E7921@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <1EE56FDAB6725607BFA8A558@3664471CAF65859A561914E7> <1189456726_18065@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20709121014t150576e6j7d93d6778a69c9b1@mail.gmail.com> On 9/10/07, hkhenson wrote: > True. Chimpanzees carry out genocides against neighboring bands > waging something akin to wars and do it without what we would > recognize as a government. Well, it actually depends on the political regime in place in the chimp tribe concerned... :-) Stefano Vaj From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 13 01:36:27 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:06:27 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and the REST... Message-ID: <710b78fc0709121836u34c2f6a3y2d0e8c52bb8c3ec1@mail.gmail.com> I'm surprised I haven't seen anything about this before... I just stumbled across it because they used it in the search for Steve Fossett: --------------------- Amazon Mechanical Turk (Amazon MTurk) - Beta http://www.amazon.com/Mechanical-Turk-AWS-home-page/b/ref=sc_fe_l_2/102-2870100-6157738?ie=UTF8&node=15879911&no=342430011&me=A36L942TSJ2AJA "Amazon Mechanical Turk is a marketplace for work that requires human intelligence. The Mechanical Turk web service enables companies to programmatically access this marketplace and a diverse, on-demand workforce. Developers can leverage this service to build human intelligence directly into their applications." --------------------- But that's not all. Amazon seems to have a bunch of quite stunning web services (in the sense of "a service delivered over the web", rather than "a technical thing that suits bang on about but don't understand"). Temporarily need a lot of processing power in a hurry? --------------------- Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) - Limited Beta http://www.amazon.com/Mechanical-Turk-AWS-home-page/b/ref=sc_fe_l_2/102-2870100-6157738?ie=UTF8&node=15879911&no=342430011&me=A36L942TSJ2AJA --------------------- With this thing, you make a virtual machine (1.7Ghz x86 processor, 1.75GB of RAM, 160GB of local disk, and 250Mb/s of network bandwidth), install OS and software of your choice, upload it, then kick off as many instances of it as you like, running for as long as you like, all controlled via an Amazon webservice. 10 cents per instance per hour (plus some fees for bandwidth usage). Or, try this one: --------------------- Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) http://www.amazon.com/S3-AWS-home-page-Money/b/ref=sc_fe_l_2/102-2870100-6157738?ie=UTF8&node=16427261&no=342430011&me=A36L942TSJ2AJA "Amazon S3 is storage for the Internet. It is designed to make web-scale computing easier for developers. Amazon S3 provides a simple web services interface that can be used to store and retrieve any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web. It gives any developer access to the same highly scalable, reliable, fast, inexpensive data storage infrastructure that Amazon uses to run its own global network of web sites. The service aims to maximize benefits of scale and to pass those benefits on to developers." --------------------- This thing is giving you access to online storage, guaranteeing that every piece of data is stored in multiple places, there's security or not as you desire, and the kicker is it's priced at 15 cents per gigabyte per month (plus some data transfer fees). For example, that's $180 per year for 100gb, or $1800 per year for a terrabyte. This is the service I'm primarily interested in at the moment. I currently pay for a DataDepositBox.com account for backing up my PCs online, which I thought was exceedingly cheap at $2 per gigabyte per month; this changes things (but I have to write my own software, of course, which is underway). At the prices they are providing this storage for, you can start looking at serious, large online storage. And there's more... a Queue service, a payments service (extremely flexible use of Amazon's commerce stuff), etc. Someone has let the geeks off the chain at Amazon! Awesome stuff. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From brian at posthuman.com Thu Sep 13 01:59:27 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:59:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and the REST... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0709121836u34c2f6a3y2d0e8c52bb8c3ec1@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709121836u34c2f6a3y2d0e8c52bb8c3ec1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46E8997F.7090004@posthuman.com> Emlyn wrote: > I'm surprised I haven't seen anything about this before... I just > stumbled across it because they used it in the search for Steve > Fossett: > Read transhumantech - it was mentioned there back in November 2005 :-) -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 13 02:30:51 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:00:51 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and the REST... In-Reply-To: <46E8997F.7090004@posthuman.com> References: <710b78fc0709121836u34c2f6a3y2d0e8c52bb8c3ec1@mail.gmail.com> <46E8997F.7090004@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0709121930t18d96721l296d6c4521c04df1@mail.gmail.com> On 13/09/2007, Brian Atkins wrote: > Emlyn wrote: > > I'm surprised I haven't seen anything about this before... I just > > stumbled across it because they used it in the search for Steve > > Fossett: > > > > Read transhumantech - it was mentioned there back in November 2005 :-) > -- > 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 > I do read transhumantech in fact (ok, lightly skim). Searched my gmail but didn't come up with any references. I did kinda suppose that it might have shown up before (everything has shown up before it seems :-) ), but it's good enough to rate a new mention imo. Also, I forgot to point out this: ------------- AWS Start-Up Challenge http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=377634011 Attention: Start-Ups and Entrepreneurs! Amazon Web Services (AWS) is searching for the next hot start-up that is leveraging AWS to build its infrastructure and business. Do you have a great idea or an existing application that uses services from AWS? Enter the AWS Start-Up Challenge to win $100,000 in cash and AWS credits, and receive an investment offer from Amazon. ------------- It seems like a lot of work for a small startup cheque, but still. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 13 03:44:01 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:44:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? In-Reply-To: <46E7F358.80404@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <200709130343.l8D3hmCt000692@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > BillK wrote: > > > > > > An AI professor in the UK has made a presentation that sounded unusual > > to me. He sees narrow AI proliferating wildly, until we are > > surrounded by thousands of invisible helpers, all doing their own tiny > > process. ... > > This is a form of human augmentation that I haven't heard before. > > More like augmenting the environment around humans, so that the matter > > around us is gradually becoming intelligent. Quite a thought. > > Hmmmmm... Bill this sounds reasonable to me because it is easier to imagine the driving factor. There is commercial interest in specific AI-like applications, but no real market force driving general AI. The canonical example would be chess software and the current ability to wear a hidden computer to play grandmaster level chess. There is enormous market incentive for both of those things, so we have them. I used the term AI-like because a chess program is not AI. Any program that is sold as AI is no longer AI as soon as it actually works. If we bundle a couple hundred or a couple thousand specific applications like chess, in a software package, it will begin to gradually resemble general AI. It won't be that of course, but it will begin to look like general AI. spike From amara at amara.com Thu Sep 13 05:32:16 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:32:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and the REST... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Emlyn, I signed up for Amazon MTurk when The Economist wrote an intriguing article about these kinds of work schemes Winter 2005-Spring 2006 (?). MTurk sent a notice to users about Steve Fossett last Sunday; It is a special situation. The email for that is below. I must tell you that I have not tried it though... When I signed up, there was not any work that looked interesting for me and also the money earned seemed too small, and I found different extra jobs that paid better. But what you wrote looks more interesting than when I checked before. I do like the concept. Ciao Amara =============================================================== Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 07:19:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Amazon Mechanical Turk To: "amara at amara.com" Subject: Help find Steve Fossett, missing aviator Subject: Help find Steve Fossett, missing aviator Greetings from Amazon Mechanical Turk, On Monday, September 3, 2007, Steve Fossett, the first person to fly a plane around the world without refueling and the first person to fly around the world in a balloon went missing in Nevada. An airplane he was flying failed to return. No one has any idea where he is. Click on the following link for the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fossett. Through the generous efforts of individuals at several organizations, detailed satellite imagery has been made available for his last known whereabouts. HITs have been created to ask volunteers to help review these images and flag potential areas of interest which will be instrumental in the search and rescue efforts. If you are interested in helping, please click on the following link to participate in the search effort: http://www.mturk.com/mturk/searchbar?requesterId=A1U5V688O4PR3V This is a race against time and any help you can provide will make a huge difference. Friends and family of Steve Fossett would like to thank you for helping them with this cause. ================================================================= -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Sep 13 05:46:45 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:46:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <20070912072436.GB4005@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200709130552.l8D5q0j4024553@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl > Subject: Re: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:05:50PM -0700, spike wrote: > > > I venture to guess that more people learned of the singularity yesterday > > from FoxNews than the total number of people who had heard of it before > > yesterday. Ja? > > Given the average profile of a Faux News viewer, I don't know whether > that's a boon or a bane. > > Apropos Faux: I can no longer even listen to the official local radio, > without noticing how ridiculously biased they are. (The private sector > is even worse: they only do insipid entertainment). > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org Ja I agree the state of mainstream media is deplorable. It has devolved into tabloid journalism. FauxNews does a good job on science and technology for the masses, but the rest of it is the crime stories and the latest starlet gone bad. Faux is better than CNN or MSNBC at least, which isn't saying much. CBS has approximately zero credibility since the Dan Rather debacle. SlashDot is excellent, but isn't really mainstream. I noticed that Faux was the only big media to carry the singularity summit as a headline. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 13 06:06:22 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:06:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E8D35E.5010402@mac.com> BillK wrote: > > This is a form of human augmentation that I haven't heard before. > More like augmenting the environment around humans, so that the matter > around us is gradually becoming intelligent. Quite a thought. > Hmmmmm. > Pretty much a logical and interesting mix of Ubiquitous Computing, Context-Aware computing, Reactive Programming and Agent systems meshed with narrow AI. It remains to be seen if this results in substantially greater than current human intelligence being brought to bear widely enough to result in Singularity. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 13 06:15:19 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:15:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> Message-ID: <46E8D577.4040907@mac.com> Brent, Calling those that point out the dangers of AGI "fear mongers" immediately denigrates their position. That is not a reasonable beginning to eliciting thoughtful discussion. Please start again with a less biased attitude. - samantha Brent Allsop wrote: > Yes, Eliezer, congratulations. > This is indeed exciting to see this kind of coverage. > > As a lessor issue, it is still of my opinion that you are making a big > mistake with what I believe to be mistaken and irrational fear mongering > about "unfriendly AI" that is hurting the Transhumanist, and the strong > AI movement. Especially in popular media like this. And apparently, > I'm not alone in my POV. So far, 100% of the people that have weighed > in on this issue here at the Canonizer: > > http://karolisr.canonizer.com/topic.asp?topic_num=16 > > also believe such fear mongering is not good, though for different reasons. > > We discussed this earlier on this list. I seem to remember there were > several other points of view expressed than currently exists in the > Canonizer, but I can't remember what they were, or the reasons for such > beliefs? Wouldn't et be great if we could get a comprehensive and > concise survey of just what everyone believes on this issue and why? > > Eliezer, I don't think I have ever seen a concise statement of why you > have such fears and make such a big deal about them. > > Could I be correct in arguing that you fear mongers are in the minority, > even amongst transhumanists, and others that believe there will soon be > very smart AI? It would sure be nice to know, quantitatively, just how > much of a minority this was so we could also point out things like this > to Fox News when they start going on about things like a "nerdocalypse"? > > Brent Allsop > > > > > spike wrote: > >> This will set the record to date for the most mainstream media coverage of >> stuff that we have been discussing for years: >> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296324,00.html >> >> Congrats Eliezer. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 amara at amara.com Thu Sep 13 06:28:13 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:28:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews Message-ID: Dear Spike: Please don't waste your cpu cycles on Fox news.... I have so little time to read mainstream news, that I must be very selective. Usually The Economist (the world news is phenomenal) is enough for me. I get my general science news from other sources (Science News, for example) In general, I'm very skeptical with any mainstream media perhaps more now with watching the skewage of US and Italian reporting in the last 5+ years. If I'm searching for an item in the media I check Google News: http://news.google.com/news?ned=tus (this one is the US focus) so I can see a list at a glance (and switch between countries, if I'm skeptical with what I see), The Singularity Summit: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=tus&q=singularity+summit&btnG=Search+News or I check sources like this: http://beta.newstrust.net/ (which didn't have any items on the Singularity Summit) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 13 12:57:30 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:27:30 +0930 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat Message-ID: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> The Avalanche Threat No one is safe Allan Uthman http://buffalobeast.com/118/avalanches.htm "More Americans have been killed in the war in Iraq than have ever been killed by terrorism in the history of the country. A San Francisco Chronicle piece puts the odds of being killed by terrorism as slightly lower than dying in an avalanche. How much are we spending on avalanche prevention? Why is there no counter-avalanche czar? How many news stories have you seen about the threat of avalanches? Think about it: "Avalanches: Are we safer than we were?" Or "Democrats: Soft on avalanches?" Why does the liberal media ignore the avalanche threat?" -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From aiguy at comcast.net Thu Sep 13 16:58:16 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (aiguy at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:58:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat Message-ID: <091320071658.16773.46E96C280005B8F9000041852200737478979A09070E@comcast.net> "Avalanche prevention and mitigation involves a variety of methods. Snow fences are built to prevent the buildup of snow in starting zones, structures are built to stabilize snow. deflecting walls are built to divert avalanche flows away from buildings and even entire towns. Sheds build across roadways that pass through persistent avalanche paths can help to protect motorists from avalanches. Additionally, the reforestation of slopes with trees helps to prevent avalanches. Sometimes avalanche control experts actually desire to create smaller, controlled avalanches to prevent larger, uncontrolled ones. Percussion guns, explosives, and even artillery have been used to produce these controlled avalanches when people are kept away. Although a variety of recreationists spend time in snow-covered mountains - snowmobilers are those most often killed by avalanches in the U.S. Most avalanches in the U.S. occur during the months January, February, and March and on average, 17 are killed annually nationwide. Backcountry explorers are strongly advised to not only know how to identify avalanche hazard areas but also to carry a avalanche beacon/transceiver and a shovel in case of emergency." http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/avalanches.htm Not only do we spend money to prevent avalanches but we post areas to warn people not to go there. The few people who are killed are normally there at their own risk. It is easy to avoid avalanches. Just stay out of the areas prone to them. Not so with terrorists who come to you. Also if avalanches were ignored they would not gain confidence, grow in numbers, and increase their frequency and severity of assults the way terrorists would. While I think the money we are spending on the war now would be better spent eliminating our dependence on foreign oil as an indirect means of curtailing terrorism, I also appreciate the danger of allowing Iraq to become a haven for terrorists or an extension of Iran with their nuclear ambitions while our energy needs still have no other viable replacement in sight. While such inflammatory analogies may serve to further convince people who already have strong opinions against the war this site headed by one who calls himself the buffalobeast and splatters his homepage with profanity does not seem to overly concerned with his credibility. But like other sites which attract their their share of kooks I always try to keep an open mind in the hopes of learning something I do not already know. Interesting read thanks Emyln. Gary -------------- Original message -------------- From: Emlyn > The Avalanche Threat > No one is safe > Allan Uthman > > http://buffalobeast.com/118/avalanches.htm > > "More Americans have been killed in the war in Iraq than have ever > been killed by terrorism in the history of the country. A San > Francisco Chronicle piece puts the odds of being killed by terrorism > as slightly lower than dying in an avalanche. How much are we spending > on avalanche prevention? Why is there no counter-avalanche czar? How > many news stories have you seen about the threat of avalanches? Think > about it: "Avalanches: Are we safer than we were?" Or "Democrats: Soft > on avalanches?" Why does the liberal media ignore the avalanche > threat?" > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Sep 13 17:40:47 2007 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:40:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <46E8D577.4040907@mac.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <46E8D577.4040907@mac.com> Message-ID: <46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Brent, > > Calling those that point out the dangers of AGI "fear mongers" > immediately denigrates their position. That is not a reasonable > beginning to eliciting thoughtful discussion. Please start again with > a less biased attitude. > > - samantha No, what he said was not "biased", because these people that he described as fear mongers are not neutrally and with due diligence "pointing out the dangers of AI' as you choose (with some bias, maybe?) to phrase it, they are exaggerating the dangers in an (apparent) attempt to attract attention to themselves. As you know, I point out to the SIAI-related community that there were other possible approaches to the whole enterprise that is Artificial Intelligence research, and that some of those other approaches hold out the possibility of build extremely stable systems that do not suffer from the many problems they so loudly complain about. What was their response to this suggestion? Were they eager to investigate this possibility? Did they devote some time to having a public debate about the issues? Did they welcome the possibility that things might not be as dire as they thought? No. What they did was mount a childish series of venomous, ad hominem attacks against both the ideas and the person who suggested them. These attacks were led by Eliezer Yudkowsky himself. They did not have the slightest interest in the issue itself. They are self-serving fear mongers. Richard Loosemore From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Sep 13 18:32:43 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:32:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Third SENS Conference at Cambridge a Success! Message-ID: <380-220079413183243101@M2W039.mail2web.com> Greetings, I would like to congratulate Aubrey de Grey and his team at Cambridge for an enormously successful conference. I was amazed at the quality of speakers, the level of confidence and repoire all speakers had with one another, the depth of discussions and overall stirring conference. Audrey's presentation was superb. As with the Singularity Conference (they were on the same weekend), Ray Kurzweil's talk was virtual. But it didn't deter the quality and excitement of his speech. Michael Rose was amazing as well - with a wry wit and in step with what is going on in anti-aging. Chris Phoenix, and Bernard Siegel, and Anders Sandberg were outstanding as well. http://www.sens.org/sens3/program.htm I will be putting my talk online this weekend if anyone cares to read/see it. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From benboc at lineone.net Thu Sep 13 18:55:37 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:55:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Anti-Aging: Belonging to Literature or Science In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E987A9.6030907@lineone.net> From: Jef Allbright >>>> Does anyone have thoughts about anti-aging belonging to >>>> literature rather >>>> than science? And if so,please explain your thoughts and >>>> references. >> In the interest of productive responses and discussion, what do you >> mean by "belonging to"? "Anti-aging" properly "belongs to" many >> categories. > Good question. I think "belongs to" is meant as an historical > reference. > In other words, which domain generated the notion of anti-aging. > Natasha OK, then. I'd say that it was people's experience of (other people's) death that generated the notion in the first place. I'd also say that the very first (afawk) written story dealt with that theme, thousands of years ago. Science didn't exist then. ben z From brent.allsop at comcast.net Thu Sep 13 20:12:38 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:12:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <46E8D577.4040907@mac.com> <46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <46E999B6.5070606@comcast.net> Richard Loosemore wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> Calling those that point out the dangers of AGI "fear mongers" >> immediately denigrates their position. That is not a reasonable >> beginning to eliciting thoughtful discussion. Please start again with >> a less biased attitude. >> >> - samantha >> > They are self-serving fear mongers. > > > > Richard Loosemore Yes! Now we're talking! I apologize to Samantha, and anyone else that likes POV to be more civil, or whatever, and after I express this below, if you still feel this way, I'll try to refrain from such terms in the future. But here are some still experimental thoughts about this kind of stuff I'm having. I'd love to know what you all think about this. It is obviously bad when people do things like fracture organizations, excommunicate people, try to destroy people's differing POV and anything to do with them, or any other hurtful things. And, in the past, if you refrained from using this kind of terminology and worked on sugar coating your POV, you could often succeed at reducing these kinds of bad results. But is sugar coating POV really beneficial? Should we all be "yes" men to our friends and leaders? Or at best sugar coated no men? I think we should try to eliminate all the bad behavior associated with differing POV, but don't throw out the baby with the bath? To me, the important thing is, I want to here everyone's POV as non sugar coated as necessary. This is for several reasons, first, I admit that I could be wrong, and sincerely want to know, concisely and quantitatively, others POV. Second, if I see a problem in other's POV, it enables me to better concisely state my POV to have more success of pointing such out, and so on. The important thing is we all worship, collect, quantitatively compare all of our differences, including the ability to call each other things like "fear mongers", as long as we still support them with their differing POV and honestly want to find out, precicely what it is. Also, along with this, the faithful thinking that hopefully we will find some way to get it all for everyone, or maybe show them how they don't really want that... Does that make sense? Or is it just stupid? Thanks Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Sep 13 21:28:21 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:28:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> Message-ID: <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> On 9/11/07, Brent Allsop wrote: > As a lessor issue, it is still of my opinion that you are making a big > mistake with what I believe to be mistaken and irrational fear mongering > about "unfriendly AI" that is hurting the Transhumanist, and the strong > AI movement. I still have to read something clearly stating to whom exactly an "unfriendly AI" would be unfriendly and why - but above all why you or I should care, especially if we were to be (physically?) dead anyway before the coming of such an AI. It is not that I think that those questions are unanswerable or that it would be impossible to find arguments to this effect, I simply think they should be made explicit and opened to debate. Stefano Vaj From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Sep 13 23:04:28 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:04:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Why care about AI friendliness? (was Re: singularity summit on foxnews) Message-ID: <62c14240709131604g6a7420f3ld3eebce40e0c067c@mail.gmail.com> On 9/13/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > I still have to read something clearly stating to whom exactly an > "unfriendly AI" would be unfriendly and why - but above all why you or > I should care, especially if we were to be (physically?) dead anyway > before the coming of such an AI. Perhaps what makes unfriendly AI so scary is that it would be so different from us. Even the most extreme religionist (take your pick) is still human; despite their difference of ideology they are more like us than not. Algorithmic AI has no particular reason to share our evolutionary bias for human interaction. This form of AI potentially trigger a xenophobic response that even little green men (or big eyed gray aliens) fail to elicit - physical bodies could conceivably have a weakness that 50+ years of sci-fi has taught us to hopefully exploit. Consider how intimidating the PC is for the average consumer. Now imagine the scenario where 'the computer' really does have its own motivations in addition to complete control over your identity. HAL (from 2001:A Space Odyssey) wasn't even really "unfriendly" as much as it was "conflicted" and look how that turned out for Dave Bowman. :) If you really do feel that you will be dead before AI is born, then you probably shouldn't worry about it. Even if that's true, should you expect your children to care? If your reference to _physical_ death implies some kind of uploaded transcendence of your physical body, then you have even more to consider of AI - since it will probably take some serious intelligence to run your software in a machine. Most likely if you can run on a machine there is already a non-human agent facilitating your experiences. You would need to be emulated, the AI 'hypervisor' will be running natively. Even if the AI is not subjective master over your emulated self (or your children/whatever) you must think about the control systems for increasingly complex real-time processes - unless human brains get a huge boost in capability, we will continue relying on machines to make increasingly important decisions and informing us of the outcome so we can maintain the illusion of control. It doesn't take truly evil AI to make a nightmare scenario out of the future; the best intentions of humanity that is unprepared to be parents can do as much damage. The point of raising a "friendly" AI is to hedge our bet that once it exceeds our ability to control it, there is a good chance it continues to perform to our benefit. 'makes me think of the expression, "Be nice to your kids, they're the ones who choose your retirement home." From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Sep 14 00:44:57 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:44:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com > References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> At 02:28 PM 9/13/2007, Stefano wrote: >On 9/11/07, Brent Allsop wrote: > > As a lessor issue, it is still of my opinion that you are making a big > > mistake with what I believe to be mistaken and irrational fear mongering > > about "unfriendly AI" that is hurting the Transhumanist, and the strong > > AI movement. > >I still have to read something clearly stating to whom exactly an >"unfriendly AI" would be unfriendly and why - Consider the plant kudzu. An AI could be unfriendly in the same way or other ways that are even more alien to us than a plant. It might be possible to *design* AIs with motivations similar to ours, even ones that were subservient. I explored this in a story originally posted in draft to the sl4 list where it received no comment positive or negative. A somewhat updated version is here: http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html if anyone here wants to do something that list did not. >but above all why you or >I should care, especially if we were to be (physically?) dead anyway >before the coming of such an AI. You can't count on it, not unless you take steps to die real soon. It is very likely someone will be alive at the point AIs reach takeoff. The problem with AIs thinning out the world's excess population is that it's hard to imagine a situation where unfriendly AIs didn't make a clean sweep. >It is not that I think that those questions are unanswerable or that >it would be impossible to find arguments to this effect, I simply >think they should be made explicit and opened to debate. The assumption on this list used to be that people intend to live a very long time so there were no problems in the future they were not concerned about. (A lot, if not most, of the early Extropians were signed up for cryonic suspension in the event they needed it.) Keith Henson From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Sep 14 03:38:57 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:38:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <46E8D577.4040907@mac.com> <46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <46EA0251.7060702@mac.com> Richard Loosemore wrote: > Samantha Atkins wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> Calling those that point out the dangers of AGI "fear mongers" >> immediately denigrates their position. That is not a reasonable >> beginning to eliciting thoughtful discussion. Please start again with >> a less biased attitude. >> >> - samantha >> > > No, what he said was not "biased", because these people that he > described as fear mongers are not neutrally and with due diligence > "pointing out the dangers of AI' as you choose (with some bias, maybe?) > to phrase it, they are exaggerating the dangers in an (apparent) attempt > to attract attention to themselves. > As I know many of these folks and just how diligent they in fact are the above seems rather incredible. When we are talking about that which likely makes humanity obsolete or at least not the top dog intelligence wise in the local puddle I would think a fair amount of caution would be the default sensible position. > As you know, I point out to the SIAI-related community that there were > other possible approaches to the whole enterprise that is Artificial > Intelligence research, and that some of those other approaches hold out > the possibility of build extremely stable systems that do not suffer > from the many problems they so loudly complain about. > Please refresh my memory as I seem to have forgotten the nature of these systems that were both adequately powerful and most likely safe. I am very interested in such possibilities. > What was their response to this suggestion? Were they eager to > investigate this possibility? Did they devote some time to having a > public debate about the issues? Did they welcome the possibility that > things might not be as dire as they thought? > > I remember there was a lot of bad feeling between yourself, Eliezer and some others. I remember a fair amount of mud-slinging on all sides. The general taste of it was to wonder if the AGIs replacing such crazed semi-intelligent monkeys as ourselves would be such a bad thing after all. > No. What they did was mount a childish series of venomous, ad hominem > attacks against both the ideas and the person who suggested them. These > attacks were led by Eliezer Yudkowsky himself. They did not have the > slightest interest in the issue itself. > > I think that is a bit overstated and one-sided. But this is not an invitation to prove your point with a rehash. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Sep 14 03:31:03 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:31:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Suppose that your neighbor (who's a perfect shot) manages to sting you on the arm or the back of your head with his BB gun once or twice a week. I dare say that you'd be more concerned about that than you would be about dying in an automobile accident, even though the probability of dying in a car crash vastly outweighs the chance of dying from one of your neighbor's BB gun shots. Why? Or do we just need to chalk it up to human irrationality? I maintain that there is a parallel here, and that we are designed to react to consciously executed premeditated threats far more than we are to equally dangerous natural phenomena, and for good reason. Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emlyn" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:57 AM Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat > The Avalanche Threat > No one is safe > Allan Uthman > > http://buffalobeast.com/118/avalanches.htm > > "More Americans have been killed in the war in Iraq than have ever > been killed by terrorism in the history of the country. A San > Francisco Chronicle piece puts the odds of being killed by terrorism > as slightly lower than dying in an avalanche. How much are we spending > on avalanche prevention? Why is there no counter-avalanche czar? How > many news stories have you seen about the threat of avalanches? Think > about it: "Avalanches: Are we safer than we were?" Or "Democrats: Soft > on avalanches?" Why does the liberal media ignore the avalanche > threat?" > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.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 Fri Sep 14 03:49:06 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:49:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46EA04B2.8080509@mac.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 9/11/07, Brent Allsop wrote: > >> As a lessor issue, it is still of my opinion that you are making a big >> mistake with what I believe to be mistaken and irrational fear mongering >> about "unfriendly AI" that is hurting the Transhumanist, and the strong >> AI movement. >> > > I still have to read something clearly stating to whom exactly an > "unfriendly AI" would be unfriendly and why - but above all why you or > I should care, especially if we were to be (physically?) dead anyway > before the coming of such an AI > It is not that I think that those questions are unanswerable or that > it would be impossible to find arguments to this effect, I simply > think they should be made explicit and opened to debate. > > You haven't been around long enough to know what the worries are? To name a few off the top of my head: 1) AGIs that are smarter and more capable than humans, perhaps by many orders of magnitude, will be uncontrollable by us; 2) Assuming a roughly equivalent economic scenario (needing to have income to enjoy much of the good things) it is very likely that most/all humans will in short order be unemployable with few if any marketable skills; 3) It is quite possible that the AGIs will consider humans irrelevant at best and possibly a waste of material resources. It is quite possible they might decide we are not worth keeping around. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 03:56:42 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:56:42 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 14/09/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: > Suppose that your neighbor (who's a perfect shot) manages to > sting you on the arm or the back of your head with his BB gun > once or twice a week. I dare say that you'd be more concerned > about that than you would be about dying in an automobile accident, > even though the probability of dying in a car crash vastly outweighs > the chance of dying from one of your neighbor's BB gun shots. > Why? > > Or do we just need to chalk it up to human irrationality? > > I maintain that there is a parallel here, and that we are designed to > react to consciously executed premeditated threats far more than > we are to equally dangerous natural phenomena, and for good > reason. Why "for good reason"? It seems like a bad reason to me. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Sep 14 05:41:43 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:41:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 14/09/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: >> Suppose that your neighbor (who's a perfect shot) manages to >> sting you on the arm or the back of your head with his BB gun >> once or twice a week. I dare say that you'd be more concerned >> about that than you would be about dying in an automobile accident, >> even though the probability of dying in a car crash vastly outweighs >> the chance of dying from one of your neighbor's BB gun shots. >> Why? >> ... >> I maintain that there is a parallel here, and that we are designed to >> react to consciously executed premeditated threats far more than >> we are to equally dangerous natural phenomena, and for good >> reason. > > Why "for good reason"? It seems like a bad reason to me. Other human beings (or agencies, e.g. gods) who form evil intents toward an evolutionarily derived entity constitute malign entities from the point of view of their targets. A neighbor who shoots one with a BB gun a few times a week poses a grave threat: today a BB gun, but who knows what tomorrow? It *rightfully* worries one that such a dangerous lunatic is within striking distance. The same goes for other dangerous opponents. One capable of committing an act of "terrorism" that deliberately kills thousands of people may ingeniously perform any any presently unknown act in the future. Avalanches, on the other hand, are threats the limit of whose behavior is easily understood and even avoided. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Sep 14 05:57:06 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:57:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070914005308.021a4aa8@satx.rr.com> At 10:41 PM 9/13/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: >The same goes for other dangerous opponents. One capable of >committing an act of "terrorism" that deliberately kills thousands >of people may ingeniously perform any presently unknown act >in the future. Indeed, and this was an excellent motive for invading Iraq, international headquarters of Al Qaeda, and executing Saddam Hussein, the Butcher and Mastermind of 9/11. At least *he* won't be flying any more hijacked planes into US buildings! Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 07:50:21 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:50:21 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 14/09/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > > On 14/09/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Suppose that your neighbor (who's a perfect shot) manages to > >> sting you on the arm or the back of your head with his BB gun > >> once or twice a week. I dare say that you'd be more concerned > >> about that than you would be about dying in an automobile accident, > >> even though the probability of dying in a car crash vastly outweighs > >> the chance of dying from one of your neighbor's BB gun shots. > >> Why? > >> ... > >> I maintain that there is a parallel here, and that we are designed to > >> react to consciously executed premeditated threats far more than > >> we are to equally dangerous natural phenomena, and for good > >> reason. > > > > Why "for good reason"? It seems like a bad reason to me. > > Other human beings (or agencies, e.g. gods) who form evil intents > toward an evolutionarily derived entity constitute malign entities > from the point of view of their targets. A neighbor who shoots one > with a BB gun a few times a week poses a grave threat: today a > BB gun, but who knows what tomorrow? It *rightfully* worries > one that such a dangerous lunatic is within striking distance. > > The same goes for other dangerous opponents. One capable of > committing an act of "terrorism" that deliberately kills thousands > of people may ingeniously perform any any presently unknown act > in the future. Avalanches, on the other hand, are threats the limit of > whose behavior is easily understood and even avoided. OK, but that just means you think avalanches are less dangerous than terrorists. The problem is that even when it can be shown that a non-malicious threat is more dangerous than a malicious threat, people are more likely to respond to the malicious threat with concern and allocation of resources. I can see how this way of thinking might have evolved, but it doesn't make it rational. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 08:16:01 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:16:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 9/14/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > OK, but that just means you think avalanches are less dangerous than > terrorists. The problem is that even when it can be shown that a > non-malicious threat is more dangerous than a malicious threat, people > are more likely to respond to the malicious threat with concern and > allocation of resources. I can see how this way of thinking might have > evolved, but it doesn't make it rational. > It is rational, because if ignored, these 'minor' threats make life not worth living. In the UK there is a 'minor' problem of gangs of feral youth running out of control in the streets. Sure, at the younger ages it is mostly 'minor' trouble. Graffiti, throwing stones, malicious vandalism, cars damaged and broken in to or set on fire, fighting, swearing, under-age drinking, shop-lifting, burglary. But these gangs of kids make some housing estates hell to live in. Shops have metal shutters for protection. Cars have to be put in strong garages overnight. Visitors are afraid to enter the estate. And so on. The police show little interest until someone is knifed, or a girl is raped. i.e. When the usual day-in day-out violence goes a bit further than usual, and a 'serious' problem occurs. Sounds perfectly rational to me to deal with 'minor' problems. If you get an itch, don't you scratch it? Or do you say, "I'll wait till I finish I finish work, then I'll have more time" ? BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 08:32:01 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:32:01 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 14/09/2007, BillK wrote: > On 9/14/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > OK, but that just means you think avalanches are less dangerous than > > terrorists. The problem is that even when it can be shown that a > > non-malicious threat is more dangerous than a malicious threat, people > > are more likely to respond to the malicious threat with concern and > > allocation of resources. I can see how this way of thinking might have > > evolved, but it doesn't make it rational. > > > > It is rational, because if ignored, these 'minor' threats make life > not worth living. > > In the UK there is a 'minor' problem of gangs of feral youth running > out of control in the streets. Sure, at the younger ages it is mostly > 'minor' trouble. Graffiti, throwing stones, malicious vandalism, cars > damaged and broken in to or set on fire, fighting, swearing, under-age > drinking, shop-lifting, burglary. But these gangs of kids make some > housing estates hell to live in. Shops have metal shutters for > protection. Cars have to be put in strong garages overnight. Visitors > are afraid to enter the estate. And so on. > > The police show little interest until someone is knifed, or a girl is > raped. i.e. When the usual day-in day-out violence goes a bit further > than usual, and a 'serious' problem occurs. I'm not suggesting that crime, in general, is a minor problem. What I am suggesting is that if your expected losses from theft this year are the same as your expected losses from flooding, your insurance premium for each eventuality should be the same and you should be as willing to insure for one as for the other, or spend as much effort preventing one as the other if they are each equally preventable. -- Stathis Papaioannou From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Sep 14 10:20:03 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:20:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1189765102_106029@S3.cableone.net> At 12:50 AM 9/14/2007, Stathis wrote: >On 14/09/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Stathis writes snip > > > Why "for good reason"? It seems like a bad reason to me. > > > > Other human beings (or agencies, e.g. gods) who form evil intents > > toward an evolutionarily derived entity constitute malign entities > > from the point of view of their targets. A neighbor who shoots one > > with a BB gun a few times a week poses a grave threat: today a > > BB gun, but who knows what tomorrow? It *rightfully* worries > > one that such a dangerous lunatic is within striking distance. > > > > The same goes for other dangerous opponents. One capable of > > committing an act of "terrorism" that deliberately kills thousands > > of people may ingeniously perform any any presently unknown act > > in the future. Avalanches, on the other hand, are threats the limit of > > whose behavior is easily understood and even avoided. > >OK, but that just means you think avalanches are less dangerous than >terrorists. The problem is that even when it can be shown that a >non-malicious threat is more dangerous than a malicious threat, people >are more likely to respond to the malicious threat with concern and >allocation of resources. I can see how this way of thinking might have >evolved, but it doesn't make it rational. Evolved threat response psychological mechanisms are "rational" in terms of gene replication *in the environment in which they evolved*. Among the remaining hunter-gatherer groups, as high as 60% of the adults die from inter group violence. (See Azar Gat on this .) Considering that we all lived like that for most of our evolutionary history, it is no wonder that we respond the way we do even if it isn't rational by modern accounting methods. Keith Henson From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Sep 14 12:02:21 2007 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:02:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <46EA0251.7060702@mac.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <46E8D577.4040907@mac.com> <46E9761F.5060302@lightlink.com> <46EA0251.7060702@mac.com> Message-ID: <46EA784D.30706@lightlink.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > Richard Loosemore wrote: >> As you know, I pointed out to the SIAI-related community that there were >> other possible approaches to the whole enterprise that is Artificial >> Intelligence research, and that some of those other approaches hold out >> the possibility of building extremely stable systems that do not suffer >> from the many problems they so loudly complain about. >> > Please refresh my memory as I seem to have forgotten the nature of these > systems that were both adequately powerful and most likely safe. I am > very interested in such possibilities. I presented a detailed post on this subject on the AGI list a long time ago. See the following, as well as other posts before and after: http://www.mail-archive.com/agi at v2.listbox.com/msg03809.html Richard Loosemore From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com Fri Sep 14 12:02:11 2007 From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: TED Prize video hits youtube home page! References: Message-ID: FYI... Begin forwarded message: > > > Dear Friends of TED, > > Now this is exciting. A powerful, 2-minute TED video has just been > given star billing at YouTube and I need your help to get it to > spread further? > > The video heralds the launch of Pangea Day, called for by 2006 TED > prize winner, Jehane Noujaim. For the next 24 hours, it is being > featured on YouTube?s global home-page as well as all nine of > YouTube?s international home-pages. > > Maybe it's just me, but every time I see this trailer, it sets my > spine a-tingling. I hope you?ll take a minute to view it, rate it, > write a quick comment about it and then blog it, or pass the link > along to friends. Each of these actions will have a multiplying > effect and will help us reach out to thousands of film-makers > around the world who we need to submit content for ! possible > inclusion in Pangea Day > > The project is taking off, and its ambition level is spectacular. > On May 10, 2008 - Pangea Day - Jehane?s wish will come to fruition > as sites in New York City, Rio, London, Dharamsala, Cairo, > Jerusalem, and Kigali will be video-conferenced live to produce a 4- > hour program of powerful films -supplemented by visionary speakers, > and global musicians. The purpose: to use the power of film to > promote better understanding of our common humanity. A global > audience will watch through the Internet, television, digital > cinemas, and mobile phones. > > A powerful advisory board has come together to support the project. > It includes: > JJ Abrams > Lawrence Bender > Nancy Buirski > lan Cumming > Ami Dar > Cameron Diaz > Goldie Hawn > Vik Muniz > Clare Munn > Eboo Patel > Alexander Payne > Meg Ryan > Deborah Scranton > Jeff Skoll > Philippe Starck > Yossi Vardi > Kevin Wall > Will.i.am > > If you?re interested learning more and/or helping out, please send > an email to Pangea Day executive director Delia Cohen > (delia at ted.com). More details are available at the project's > beautiful website created for us by Avenue A/Razorfish: pangeaday.org. > > Now enjoy the film! > > Very best, > > > Chris Anderson > TED Curator > > > P.S. The TED talk in which Jehane unveiled her wish for Pangea Day > is here. > > > > > Unsubscribe or update your email address. > TED | 55 Vandam Street | 16th floor | New York, NY 10013 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Fri Sep 14 17:37:45 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:37:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? References: <46E8D35E.5010402@mac.com> Message-ID: <004a01c7f6f6$0070ab00$480a4e0c@MyComputer> I think the title of this thread is very odd, if the Singularity didn't take an unexpected path then it wouldn't be a singularity. John K Clark From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 20:27:09 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:27:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Why care about AI friendliness? (was Re: singularity summit on foxnews) In-Reply-To: <62c14240709131604g6a7420f3ld3eebce40e0c067c@mail.gmail.com> References: <62c14240709131604g6a7420f3ld3eebce40e0c067c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709141327y114c2a80h6ef554067d6d88fa@mail.gmail.com> On 9/14/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: > If you really do feel that you will be dead before AI is born, then > you probably shouldn't worry about it. Even if that's true, should > you expect your children to care? This is one of the interesting points. Does one mean "your children" in the literal sense? Or perhaps children who happen to be as genetically close as possible (say, of your tribe, race or country)? Or future generations of the humankind irrespective of any direct, albeit vague, genetic connection? And what about "children of the mind", as AIs could not too unreasonably be qualified? > If your reference to _physical_ > death implies some kind of uploaded transcendence of your physical > body, then you have even more to consider of AI - since it will > probably take some serious intelligence to run your software in a > machine. Most likely if you can run on a machine there is already a > non-human agent facilitating your experiences. You would need to be > emulated, the AI 'hypervisor' will be running natively. That is, as long as you care to emulate features which used to belong to your biological self... Which in turn may be necessary even for purely artificial AIs if we are to consider them as "friendly" or "unfriendly" in any more meaningful way than the very complex terrestrial climate system may be. Otherwise, the distinction between uploaded or emulated humans and purely artificial AIs gets blurred very quickly... Stefano Vaj From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Sep 14 22:01:57 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:01:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com><01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1189765102_106029@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <01e701c7f71b$737bf670$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > [Stathis wrote] > >>OK, but that just means you think avalanches are less dangerous than >>terrorists. The problem is that even when it can be shown that a >>non-malicious threat is more dangerous than a malicious threat, people >>are more likely to respond to the malicious threat with concern and >>allocation of resources. I can see how this way of thinking might have >>evolved, but it doesn't make it rational. > > Evolved threat response psychological mechanisms are "rational" in > terms of gene replication *in the environment in which they evolved*. I contend that they're rational in today's environment as well. Take another example: you share a large cubical at work with a new co-worker. About once every two days he creeps up behind you and lets you have it with a rubber band right on the back of your ear. Now rationally, taken literally, this does not constitute near so serious a threat to you as dying in an automobile accident. In fact, if you had the choice of putting up with this aberrant behavior instead of having to put up with the dangers of the highway, it would be highly rational to exchage road accident risk for the minor pain every couple of days from your coworker. But we were constructed to take threats from other human beings very, very seriously. The following has not changed since the EEA: another human being can be an exceedingly dangerous organism to have around. If one gets the drop on you, with his fists and hands along he could conceivably kill or seriously injure one; even a 30 kilo human being would be deadly with a baseball bat if, again, he takes you by surprise. The key factor is that another human being is a resourceful antagonist, unlike avalanches and car accidents. Any sign of instability or hostility from another human (or group of humans) has to be recognized as a very serious danger. And this hasn't changed at all in the last 100,000 years. Lee From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 20:39:17 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:39:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070914005308.021a4aa8@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070914005308.021a4aa8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709141339n7a849c7fh43f6c4d077b1afbe@mail.gmail.com> On 9/14/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:41 PM 9/13/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > Indeed, and this was an excellent motive for invading Iraq, > international headquarters of Al Qaeda, and executing Saddam Hussein, > the Butcher and Mastermind of 9/11. At least *he* won't be flying any > more hijacked planes into US buildings! Not to mention the threat represented by Saddam's vast nuclear arsenal that all those dirty muslim-huggers have hidden away as soon as it was discovered by the glorious troops about to liberate the country... :-) Stefano Vaj From sentience at pobox.com Fri Sep 14 21:48:59 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:48:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? In-Reply-To: <004a01c7f6f6$0070ab00$480a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <46E8D35E.5010402@mac.com> <004a01c7f6f6$0070ab00$480a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <46EB01CB.3020401@pobox.com> John K Clark wrote: > I think the title of this thread is very odd, if the Singularity didn't take > an unexpected path then it wouldn't be a singularity. Ah, well that would be the most unexpected path of all, wouldn't it? (You cannot manipulate ignorance as if it were knowledge; a blank map does not correspond to a blank territory; and if the Singularity refers to a form of ignorance, you should not, in the same sentence, treat it as a future event.) -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 20:54:55 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:54:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> On 9/14/07, hkhenson wrote: > Consider the plant kudzu. Yes. I will be the first to admit that I do not care much for the success of kudzu, nor I identify much with its destiny. I think that a kudzu individual may have a different view, however. > >but above all why you or > >I should care, especially if we were to be (physically?) dead anyway > >before the coming of such an AI. > > You can't count on it, not unless you take steps to die real > soon. It is very likely someone will be alive at the point AIs reach > takeoff. The problem with AIs thinning out the world's excess > population is that it's hard to imagine a situation where unfriendly > AIs didn't make a clean sweep. Why don't we make a sweep as clean as possible of other species, or for that matter of silicon crystals? Because if they are not in our harm's way we do not care, basically (even not counting the living species or other chemical configurations we actually like) . Why should AIs? > The assumption on this list used to be that people intend to live a > very long time so there were no problems in the future they were not > concerned about. (A lot, if not most, of the early Extropians were > signed up for cryonic suspension in the event they needed it.) Fine with me. But the definition of "survival", when we exceed our current lifespan and limited extentions thereto, is pretty much an open question. The memory of you? Your memories? Your genes? Your species? A biologically- or otherwise-based "identity" which is somehow related to your present self, even though more and more tenuously with the passing of time? Successors who put forward your culture? Future entities sharing your extropian views? Stefano Vaj From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 15 04:17:49 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:17:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] a couple uses for kudzu In-Reply-To: <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709150417.l8F4HYBt013752@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > On 9/14/07, hkhenson wrote: > > Consider the plant kudzu. > > Yes. I will be the first to admit that I do not care much for the > success of kudzu, nor I identify much with its destiny. ... Kudzu must be nearly the most prolific plant there is. That stuff grows like crazy. Seems we should be able to grow the stuff intentionally, then harvest the leaves to grind and ferment sto alcohol. We should even be able to use that techniqu to sequester carbon dioxide in the form of dead kudzu leaves, should we decide that sequestering CO2 really is a good idea. We could drill vertical shafts in the desert a kilometer deep and ten meters in diameter, then dump in tons of ground up kudzu leaves, then pump in sea water to kill the bacteria that would turn the stuff back into CO2. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 15 04:27:47 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:27:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a couple uses for kudzu In-Reply-To: <200709150417.l8F4HYBt013752@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <200709150417.l8F4HYBt013752@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070914232602.022cfb30@satx.rr.com> At 09:17 PM 9/14/2007 -0700, spike wrote: >We should even be able to use that techniqu to sequester carbon dioxide in >the form of dead kudzu leaves, should we decide that sequestering CO2 really >is a good idea. We could drill vertical shafts in the desert a kilometer >deep and ten meters in diameter, then dump in tons of ground up kudzu >leaves, then pump in sea water to kill the bacteria that would turn the >stuff back into CO2. STOP THROWING THE MULCH AWAY! JUST STOP IT *NOW*! This is worse than monocropping. From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 05:12:14 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:12:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] a couple uses for kudzu In-Reply-To: <200709150417.l8F4HYBt013752@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <200709150417.l8F4HYBt013752@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709142212k562f067eg2c43f02ae0c4cab2@mail.gmail.com> On 9/15/07, spike wrote: > We should even be able to use that techniqu to sequester carbon dioxide in > the form of dead kudzu leaves, should we decide that sequestering CO2 really > is a good idea. We could drill vertical shafts in the desert a kilometer > deep and ten meters in diameter, then dump in tons of ground up kudzu > leaves, then pump in sea water to kill the bacteria that would turn the > stuff back into CO2. Like the guys "combing the desert" in SpaceBalls, I picture a crew with shovels attempting to dig a "vertical shaft ... a kilometer deep and ten meters in diameter..." - of course the sand keeps filling in when the holes are no more than 2 meters deep and only a meter wide. Thanks for the image. From jonkc at att.net Sat Sep 15 15:07:30 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:07:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? References: <46E8D35E.5010402@mac.com><004a01c7f6f6$0070ab00$480a4e0c@MyComputer> <46EB01CB.3020401@pobox.com> Message-ID: <009101c7f7aa$3141df10$1e074e0c@MyComputer> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > if the Singularity refers to a form of ignorance It does. > you should not, in the same sentence, > treat it as a future event. Nonsense, scientists do it all the time. We can accurately predict the path of comet X for the next 318 years 4 months 19 days 7 hours and 22 minutes, but then it will pass very close to Jupiter and after that we have no idea what the comet's orbit will be. The reason is that at that particular point a very very small error in the knowledge of the comet's position and velocity will lead to a huge error in its future orbit. In the case of the comet we at least have a good knowledge of gravitational dynamics theory; in the case of the Singularity we don't even have a basic understand the fundamental forces creating it worth a damn, much less precise knowledge of the initial conditions the world will be in when it enters that singular point. John K Clark From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 13:17:15 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:17:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] a couple uses for kudzu In-Reply-To: <200709150417.l8F4HYBt013752@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <200709150417.l8F4HYBt013752@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709150617g4cd1a769tc4a74749c403f4ea@mail.gmail.com> On 9/15/07, spike wrote: > Kudzu must be nearly the most prolific plant there is. That stuff grows > like crazy. Seems we should be able to grow the stuff intentionally, then > harvest the leaves to grind and ferment sto alcohol. > > We should even be able to use that techniqu to sequester carbon dioxide in > the form of dead kudzu leaves, should we decide that sequestering CO2 really > is a good idea. We could drill vertical shafts in the desert a kilometer > deep and ten meters in diameter, then dump in tons of ground up kudzu > leaves, then pump in sea water to kill the bacteria that would turn the > stuff back into CO2. Irrespective of the technical merits of this idea - on which I frankly have a few doubts; but I am not an expert of the relevant fields - *this* is what I mean for a transhumanist attitude. Lateral thinking, proactive stances, problems into opportunities, no superstitious fears to disturb supposed "natural balances". Stefano Vaj From rpicone at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 05:38:49 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:38:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9/14/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 9/14/07, hkhenson wrote: > > Consider the plant kudzu. > > Yes. I will be the first to admit that I do not care much for the > success of kudzu, nor I identify much with its destiny. I think that a > kudzu individual may have a different view, however. > > > >but above all why you or > > >I should care, especially if we were to be (physically?) dead anyway > > >before the coming of such an AI. > > > > You can't count on it, not unless you take steps to die real > > soon. It is very likely someone will be alive at the point AIs reach > > takeoff. The problem with AIs thinning out the world's excess > > population is that it's hard to imagine a situation where unfriendly > > AIs didn't make a clean sweep. > > Why don't we make a sweep as clean as possible of other species, or > for that matter of silicon > crystals? Because if they are not in our harm's way we do not care, > basically (even not counting the living species or other chemical > configurations we actually like) . Why should AIs? We do however see no problem with killing those things that we regard as alien when they are in our advantage to kill, or when it is a consequence of something that is in our advantage.... It of course would almost never be in an AI's advantage to wipe out the human race, like it isn't in our advantage for to wipe out geese, but there would definitely be circumstances when it would be in an AI's advantage to do something which might kill a few humans... It's a mistaken idea that unfriendly AI is about AI wanting to wipe out the human race, killing without scruples whenever they can get away with it and it benefits them is more than enough. For the most part Americans don't care if our actions indirectly caused the deaths of a good 400,000+ people on the other side of the world so long as we don't have any direct connections to these people... An AI would be likely to have a lot mote influence over these things than an individual human would, but why would an AI bother to avoid these sorts of situations unless something in its design made it want to avoid these events even more than a human would? From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 08:41:13 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:41:13 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: <01e701c7f71b$737bf670$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1189765102_106029@S3.cableone.net> <01e701c7f71b$737bf670$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 15/09/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: > I contend that they're rational in today's environment as well. > Take another example: you share a large cubical at work with > a new co-worker. About once every two days he creeps up > behind you and lets you have it with a rubber band right on the > back of your ear. > > Now rationally, taken literally, this does not constitute near so > serious a threat to you as dying in an automobile accident. In > fact, if you had the choice of putting up with this aberrant > behavior instead of having to put up with the dangers of the > highway, it would be highly rational to exchage road accident > risk for the minor pain every couple of days from your coworker. > > But we were constructed to take threats from other human beings > very, very seriously. The following has not changed since the EEA: > another human being can be an exceedingly dangerous organism to > have around. If one gets the drop on you, with his fists and hands > along he could conceivably kill or seriously injure one; even a 30 > kilo human being would be deadly with a baseball bat if, again, he > takes you by surprise. > > The key factor is that another human being is a resourceful antagonist, > unlike avalanches and car accidents. Any sign of instability or hostility > from another human (or group of humans) has to be recognized as > a very serious danger. And this hasn't changed at all in the last > 100,000 years. Yes, but you still have to *rationally* assess the risk from your co-worker versus other risks. If he has been doing his rubber band trick for the last 30 years, with no other evidence of hostile or dangerous behaviour, this is different to the case where the behaviour is new and perhaps indicative of a developing psychotic episode. -- Stathis Papaioannou From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 04:58:03 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:58:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Why care about AI friendliness? (was Re: singularity summit on foxnews) In-Reply-To: <580930c20709141327y114c2a80h6ef554067d6d88fa@mail.gmail.com> References: <62c14240709131604g6a7420f3ld3eebce40e0c067c@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709141327y114c2a80h6ef554067d6d88fa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709142158t6b9ac286i323a746953d23be3@mail.gmail.com> On 9/14/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > This is one of the interesting points. Does one mean "your children" > in the literal sense? Or perhaps children who happen to be as > genetically close as possible (say, of your tribe, race or country)? > Or future generations of the humankind irrespective of any direct, > albeit vague, genetic connection? And what about "children of the > mind", as AIs could not too unreasonably be qualified? What/who can you identify as your children? I meant it in the sense of those younger than the "I'll be dead before AI matters" group, presumably with enough connection to actually care about their welfare. "children of the mind"? How do you propose we make those? > That is, as long as you care to emulate features which used to belong > to your biological self... Which in turn may be necessary even for > purely artificial AIs if we are to consider them as "friendly" or > "unfriendly" in any more meaningful way than the very complex > terrestrial climate system may be. Otherwise, the distinction between > uploaded or emulated humans and purely artificial AIs gets blurred > very quickly... This is why I made the distinction of an AI developed independently of the human hardware model (if hardware is a valid term for meat) I feel the AI that evolves from software will be fundamentally different from AI that is modelled after brain function. If the processes of the human brain are simulated in a computer, should the resulting identity be part of humanity? Should the definition of humanity be expanded to include this state of being? Suppose a degenerative disease leaves you only two choices: death and destructive uploading - would you choose the upload even if it meant you were 'reclassified' according to your definition of the personhood of a simulated-human AI? For this reason, I am compelled to extend the definition of humanity to instances of human processes on alternate substrates as well as self-aware derivative works of humanity. I'm sure a more legallese and ironclad license will need to be agreed upon. Hopefully we can manage an inclusion policy that prevents Homo sapiens sapiens from becoming an insignificant minority or a vestigial novelty. From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 08:24:53 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:24:53 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/09/2007, BillK wrote: > > > An AI professor in the UK has made a presentation that sounded unusual > to me. He sees narrow AI proliferating wildly, until we are > surrounded by thousands of invisible helpers, all doing their own tiny > process. > > Quote - > He believes that we are now seeing the emergence of Assistive > Intelligence which can be characterized as a different kind of AI. > 'These results can be seen everywhere,' he says. 'Rather than being > conscious brains in a box, as Hollywood would have it, they are in > fact small pieces of adaptive and flexible software that help drive > our cars, diagnose disease and provide opponents in computer games.' > > And he sees this as a trend that will continue. 'There will be > micro-intelligences all around us ? systems that are very good and > adaptive at particular tasks, and we will be immersed in environments > stuffed full of helpful devices.' > --------------- > > This is a form of human augmentation that I haven't heard before. > More like augmenting the environment around humans, so that the matter > around us is gradually becoming intelligent. Quite a thought. Is this piecemeal, distributed augmentation of human intelligence fundamentally different to direct augmentation? Phylogenetically, we started off as simple entities with simple wants, and over time various bits were added, resulting in the human brain and its associated motor and sensory devices. The current technical limitation of low bandwidth between our technology and our brain means it is not incorporated into a unified consciousness in the way our cerebral cortex is, but this fact can be ignored if we are just interested in the behaviour and intelligence of the human-technology hybrid system. -- Stathis Papaioannou From mmbutler at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 17:05:49 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:05:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: TED Prize video hits youtube home page! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7d79ed890709141005j50b84bedtd4e333af12474651@mail.gmail.com> On 9/14/07, Sergio M.L. Tarrero wrote: > > FYI... > Does anyone besides me consider this doubly obnoxious spam? Doubly, because it's not plaintext? -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 15 19:32:55 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:32:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] positronium Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915143046.0259eaf0@satx.rr.com> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1580 << In free space, two atoms of positronium cannot combine together, because they have such excess energy that they simply fly apart again. Writing in the British journal Nature today, University of California Riverside physicists David Cassidy and Allen Mills describe how they overcame this obstacle to forge the world's first Ps2 in laboratory conditions. They did it by first creating a special trap that confined some 20 million positrons, which were then focussed in a nano-second blast onto the surface of porous silica. Holed up within the pores, the positrons captured electrons to form atoms of positronium, which in turn linked up to form around 100,000 two-atom molecules before annilation. The silica walls of the pores were the key to the success, as they absorbed the excess energy of the atoms, allowing them to wed, albeit fleetingly. Evidence that the long-sought molecules had been created, comes from a tell-tale temperature curve of gamma rays released by the annihilation.>> I wonder if those silica walls could be termed... positronic branes. (boom boom) From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 15 19:51:01 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:51:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200709152001.l8FK18oB018764@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Picone ... > >.... It of course > would almost never be in an AI's advantage to wipe out the human race, > like it isn't in our advantage for to wipe out geese... Robert Robert the timing of your comment entertained me. Goose season just opened in Douglas county Oregon. My folks have a ranch on which they are currently growing winter rye. The south-flying geese come in by the skerjillions to devour that seed immediately after it is sown, which is done the day goose season opens. My folks invite the local hunters to attempt to wipe out the geese in order to save their investment in grass seed. Each hunter has a five goose limit. Hunters usually have an ethical discomfort with shooting something for no reason whatsoever. The corpse must be either devoured, or some use made of it. A local entrepreneur was suggesting grinding the slain geese into dog food. In that very specific instance, it is to some people's advantage to wipe out geese. {8^D That brings up a problem related to your initial point. We often think of one AI, or a unanimous group of AIs. But what if AIs have varying agendas, as do humans. Would it not stand to reason that one AI or subset of AIs could see an advantage in wiping out the human race? spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 20:16:07 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:16:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> On 9/15/07, Robert Picone wrote: > We do however see no problem with killing those things that we regard > as alien when they are in our advantage to kill, or when it is a > consequence of something that is in our advantage.... It of course > would almost never be in an AI's advantage to wipe out the human race, > like it isn't in our advantage for to wipe out geese, but there would > definitely be circumstances when it would be in an AI's advantage to > do something which might kill a few humans... It's a mistaken idea > that unfriendly AI is about AI wanting to wipe out the human race, > killing without scruples whenever they can get away with it and it > benefits them is more than enough. I do not see how this would be so radically different from what human beings have always been doing not only to different species, as you say, but *to one another*. Do you suggest to prevent the further enhanced or un-enhanced biological reproduction of the members of our species to avoid this risk? Therefore, either you feel you are personally and directly threatened by a specific AI rather than, say, another specific human being; or it is unclear why the level of your concern about murders or genocides not involving you personally should depend on the biological or non-biological nature of their perpetrators. > For the most part Americans don't care if our actions indirectly > caused the deaths of a good 400,000+ people on the other side of the > world so long as we don't have any direct connections to these > people... An AI would be likely to have a lot mote influence over > these things than an individual human would, but why would an AI > bother to avoid these sorts of situations unless something in its > design made it want to avoid these events even more than a human > would? So, the difference would be that "individual" AIs would find themselves as having more influence on life or death issues than "individual" humans... Even if this were actually the case, the problem is - that I do not really see that "collective" humans are any safer than individual humans for other humans (the historical experience would rather suggest the opposite); - and that the working of human societies put anyway individual humans in the position of unleashing collective - and/or automatic, albeit "non-intelligent" - processes not so very different from those which could be generated from your unfriendly AI. Stefano Vaj From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 15 20:12:33 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:12:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Will the Singularity take an unexpected path? In-Reply-To: <009101c7f7aa$3141df10$1e074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200709152023.l8FKNCPS001646@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark ... > > > if the Singularity refers to a form of ignorance > > It does. > > > you should not, in the same sentence, > > treat it as a future event. > > Nonsense, scientists do it all the time. We can accurately predict the > path > of comet X for the next 318 years 4 months 19 days 7 hours and > 22 minutes, but then it will pass very close to Jupiter and after that we > have no idea what the comet's orbit will be. The reason is that at that > particular point a very very small error in the knowledge of the comet's > position and velocity will lead to a huge error in its future orbit...John K Clark Excellent analogy John, thanks. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 15 20:10:36 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:10:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] a couple uses for kudzu In-Reply-To: <62c14240709142212k562f067eg2c43f02ae0c4cab2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709152026.l8FKQ203000477@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty ... > Like the guys "combing the desert" in SpaceBalls, I picture a crew > with shovels attempting to dig a "vertical shaft ... a kilometer deep > and ten meters in diameter..." - of course the sand keeps filling in > when the holes are no more than 2 meters deep and only a meter wide. > > Thanks for the image. The desert I had in mind is the San Joachin valley in southern Taxifornia. There is very little sand there, a layer perhaps a few centimeters on the top surface. Shovels are useless tools. The soil there is very hard, almost rocklike, which is why you hear of old abandoned vertical mine shafts several hundred feet deep, into which card cheaters from Las Vegas mysteriously fall on a regular basis. If one has ever dug a hole there, one knows that such an artifact will remain unchanged for decades if not centuries. The soil there must be ground up and hauled away. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 20:29:33 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:29:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ Message-ID: <580930c20709151329h774549efl8d16ca32267e2f73@mail.gmail.com> On 9/15/07, spike wrote: > Kudzu must be nearly the most prolific plant there is. That stuff grows > like crazy. Seems we should be able to grow the stuff intentionally, then > harvest the leaves to grind and ferment sto alcohol. > > We should even be able to use that techniqu to sequester carbon dioxide in > the form of dead kudzu leaves, should we decide that sequestering CO2 really > is a good idea. We could drill vertical shafts in the desert a kilometer > deep and ten meters in diameter, then dump in tons of ground up kudzu > leaves, then pump in sea water to kill the bacteria that would turn the > stuff back into CO2. Irrespective of the technical merits of this idea - on which I frankly have a few doubts; but I am not an expert of the relevant fields - *this* is what I mean for a transhumanist attitude. Lateral thinking, proactive stances, problems into opportunities, no superstitious fears to disturb supposed "natural balances". Stefano Vaj From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 15 21:20:55 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:20:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> I was musing here a while back about the need for a good term to place in contrast with the sanctimonious "People of Faith"--which cashed out, of course, as "people who believe things on the basis of insufficient or no evidence" or "people of gullibility." It's disappointing that the atheists among our number can't use "People of Athe" or "People of aith" because the link with the root word isn't instantly obvious. "People of evidenth" is too cute by half. Ah well. But it does suggest that adherents of the vile godless sexual aberration might choose to become known proudly as "People of Gayth." Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 15 22:44:53 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:44:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915174352.0265b630@satx.rr.com> A pal writes: >I'm a People of Truth. It betokens a splendid hubris >and one doesn't even need to add a -th. From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 22:51:36 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:51:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915174352.0265b630@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070915174352.0265b630@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709151551w2e697b23yde747a5c0ddbb348@mail.gmail.com> On 9/15/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > >I'm a People of Truth. It betokens a splendid hubris > >and one doesn't even need to add a -th. How many are you? :) From rpicone at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 23:00:55 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:00:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9/15/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 9/15/07, Robert Picone wrote: > > We do however see no problem with killing those things that we regard > > as alien when they are in our advantage to kill, or when it is a > > consequence of something that is in our advantage.... It of course > > would almost never be in an AI's advantage to wipe out the human race, > > like it isn't in our advantage for to wipe out geese, but there would > > definitely be circumstances when it would be in an AI's advantage to > > do something which might kill a few humans... It's a mistaken idea > > that unfriendly AI is about AI wanting to wipe out the human race, > > killing without scruples whenever they can get away with it and it > > benefits them is more than enough. > > I do not see how this would be so radically different from what human > beings have always been doing not only to different species, as you > say, but *to one another*. Do you suggest to prevent the further > enhanced or un-enhanced biological reproduction of the members of our > species to avoid this risk? > > Therefore, either you feel you are personally and directly threatened > by a specific AI rather than, say, another specific human being; or it > is unclear why the level of your concern about murders or genocides > not involving you personally should depend on the biological or > non-biological nature of their perpetrators. > Actually, I don't see a huge difference between this hypothetical AI and a human either, but you'll notice that for the most part, humans don't kill whenever it would benefit them. I am, for example, fairly confident that I could kill a man on the street and take whatever was in his wallet without being caught, and yet I have no desire to do this. The major difference is that there already is a system in place to prevent the creation of unfriendly humans. A human's behaviors, as much as they can be, are designed by a society. This society, throughout the design process, attempts to install safeguards to discourage behavior that is threatening to other members of the society. If an unfriendly biological intelligence is developed, most often it is caught before it has reached human-level intelligence, and submitted for review of some sort (like psychiatry, school/parental punishments, or the legal system) to evaluate what is necessary for redesign. This system isn't perfect, but at least as far as murders are concerned it seems to have a 99.99% chance of success, which would be more than satisfactory to me for the development of AI. The other factor would be that humans have little trouble empathizing with most other humans they are likely to encounter. A sort of intuitive version of the golden rule comes into play here to effect our behavior when we can put ourselves in someone else's shoes. On average though, we have very little ability to do this when dealing with foreign cultures or other species. It follows, that if an AI does not think/feel like a human (which, short of brain simulation I count as unlikely), they will constantly be dealing with an alien culture, if we're horrible at this ourselves, how could we expect an AI to be good at it without it being a feature of the design? > > For the most part Americans don't care if our actions indirectly > > caused the deaths of a good 400,000+ people on the other side of the > > world so long as we don't have any direct connections to these > > people... An AI would be likely to have a lot mote influence over > > these things than an individual human would, but why would an AI > > bother to avoid these sorts of situations unless something in its > > design made it want to avoid these events even more than a human > > would? > > So, the difference would be that "individual" AIs would find > themselves as having more influence on life or death issues than > "individual" humans... > > Even if this were actually the case, the problem is > - that I do not really see that "collective" humans are any safer than > individual humans for other humans (the historical experience would > rather suggest the opposite); > - and that the working of human societies put anyway individual humans > in the position of unleashing collective - and/or automatic, albeit > "non-intelligent" - processes not so very different from those which > could be generated from your unfriendly AI. > > Stefano Vaj Both good points about our society, but I don't see how they do anything but support my argument. When collectives lash out, it has always been against those things alien to them, namely minorities, foreign cultures, or both at once. If AIs acted like humans in this respect, and frequently collaborated, humans, or some subset of humans, would likely qualify for such a potential lashing out. Consider how many people out there are hostile to the concept of AI as you are accusing me of being, do you suppose this hostility would be completely one-sided? I do of course advocate trying to remove the behaviors that spawn these issues from human society as well, but the steps to shape the behaviors of individuals that do not yet exist are much more clear than the steps to significantly change the behaviors of large groups that already exist. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 23:14:38 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:14:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ In-Reply-To: <580930c20709151329h774549efl8d16ca32267e2f73@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20709151329h774549efl8d16ca32267e2f73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0709151614g7f873c5n212c2ffd586b1c51@mail.gmail.com> On 9/15/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Irrespective of the technical merits of this idea - on which I frankly > have a few doubts; but I am not an expert of the relevant fields - > *this* is what I mean for a transhumanist attitude. Lateral thinking, > proactive stances, problems into opportunities, no superstitious fears > to disturb supposed "natural balances". Agreed! From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 15 23:28:24 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:28:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0709151614g7f873c5n212c2ffd586b1c51@mail.gmail.com > References: <580930c20709151329h774549efl8d16ca32267e2f73@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0709151614g7f873c5n212c2ffd586b1c51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915182534.021c7180@satx.rr.com> > > *this* is what I mean for a transhumanist attitude....no > superstitious fears > > to disturb supposed "natural balances". > >Agreed! Not so quick, slick! What the hell do you think the greenhouse effect is? (Oh, wait. It's a socialist terrorist plot, invented by mad self-serving scientists, and anyway it'll be really great for the economy.) Damien Broderick From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Sep 16 00:10:21 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:10:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ In-Reply-To: <580930c20709151329h774549efl8d16ca32267e2f73@mail.gmail.com> References: <580930c20709151329h774549efl8d16ca32267e2f73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005c01c7f7f5$f8a57670$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Wouldn't the ground up leaves have to be mulched and reintroduced to the soil where the Kudzu originally grew to fertilize for the next harvest or else the topsoil would eventual be depleted and the soil level would eventually drop until it reached a level of rock or clay? Or else if saltwater stops the carbon from beeing released why not drop it off in nearby ocean ravine. It seems a lot more energy efficient than trying to dig a shaft and bury it. Another idea is to haul it to the strip mining reclamation sites. They are required by law to place a layer of topsoil over the strip mined area anyway. Reclamation has been seriously put off in many states and only a small fraction of the land that has been stripmined has been fully reclaimed. The layer of Kudzu would raise the land back closer to the original elevation. Also there are saltmines under large parts of metropolin Cleveland which go on for miles and miles under there. On the northern portion which are getting close to lake Erie they can mine the salt no further for fear a channel would open to the lake and flood the mines. They already have extensive conveyor systems leading out of the mines. Why not fill the return trip with ground Kudzu or other biomass and begin packing it in starting from the North where they can no longer mine. Also since Kudzu can be grazed by cattle. It could be used to help replace corn as feed in the cattle industry as ethanol made from corn ramps up production. Of course you could not use the Kudzu to make alchohol if it is eaten by the cattle but the corn still could be. And if the price of corn starts to rise rapidly to replace petroleum as a fuel Kudzu may be the best alternative for a farmer because it grows rapidly and is resistent to pests and would require little fertilizer. Humorous tips on how to grow Kudzu http://www.locksley.com/kudzu.htm Food. The Japanese have consumed kudzu as food for thousands of years. It's not always tasty, but it has saved many from famine. Every part of the kudzu plant is useful for food. Powdered kudzu root is a starchy flour much like cornstartch and can be used to make soups and puddings. Kudzu leaf is a leafy green like spinach or kale, and is sturdy enough to use like grape leaves. Kudzu blossoms can be used to make a deep maroon tea, though many find it bitter. In Japan, a kudzu-flavored tofu is a delicacy. Kudzu recipes are readily found online. Maybe what we need is to have a contest to find more uses for Kudzu. We need some innovative botanist to do for Kudzu what George Washington Carver did for the peanut. Humorous tips on how to grow Kudzu http://www.locksley.com/kudzu.htm If Kudzu went suddenly from being a weed to a cash crop the resulting increase in its usage might lower the demand for other crops which do not consume as much CO2, and require more fertilizer and pesticides. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:30 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ On 9/15/07, spike wrote: > Kudzu must be nearly the most prolific plant there is. That stuff > grows like crazy. Seems we should be able to grow the stuff > intentionally, then harvest the leaves to grind and ferment sto alcohol. > > We should even be able to use that techniqu to sequester carbon > dioxide in the form of dead kudzu leaves, should we decide that > sequestering CO2 really is a good idea. We could drill vertical > shafts in the desert a kilometer deep and ten meters in diameter, then > dump in tons of ground up kudzu leaves, then pump in sea water to kill > the bacteria that would turn the stuff back into CO2. Irrespective of the technical merits of this idea - on which I frankly have a few doubts; but I am not an expert of the relevant fields - *this* is what I mean for a transhumanist attitude. Lateral thinking, proactive stances, problems into opportunities, no superstitious fears to disturb supposed "natural balances". Stefano Vaj _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.19/1008 - Release Date: 9/14/2007 8:59 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.19/1008 - Release Date: 9/14/2007 8:59 AM From mmbutler at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 01:10:24 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:10:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] a couple uses for kudzu In-Reply-To: <200709152026.l8FKQ203000477@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <62c14240709142212k562f067eg2c43f02ae0c4cab2@mail.gmail.com> <200709152026.l8FKQ203000477@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709151810g271d00aaxd20c07791814a2d@mail.gmail.com> On 9/15/07, spike wrote: > The desert I had in mind is the San Joachin valley in southern Taxifornia. > There is very little sand there, a layer perhaps a few centimeters on the > top surface. Shovels are useless tools. The soil there is very hard, > almost rocklike, which is why you hear of old abandoned vertical mine shafts > several hundred feet deep, But there's no aquifer? Fer sher? down to a kilometer? Because, if there were, salt water'd be bad fer. ...it. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Sep 15 22:01:40 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:01:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1189765102_106029@S3.cableone.net> <01e701c7f71b$737bf670$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <020301c7f808$ac8877c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 15/09/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: >> ... >> The key factor is that another human being is a resourceful antagonist, >> unlike avalanches and car accidents. Any sign of instability or hostility >> from another human (or group of humans) has to be recognized as >> a very serious danger. And this hasn't changed at all in the last >> 100,000 years. > > Yes, but you still have to *rationally* assess the risk from your > co-worker versus other risks. If he has been doing his rubber band > trick for the last 30 years, with no other evidence of hostile or > dangerous behaviour, this is different to the case where the behaviour > is new and perhaps indicative of a developing psychotic episode. Yes, I think that's right. Likewise if we knew with very high probability that Iran was going to be no more of a threat than it has been the last fifty years, then it would be quite irrational to worry much about it. On the other hand, if your neighbor or coworker has repeated sworn that he will kill you, and that the only thing that's been stopping him heretofore has been lack of opportunity or technology, and his circumstances are now changing, we're right back to having to regard this as very, very dangerous. Lee From rpicone at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 03:15:45 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:15:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: <020301c7f808$ac8877c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1189765102_106029@S3.cableone.net> <01e701c7f71b$737bf670$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <020301c7f808$ac8877c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 9/15/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > > On 15/09/2007, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> ... > >> The key factor is that another human being is a resourceful antagonist, > >> unlike avalanches and car accidents. Any sign of instability or hostility > >> from another human (or group of humans) has to be recognized as > >> a very serious danger. And this hasn't changed at all in the last > >> 100,000 years. > > > > Yes, but you still have to *rationally* assess the risk from your > > co-worker versus other risks. If he has been doing his rubber band > > trick for the last 30 years, with no other evidence of hostile or > > dangerous behaviour, this is different to the case where the behaviour > > is new and perhaps indicative of a developing psychotic episode. > > Yes, I think that's right. Likewise if we knew with very high probability > that Iran was going to be no more of a threat than it has been the last > fifty years, then it would be quite irrational to worry much about it. > > On the other hand, if your neighbor or coworker has repeated sworn > that he will kill you, and that the only thing that's been stopping him > heretofore has been lack of opportunity or technology, and his > circumstances are now changing, we're right back to having to > regard this as very, very dangerous. > > Lee > > Hmm, and if said coworker was seen holding a steak knife, while talking about eating and issuing fatwas against stabbing techniques, all while you were known to have a gun on your person, as were several others who had sided with you, would this count as having his circumstances change? From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Sep 16 02:38:48 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:38:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1189910235_973@S4.cableone.net> At 04:00 PM 9/15/2007, Robert Picone wrote: snip >Actually, I don't see a huge difference between this hypothetical AI >and a human either, but you'll notice that for the most part, humans >don't kill whenever it would benefit them. That's true, but humans *do* kill when it would benefit their *genes,* and this makes complete sense if you understand evolutionary theory. People don't kill other people very often for the same reason lions don't. It's dangerous, even if you *don't* get caught because people fight back, and you take a substantial risk of dying in the process of killing another top predator. Now, when the choice is *starving* or your kids starving (almost the same thing from a gene's viewpoint) the cost/benefit changes and so does the human propensity to kill. >I am, for example, fairly >confident that I could kill a man on the street and take whatever was >in his wallet without being caught, and yet I have no desire to do >this. Completely expected from simple evolutionary theory. >The major difference is that there already is a system in place to >prevent the creation of unfriendly humans. A human's behaviors, as >much as they can be, are designed by a society. Dreamer. How many missed meals do you think it takes for humans to dump such trained behavior? snip >Both good points about our society, but I don't see how they do >anything but support my argument. When collectives lash out, it has >always been against those things alien to them, namely minorities, >foreign cultures, or both at once. And it is the direct result of a society that as a group sees a bleak future. Germany in the late 1920s being a classical example. >If AIs acted like humans in this >respect, and frequently collaborated, humans, or some subset of >humans, would likely qualify for such a potential lashing out. >Consider how many people out there are hostile to the concept of AI as >you are accusing me of being, do you suppose this hostility would be >completely one-sided? The problem is one of speed. There is no reason for AIs to be limited to human speeds. Imagine trying to fight an opponent who could think and move ten or a hundred times as fast as you can. >I do of course advocate trying to remove the behaviors that spawn >these issues from human society as well, but the steps to shape the >behaviors of individuals that do not yet exist are much more clear >than the steps to significantly change the behaviors of large groups >that already exist. I have very serious doubts that removing the traits behind these behaviors would be a good idea. I can make a case for keeping them turned off by manipulating the environment so that people don't see a bleak future. But with respect to AI, if people don't get it right, building limits/desires to the AIs in the first place, they won't have a chance. Of course, given my recent experiences, I am not going to put effort into this probably lost cause. Keith Henson From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Sep 16 04:34:55 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:34:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transcension (in fiction) before Vinge's Singularity Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915232107.0237e1f8@satx.rr.com> There are probably plenty of fictional forebears, such as the transcendence of the children of humanity into incomprehensible glory at the close of Arthur Clarke's CHILDHOOD'S END, but I was surprised to find that I'd forgotten an unequivocal transcend (under that very word) in Bruce Sterling's "Swarm" (1982). As Sterling noted in the introduction to SCHISMATIX PLUS, this story was (remarkably) his "official story premiere". Here's one revelation to a weakly posthuman, from an ad hoc alien superintelligence tool cast up by a broadly unintelligent alien Swarm and its Queen, at the end of the story: <"In a thousand years you will not even be a memory. Your race will go the same way as a thousand others... They have passed beyond my ken. They have all discovered something, learned something, that has caused them to transcend my understanding. It may be that they even transcend *being*. At any rate, I cannot sense their presence anywhere. They seem to do nothing, they seem to interfere in nothing; for all intents and purposes, they seem to be dead. Vanished. They may have become gods, or ghosts." This seems to be pretty much precisely the fate of the transcended humans in Vinge's MAROONED IN REALTIME, where the Singularity was first plainly declared. Fascinating. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 16 05:27:50 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:27:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] a couple uses for kudzu In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890709151810g271d00aaxd20c07791814a2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709160527.l8G5RYsq010130@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 M. Butler > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 6:10 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] a couple uses for kudzu > > On 9/15/07, spike wrote: > > > ...The soil there is very hard, > > almost rocklike, which is why you hear of old abandoned vertical mine > shafts > > several hundred feet deep, > > But there's no aquifer? Fer sher? down to a kilometer? > > Because, if there were, salt water'd be bad fer. > > ...it. > > > -- > Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m The master of wordplay has reminded me of an important fact. As I recall when I lived in Ridgecrest Ca, the water needed to be lifted about 2000 feet, which is about 600 meters. So perhaps that is the lower limit to the hole. Damien's objections rminded me of another important point. Throwing away all that mulch is a waste of a very important element, phosphorus. Plants and animals have in every cells adenosine triphosphate. Without phosphorus, there is no life. So when we sequester carbon, we need to be sure to not inadvertently sequester phosphorus with it. Yes, Mike, salt water would be bad fer the aquifer, and also waste the phos-fer. spike From amara at amara.com Sun Sep 16 06:02:50 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:02:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ Message-ID: A lot of geo-engineering ideas: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/ Look in the comments. (Maybe grep on carbon) Relevant to your suggestion, and like yours: Some non serious ideas, some serious http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/#comment-15143 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/#comment-15153 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/#comment-15165 some answers to a variety of proposed solutions: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/#comment-15229 and many more...(search through the thread) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From dharris234 at mindspring.com Sat Sep 15 22:58:14 2007 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:58:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <46EC6386.7080002@mindspring.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > I was musing here a while back about the need for a good term to > place in contrast with the sanctimonious "People of Faith"-- ... About 5 years back, we in the freethought community in the SF Peninsula area liked the word Reason, as in Communities of Reason Reasonable People People of Reason I also like the word Evidence, which contrasts nicely with Faith. People of Evidence, People in Evidence, People with Evidence. In the same spirit of how the scientific method differs from faith, People who Test, People who Check, People who Wonder, People of Falsifiable Ideas (OK, not catchy). From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 16 06:14:14 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:14:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200709160626.l8G6QoKx008153@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not > > I was musing here a while back about the need for a good term to > place in contrast with the sanctimonious "People of Faith"--... > Damien Broderick I can suggest one for those who are unbelievers but cannot explain why exactly. In the spirit of Rebel Without a Cause, I propose "heathen for no reathen. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 15:07:28 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:07:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915182534.021c7180@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20709151329h774549efl8d16ca32267e2f73@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0709151614g7f873c5n212c2ffd586b1c51@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070915182534.021c7180@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709160807t53978794u87e8a62e8aeb65b5@mail.gmail.com> On 9/16/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > > *this* is what I mean for a transhumanist attitude....no > > superstitious fears > > > to disturb supposed "natural balances". > > > >Agreed! > > Not so quick, slick! What the hell do you think the greenhouse effect > is? What we make use of in our greenhouses? :-) Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 15:09:19 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:09:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Avalanche Threat In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709130557n4de71ff7s125784f82d13bc18@mail.gmail.com> <01c301c7f67f$deffbd10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01d301c7f692$143b30b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1189765102_106029@S3.cableone.net> <01e701c7f71b$737bf670$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <020301c7f808$ac8877c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20709160809n76db4385tc5034bce06f392ac@mail.gmail.com> On 9/16/07, Robert Picone wrote: > Hmm, and if said coworker was seen holding a steak knife, while > talking about eating and issuing fatwas against stabbing techniques, > all while you were known to have a gun on your person, as were several > others who had sided with you, would this count as having his > circumstances change? Well, I think it would. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 15:30:28 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:30:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709160830p55f35439n5be532a5e001fe5f@mail.gmail.com> On 9/16/07, Robert Picone wrote: > The major difference is that there already is a system in place to > prevent the creation of unfriendly humans. A human's behaviors, as > much as they can be, are designed by a society. This society, > throughout the design process, attempts to install safeguards to > discourage behavior that is threatening to other members of the > society. If an unfriendly biological intelligence is developed, most > often it is caught before it has reached human-level intelligence, and > submitted for review of some sort (like psychiatry, school/parental > punishments, or the legal system) to evaluate what is necessary for > redesign. This sounds a little optimistic to me, but the real point is that I do not see why an individual human with a big, stupid computer would be so much less dangerous than a slowly evolving individual AI networked with, and under the control of, other AIs, and humans with stupid computers. On the contrary, I suppose that security measures are likely to be *more* effective in the latter case than they ordinarily are in our current society. > The other factor would be that humans have little trouble empathizing > with most other humans they are likely to encounter. A sort of > intuitive version of the golden rule comes into play here to effect > our behavior when we can put ourselves in someone else's shoes. On > average though, we have very little ability to do this when dealing > with foreign cultures or other species. It follows, that if an AI > does not think/feel like a human (which, short of brain simulation I > count as unlikely), they will constantly be dealing with an alien > culture, if we're horrible at this ourselves, how could we expect an > AI to be good at it without it being a feature of the design? In fact, I do not. But not being a specieist, and being, e.g., entirely in favour of a further speciation of biological humans, I accept that we cannot expect anything more than the kind of empathy we currently feel, in average, towards members of other cultures, races or species. There again, empathy is usually more based on proximity and shared interests and reciprocal knowledge than it is on "similarity". Many people are more concerned for, say, a single pet living with them than they are for an entire tribe at the other end of the world, even though the latter is immensely closer in biological and "cultural" terms. Why should AIs "stick together", and why should humans do the same? I imagine that more complex scenarios are in order, where AIs may actively support, and take side for, the community they belong to. For the time being, computers are supportive to the interests of their users. This may be reversed in the future - i.e., "users" may become supportive of their computer's interests :-) -, but I do not see a general alliance of all computers against all owners any time soon. Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 15:33:04 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:33:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915174352.0265b630@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070915174352.0265b630@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709160833l5161a02bt679991f2e0eed416@mail.gmail.com> On 9/16/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > A pal writes: > > >I'm a People of Truth. Why, it sounds still a little too metaphysical for my personal taste. :-) Stefano Vaj From scerir at libero.it Sun Sep 16 16:30:28 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:30:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] a couple uses for kudzu References: <200709160527.l8G5RYsq010130@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000301c7f87e$e53f7f20$70bc1f97@archimede> Any possible use for the Miscanthus Giganteus (aka Miscanthus Japonicus)? http://www.bluestem.ca/miscanthus-giganteus.htm It seems that M. is a huge source of biomass (for the production of energy either for direct combustion or through cellulosic ethanol or other biofuel production). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_giganteus Not to mention income generation through carbon credits. Carbon credits, what are they?. http://miscanthus.uiuc.edu/ From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 16 16:58:44 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:58:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] heehaw for the day In-Reply-To: <200709160626.l8G6QoKx008153@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200709161658.l8GGwRYB029522@andromeda.ziaspace.com> This news story gave me a good hardy har. In all fairness, student activist Bevan merely claimed the existence of thousands of responsible, mature BU students. He never actually claims to be one of these hypothetical students. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/16/student.charged.ap/index.html Student leader charged with DUI after defending party BLOOMSBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Bloomsburg University's student government president was charged with drunken driving just weeks after saying the media has unfairly portrayed students as irresponsible. Christopher Bevan, 21, was pulled over last weekend after a campus police officer said he saw the student driving more than 50 mph in a 15-mph zone. A breath test showed Bevan's blood-alcohol level was .147 percent, authorities said. The legal limit for drivers in Pennsylvania is .08 percent. Bevan recently wrote a letter to the Press Enterprise of Bloomsburg about media coverage of the central Pennsylvania college's annual Block Party, an event critics have described as rowdy and alcohol-fueled. The stories have "painted BU students with a broad and negative brush and are both inaccurate and extremely unfair to the thousands of responsible, mature Bloomsburg students who are an asset to the school and this community," Bevan wrote. Reached Friday, Bevan declined to say if he would step down from his position. He also would not comment on the arrest. College spokeswoman Liza Benedict called the arrest out of character for Bevan. "Up to this point, Chris has set a great example for the students and worked well with the university," she said. Bevan was charged with driving under the influence, driving at an unsafe speed and careless driving. From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 16 17:26:49 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:26:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <200709160626.l8G6QoKx008153@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200709161726.l8GHQWjw002944@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not > > > > I was musing here a while back about the need for a good term to > > place in contrast with the sanctimonious "People of Faith"--... > > Damien Broderick We also need good terms for the opposites of the sanctimonious behavior of the people of faith. Like the student activist who scolded the media in a previous post, we describe certain people (often politicians) as self-righteous. So the opposite could be either self-sinner, or someone-else-righteous. The former works better for me, since the someone-else probably isn't righteous either. Furthermore, if one is a self-sinner, then one keeps one's options open. If one is self-righteous, one must actually be righteous, otherwise one is a hypocrite. But if one is a self-sinner, one has the option of being either an actual sinner, or being righteous. If a self-sinner is righteous, no one knows or cares. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Sep 16 16:41:22 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:41:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ In-Reply-To: <580930c20709160807t53978794u87e8a62e8aeb65b5@mail.gmail.co m> References: <580930c20709151329h774549efl8d16ca32267e2f73@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0709151614g7f873c5n212c2ffd586b1c51@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070915182534.021c7180@satx.rr.com> <580930c20709160807t53978794u87e8a62e8aeb65b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1189960785_2620@S1.cableone.net> snip The point of my mentioning kudzu was that it takes over. Where it does not much else can survive. Likewise, to the extent human occupy the thinking niche in the universe, humans are very likely to be displaced by AIs. Keith From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 17:43:24 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:43:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ In-Reply-To: <1189960785_2620@S1.cableone.net> References: <580930c20709151329h774549efl8d16ca32267e2f73@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0709151614g7f873c5n212c2ffd586b1c51@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070915182534.021c7180@satx.rr.com> <580930c20709160807t53978794u87e8a62e8aeb65b5@mail.gmail.com> <1189960785_2620@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20709161043v29e53b9bt271c736a41f44afa@mail.gmail.com> On 9/16/07, hkhenson wrote: > Likewise, to the extent human occupy the thinking niche in the > universe, humans are very likely to be displaced by AIs. Aren't we displaced by our children anyway, at each generation? And is there that big a difference if our species is displaced by biological successors - who obviously would not be cross-fertile any more with their ancestors after a sufficient time -, or by other, different heirs? Stefano Vaj From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Sep 16 18:29:27 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:29:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ In-Reply-To: <1189960785_2620@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <200709161843.l8GIhJV5016950@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson > Subject: Re: [ExI] Kudzu and H+ > > snip > > The point of my mentioning kudzu was that it takes over. Where it > does not much else can survive... ... > Keith Hey cool, good idea Keith. We can use kudzu to get rid of endangered species that threaten one's property value should the enviros discover its presence. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Sep 16 20:43:30 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:43:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <200709161726.l8GHQWjw002944@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709160626.l8G6QoKx008153@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200709161726.l8GHQWjw002944@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709161343u1ee0993dwa4c16e61969fd2ab@mail.gmail.com> On 9/16/07, spike wrote: > We also need good terms for the opposites of the sanctimonious behavior of > the people of faith. Like the student activist who scolded the media in a > previous post, we describe certain people (often politicians) as > self-righteous. So the opposite could be either self-sinner, or > someone-else-righteous. The former works better for me, since the > someone-else probably isn't righteous either. > > Furthermore, if one is a self-sinner, then one keeps one's options open. If > one is self-righteous, one must actually be righteous, otherwise one is a > hypocrite. But if one is a self-sinner, one has the option of being either > an actual sinner, or being righteous. If a self-sinner is righteous, no one > knows or cares. this seemed appropriate to this thread: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2007/06/bizarro_atheists.jpg From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Sep 16 23:32:08 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:32:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <580930c20709160830p55f35439n5be532a5e001fe5f@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709160830p55f35439n5be532a5e001fe5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1189985430_6753@S4.cableone.net> At 08:30 AM 9/16/2007, Stefano wrote: snip >Why should AIs "stick together", and why should humans do the same? You can't understand why humans stick together without resorting to Hamilton's criteria and the concept of inclusive fitness. Don't take my word for it, look it up, it's one of the most important developments in evolutionary biology since Darwin. The behavior of treating unrelated people somewhat like relatives is strictly speaking a biological error that developed because most the people you met in the stone age *were* your relatives. As for computers (AIs actually) sticking together, that would depend on evolved recognitions of the similarity of their "genetic" material and on them having the ability to recognize that they shared "source code." Of course, given what it took for humans to evolve such traits, I don't think anyone would want to be around while AIs were duking it out. Keith Henson From ka.aly at luxsci.net Sun Sep 16 22:23:47 2007 From: ka.aly at luxsci.net (Khaled Aly) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:23:47 +0300 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> <46EC6386.7080002@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <012701c7f8b0$558c9e80$9be8dbc4@pcd> David put it very nicely. My very humble opinion is close, but not identical. People of faith are those who reason and can stand to argue their reasoning (i.e. faith). On this basis, Atheists are people of faith since they have some theory to backup their belief. In all known religions, most of us inherit the "faith". Some of us reason that faith and few of the some would 'modify' their faith according to their reasoning and conclusions, and not for other considerations. I wonder why basic scientific and logical reasoning, as well as the recorded human history literature with its variations and derivatives (to my best knowledge, as far as 7K years back, touching upon Noah's time-- for people who have faith in prophets) are not typically let in to reason and resolve faith issues. A disagreement is also a resolve when backed up by fair argument. Pronouncing (rather than highlighting) the disagreement in association with its underlying supporting arguments may result in fewer conflicts due to the faith issue. It's more peaceful when people agree and accept their reasoned pronounced differences. Communities as they stand are probably not at all ready for that, when it comes to 'faith'. Is it an issue of faith or else? Would "myth" be the sought contrast? I hope I keep my head another day. Gene?! Cheers Khaled > David C. Harris wrote: > Damien Broderick wrote: >> I was musing here a while back about the need for a good term to >> place in contrast with the sanctimonious "People of Faith"-- > ... > About 5 years back, we in the freethought community in the SF Peninsula > area liked the word Reason, as in > Communities of Reason > Reasonable People > People of Reason > > I also like the word Evidence, which contrasts nicely with Faith. > People of Evidence, People in Evidence, People with Evidence. > > In the same spirit of how the scientific method differs from faith, > People who Test, People who Check, People who Wonder, People of > Falsifiable Ideas (OK, not catchy). > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 04:44:22 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:14:22 +0930 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <012701c7f8b0$558c9e80$9be8dbc4@pcd> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> <46EC6386.7080002@mindspring.com> <012701c7f8b0$558c9e80$9be8dbc4@pcd> Message-ID: <710b78fc0709162144t6361a38esf9895b039761fe5c@mail.gmail.com> On 17/09/2007, Khaled Aly wrote: > > People of faith are those who reason and can stand to argue their > reasoning (i.e. faith). On this basis, Atheists are people of faith since > they have some theory to backup their belief. > > Cheers > Khaled Well, no. I think you are defining terms differently to the accepted meaning. >From Dictionary.com, Faith is "belief that is not based on proof". That's what the faithful mean too. People of faith explicitly eschew reason, in favour of believing something for which there is no evidence (ie: the existence of a creator god). To the extent that they do reason about their faith, it is with the implicit acceptance of a whole lot of axioms, which are never open to debate (eg: the Bible). Emlyn > > > David C. Harris wrote: > > > > Damien Broderick wrote: > >> I was musing here a while back about the need for a good term to > >> place in contrast with the sanctimonious "People of Faith"-- > > ... > > About 5 years back, we in the freethought community in the SF Peninsula > > area liked the word Reason, as in > > Communities of Reason > > Reasonable People > > People of Reason > > > > I also like the word Evidence, which contrasts nicely with Faith. > > People of Evidence, People in Evidence, People with Evidence. > > > > In the same spirit of how the scientific method differs from faith, > > People who Test, People who Check, People who Wonder, People of > > Falsifiable Ideas (OK, not catchy). > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 08:14:57 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:14:57 +1000 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <012701c7f8b0$558c9e80$9be8dbc4@pcd> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> <46EC6386.7080002@mindspring.com> <012701c7f8b0$558c9e80$9be8dbc4@pcd> Message-ID: On 17/09/2007, Khaled Aly wrote: > David put it very nicely. My very humble opinion is close, but not > identical. People of faith are those who reason and can stand to argue their > reasoning (i.e. faith). On this basis, Atheists are people of faith since > they have some theory to backup their belief. In all known religions, most > of us inherit the "faith". Some of us reason that faith and few of the some > would 'modify' their faith according to their reasoning and conclusions, and > not for other considerations. Atheism is a faith to the same extent that lack of a belief in the tooth fairy is a faith. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 08:26:02 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:26:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> <46EC6386.7080002@mindspring.com> <012701c7f8b0$558c9e80$9be8dbc4@pcd> Message-ID: On 9/17/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Atheism is a faith to the same extent that lack of a belief in the > tooth fairy is a faith. > What! You don't believe in the Tooth Fairy! That's crazy. I've got evidence to prove it. It doesn't work putting other people's teeth under your pillow, though. (I've tried that). Look at the old people as well. They've got no teeth and they're rich! You probably don't believe in Santa Claus either. Can I have all your presents, then? BillK From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com Mon Sep 17 08:49:33 2007 From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:49:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915174352.0265b630@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070915174352.0265b630@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I like People of Truth, and People of Reason. Also, something with "curiosity" might work. Curious People, or People of Curiosity? Kind of ugly sounding, though. Other possibilities: People of Science, People of Unbelief, People of Discovery, People of Many Books... -- Sergio M.L. Tarrero Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com On Sep 16, 2007, at 12:44 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > A pal writes: > >> I'm a People of Truth. It betokens a splendid hubris >> and one doesn't even need to add a -th. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Sep 17 23:32:39 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal Message-ID: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> I am forwarding this message from another list I am on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402 501.html?referrer=emailarticle ======================================================= In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal By Mary Jordan Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday, September 15, 2007; A01 BURGESS HILL, England -- Every morning on his walk to work, high school teacher Graham Wright recited a favorite Anglican prayer and asked God for strength in the day ahead. Then two years ago, he just stopped. Wright, 59, said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had become a negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once considered becoming an Anglican vicar, he suddenly found that religion represented nothing he believed in, from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up in God's name to Christians condemning gays, contraception and stem cell research. "I stopped praying because I lost my faith," said Wright, 59, a thoughtful man with graying hair and clear blue eyes. "Now I truly loathe any sight or sound of religion. I blush at what I used to believe." Wright is now an avowed atheist and part of a growing number of vocal nonbelievers in Europe and the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic, membership in once-quiet groups of nonbelievers is rising, and books attempting to debunk religion have been surprise bestsellers, including "The God Delusion," by Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins. New groups of nonbelievers are sprouting on college campuses, anti-religious blogs are expanding across the Internet, and in general, more people are publicly saying they have no religious faith. More than three out of four people in the world consider themselves religious, and those with no faith are a distinct minority. But especially in richer nations, and nowhere more than in Europe, growing numbers of people are actively saying they don't believe there is a heaven or a hell or anything other than this life. Many analysts trace the rise of what some are calling the "nonreligious movement" to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The sight of religious fanatics killing 3,000 people caused many to begin questioning -- and rejecting -- all religion. "This is overwhelmingly the topic of the moment," said Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society of Britain. "Religion in this country was very quiet until September 11, and now it is at the center of everything." Since the 2001 attacks, a string of religiously inspired bomb and murder plots has shaken Europe. Muslim radicals killed 52 people on the London public transit system in 2005 and 191 on Madrid trains in 2004. People apparently aiming for a reward in heaven were arrested in Britain last year for trying to blow up transatlantic jetliners. And earlier this month in Germany, authorities arrested converts to Islam on charges that they planned to blow up American facilities there. Many Europeans are angry at demands to use taxpayer money to accommodate Islam, Europe's fastest-growing religion, which now has as many as 20 million followers on the continent. Along with calls for prayer rooms in police stations, foot baths in public places and funding for Islamic schools and mosques, expensive legal battles have broken out over the niqab, the Muslim veil that covers all but the eyes, which some devout women seek to wear in classrooms and court. Christian fundamentalist groups who want to halt certain science research, reverse abortion and gay rights and teach creationism rather than evolution in schools are also angering people, according to Sanderson and others. "There is a feeling that religion is being forced on an unwilling public, and now people are beginning to speak out against what they see as rising Islamic and Christian militancy," Sanderson said. Though the number of nonbelievers speaking their minds is rising, academics say it's impossible to calculate how many people silently share that view. Many people who do not consider themselves religious or belong to any faith group often believe, even if vaguely, in a supreme being or an afterlife. Others are not sure what they believe. The term atheist can imply aggressiveness in disbelief; many who don't believe in God prefer to call themselves humanists, secularists, freethinkers, rationalists or, a more recently coined term, brights. "Where religion is weak, people don't feel a need to organize against it," said Phil Zuckerman, an American academic who has written extensively about atheism around the globe. He and others said secular groups are also gaining strength in countries where religious influence over society looms large, including India, Israel and Turkey. "Any time we see an outspoken movement against religion, it tells us that religion has power there," Zuckerman said. One group of nonbelievers in particular is attracting attention in Europe: the Council of Ex-Muslims. Founded earlier this year in Germany, the group now has a few hundred members and an expanding number of chapters across the continent. "You can't tell us religion is peaceful -- look around at the misery it is causing," said Maryam Namazie, leader of the group's British chapter. She and other leaders of the council held a news conference in The Hague to launch the Dutch chapter on Sept. 11, the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States. "We are all atheists and nonbelievers, and our goal is not to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth," but to make it a private matter that is not imposed on others, she said. The majority of nonbelievers say they are speaking out only because of religious fanatics. But some atheists are also extreme, urging people, for example, to blot out the words "In God We Trust" from every dollar bill they carry. Gaining political clout and access to television and radio airtime is the goal of many of these groups. With a higher profile, they say, they could, for instance, lobby for all religious rooms in public hospitals to be closed, as a response to Muslims demanding prayer rooms because Christians have chapels. Associations of nonbelievers are also moving to address the growing demand in Britain, Spain, Italy and other European countries for nonreligious weddings, funerals and celebrations for new babies. They are helping arrange ceremonies that steer clear of talk of God, heaven and miracles and celebrate, as they say, "this one life we know." The British Humanist Association, which urges people who think "the government pays too much attention to religious groups" to join them, has seen its membership double in two years to 6,500. A humanist group in the British Parliament that looks out for the rights of the nonreligious now has about 120 members, up from about 25 a year ago. Doreen Massey, a Labor Party member of the House of Lords who belongs to that group, said most British people don't want legislators to make public policy decisions on issues such as abortion and other health matters based on their religious beliefs. But the church has disproportionate power and influence in Parliament, she said. For example, she said, polls show that 80 percent of Britons want the terminally ill who are in pain to have the right to a medically assisted death, yet such proposals have been effectively killed by a handful of powerful bishops. "We can't accept that religious faiths have a monopoly on ethics, morality and spirituality," Massey said. Now, she added, humanist and secularist groups are becoming "more confident and more powerful" and recognize that they represent the wishes of huge numbers of people. While the faithful have traditionally met like-minded people at the local church, mosque or synagogue, it has long been difficult for those without religion to find each other. The expansion of the Internet has made it a vital way for nonbelievers to connect. In retirement centers, restaurants, homes and public lectures and debates, nonbelievers are convening to talk about how to push back what they see as increasingly intrusive religion. "Born Again Atheist," "Happy Heathen" and other anti-religious T-shirts and bumper stickers are increasingly seen on the streets. Groups such as the Skeptics in the Pub in London, which recently met to discuss this topic, "God: The Failed Hypothesis," are now finding that they need bigger rooms to accommodate those who find them online. Wright, the teacher who recently declared himself a nonbeliever, is one of thousands of people who have joined dues-paying secular and humanist groups in Europe this year. Sitting in his living room on a quiet cul-de-sac in this English town of 30,000, Wright said he now goes online every day to keep up with the latest atheist news. "One has to step up and stem the rise of religious influence," said Wright, who is thinking of becoming a celebrant at humanist funerals. He said he recently went to the church funeral of his brother-in-law and couldn't bear the "vacuous prayers of the vicar," who, Wright said, "looked bored and couldn't wait to leave." Now, instead of each morning silently reciting a favorite nighttime prayer, "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord, and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers . . . " (from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer), he spends the time just thinking about the day ahead. He said his deceased mother, a Catholic, was comforted by her faith: "It kept her going through difficult times," particularly when his father left her when he and his sister were young. "I really don't know how I will react if something really bad happens," he said. "But there is no going back. There is nothing to go back to." Not believing in an afterlife, he said, "makes you think you have to make the most of this life. It's the now that matters. It also makes you feel a greater urgency of things that matter," such as halting global warming, and not just dismissing it as being "all in God's plan." He called himself heartened that the National Secular Society, which he recently joined, is planning to open chapters at a dozen universities this fall. The rising presence of the nonreligious movement, he said, is "fantastic." "It's a bit of opposition, isn't it?" he said. "Why should these religious groups hold so much sway?" _______________________________________________ Advisors mailing list Advisors at alcor.org http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/advisors -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com Tue Sep 18 01:57:15 2007 From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:57:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:32 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > I am forwarding this message from another list I am on: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/ > AR2007091402501.html?referrer=emailarticle Good article. Thanks for forwarding that, Natasha. The times are certainly changing for the better in the religious arena, at least in the more civilized areas of the world. It's about time. Despite the awful sadness of it all, the 9/11 atrocities, the other attacks in Madrid and London, the failed attacks, the daily attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan (from both sides), the religious genocides taking place from time to time, the (temporary) rise in madness and fundamentalism everywhere as superorganisms clash, the stem-cell luddites and anti-abortionists and creationists, the ludicrous requests of Muslims in Europe... it is refreshing to hear from time to time that all this shit is precisely what is causing ever larger groups of people to react, think for themselves, and take a stand, lose their patience, change sides. Repudiate the concept of "faith" without fear of criticism, or "going to hell". It is nice to see significant sections of the population deciding to "grow up", fight the old demons of religion inside their heads, and choose the path of intellectual and moral honesty. Sam Harris started writing his valiant "The End of Faith" the day after 9/11. Dawkins and Hitchens have also radicalized their positions, and written important new books to help make a difference (I can particularly strongly recommend "God Is Not Great", it's an important book which waves will resonate for decades, a courageous and beautiful work of art, a joy to read). Dennett has focused his sharp and persuasive mind on reaching the average person in doubt (a once rather rare specimen which numbers rise with every passing day) and done so quite gracefully (and respectfully), as we're accustomed to. So has Harris with his second work, a neat little book designed specifically to reach a much wider audience and tweak their brains a bit (or a bunch). And, of course, the Internet is also to "blame" (the faithful would say) for this freethought renewal in the West. It seems now (to me, anyway) that it is a matter of time until we win the fight in our semi-cultured part of the world. Because reason and honesty are on our side. And the snowball will only get bigger faster as the second decade of this century unfolds before our eyes. But, despite my optimism, an important question remains - will this trend extend to Africa and Asia in time to stop the suicidal madness that, with advanced tech, could quite easily do us all in? Not much access to books, free-to-think-or-speak media, or the Internet out there. Will we see the progressively more enlightened ex-Muslims in Europe and the US export their hopes for a more united, secular world to their countries of origin? How can we reach those countries directly (eliminating the middleman, if possible, to save time) and affect the common citizens' mindsets so that they will repudiate religion the way many of us do? When the US was preparing to come into Afghanistan, some time after 9/11, they took the time for a few days (before moving on to push those nasty pious Talibans over the Pakistani border, destroying many of their caves, and obliterating a good number of them in the process) to drop windup radios from the skies, which would allow the common folk to listen to what was about to happen, and to hear why it was happening, from our perspective, with no Taliban nonsense to distort it. They actually attempted to reach people's minds, and win them over (although it was a half-assed attempt). I thought for a minute there that I was daydreaming - could this administration really be doing this, to take the lesson from simple memetics postulates and persuasion techniques and decide to fight a war of ideas (or at least to do so in parallel to a conventional war/attach/ occupation)? Of course, the effort was short lived, and I understood it was just my optimistic innocent me there, hoping for something good. But that type of effort, albeit sustained and on a much larger scale, is precisely what it will take to illustrate the Muslim world to the point that they don't want to kill or convert us all. Unfortunately, I am rather pesimistic about our chances to do this in the relevant time frame. I have a feeling that it will take bigger attacks, bigger catastrophes, maybe megadeath, for the whole world to react and let go of its deadly faiths and other childhood nightmares. And decide to live *this* life to the fullest, the way many of us in the West are doing. The article points to an important corollary to losing one's faith: the more one distances oneself from "faith", the more one appreciates life. Let's just hope we reach critical mass in time to avoid some major man-made catastrophe of "biblical" proportions. -- Sergio M.L. Tarrero Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:32 AM, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > I am forwarding this message from another list I am on: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/ > AR2007091402 > 501.html?referrer=emailarticle > ======================================================= > In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal > By Mary Jordan > Washington Post Foreign Service > Saturday, September 15, 2007; A01 > > BURGESS HILL, England -- Every morning on his walk to work, high > school > teacher Graham Wright recited a favorite Anglican prayer and asked > God for > strength in the day ahead. Then two years ago, he just stopped. > > Wright, 59, said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had > become a > negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once > considered > becoming an Anglican vicar, he suddenly found that religion > represented > nothing he believed in, from Muslim extremists blowing themselves > up in > God's name to Christians condemning gays, contraception and stem cell > research. > > "I stopped praying because I lost my faith," said Wright, 59, a > thoughtful > man with graying hair and clear blue eyes. "Now I truly loathe any > sight or > sound of religion. I blush at what I used to believe." > > Wright is now an avowed atheist and part of a growing number of vocal > nonbelievers in Europe and the United States. On both sides of the > Atlantic, > membership in once-quiet groups of nonbelievers is rising, and books > attempting to debunk religion have been surprise bestsellers, > including "The > God Delusion," by Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins. > > New groups of nonbelievers are sprouting on college campuses, anti- > religious > blogs are expanding across the Internet, and in general, more > people are > publicly saying they have no religious faith. > > More than three out of four people in the world consider themselves > religious, and those with no faith are a distinct minority. But > especially > in richer nations, and nowhere more than in Europe, growing numbers of > people are actively saying they don't believe there is a heaven or > a hell or > anything other than this life. > > Many analysts trace the rise of what some are calling the > "nonreligious > movement" to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The sight of > religious > fanatics killing 3,000 people caused many to begin questioning -- and > rejecting -- all religion. > > "This is overwhelmingly the topic of the moment," said Terry > Sanderson, > president of the National Secular Society of Britain. "Religion in > this > country was very quiet until September 11, and now it is at the > center of > everything." > > Since the 2001 attacks, a string of religiously inspired bomb and > murder > plots has shaken Europe. Muslim radicals killed 52 people on the > London > public transit system in 2005 and 191 on Madrid trains in 2004. People > apparently aiming for a reward in heaven were arrested in Britain > last year > for trying to blow up transatlantic jetliners. And earlier this > month in > Germany, authorities arrested converts to Islam on charges that > they planned > to blow up American facilities there. > > Many Europeans are angry at demands to use taxpayer money to > accommodate > Islam, Europe's fastest-growing religion, which now has as many as 20 > million followers on the continent. Along with calls for prayer > rooms in > police stations, foot baths in public places and funding for > Islamic schools > and mosques, expensive legal battles have broken out over the > niqab, the > Muslim veil that covers all but the eyes, which some devout women > seek to > wear in classrooms and court. > > Christian fundamentalist groups who want to halt certain science > research, > reverse abortion and gay rights and teach creationism rather than > evolution > in schools are also angering people, according to Sanderson and > others. > > "There is a feeling that religion is being forced on an unwilling > public, > and now people are beginning to speak out against what they see as > rising > Islamic and Christian militancy," Sanderson said. > > Though the number of nonbelievers speaking their minds is rising, > academics > say it's impossible to calculate how many people silently share > that view. > Many people who do not consider themselves religious or belong to > any faith > group often believe, even if vaguely, in a supreme being or an > afterlife. > Others are not sure what they believe. > > The term atheist can imply aggressiveness in disbelief; many who don't > believe in God prefer to call themselves humanists, secularists, > freethinkers, rationalists or, a more recently coined term, brights. > > "Where religion is weak, people don't feel a need to organize > against it," > said Phil Zuckerman, an American academic who has written > extensively about > atheism around the globe. > > He and others said secular groups are also gaining strength in > countries > where religious influence over society looms large, including > India, Israel > and Turkey. "Any time we see an outspoken movement against > religion, it > tells us that religion has power there," Zuckerman said. > > One group of nonbelievers in particular is attracting attention in > Europe: > the Council of Ex-Muslims. Founded earlier this year in Germany, > the group > now has a few hundred members and an expanding number of chapters > across the > continent. "You can't tell us religion is peaceful -- look around > at the > misery it is causing," said Maryam Namazie, leader of the group's > British > chapter. > > She and other leaders of the council held a news conference in The > Hague to > launch the Dutch chapter on Sept. 11, the sixth anniversary of the > terrorist > attacks in the United States. "We are all atheists and > nonbelievers, and our > goal is not to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth," but to > make it a > private matter that is not imposed on others, she said. > > The majority of nonbelievers say they are speaking out only because of > religious fanatics. But some atheists are also extreme, urging > people, for > example, to blot out the words "In God We Trust" from every dollar > bill they > carry. > > Gaining political clout and access to television and radio airtime > is the > goal of many of these groups. With a higher profile, they say, they > could, > for instance, lobby for all religious rooms in public hospitals to be > closed, as a response to Muslims demanding prayer rooms because > Christians > have chapels. > > Associations of nonbelievers are also moving to address the growing > demand > in Britain, Spain, Italy and other European countries for nonreligious > weddings, funerals and celebrations for new babies. They are > helping arrange > ceremonies that steer clear of talk of God, heaven and miracles and > celebrate, as they say, "this one life we know." > > The British Humanist Association, which urges people who think "the > government pays too much attention to religious groups" to join > them, has > seen its membership double in two years to 6,500. > > A humanist group in the British Parliament that looks out for the > rights of > the nonreligious now has about 120 members, up from about 25 a year > ago. > > Doreen Massey, a Labor Party member of the House of Lords who > belongs to > that group, said most British people don't want legislators to make > public > policy decisions on issues such as abortion and other health > matters based > on their religious beliefs. > > But the church has disproportionate power and influence in > Parliament, she > said. For example, she said, polls show that 80 percent of Britons > want the > terminally ill who are in pain to have the right to a medically > assisted > death, yet such proposals have been effectively killed by a handful of > powerful bishops. > > "We can't accept that religious faiths have a monopoly on ethics, > morality > and spirituality," Massey said. Now, she added, humanist and > secularist > groups are becoming "more confident and more powerful" and > recognize that > they represent the wishes of huge numbers of people. > > While the faithful have traditionally met like-minded people at the > local > church, mosque or synagogue, it has long been difficult for those > without > religion to find each other. The expansion of the Internet has made > it a > vital way for nonbelievers to connect. > > In retirement centers, restaurants, homes and public lectures and > debates, > nonbelievers are convening to talk about how to push back what they > see as > increasingly intrusive religion. > > "Born Again Atheist," "Happy Heathen" and other anti-religious T- > shirts and > bumper stickers are increasingly seen on the streets. Groups such > as the > Skeptics in the Pub in London, which recently met to discuss this > topic, > "God: The Failed Hypothesis," are now finding that they need bigger > rooms to > accommodate those who find them online. > > Wright, the teacher who recently declared himself a nonbeliever, is > one of > thousands of people who have joined dues-paying secular and > humanist groups > in Europe this year. > > Sitting in his living room on a quiet cul-de-sac in this English > town of > 30,000, Wright said he now goes online every day to keep up with > the latest > atheist news. > > "One has to step up and stem the rise of religious influence," said > Wright, > who is thinking of becoming a celebrant at humanist funerals. He > said he > recently went to the church funeral of his brother-in-law and > couldn't bear > the "vacuous prayers of the vicar," who, Wright said, "looked bored > and > couldn't wait to leave." > > Now, instead of each morning silently reciting a favorite nighttime > prayer, > "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord, and by thy great mercy > defend us from all perils and dangers . . . " (from the Anglican > Book of > Common Prayer), he spends the time just thinking about the day ahead. > > He said his deceased mother, a Catholic, was comforted by her > faith: "It > kept her going through difficult times," particularly when his > father left > her when he and his sister were young. > > "I really don't know how I will react if something really bad > happens," he > said. "But there is no going back. There is nothing to go back to." > > Not believing in an afterlife, he said, "makes you think you have > to make > the most of this life. It's the now that matters. It also makes you > feel a > greater urgency of things that matter," such as halting global > warming, and > not just dismissing it as being "all in God's plan." > > He called himself heartened that the National Secular Society, > which he > recently joined, is planning to open chapters at a dozen > universities this > fall. The rising presence of the nonreligious movement, he said, is > "fantastic." > > "It's a bit of opposition, isn't it?" he said. "Why should these > religious > groups hold so much sway?" > > > _______________________________________________ > Advisors mailing list > Advisors at alcor.org > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/advisors > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 11:50:59 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:50:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <1189985430_6753@S4.cableone.net> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709160830p55f35439n5be532a5e001fe5f@mail.gmail.com> <1189985430_6753@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20709180450r661572abm86ec73b192c8f35f@mail.gmail.com> On 9/17/07, hkhenson wrote: > At 08:30 AM 9/16/2007, Stefano wrote: > >Why should AIs "stick together", and why should humans do the same? > > You can't understand why humans stick together without resorting to > Hamilton's criteria and the concept of inclusive fitness. Musunderstanding. My question is an open, as opposed to a rhetorical, question. In other terms, my point is simply that an explicit answer to that question should be given, and that we should thereafter remain consistent with it. I am well aware of the concept of inclusive fitness. In fact, I discussed it rather in depth in a number of writings (e.g., http://www.biopolitica.it). I am also ready to admit that it is one (of several possible) rationale for a "humans should stick together" policy. Only, I wonder whether we are really prepared to accept the implication that our loyalties are and should be determined by sociobiological factors. Especially in the light of the fact that the "species" is not a particularly relevant set in terms of inclusive fitness (your tribe, e.g., being much more so), and is on the contrary by definition the source and the background of most of the competition faced by your genes (see under food chain, access to good reproductive partners, territory, etc.) Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ka.aly at luxsci.net Tue Sep 18 10:56:25 2007 From: ka.aly at luxsci.net (Khaled Aly) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:56:25 +0300 Subject: [ExI] People of Faith, not References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070915161417.024f5a28@satx.rr.com><46EC6386.7080002@mindspring.com> <012701c7f8b0$558c9e80$9be8dbc4@pcd> <710b78fc0709162144t6361a38esf9895b039761fe5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001001c7f9e2$97aed110$49e8dbc4@pcd> Emlyn I agree with you in the sense of the common use of the term. In The American Heritage dictionary, "Faith: Confident belief; trust. Belief in God; religious conviction." None of these definitions explicitly precluded the use of reasoning to conclude or affirm faith. The common practices (probably in every faith) is what brings the common definition. For sure you can drive evidence on certain aspects, but not all and you'd always be left with many axioms. I just don't see faith and reasoning contradictory. It's a choice to make them so. I'll stop to avoid involving religion in the discussion! And you heard Eugen :) Cheers ka Note: I didn't mean to defend (neither attack) atheism, but just to make a point that an atheist may be able to present good reasoning, that is not necessarily correct. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emlyn" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 7:44 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] People of Faith, not > On 17/09/2007, Khaled Aly wrote: >> >> People of faith are those who reason and can stand to argue their >> reasoning (i.e. faith). On this basis, Atheists are people of faith since >> they have some theory to backup their belief. > >> >> Cheers >> Khaled > > Well, no. I think you are defining terms differently to the accepted > meaning. > >>From Dictionary.com, Faith is "belief that is not based on proof". > That's what the faithful mean too. People of faith explicitly eschew > reason, in favour of believing something for which there is no > evidence (ie: the existence of a creator god). To the extent that they > do reason about their faith, it is with the implicit acceptance of a > whole lot of axioms, which are never open to debate (eg: the Bible). > > Emlyn > >> From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Sep 18 15:44:09 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:44:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <580930c20709180450r661572abm86ec73b192c8f35f@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709160830p55f35439n5be532a5e001fe5f@mail.gmail.com> <1189985430_6753@S4.cableone.net> <580930c20709180450r661572abm86ec73b192c8f35f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1190131800_7849@S4.cableone.net> At 04:50 AM 9/18/2007, Stefano wrote: >On 9/17/07, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote: > > At 08:30 AM 9/16/2007, Stefano wrote: > > >Why should AIs "stick together", and why should humans do the same? > > > > You can't understand why humans stick together without resorting to > > Hamilton's criteria and the concept of inclusive fitness. > >Musunderstanding. My question is an open, as opposed to a >rhetorical, question. In other terms, my point is simply that an >explicit answer to that question should be given, and that we should >thereafter remain consistent with it. > >I am well aware of the concept of inclusive fitness. In fact, I >discussed it rather in depth in a number of writings (e.g., >http://www.biopolitica.it). Excellent. >I am also ready to admit that it is one (of several possible) >rationale for a "humans should stick together" policy. "Should," hard word to use. Comes from brain level rational thinking. What usually wins out is gene driven propensities to kill neighbors when the prospects for feeding the kids through the next winter start looking bleak. >Only, I wonder whether we are really prepared to accept the >implication that our loyalties are and should be determined by >sociobiological factors. "Are" is the operative word, though who is considered "tribe" is highly flexible, learned more than directly sensed. As in unrelated men dying for the sake of their military unit. >Especially in the light of the fact that the "species" is not a >particularly relevant set in terms of inclusive fitness (your tribe, >e.g., being much more so), and is on the contrary by definition the >source and the background of most of the competition faced by your >genes (see under food chain, access to good reproductive partners, >territory, etc.) Well stated. You need to take this only a very small way for the implications to be clear and to be able to answer the question of why Europe has gone so long in recent times without a major war, what would or is likely to cause war, etc. In short, population growth above economic growth leads to perception of bleak times in the future. The perception turns up the population gain on xenophobic memes, and that activates the warriors to kill neighbors. The population decline makes the future look better and that switches off "war mode." This is mechanistic, the result of millions of years of evolution where war kept the human population inside the ability of the ecosystem to feed it. Of course, an AI/singularity would likely end war among humans. Hopefully not at the cost of wars among the AIs because that could really be disastrous. Azar Gat's thoughts on The Human Motivational Complex: Evolutionary Theory And The Causes Of Hunter-Gatherer Fighting." Highly recommended. http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf Mine putting this in an EP context. (Print version in Mankind Quarterly, Summer 2006) http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 Fiction about how AIs ending war, starvation, disease, etc. But at a cost. http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html Keith From rpicone at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 17:06:34 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:06:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <580930c20709160830p55f35439n5be532a5e001fe5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709160830p55f35439n5be532a5e001fe5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9/16/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 9/16/07, Robert Picone wrote: > > The major difference is that there already is a system in place to > > prevent the creation of unfriendly humans. A human's behaviors, as > > much as they can be, are designed by a society. This society, > > throughout the design process, attempts to install safeguards to > > discourage behavior that is threatening to other members of the > > society. If an unfriendly biological intelligence is developed, most > > often it is caught before it has reached human-level intelligence, and > > submitted for review of some sort (like psychiatry, school/parental > > punishments, or the legal system) to evaluate what is necessary for > > redesign. > > This sounds a little optimistic to me, but the real point is that I do > not see why an individual human with a big, stupid computer would be > so much less dangerous than a slowly evolving individual AI networked > with, and under the control of, other AIs, and humans with stupid > computers. > > On the contrary, I suppose that security measures are likely to be > *more* effective in the latter case than they ordinarily are in our > current society. > Well, Keith offered the danger of speed/ability, but I don't subscribe to that school of thought. While AIs will doubtlessly outpace humans for quite a while, it seems unlikely that a collection of humans aided by computers wouldn't be able to compete in terms of potential danger. My problem would be more that from the 2nd to the 5th year of the first AI's public existence, it, or some other AI created to emulate it, will be the most influential being on the planet. It seems worthwhile to keep something that could quite possibly be a sociopath from holding this position. it also seems rather likely that it will be influential in that subsequent AIs will be created through little more than slight modification of the design. If the first AI was unfriendly, it seems rather likely that there will be multiple other unfriendly AIs around before anyone realizes a mistake. > > The other factor would be that humans have little trouble empathizing > > with most other humans they are likely to encounter. A sort of > > intuitive version of the golden rule comes into play here to effect > > our behavior when we can put ourselves in someone else's shoes. On > > average though, we have very little ability to do this when dealing > > with foreign cultures or other species. It follows, that if an AI > > does not think/feel like a human (which, short of brain simulation I > > count as unlikely), they will constantly be dealing with an alien > > culture, if we're horrible at this ourselves, how could we expect an > > AI to be good at it without it being a feature of the design? > > In fact, I do not. But not being a specieist, and being, e.g., > entirely in favour of a further speciation of biological humans, I > accept that we cannot expect anything more than the kind of empathy we > currently feel, in average, towards members of other cultures, races > or species. > > There again, empathy is usually more based on proximity and shared > interests and reciprocal knowledge than it is on "similarity". Many > people are more concerned for, say, a single pet living with them than > they are for an entire tribe at the other end of the world, even > though the latter is immensely closer in biological and "cultural" > terms. > I doubt that this is the usual case, pets seem to be the exception to the rule because to many they qualify as family, and as such are a member of someone's human sub-groupings. A zoo-keeper is more likely to empathize with a cousin they have never met than any one animal. A Southern Baptist who lives next to and shares political interests with an atheist is more likely to empathize with another Southern Baptist who was raised in a similar environment but has lived on the other side of the world their entire life and is their political opposite. And I am more likely to empathize with a childhood acquaintance than the Mexican immigrant next door. I'd say perceived similarity/common experience plays as much of a role as anything else. > Why should AIs "stick together", and why should humans do the same? > I never meant to imply they would. > I imagine that more complex scenarios are in order, where AIs may > actively support, and take side for, the community they belong to. For > the time being, computers are supportive to the interests of their > users. This may be reversed in the future - i.e., "users" may become > supportive of their computer's interests :-) -, but I do not see a > general alliance of all computers against all owners any time soon. > > Stefano Vaj Neither do I, which is why I made the point that I don't expect them to ever want to annihilate the human race. But I do expect that a great many of them will empathize a great deal more with any other AI than a subset of humans they have never and will never come into contact with, and there will be those that they will never have contact with unless you expect a quick end to all poverty. From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 17:28:09 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:28:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Research question: looking for an interventional neuroradiologist Message-ID: <29666bf30709181028s2f4386cdweee0c7b6c0ac51b5@mail.gmail.com> Does anyone know an interventional neuroradiologist who would be open to answering stupid questions I have for my book? Thanks! PJ From eugen at leitl.org Tue Sep 18 18:38:18 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:38:18 +0200 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: References: <200709110146.l8B1kNIN023449@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46E6ABF8.2040801@comcast.net> <580930c20709131428n5b7195c1h6380c2026e67000@mail.gmail.com> <1189730595_89465@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709141354s59181e09v9e923a2f4b5baafa@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709151316k1219b8d1ia97ca18329ee3a5d@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709160830p55f35439n5be532a5e001fe5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070918183818.GI4005@leitl.org> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:06:34AM -0700, Robert Picone wrote: > Well, Keith offered the danger of speed/ability, but I don't subscribe > to that school of thought. While AIs will doubtlessly outpace humans > for quite a while, it seems unlikely that a collection of humans aided > by computers wouldn't be able to compete in terms of potential danger. I'm baffled by that paragraph. Can you explain us the thinking behind your conclusions? > My problem would be more that from the 2nd to the 5th year of the Why not 2nd to 5th day, or 2nd to 5th week, or 2nd to 5th month, or 2nd to 5th century? There must be estimates behind your numbers, but you don't list them. > first AI's public existence, it, or some other AI created to emulate Why only one AI, and not many of them? > it, will be the most influential being on the planet. It seems Singular again. Why? > worthwhile to keep something that could quite possibly be a sociopath > from holding this position. How could it be something other than something rather nonhuman, unless carefully constructed to be a model of a human baby, and raised by loving human parents? > it also seems rather likely that it will be influential in that > subsequent AIs will be created through little more than slight > modification of the design. If the first AI was unfriendly, it seems > rather likely that there will be multiple other unfriendly AIs around > before anyone realizes a mistake. If people are frozen in time, and a dynamic machine culture suddenly surges forward, how can you expect it to always nimbly dance around us static statues, for their subjective eternity? How can you ask such a thing, which would be quite horrible, if not for its ridiculous anthropocentrism? We're but a passing phase. Get used to that notion. If we're lucky, we will become our own successors. If we're less lucky, we will give rise to our successors, and then get left behind. That would suck, but it wouldn't be exactly the first time in Earth's history. > Neither do I, which is why I made the point that I don't expect them > to ever want to annihilate the human race. But I do expect that a That's not nearly enough. > great many of them will empathize a great deal more with any other AI > than a subset of humans they have never and will never come into > contact with, and there will be those that they will never have > contact with unless you expect a quick end to all poverty. I'm again baffled. What has poverty to do with anything autonomous AI? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 18:31:17 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <311635.43957.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Robert Picone said: > I doubt that this is the usual case, pets seem to be the exception to > the rule because to many they qualify as family, and as such are a > member of someone's human sub-groupings. That, and they're cute. As flippant as this may sound, in my pre-caffeine haze this morning it occurred to me that perhaps we just have to program the AIs to see humans as *cute*. While pets certainly have "family member" status going for them, it's also true that plenty of humans find themselves outraged by the idea of baby penguins being killed in the Antarctic. Whatever its cause, the "cute signal" seems to have the capacity to override the "destroy the weak and/or inconvenient" signal in a lot of cases. Of course, there's a fine line between thinking something is "cute" and feeling the need to control that thing (or person), or dress it up in horrible little outfits, but still. - Anne (who is, in fact, being rather silly, in case that wasn't clear...) "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Sep 18 18:45:54 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:45:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [EP_group] Is 'Doing Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes? Message-ID: <1190141059_4819@S3.cableone.net> Interesting. HKH >Is 'Doing Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes? > >By NICHOLAS WADE >NYTimes from Science Times section >Published: September 18, 2007 > >Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. > From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being >advocated by some biologists, that of evolution. > >At first glance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest >may seem to reward only the most selfish values. But for animals >that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there >will be no advantage to social living. Could the behaviors evolved >by social animals to make societies work be the foundation from >which human morality evolved? >In a series of recent articles and a book, ?The Happiness >Hypothesis,? Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University >of Virginia, has been constructing a broad evolutionary view of >morality that traces its connections both to religion and to politics. >Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) began his research career by probing >the emotion of disgust. Testing people?s reactions to situations >like that of a hungry family that cooked and ate its pet dog after >it had become roadkill, he explored the phenomenon of moral >dumbfounding ? when people feel strongly that something is wrong but >cannot explain why. >Dumbfounding led him to view morality as driven by two separate >mental systems, one ancient and one modern, though the mind is >scarcely aware of the difference. The ancient system, which he calls >moral intuition, is based on the emotion-laden moral behaviors that >evolved before the development of language. The modern system ? he >calls it moral judgment ? came after language, when people became >able to articulate why something was right or wrong. > >The emotional responses of moral intuition occur instantaneously ? >they are primitive gut reactions that evolved to generate >split-second decisions and enhance survival in a dangerous world. >Moral judgment, on the other hand, comes later, as the conscious >mind develops a plausible rationalization for the decision already >arrived at through moral intuition. >Moral dumbfounding, in Dr. Haidt?s view, occurs when moral judgment >fails to come up with a convincing explanation for what moral >intuition has decided. > >So why has evolution equipped the brain with two moral systems when >just one might seem plenty? > >?We have a complex animal mind that only recently evolved language >and language-based reasoning,? Dr. Haidt said. ?No way was control >of the organism going to be handed over to this novel faculty.? > >He likens the mind?s subterranean moral machinery to an elephant, >and conscious moral reasoning to a small rider on the elephant?s >back. Psychologists and philosophers have long taken a far too >narrow view of morality, he believes, because they have focused on >the rider and largely ignored the elephant. > >Dr. Haidt developed a better sense of the elephant after visiting >India at the suggestion of an anthropologist, Richard Shweder. In >Bhubaneswar, in the Indian state of Orissa, Dr. Haidt saw that >people recognized a much wider moral domain than the issues of harm >and justice that are central to Western morality. Indians were >concerned with integrating the community through rituals and >committed to concepts of religious purity as a way to restrain behavior. >On his return from India, Dr. Haidt combed the literature of >anthropology and psychology for ideas about morality throughout the >world. He identified five components of morality that were common to >most cultures. Some concerned the protection of individuals, others >the ties that bind a group together. > >Of the moral systems that protect individuals, one is concerned with >preventing harm to the person and the other with reciprocity and >fairness. Less familiar are the three systems that promote behaviors >developed for strengthening the group. These are loyalty to the >in-group, respect for authority and hierarchy, and a sense of purity >or sanctity. > >The five moral systems, in Dr. Haidt?s view, are innate >psychological mechanisms that predispose children to absorb certain >virtues. Because these virtues are learned, morality may vary widely >from culture to culture, while maintaining its central role of >restraining selfishness. In Western societies, the focus is on >protecting individuals by insisting that everyone be treated fairly. >Creativity is high, but society is less orderly. In many other >societies, selfishness is suppressed ?through practices, rituals and >stories that help a person play a cooperative role in a larger >social entity,? Dr. Haidt said. > >He is aware that many people ? including ?the politically >homogeneous discipline of psychology? ? equate morality with >justice, rights and the welfare of the individual, and dismiss >everything else as mere social convention. But many societies around >the world do in fact behave as if loyalty, respect for authority and >sanctity are moral concepts, Dr. Haidt notes, and this justifies >taking a wider view of the moral domain. > >The idea that morality and sacredness are intertwined, he said, may >now be out of fashion but has a venerable pedigree, tracing back to >Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology. >Dr. Haidt believes that religion has played an important role in >human evolution by strengthening and extending the cohesion provided >by the moral systems. ?If we didn?t have religious minds we would >not have stepped through the transition to groupishness,? he said. >?We?d still be just small bands roving around.? > >Religious behavior may be the result of natural selection, in his >view, shaped at a time when early human groups were competing with >one another. ?Those who found ways to bind themselves together were >more successful,? he said. > >Dr. Haidt came to recognize the importance of religion by a >roundabout route. ?I first found divinity in disgust,? he writes in >his book ?The Happiness Hypothesis.? > >The emotion of disgust probably evolved when people became meat >eaters and had to learn which foods might be contaminated with >bacteria, a problem not presented by plant foods. Disgust was then >extended to many other categories, he argues, to people who were >unclean, to unacceptable sexual practices and to a wide class of >bodily functions and behaviors that were seen as separating humans >from animals. > >?Imagine visiting a town,? Dr. Haidt writes, ?where people wear no >clothes, never bathe, have sex ?doggie style? in public, and eat raw >meat by biting off pieces directly from the carcass.? >He sees the disgust evoked by such a scene as allied to notions of >physical and religious purity. Purity is, in his view, a moral >system that promotes the goals of controlling selfish desires and >acting in a religiously approved way. > >Notions of disgust and purity are widespread outside Western >cultures. ?Educated liberals are the only group to say, ?I find that >disgusting but that doesn?t make it wrong,? ? Dr. Haidt said. > >Working with a graduate student, Jesse Graham, Dr. Haidt has >detected a striking political dimension to morality. He and Mr. >Graham asked people to identify their position on a >liberal-conservative spectrum and then complete a questionnaire that >assessed the importance attached to each of the five moral systems. >(The test, called the moral foundations questionnaire, can be taken >online, at www.YourMorals.org.) > >They found that people who identified themselves as liberals >attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of >individuals ? those of not harming others and of doing as you would >be done by. But liberals assigned much less importance to the three >moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for >authority and purity. >Conservatives placed value on all five moral systems but they >assigned less weight than liberals to the moralities protective of >individuals. > >Dr. Haidt believes that many political disagreements between >liberals and conservatives may reflect the different emphasis each >places on the five moral categories. > >Take attitudes to contemporary art and music. Conservatives fear >that subversive art will undermine authority, violate the in-group?s >traditions and offend canons of purity and sanctity. Liberals, on >the other hand, see contemporary art as protecting equality by >assailing the establishment, especially if the art is by oppressed groups. > >Extreme liberals, Dr. Haidt argues, attach almost no importance to >the moral systems that protect the group. Because conservatives do >give some weight to individual protections, they often have a better >understanding of liberal views than liberals do of conservative >attitudes, in his view. > >Dr. Haidt, who describes himself as a moderate liberal, says that >societies need people with both types of personality. ?A liberal >morality will encourage much greater creativity but will weaken >social structure and deplete social capital,? he said. ?I am really >glad we have New York and San Francisco ? most of our creativity >comes out of cities like these. But a nation that was just New York >and San Francisco could not survive very long. Conservatives give >more to charity and tend to be more supportive of essential >institutions like the military and law enforcement.? > >Other psychologists have mixed views about Dr. Haidt?s ideas. > >Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist at Harvard, said, ?I?m a big >fan of Haidt?s work.? He added that the idea of including purity in >the moral domain could make psychological sense even if purity had >no place in moral reasoning. > >But Frans B. M. de Waal, a primatologist at Emory University, said >he disagreed with Dr. Haidt?s view that the task of morality is to >suppress selfishness. Many animals show empathy and altruistic >tendencies but do not have moral systems. > >?For me, the moral system is one that resolves the tension between >individual and group interests in a way that seems best for the most >members of the group, hence promotes a give and take,? Dr. de Waal said. > >He said that he also disagreed with Dr. Haidt?s alignment of >liberals with individual rights and conservatives with social cohesiveness. > >?It is obvious that liberals emphasize the common good ? safety laws >for coal mines, health care for all, support for the poor ? that are >not nearly as well recognized by conservatives,? Dr. de Waal said. > >That alignment also bothers John T. Jost, a political psychologist >at New York University. Dr. Jost said he admired Dr. Haidt as a >?very interesting and creative social psychologist? and found his >work useful in drawing attention to the strong moral element in >political beliefs. >But the fact that liberals and conservatives agree on the first two >of Dr. Haidt?s principles ? do no harm and do unto others as you >would have them do unto you ? means that those are good candidates >to be moral virtues. The fact that liberals and conservatives >disagree on the other three principles ?suggests to me that they are >not general moral virtues but specific ideological commitments or >values,? Dr. Jost said. > >In defense of his views, Dr. Haidt said that moral claims could be >valid even if not universally acknowledged. > >?It is at least possible,? he said, ?that conservatives and >traditional societies have some moral or sociological insights that >secular liberals do not understand.? > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EP_group/ > ><*> Your email settings: > Individual Email | Traditional > ><*> To change settings online go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EP_group/join > (Yahoo! ID required) > ><*> To change settings via email: > mailto:EP_group-digest at yahoogroups.com > mailto:EP_group-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > EP_group-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Sep 18 19:17:06 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:17:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Hidden Impact Of Political Correctness Message-ID: <1190142941_5734@S3.cableone.net> September 13, 2007 The Hidden Impact Of Political Correctness By Robert Weissberg http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2007/09/the_hidden_impact_of_political.html Thought provoking. If someone wants to post this for comment, be my guest. I have gone to my self imposed word count limit for the day. Keith Henson From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 19:45:41 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:45:41 +0200 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> On 9/18/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > I am forwarding this message from another list I am on: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402 > 501.html?referrer=emailarticle > ======================================================= > In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal > By Mary Jordan > Washington Post Foreign Service > Saturday, September 15, 2007; A01 > > BURGESS HILL, England -- Every morning on his walk to work, high school > teacher Graham Wright recited a favorite Anglican prayer and asked God for > strength in the day ahead. Then two years ago, he just stopped. > > Wright, 59, said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had become a > negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once considered > becoming an Anglican vicar, he suddenly found that religion represented > nothing he believed in, from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up in > God's name to Christians condemning gays, contraception and stem cell > research. My concerns are: - that the rejection of monotheistic religions is often based on "moral" reasons, which have nothing to do with epistemological issues; - that such moral reasons substantially reflect "ethical truths", taken for granted and self-evident, which are nothing else than secularised judeo-chistianism. I would rather stay with Nietzsche for the time being, thank you. :-) Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 20:10:14 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:10:14 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [EP_group] Is 'Doing Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes? In-Reply-To: <1190141059_4819@S3.cableone.net> References: <1190141059_4819@S3.cableone.net> Message-ID: <580930c20709181310i1e71bd7boa48124f003ac5da7@mail.gmail.com> On 9/18/07, hkhenson wrote: > >Is 'Doing Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes? > > > >By NICHOLAS WADE > >NYTimes from Science Times section > >Published: September 18, 2007 > > > >Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. > > From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being > >advocated by some biologists, that of evolution. Why wouldn't moral rules be a cultural product, as it is the case for languages, legal systems, etiquette protocols, dressing codes, etc.? Stefano Vaj From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Tue Sep 18 20:26:35 2007 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:26:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [EP_group] Is 'Doing Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes? In-Reply-To: <580930c20709181310i1e71bd7boa48124f003ac5da7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1190141059_4819@S3.cableone.net> <580930c20709181310i1e71bd7boa48124f003ac5da7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: There's been much written lately about morals/altruism of non-human animals. See this article for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ex=1190260800&en=dd6059a7b6c8b0db&ei=5070 I've read Dr. de Waal's book, Our Inner Ape, which presents a lot of interesting information about various emotional behavior in Bonobos, including what appears to be empathy for other creatures (not just their own kind). For example, in one story, he tells of a female Bonobo in a zoo rescuing a bird, taking it to the top of a tree to try to throw it outside their area, and then standing over it until it had recovered enough to fly out on its own. There are lots of other examples (see the article above too). I definitely recommend the book. Best regards, James Clement > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:10:14 +0200 > From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: [EP_group] Is 'Doing Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes? > > On 9/18/07, hkhenson wrote: > > >Is 'Doing Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes? > > > > > >By NICHOLAS WADE > > >NYTimes from Science Times section > > >Published: September 18, 2007 > > > > > >Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. > > > From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being > > >advocated by some biologists, that of evolution. > > Why wouldn't moral rules be a cultural product, as it is the case for > languages, legal systems, etiquette protocols, dressing codes, etc.? > > Stefano Vaj > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Sep 18 22:07:37 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:07:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Video shows real enzyme-DNA interaction Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070918170505.0245f7e0@satx.rr.com> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1588 [vid link on the site above] Video shows real enzyme-DNA interaction Tuesday, 18 September 2007 Cosmos Online SYDNEY: For the first time, scientists have captured remarkable footage of the nanoscale interaction of an enzyme and a strand of DNA. Researchers from the University of Cambridge in the U.K. used an incredibly high resolution scanning atomic force microscope to produce footage of the protective enzyme of a bacterial host unravelling the DNA of an attacking virus. "This is the first time that such a process has been seen in real time. To be able see these nano-mechanisms as they are really happening is incredibly exciting," said Robert Henderson, lead researcher behind the feat. "We can actually see the enzyme 'threading' through a loop in the virus's DNA in order to lock on to and break it, a process known as DNA cleavage." The DNA in the video is one nanometre wide; that is approximately one million times narrower than the head of a pin. State-of-the-art technique Working with an international team, the University of Cambridge team used the state-of-the-art microscope housed at a Japanese institute ? one of only three in the world ? and a technique called 'fast scan' atomic force microscopy. Before now, researchers could only make assumptions as to how proteins and DNA interacted based on indirect evidence, but this technique gives them a new window on a fundamental biological process. "Standard technology for filming on this scale can only produce one image frame every 8 minutes," said Henderson. "However, our new work allows one frame per 500, or fewer, milliseconds." From nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Sep 19 01:02:06 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:02:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 3 new videos References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070918170505.0245f7e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <13a9c01c7fa58$bafedf40$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello Extropes, I've got three new videos for you to watch. Cisco, http://www.cisco.com/ the large networking company, has a Youtube channel set up in which they were requesting people to submit their technology concepts. We were allowed to submit up to three ideas. Now these are more near term concepts than some of you may familiarize me with (this is because these ideas are ones that Cisco might implement). Anyway, my first idea is called CPU @ Home - I give a little 'in person video intro' and then use animation to show you my idea of a home technology center. Visit this link at Youtube to watch: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FEHB3YPexQ4 My second idea is a Solar Powered laptop. I give a short and sweet description in this video (with just a splash of special effects): http://youtube.com/watch?v=7kYfb2hIcEY My third and final idea is just me in my backyard telling you about eye recognition for use in making computer passwords more convenient: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OPLdzv7A3zI These are all for the moment at Youtube. In a few weeks Cisco will pick a winning idea and award 10 thousand dollars. Either way it goes, it will be at that time that I upload these videos to my personal website. Hope you like them! You can comment at my blog here: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/09/cisco.html And you can comment at the Youtube pages as well. Good evening! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com 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." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 03:12:08 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:12:08 +1000 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19/09/2007, Stefano Vaj wrote: > My concerns are: > - that the rejection of monotheistic religions is often based on > "moral" reasons, which have nothing to do with epistemological issues; > - that such moral reasons substantially reflect "ethical truths", > taken for granted and self-evident, which are nothing else than > secularised judeo-chistianism. Religion is false because it's false, not because it's bad. If you allow the idea that you will go to Heaven through good works, then to be consistent you also have to allow the idea that you will go to Heaven by blowing yourself up. -- Stathis Papaioannou From mmbutler at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 03:55:01 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:55:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <311635.43957.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <311635.43957.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709182055h7092eea6s9431c92ca48744b4@mail.gmail.com> On 9/18/07, Anne Corwin wrote: > - Anne (who is, in fact, being rather silly, in case that wasn't clear...) It's not clear to me. I think one avenue that's worth exploring is the analogy to child-exploitation / harm . It's galling, but it's not silly. :) If the best we can hope for is to be considered cute, it is perhaps preferable to being considered either raw materials or hazards. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 04:34:47 2007 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:34:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Research question: looking for an interventional neuroradiologist In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709181028s2f4386cdweee0c7b6c0ac51b5@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30709181028s2f4386cdweee0c7b6c0ac51b5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80709182134x13fde258u3f5bed1c10c8d50@mail.gmail.com> lenord bruno in philadelphia or marion murry was in philadelphia have numbers somewhere in the dusty phone books of my past. write if you want the connection. dr. bruno would be my first choice. he will make your stupid questions seem totally brilliant query's! On 9/18/07, PJ Manney wrote: > > Does anyone know an interventional neuroradiologist who would be open > to answering stupid questions I have for my book? > > Thanks! > > PJ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Ilsa Bartlett Institute for Rewiring the System 1222 "B" Ashby Avenue Berkeley, CA 94702 510.848.1007 www.hotlux.com/angel.htm "Don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person." -John Coltrane -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 09:46:14 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:46:14 +0200 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> On 9/19/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Religion is false because it's false, not because it's bad. Yes, this is exactly my point. This is why I am diffident of "bright" conversions brough along by "moral" reasons, consequentialist conclusions, and so forth. The argument that monotheistic religions should be preserved because "they are good for societies" would be unacceptable even if (and of course it is a very big "if") it were true. Stefano Vaj From mmbutler at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 02:37:23 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:37:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> On 9/19/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > The argument that monotheistic religions should be preserved because > "they are good for societies" would be unacceptable even if (and of > course it is a very big "if") it were true. That is an interesting and testable claim. Suppose it were true, for the purpose of argument, that it could be convincingly demonstrated by a super AI that the total elimination of all religion in the world would result in an increase in the likelihood of a war or other "bad" events. What numbers would persuade you that it was a bad idea? Is there no figure that would persuade you? In other words, is this an absolute, deontological value for you: "No one should believe in God (/religion), no matter what; no exceptions"? As one data point: what if the AI could show 85% chance of a nuclear conflict + biological war killing at least 1 billion people some time in the next 10 years? As another data point: what if the number were reported as twice the chance now existing, without your being told what that chance is? This series of gedankenexperiments can tail off into the possibility, e.g,, that it would only result in a 1% increase in homicides worldwide, or even less. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Sep 20 08:20:38 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:20:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Of possible interest. Message-ID: <1190276348_38412@S3.cableone.net> For the few of you who are interested in this topic, this is the most interesting news to hit in some time. > >http://tinyurl.com/yvv2dg For those who are not into the jargon, it may be too dense. Keith From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Sep 20 08:23:04 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:23:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46F22DE8.1030903@mac.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 9/18/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > >> I am forwarding this message from another list I am on: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402 >> 501.html?referrer=emailarticle >> ======================================================= >> In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal >> By Mary Jordan >> Washington Post Foreign Service >> Saturday, September 15, 2007; A01 >> >> BURGESS HILL, England -- Every morning on his walk to work, high school >> teacher Graham Wright recited a favorite Anglican prayer and asked God for >> strength in the day ahead. Then two years ago, he just stopped. >> >> Wright, 59, said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had become a >> negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once considered >> becoming an Anglican vicar, he suddenly found that religion represented >> nothing he believed in, from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up in >> God's name to Christians condemning gays, contraception and stem cell >> research. >> > > My concerns are: > - that the rejection of monotheistic religions is often based on > "moral" reasons, which have nothing to do with epistemological issues; > - that such moral reasons substantially reflect "ethical truths", > taken for granted and self-evident, which are nothing else than > secularised judeo-chistianism. > Are you sure? There is substantial EP grounding for much of human morality. This is quite apart from any religious tradition. There are certainly ample good moral reason to reject mystical/religious thinking, much less its products. But please let's not grand religionist some de facto monopoly on morality. - samantha From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 13:39:28 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:39:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> On 9/20/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > Suppose it were true, for the purpose of argument, that it could be > convincingly demonstrated by a super AI that the total elimination of > all religion in the world would result in an increase in the > likelihood of a war or other "bad" events. What numbers would persuade > you that it was a bad idea? Is there no figure that would persuade > you? > In other words, is this an absolute, deontological value for you: "No > one should believe in God (/religion), no matter what; no exceptions"? This is a good question, but one that can be formulated in broader terms: do we accept that the investigation of a given subject, or of the truth thereof, should be forbidden and actively fought, if a persuasive argument can be mounted that the consequences of knowledge could be detrimental to some alleged general interest? For instance, should certain fields of research be outlawed, lest they lead to unpleasant discoveries? Personally, I adhere to the idea that "truth will set you free", and consider such a principle not really negotiable. Please note that this is not per se an anti-religious stance. If, say, the Virgin Mary were to pop up in Time Square offering evidence of an impending doom, I do not believe that we should implement legislation prohibiting or not access to the relevant information, or public debate of the subject, on the basis of an opinion of what is "best" for the people to know or to believe. There again, I do not consider myself a libertarian in any philosophical sense, but in practical terms my conclusions are in that area very close to those of our friends of that persuasion. Moreover, I find it perplexing the alleged ability of some people to "believe" themselves what they think is best to believe, "beliefs" commanded by will not really belonging to the field of genuine beliefs and a creed embraced for utilitatarian reasons or expedience stinking to the heaven of hypocrisy and bad faith, as I think most real christians would promptly agree. Stefano Vaj From clweeks at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 21:35:05 2007 From: clweeks at gmail.com (Christopher Weeks) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:35:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews Message-ID: <299e0ea70709181435n2e991d3al65ad263d18cb5c30@mail.gmail.com> On 9/18/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > If we're lucky, we will become our own successors. If we're less lucky, > we will give rise to our successors, and then get left behind. That > would suck, Why would that suck? Isn't that what always happens? Chris (hoping I've lurked long enough) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmbutler at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 14:56:56 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:56:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> On 9/20/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 9/20/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > This is a good question, but one that can be formulated in broader > terms In other words, one that you decline to answer. Very well. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 23:03:39 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:03:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709201603v1d15784dwcf786baa517f77b7@mail.gmail.com> On 9/20/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > On 9/20/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > On 9/20/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > > This is a good question, but one that can be formulated in broader > > terms > > In other words, one that you decline to answer. Very well. I believe I answered it, namely stating that, no, I do not accept that the investigation of truth should be forbidden whenever it would allegedly be best to do so. Which is the part that you do not understand? Stefano Vaj From amara at amara.com Thu Sep 20 22:40:33 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:40:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch pics- fitting the fairing for the Delta II second stage Message-ID: If these pictures look familiar, it is because we are exactly where we were early last July. For the second time, Dawn is wrapped in the fairing to make it aerodynamically smooth to fit in the nose cone of the Delta II upper stage booster. .. Launch window (~2 weeks), the last one for 17 years to visit Vesta and Ceres, begins next Wednesday. Amara At 10:40 PM +0200 7/3/07, Amara Graps wrote: >Here you see pictures of the task of encapsulating the Dawn >spacecraft to protect it during launch and ascent by giving it an >aerodynamically smooth nose cone via a 'fairing'. > > >http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173 > -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From mmbutler at gmail.com Fri Sep 21 03:51:04 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:51:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <580930c20709201603v1d15784dwcf786baa517f77b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709201603v1d15784dwcf786baa517f77b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.com> On 9/20/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 9/20/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > > On 9/20/07, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > On 9/20/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > > > This is a good question, but one that can be formulated in broader > > > terms > > > > In other words, one that you decline to answer. Very well. > > I believe I answered it, namely stating that, no, I do not accept that > the investigation of truth should be forbidden whenever it would > allegedly be best to do so. Which is the part that you do not > understand? I do not understand the above to be directly responsive to any of the questions I posed, the crux one being: > In other words, is this an absolute, deontological value for you: "No > one should believe in God (/religion), no matter what; no exceptions"? Since there seems to be a problem with commuincation, let me ask my question a different way: - Suppose you could push a button and instantaneously cause everyone on Earth to not be a monotheist. - Is there any sheaf of risk likelihoods that would keep you from pushing that button? I'm not asking for paragraphs, I'm asking for a response of yes, no or "mu". You are free to not oblige. Cheerio, M -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Sep 21 13:17:52 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:17:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709201603v1d15784dwcf786baa517f77b7@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709210617l7fbc2544g878b622e87f8de8d@mail.gmail.com> On 9/20/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > - Suppose you could push a button and instantaneously cause everyone > on Earth to not be a monotheist. Would you kick the crutches out from under the lame? If you don't provide something to replace what you are taking away, then it just seems cruel. Even if it were analogous to methadone to combat a heroine addiction, I thinking curing the steadfast monotheist will require more gradual steps to reason. If 'they' had a button to turn the remaining population to monotheism, would you race to be the first to press the button - or would you ensure that neither side exercises the option? From mmbutler at gmail.com Fri Sep 21 14:45:23 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:45:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <62c14240709210617l7fbc2544g878b622e87f8de8d@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709201603v1d15784dwcf786baa517f77b7@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240709210617l7fbc2544g878b622e87f8de8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709210745l5d93de2al966f5302a72e70ac@mail.gmail.com> On 9/21/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On 9/20/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > > - Suppose you could push a button and instantaneously cause everyone > > on Earth to not be a monotheist. > > Would you kick the crutches out from under the lame? If you don't > provide something to replace what you are taking away, then it just > seems cruel. Even if it were analogous to methadone to combat a > heroine addiction, I thinking curing the steadfast monotheist will > require more gradual steps to reason. > > If 'they' had a button to turn the remaining population to monotheism, > would you race to be the first to press the button - or would you > ensure that neither side exercises the option? :) What do you think? :) I don't want to roll those dice either way. Just in case that wasn't obvious, that's also my problem with hard takeoff self-improving AI... I just don't think I can keep it from happening (if it is possible at all). -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From mmbutler at gmail.com Fri Sep 21 14:54:04 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:54:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890709210745l5d93de2al966f5302a72e70ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709201603v1d15784dwcf786baa517f77b7@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240709210617l7fbc2544g878b622e87f8de8d@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709210745l5d93de2al966f5302a72e70ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709210754p4ab76843y5dfccb40ac2c4eda@mail.gmail.com> On 9/21/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > On 9/21/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On 9/20/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > > > - Suppose you could push a button and instantaneously cause everyone > > > on Earth to not be a monotheist. > > > > Would you kick the crutches out from under the lame? If you don't > > provide something to replace what you are taking away, then it just > > seems cruel. Even if it were analogous to methadone to combat a > > heroine addiction, I thinking curing the steadfast monotheist will > > require more gradual steps to reason. > > > > If 'they' had a button to turn the remaining population to monotheism, > > would you race to be the first to press the button - or would you > > ensure that neither side exercises the option? > > :) What do you think? :) I don't want to roll those dice either way. > Just in case that wasn't obvious, that's also my problem with hard > takeoff self-improving AI... I just don't think I can keep it from > happening (if it is possible at all). Sorry, but I forgot to add my loop back to explain my original post in this thread.. Sometimes "cruel" is _dangerous_. I am concerned that too much secular push too soon, absent a lot of good alternative upbringing, would not only be cruel but could be dangerous. So, consider the possibility that a sudden shift to godlessness, an atheism "fad", say, could contribute to a worldwide currency inflation as people live for today (since there is no afterlife), followed by a global economic depression, followed by a global war with modern tech, and consequent gigacide. No thanks, I think, not even if they all "needed to die" for some great cause such as "eliminating bias" (1/2 :) , _pace_ Robin H., Eliezer et al). I am afraid that as a wimpy agnostic I am just not as principled as some Extropes ;>. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 21 15:05:28 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:05:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <299e0ea70709181435n2e991d3al65ad263d18cb5c30@mail.gmail.com> References: <299e0ea70709181435n2e991d3al65ad263d18cb5c30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709210805s15b6fa04tef6c4838f4d90e73@mail.gmail.com> On 9/18/07, Christopher Weeks wrote: > > On 9/18/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > If we're lucky, we will become our own successors. If we're less lucky, > > we will give rise to our successors, and then get left behind. That > > would suck, > > > Why would that suck? Isn't that what always happens? > Well, one may deem it a more comforting idea that he will become one's own successor rather than he is simply going simply give rise to it, even though most of the difference may consist in a nuance in a metaphor... :-) Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Sep 21 16:45:13 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:45:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.co m> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709201603v1d15784dwcf786baa517f77b7@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1190393021_76617@S1.cableone.net> At 08:51 PM 9/20/2007, Michael wrote: snip >- Suppose you could push a button and instantaneously cause everyone >on Earth to not be a monotheist. The advantages/disadvantages come from religion and religious like xenophobic memes (such as Communism). I don't see where the number of gods makes any difference. >- Is there any sheaf of risk likelihoods that would keep you from >pushing that button? > >I'm not asking for paragraphs, I'm asking for a response of yes, no or "mu". It's a poorly framed question so mu. Religions (or rather the brain structures that are "infected" with religions) are a result of human evolutionary history, most of which was spent living in small, closely related bands and tribes. Those tribes were at war with neighbors any time resources (i.e., food) got short, which happened every time the population grew to some ecological limit. War was the way population was limited when something else didn't do it. Current religions have to be considered in the context of our hunter gatherer past where xenophobic memes had more or less sway over the tribe depending on the perception of the need to thin out the neighbors so your kids could be fed. Religions are the (memetic) descendants of tribal xenophobic memes. In times of plenty (peace) religions are seed xenophobic memes, ready to spread and induce war as the need is perceived. (They have side effects, but that's the main one.) Humans (obviously) have evolved brain mechanisms that hold religions more or less intensely depending on the perception of how good or bad the future will be. Now if you asked me if the brain structure behind religions should be deleted at the push of a button, I would say no. As it has been in the past, and it may be in the future, humans sometimes need to thin their numbers by wars induced by xenophobic religious memes. In fact, you could make a case that this is the situation in substantial parts of the world right now. This is not advocacy of religions or wars, just an evolutionary psychology view of their function. It does imply that if you don't want wars, keeping population growth below economic growth for _every group on the planet_ is a long term requirement. Keith Henson From pjmanney at gmail.com Fri Sep 21 21:25:34 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:25:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Russian Governor Sponsors Conception Day Message-ID: <29666bf30709211425u164375f0k141bc6fb5bca549@mail.gmail.com> You know me, always a sucker for a laugh. This from The Guardian via The Grist List: "From Russia with Lust Hot and bothered about its dwindling population, a Russian region recently gave women a half-day off work for patriotic sex; liaisons ending in perfectly timed babies may be rewarded with a brand new SUV. We'd make some privileged snark about overpopulation and emissions, but time off for getting laid? We're sold." http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6849496,00.html Wait a minute... Russia needs more kids. China needs less. I've got an idea for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Why don't they send some of those extra Chinese guys over to Russia? Not only does it make economic sense, but they might have better luck finding a wife there, with government-sanctioned time off for sex. Sounds win-win to me! ;-) PJ From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Fri Sep 21 21:47:55 2007 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:47:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Russian Governor Sponsors Conception Day In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709211425u164375f0k141bc6fb5bca549@mail.gmail.com> References: <29666bf30709211425u164375f0k141bc6fb5bca549@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi PJ; I've read some speculative political papers that suggest that China will in fact "export" her population to Eastern Russia, whose population is already largely of Asian ancestry. Best regards, James Clement > Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:25:34 -0700 > From: pjmanney at gmail.com > To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org; extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] Russian Governor Sponsors Conception Day > > You know me, always a sucker for a laugh. This from The Guardian via > The Grist List: > > "From Russia with Lust > Hot and bothered about its dwindling population, a Russian region > recently gave women a half-day off work for patriotic sex; liaisons > ending in perfectly timed babies may be rewarded with a brand new SUV. > We'd make some privileged snark about overpopulation and emissions, > but time off for getting laid? We're sold." > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6849496,00.html > > Wait a minute... Russia needs more kids. China needs less. I've got > an idea for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Why don't they send > some of those extra Chinese guys over to Russia? Not only does it > make economic sense, but they might have better luck finding a wife > there, with government-sanctioned time off for sex. Sounds win-win to > me! ;-) > > PJ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Sep 21 22:06:51 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:06:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Russian Governor Sponsors Conception Day In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200709212218.l8LMIuEp020524@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of James Clement ... >I've read some speculative political papers that suggest that China will in >fact "export" her population to Eastern Russia...? >James Clement > Subject: [ExI] Russian Governor Sponsors Conception Day > ... > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6849496,00.html > > Wait a minute... Russia needs more kids. China needs less... > PJ China's dramatic improvement in standard of living in the past decade may change all that. China may soon discover they are not overpopulated after all. The two and three child families may come back with a vengeance. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Sep 22 00:09:23 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:09:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] greenspan's age of turbulence In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709211425u164375f0k141bc6fb5bca549@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709220020.l8M0KAZc014789@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Returning from the east coast today I saw something I had never seen in over twenty years of business travel: a newly released book that was being so widely read by the travelers that strangers were stopping in the airport to discuss the book. It is Alan Greenspan's Age of Turbulence. http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/09/20/insight_humility_fill_gre enspans_world/ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/books/18leonhardt.html http://www.calendarlive.com/books/la-et-book17sep17,0,6583173.story?coll=cl- books-features I find it remarkable that his thoughts are so much in line with stuff we used to discuss here several years ago. I propose we start a discussion here on the book in two weeks. spike From mmbutler at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 02:28:51 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:28:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <1190393021_76617@S1.cableone.net> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709201603v1d15784dwcf786baa517f77b7@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.com> <1190393021_76617@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <7d79ed890709211928h667c807dnca2431b41f4ce434@mail.gmail.com> On 9/21/07, hkhenson wrote: I wasn't asking _you_. :) But thanks for the reply. I'm using that anti-plaque stuff after a hiatus, btw. It seems to make a difference but I still haven't gotten my hands on any disclosing tablets. Yet. All best, always, Mike -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m "I'm going to get over this some time. Might as well be now." From sentience at pobox.com Sat Sep 22 02:37:26 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:37:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity summit on foxnews In-Reply-To: <299e0ea70709181435n2e991d3al65ad263d18cb5c30@mail.gmail.com> References: <299e0ea70709181435n2e991d3al65ad263d18cb5c30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46F47FE6.9010408@pobox.com> Christopher Weeks wrote: > On 9/18/07, Eugen Leitl > wrote: > > If we're lucky, we will become our own successors. If we're less lucky, > we will give rise to our successors, and then get left behind. That > would suck, > > Why would that suck? Isn't that what always happens? Naturalistic fallacy: Just because it always happens doesn't make it okay. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Sat Sep 22 07:18:52 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:18:52 +0200 Subject: [ExI] greenspan's age of turbulence In-Reply-To: <200709220020.l8M0KAZc014789@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <29666bf30709211425u164375f0k141bc6fb5bca549@mail.gmail.com> <200709220020.l8M0KAZc014789@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070922071852.GK4005@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 05:09:23PM -0700, spike wrote: > I find it remarkable that his thoughts are so much in line with stuff we > used to discuss here several years ago. Except it is that his actions that are not in line with his words. I don't think much of the Fed, and Greenspan is one of the less stellar Fed specimens. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sat Sep 22 07:26:04 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:26:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Russian Governor Sponsors Conception Day In-Reply-To: <200709212218.l8LMIuEp020524@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200709212218.l8LMIuEp020524@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070922072604.GL4005@leitl.org> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:06:51PM -0700, spike wrote: > China's dramatic improvement in standard of living in the past decade may In the cities, yes. Also it's not obvious that the coming decade will show the same growth. US consumption has crashed hard, and there's a huge bubble in China which waits for the trigger. > change all that. China may soon discover they are not overpopulated after > all. The two and three child families may come back with a vengeance. They would have to import a lot of food for that, though. Also, since we're past or near oil production peak and China (which is 5 times less energy efficient for the unit of production than the U.S.) has hardly started growing yet there will be problems. Two-child family, maybe. Thre-child family, dunno. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Sep 22 17:41:34 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Sublime messages and Goose Bumps Message-ID: <103268.25411.qm@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The other day as I was watching a touching story and experienced goose bumps. As I am highly sensitive person I wondered how the reaction occurs and why it occurs? As the reaction was not one of fear and stress I assumed it had to do with sublime messages being sent to the brain. Curious as always I wanted to know how these messages where being sent. My confusion lies in the Google responses. It says that the reflect starts in the sympathetic nervous system and that it's actions during the stress response comprise the fight-or-flight response. This doesn't make much sense to me since there was no stress involved in the instant reaction. In the automatic nervous system maintenance activities are primarily performed without conscious control or sensation. I assumed that because there is no cause and effect such as fear and stress that my instant reaction of a sublime message is being performed without conscious control yet there is a sensation. Does anybody have any ideas, thoughts or a direction that can lead me to understand this better. Thanks Anna Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Sep 22 18:50:06 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:50:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sublime messages and Goose Bumps References: <103268.25411.qm@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002b01c7fd49$65d86970$6401a8c0@brainiac> From: "Anna Taylor" To: Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 10:41 AM > Does anybody have any ideas, thoughts or a direction > that can lead me to understand this better. Humans tend to be sentimental, silly geese ... Olga From tyleremerson at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 19:14:25 2007 From: tyleremerson at gmail.com (Tyler Emerson) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:14:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wall Street Journal on the Singularity Summit Message-ID: <632d2cda0709221214n4f9fc6e1x28aa9102f85042f7@mail.gmail.com> Feedback appreciated on this. -Tyler ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: The Singularity Institute Blog Date: Sep 22, 2007 7:41 AM Subject: The Singularity Institute Blog To: tyleremerson at gmail.com The Singularity Institute Blog Summit Coverage in The Wall Street Journal raises questions Posted: 21 Sep 2007 11:55 PM CDT Earlier this week SIAI and the Singularity Summit got some major coverage in The Wall Street Journal. Lee Gomes, the Portals columnist for The Journal attended the Summit, and has some challenging thoughts about our movement and its perceived relevancy to the business community and the public at large. In his article, Gomes likens Singularitarians at times to 12-year-old sci-fi addicts, alien worshipers, and even gynephobics (don't tell my 3 daughters). While it is always fun to play "knock the nerds" in the popular press, I think Gomes raises key issues that point out why we sometimes struggle for credibility outside of our safety net in The Valley. As we start to organize our thoughts about next year's Singularity Summit, it is apparent that we need to focus more on bridging the knowledge and perception gaps between the scientific community, the business and investment community, and the public at large. Our success in crossing this chasm over the next couple of years will dictate how successfully the mission of the Singularity Institute will be embraced by broader segments of humanity. I'd like to open this discussion up to our community at large to get your ideas and feedback. How do we stay true to the vision of Singularity Institute, and at the same time create a partnership with the business community that creates an exciting and positive perspective on what we can accomplish? And how do we shake some of the more adverse associations to the lunatic fringe? I look forward to your thoughts. I've posted Lee's article below. Leave a comment to this post or contact me directly at lamis at singinst.org. *Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal* ????????????????????????? The Singular Question Of Human vs. Machine Has a Spiritual Side The Wall Street Journal PORTALS By LEE GOMES September 19, 2007; Page B1 You can tell a lot about people from what they worry about. A few Saturdays ago, I spent the day in an auditorium full of fellow citizens concerned with "singularity." The word refers to the day when the intelligence of computers will exceed our own. The auditorium was filled with people who listed many things that might occur with singularity, such as a human-machine synthesis into a new, superintelligent life-form. The date has been projected as anytime from nine to 40 years hence. Singularity-believers say humanity urgently needs to begin preparing for this moment, if only to make sure that humans don't become kabobs at the first post-singularity tailgate party held by supersmart computers. There is even a Singularity Institute, bankrolled by Silicon Valley wealthoids. The weekend session featured speeches, panel discussions and informal chatting. About 800 people were on hand, more, frankly, than I would have expected. Who but 12-year-old sci-fi addicts still fret over malevolent, superintelligent machines? Most of us, living every day with computers, appreciate how even the world's most powerful one not only is incapable of an autonomous thought, it can't even distinguish spam from real email. To get to the singularity that we are supposed to be preparing for, we are going to need AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence, a topic the singularists go on about endlessly. A computer with AGI thinks and reasons the same way a human being does, only much more quickly. But don't singularity people know that AI researchers have been trying to make such machines since the 1950s, without much success? It turns out, there is a schism between the AGI and the AI worlds. The AGI faction thinks AI researchers have sold out, abandoning their early dreams of "general" intelligence to concentrate on more attainable (and more lucrative) projects. They're right. The machines today that recognize speech or play chess are one-trick wonders. Of course, AI researchers defend that approach by saying their early dreams of general intelligence were na?ve. The singularists, though, don't seem bothered by those earlier AI failures; new approaches will bear fruit, they insist. They thus didn't think it a waste of either time or carbon offsets to be gathering at a conference to ask such questions as, "If you made a superintelligent robot, then forced it to work only for you, would that be slavery?" Robots are just computers with moving parts, of course, but the public is still confused about them, just like they used to be about computers themselves. The Great Metallic Hope of the robotics industry, for example, is currently a small, round vacuum cleaner that ambles across the floor by itself. A high-tech wonder? Actually, Consumer Reports said that even cheap vacuum cleaners did better than the first model. A little more of this, and no one will ever again worry about enslaving robots. There is another way of thinking about the obsession with robots. John Huntington, professor of English, University of Illinois, has studied the genre and says sci-fi authors, especially the early ones who wrote about robots or aliens, were working out their own unacknowledged anxieties about closer-to-home topics. Most commonly, he said, these anxieties involved women, who were seen as becoming threatening as they gained social power. Racial and class tensions also were involved, he added. I have a supplemental theory: that the discussion of singularity involves a sublimated spiritual yearning for some form of eternal life and an all-powerful being, but one articulated by way of technical, secular discourse. As it happens, there is considerable overlap between the singularity and the "life extension" communities. Ray Kurzweil, the best-known singularity writer, also co-wrote a lengthy guide to life extension. He once told me he expects literally to live forever ? first by prolonging his life via a daily regimen that includes hundreds of pills and the nonstop consumption of green tea, then, once super-powerful computers arrive, by uploading his consciousness into one. Singularists also have an affinity for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or SETI, program, which scans the skies looking for other civilizations. Isn't that a longing by some for an intergalactic messiah? Then, consider a poem read at the singularity conference that described an Aquarian Age scene in which humans and other mammals frolicked in a "cybernetic meadow ? all watched over by machines of loving grace." Those computer protectors sound a lot like the guardian angels my grade-school nuns told us about. Years ago, a friend and I spent an evening with Arthur C. Clarke, the creator in "2001? of HAL, the malevolent computer of every singularist's nightmare. He brought along slides, showing himself with some astronauts and with the authors of the musical "Hair." We talked about science and had our picture taken, which I still have. It proves that while I may have reached a different conclusion, at least I studied with the master. You are subscribed to email updates from The Singularity Institute Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now . Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner Inbox too full? [image: (feed)] Subscribe to the feed version of The Singularity Institute Blog in a feed reader. If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: The Singularity Institute Blog, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Sep 22 20:02:44 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:02:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Sublime messages and Goose Bumps In-Reply-To: <103268.25411.qm@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <103268.25411.qm@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <53847.72.236.103.92.1190491364.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> > The other day as I was watching a touching story and > experienced goose bumps. As I am highly sensitive > person I wondered how the reaction occurs and why it > occurs? As the reaction was not one of fear and > stress I assumed it had to do with sublime messages > being sent to the brain. Curious as always I wanted > to know how these messages where being sent. My > confusion lies in the Google responses. > It says that the reflect starts in the sympathetic > nervous system and that it's actions during the stress > response comprise the fight-or-flight response. This > doesn't make much sense to me since there was no > stress involved in the instant reaction. In the > automatic nervous system maintenance activities are > primarily performed without conscious control or > sensation. I assumed that because there is no cause > and effect such as fear and stress that my instant > reaction of a sublime message is being performed > without conscious control yet there is a sensation. > Does anybody have any ideas, thoughts or a direction > that can lead me to understand this better. > You can read the book "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Robert M. Sapolsky. You will learn more about stress and the sympathetic nervous system than you ever expected to know, and if you understand it all you're way ahead of me! ;) But it was a good read and I did learn stuff. Regards, MB From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 20:09:42 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:09:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.com> References: <380-220079117233239175@M2W028.mail2web.com> <580930c20709181245w6d81f038obfe1e5a7753183b0@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709190246w66128248ue916ddeadb512e4f@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709191937w2ea25d3ape34da3f6a9787a11@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709200639k182eb4eas2225b695d339581e@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709200756w1cc4ee49pbc68f6b887fc0a02@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709201603v1d15784dwcf786baa517f77b7@mail.gmail.com> <7d79ed890709202051t30b97badu5316380353898d47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709221309w7e8ef62fqe382160ce27aa536@mail.gmail.com> On 9/21/07, Michael M. Butler wrote: > > I do not understand the above to be directly responsive to any of the > questions I posed, the crux one being: > > > In other words, is this an absolute, deontological value for you: "No > > one should believe in God (/religion), no matter what; no exceptions"? > > Since there seems to be a problem with commuincation, let me ask my > question a different way: > > - Suppose you could push a button and instantaneously cause everyone > on Earth to not be a monotheist. > > - Is there any sheaf of risk likelihoods that would keep you from > pushing that button? > Your question is like saying: "Suppose you could hit your girl-friend with a stick. Would you do it even though you were risking not to have your dinner served on time?" I thought it was clear that I would *in no event* push such a button, including for the sake of saving mankind from some existential risk. Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 22 20:14:50 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:14:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ovary sliver storage Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070922151058.0229f468@satx.rr.com> Clinics to grow human eggs By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor Last Updated: 2:13am BST 22/09/2007 A major advance in fertility treatment is signalled today as doctors unveil details of a technique that will allow human eggs to be grown in the laboratory from ovarian tissue samples. The procedure, which is being pioneered by two British fertility clinics, involves taking a piece of ovary tissue from a woman and "banking" it in a laboratory until she is ready to start a family. It would allow career women, or those waiting to meet the right partner, to delay motherhood for years. It could also eliminate many of the health risks associated with IVF treatment. It is expected to be offered to patients within five years. Patient groups last night said the technique was an "exciting development" which would improve the safety of fertility treatment. One in seven couples experiences difficulty conceiving and each year more than 30,000 undergo IVF treatment. More than 10,000 children are born each year as a result of IVF. The first stage of the technique involves removing slivers of ovarian tissue through keyhole surgery. Although these would be just millimetres wide, each sample would contain thousands of immature eggs. The ovarian tissue is then frozen until the woman is ready to try for a baby. At that time, it will be stimulated with hormone chemicals to grow the immature eggs into mature ones ready for IVF treatment. Doctors said the technique would be of "huge benefit" because women could avoid the process of injecting themselves daily with hormones to stimulate their ovaries into producing eggs. It would also spare them from having to endure an uncomfortable and invasive operation to harvest the eggs. Hormone drugs can have serious health complications and in some cases can cause "hyper-stimulation" of the ovaries, which can prove fatal. Some people believe the drugs also increase the risk of cancer in later life. The technique is likely to prove controversial as it moves the human reproductive process further into the artificial realms of the laboratory. Doctors at the Bridge Fertility Centre in London, who are working on the new method, said different elements of the technique are already in use but it would take some time before the whole process could be pieced together and perfected. Currently, women with cancer can have a piece of their ovary removed before treatment. This procedure is still experimental but several women have conceived naturally or through IVF after the tissue has been re-implanted. Immature eggs taken directly from women can also be matured in a laboratory, but this is still difficult and more research is needed. Scientists have managed to grow eggs from ovarian tissue in the laboratory before, but the process is still in the research phase and has not been used in successful fertility treatment. What doctors here and abroad are working towards is being able to perfect this technique and put the whole process together into practical use for patients within five years. Dr Alan Thornhill, scientific director of the Bridge Fertility Centre, said: "It would mean we have got a pool of thousands of eggs at very little risk to the woman and relatively low cost because you avoid the huge drug costs. Instead of having up to 10 eggs to work with, with this you can have lots of eggs without the risk of over-stimulation. "The part of the process we are removing is of huge benefit to the woman." But Dr Thornhill added that current methods of maturing the eggs in the laboratory would take a few more years to perfect. Simon Fishel, the managing director of the Care Fertility clinic, the biggest provider of IVF in Britain, is also working towards the technique and said it should be ready to offer to patients within five years. "The way we do it now is the only way we know how. If we can improve on that we ought to improve it. This approach would only be an advantage to the woman because it avoids most of the risks. It would be better and healthier for the patient." Nuala Scarisbrick, a trustee of the pro-life charity Life, said: "Children should not be manufactured by people in laboratories. "This is a deliberate attempt to have nothing to do with nature." [unlike false teeth, hip implants, etc...] From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 21:59:26 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:59:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Dismantling gas giants with nanotech Message-ID: <580930c20709221459q1aa44bd5nfaa1b4252d81ffcd@mail.gmail.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/nano_gas_giant/ Why, at least they did their homework... Stefano Vaj From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Sep 22 22:36:32 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:36:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ovary sliver storage In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070922151058.0229f468@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070922151058.0229f468@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200709221736.32988.kanzure@gmail.com> That's good news. Here are some other links to related developments: Artificial placenta (Huxley's group) http://www.aec.at/festival2000/texte/nobuya_unno_e.htm Artificial wombs (Kuwabara's group)* http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13418180.400-japanese-pioneers-raise-kid-in-rubber-womb-.html * Kuwabara has since died. I was wondering why I was unable to find any more recent reports of his research when I was looking for him a few months ago. Faking babies: artificial wombs, eggs, and sperm http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2005/Faking-Babies-Reproduction19may05.htm Womb-on-a-chip (Fujii's group) http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19526146.200&feedId=online-news_rss20 -- with Thornhill's technique we might soon see immature eggs -> embryos --- and it would all be on silicon Next step: stem cells -> ovarian tissue -> immature eggs. On a chip. In a flash of imagination, I can see complex microchips moving across the surface of a patient and stitching together new tissues straight from an internal factory [probably while the patient is submerged] for such problems as tissue damage. And then there are the fun cloning possibilities (SCNT methods?). Sometimes I find myself jotting down notes for artificial meat machines and particle accelerators to wire up so that I can transform hydrogen into the elements required for biochemical nutrition and to take the energy directly from the sun to power my meat-bod (if it would still be meaty, that is). Anyway, one step closer. BTW, The Bridge Centre puts their faces up on their pages: http://www.thebridgecentre.co.uk/team1.htm So maybe I'll go ask for some literature from them. :) - Bryan On Saturday 22 September 2007 15:14, Damien Broderick wrote: > s122.xml> > > Clinics to grow human eggs > > > By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor > Last Updated: 2:13am BST 22/09/2007 > > > A major advance in fertility treatment is signalled today as doctors > unveil details of a technique that will allow human eggs to be matured > in the laboratory from banked ovarian tissue samples. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Sep 22 22:48:27 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:48:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dismantling gas giants with nanotech In-Reply-To: <580930c20709221459q1aa44bd5nfaa1b4252d81ffcd@mail.gmail.co m> References: <580930c20709221459q1aa44bd5nfaa1b4252d81ffcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1190501222_14549@S1.cableone.net> At 02:59 PM 9/22/2007, Stefano wrote: >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/nano_gas_giant/ > >Why, at least they did their homework... *She* did her homework. Wendy M. Grossman is an exceptionally careful person. I have never seen her make a serious error in anything she wrote or be snide about the story the way the other recently mentioned article was. Keith Henson From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sun Sep 23 01:26:03 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Wall Street Journal on the Singularity Summit In-Reply-To: <632d2cda0709221214n4f9fc6e1x28aa9102f85042f7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <768895.7643.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> OK, a few thoughts -- not all are necessarily relevant to the exact question asked, but I've been trying to put certain thoughts into words for a long time anyhow, and I figure this is as good an opportunity as any. Firstly, it sounds like the guy who wrote the WSJ article didn't do much in the way of actually listening to the speakers. There *is* a kind of millenarianist mystique surrounding the whole AGI/Singularity topic-space, but the thing is, once you get past that mystique (and the various fringe elements it tends to attract), there's plenty in the way of reasonable, coherent discussion. Not perfect discussion, mind you (I'll get to that later), but reasonable discussion nonetheless. I think that reporters and various others tend to respond primarily to the mystique without bothering to explore beyond it -- probably because it makes for more exciting news copy to postulate throngs of "12 year old sci-fi addicts" than it does to describe how a guy from some computer company stood up and described neural architecture. It's clear that AGI folks in the public sphere are dealing with general anti-intellectualism as well as prejudice against nerds (and the accompanying desire some people have to disassociate themselves from anything potentially "nerdy"). I'm sure many people on this list can recall being picked on for being a "nerd" in junior high, and being told that their interests either didn't matter or were "stupid and pointless". It isn't much of a stretch to consider that we're still living in a similar social demographic, albeit on a larger scale. Hence, assertions that it is somehow "weird" to spend a day in a room talking about robots and algorithms, but perfectly normal and acceptable to drive to a large round outdoor arena and pay to spend the day stuffing yourself with nitrate-soaked dead animals and brain-liquefying fermented corn juice while watching grown men attack one another for possession of an inflated, oblong piece of animal skin. I don't really care about nerd stigma. I've been a nerd my whole life, and I like how my brain works, and I am going to be interested in my interests regardless of the fact that it's more common for 28-year-old women to be curious about Britney's latest hairdo than about robots or neuroscience or computing. Nerd stigma exists, and probably informs some of the less sophisticated critiques of topics that tend to attract nerds, but I don't think nerds need to give it the time of day. We have better things to do with our time than protest that we're "not really sci-fi addicts". Many of us, myself included, probably *are* sci-fi addicts. More power to us. :P But -- then there's the whole "distrust of privelege" factor, which is quite a bit more complicated and serious than the junior-high-level "you're a NERD!" jibe. Not all criticisms of AGI focus and "singularitarianism" can be dismissed as *mere* anti-intellectualism. I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but personally I am painfully aware of how "priveleged" I am. Despite the fact that being (a) on the autistic spectrum, and (b) female have meant that I've lacked certain kinds of power while growing up, I am still sitting here typing this via my always-on Internet connection at 5 PM on a Saturday evening. Which means that I am not toiling somewhere in a field, or being ordered around by some dictatorial husband I was sold and married off to at the age of thirteen. This is not something I take for granted. Just by being born in a developed nation (USA) into a family that cared about things like education, I started out life with a massive head start as compared to a whopping percentage of the world's population. I'm sure the same is true for most AI researchers, and most people on this list. We ARE privileged, and we have a certain degree of power that millions do not share. This cannot be ignored, even if the people accusing privilege-blindness on our part are hypocrites (seeing as writers for prestigious newspapers can't exactly claim membership on the poverty wagon). Where you start out in life, and what advantages you have as a result of starting out there, can shape the course of your life in extremely significant ways. And like it or not, the mindset that people go into AGI development with probably doesn't include a sense of what it might have been like to grow up in a grass hut where your toilet consisted of a hole in the dirt. I'm not saying here that we all ought to go off and live in grass huts. Nor am I saying that we ought to air-drop questionnaires regarding preferred AGI features into third-world villages (obviously, those people would benefit far more from a freakin' sandwich). Rather, I am saying that acknowledging privelege (and power) is an important component of any endeavor as ambitious as AGI development. As in, people involved in such projects would do well to ask themselves (repeatedly and rigorously) what factors have enabled them to get involved in those projects in the first place. This might sound like "applause lights", but I assure you it is not -- if you read this and come away from it thinking I'm trying to draw cheers from some particular political demographic, I've obviously done a poor job of communicating. What I'm trying to say is that if any of us in this hyper-privileged techie demographic are going to claim that we can solve the world's major problems (including the potential for AI-borne risks) through investing in AGI research, we *cannot* assume that we can do this without learning about other cultures and socioeconomic populations. We need to learn what systems in place in the real world contribute toward the oppression of some populations and the benefit of others. And even if we *aren't* taking our privileges for granted, not acknowledging that we *have* those privileges could lead to serious blind spots in our idea of what a good AI ought to feature (or in our idea of what a "bad" AI might be capable of breaking). Now, I highly doubt that most newspaper reporters have a very sophisticated understanding of power and privilege dynamics. And I don't think that the mass media in general cares very much about truth -- they care more about getting stories that will sell papers, and marketability has very little to do with integrity. But if AGI folks are tired of being called elitists or defending themselves against accusations of being simultaneously wealthy and clueless, there are two obvious choices: (1) ignore the critics, or (2) figure out how to speak the language of media to express the truth in such a way that future reports on AGI conferences will likely be printed in the "science and technology" section of the paper rather than in whatever section wannabe cultural anthropologists are presently using to tell their tales of their travels among the weirdos. It's been done before. People used to laugh at the idea of "home computers", but at this point, computers that you can hold in the palm of your hand are old news. The way I see it, if there is any real substance to the AGI/Singularity discourse, people who are sufficiently perceptive will pick up on it eventually. Moreso if someone actually builds something that makes an AGI seem more plausible (including an actual, if highly limited, AGI). I don't know if there's much that can be done in the meantime aside from working busily in the lab to hopefully produce tangible results, and avoiding overwrought "THE END IS NIGH!" sentiments. People are going to think whatever they want to think, so it would probably be best to devote maximum energies toward actual technical progress as opposed to toward "image management". If the substance is there, respect will follow, albeit not on the timescale most here would probably prefer. - Anne Tyler Emerson wrote: Feedback appreciated on this. -Tyler ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: The Singularity Institute Blog < tyleremerson at gmail.com> Date: Sep 22, 2007 7:41 AM Subject: The Singularity Institute Blog To: tyleremerson at gmail.com The Singularity Institute Blog Summit Coverage in The Wall Street Journal raises questions Posted: 21 Sep 2007 11:55 PM CDT Earlier this week SIAI and the Singularity Summit got some major coverage in The Wall Street Journal. Lee Gomes, the Portals columnist for The Journal attended the Summit, and has some challenging thoughts about our movement and its perceived relevancy to the business community and the public at large. In his article, Gomes likens Singularitarians at times to 12-year-old sci-fi addicts, alien worshipers, and even gynephobics (don't tell my 3 daughters). While it is always fun to play "knock the nerds" in the popular press, I think Gomes raises key issues that point out why we sometimes struggle for credibility outside of our safety net in The Valley. As we start to organize our thoughts about next year's Singularity Summit, it is apparent that we need to focus more on bridging the knowledge and perception gaps between the scientific community, the business and investment community, and the public at large. Our success in crossing this chasm over the next couple of years will dictate how successfully the mission of the Singularity Institute will be embraced by broader segments of humanity. I'd like to open this discussion up to our community at large to get your ideas and feedback. How do we stay true to the vision of Singularity Institute, and at the same time create a partnership with the business community that creates an exciting and positive perspective on what we can accomplish? And how do we shake some of the more adverse associations to the lunatic fringe? I look forward to your thoughts. I've posted Lee's article below. Leave a comment to this post or contact me directly at lamis at singinst.org. Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? The Singular Question Of Human vs. Machine Has a Spiritual Side The Wall Street Journal PORTALS By LEE GOMES September 19, 2007; Page B1 You can tell a lot about people from what they worry about. A few Saturdays ago, I spent the day in an auditorium full of fellow citizens concerned with "singularity." The word refers to the day when the intelligence of computers will exceed our own. The auditorium was filled with people who listed many things that might occur with singularity, such as a human-machine synthesis into a new, superintelligent life-form. The date has been projected as anytime from nine to 40 years hence. Singularity-believers say humanity urgently needs to begin preparing for this moment, if only to make sure that humans don't become kabobs at the first post-singularity tailgate party held by supersmart computers. There is even a Singularity Institute, bankrolled by Silicon Valley wealthoids. The weekend session featured speeches, panel discussions and informal chatting. About 800 people were on hand, more, frankly, than I would have expected. Who but 12-year-old sci-fi addicts still fret over malevolent, superintelligent machines? Most of us, living every day with computers, appreciate how even the world's most powerful one not only is incapable of an autonomous thought, it can't even distinguish spam from real email. To get to the singularity that we are supposed to be preparing for, we are going to need AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence, a topic the singularists go on about endlessly. A computer with AGI thinks and reasons the same way a human being does, only much more quickly. But don't singularity people know that AI researchers have been trying to make such machines since the 1950s, without much success? It turns out, there is a schism between the AGI and the AI worlds. The AGI faction thinks AI researchers have sold out, abandoning their early dreams of "general" intelligence to concentrate on more attainable (and more lucrative) projects. They're right. The machines today that recognize speech or play chess are one-trick wonders. Of course, AI researchers defend that approach by saying their early dreams of general intelligence were na??ve. The singularists, though, don't seem bothered by those earlier AI failures; new approaches will bear fruit, they insist. They thus didn't think it a waste of either time or carbon offsets to be gathering at a conference to ask such questions as, "If you made a superintelligent robot, then forced it to work only for you, would that be slavery?" Robots are just computers with moving parts, of course, but the public is still confused about them, just like they used to be about computers themselves. The Great Metallic Hope of the robotics industry, for example, is currently a small, round vacuum cleaner that ambles across the floor by itself. A high-tech wonder? Actually, Consumer Reports said that even cheap vacuum cleaners did better than the first model. A little more of this, and no one will ever again worry about enslaving robots. There is another way of thinking about the obsession with robots. John Huntington, professor of English, University of Illinois, has studied the genre and says sci-fi authors, especially the early ones who wrote about robots or aliens, were working out their own unacknowledged anxieties about closer-to-home topics. Most commonly, he said, these anxieties involved women, who were seen as becoming threatening as they gained social power. Racial and class tensions also were involved, he added. I have a supplemental theory: that the discussion of singularity involves a sublimated spiritual yearning for some form of eternal life and an all-powerful being, but one articulated by way of technical, secular discourse. As it happens, there is considerable overlap between the singularity and the "life extension" communities. Ray Kurzweil, the best-known singularity writer, also co-wrote a lengthy guide to life extension. He once told me he expects literally to live forever ??? first by prolonging his life via a daily regimen that includes hundreds of pills and the nonstop consumption of green tea, then, once super-powerful computers arrive, by uploading his consciousness into one. Singularists also have an affinity for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or SETI, program, which scans the skies looking for other civilizations. Isn't that a longing by some for an intergalactic messiah? Then, consider a poem read at the singularity conference that described an Aquarian Age scene in which humans and other mammals frolicked in a "cybernetic meadow ??? all watched over by machines of loving grace." Those computer protectors sound a lot like the guardian angels my grade-school nuns told us about. Years ago, a friend and I spent an evening with Arthur C. Clarke, the creator in "2001??? of HAL, the malevolent computer of every singularist's nightmare. He brought along slides, showing himself with some astronauts and with the authors of the musical "Hair." We talked about science and had our picture taken, which I still have. It proves that while I may have reached a different conclusion, at least I studied with the master. You are subscribed to email updates from The Singularity Institute Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of The Singularity Institute Blog in a feed reader. If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: The Singularity Institute Blog, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Sun Sep 23 17:39:25 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:39:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Russian Governor Sponsors Conception Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F6A4CD.9070301@lineone.net> "PJ Manney" wrote: > You know me, always a sucker for a laugh. This from The Guardian via > The Grist List: > > "From Russia with Lust Hot and bothered about its dwindling > population, a Russian region recently gave women a half-day off work > for patriotic sex; liaisons ending in perfectly timed babies may be > rewarded with a brand new SUV. We'd make some privileged snark about > overpopulation and emissions, but time off for getting laid? We're > sold." Hang on, there's something wrong here, now what could it be? Hmm, women, time off work, for sex - Aha! got it! Who are they going to have sex with? Each other? That doesn't tend to work for making babies. I can imagine some red-faced Russian beaurocrat admitting that he forgot about giving the men time off too. (or don't the men in Russia work?) ben z From benboc at lineone.net Sun Sep 23 17:39:32 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:39:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Sublime messages and Goose Bumps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F6A4D4.1080709@lineone.net> Anna Taylor wrote: >The other day as I was watching a touching story and >experienced goose bumps. As I am highly sensitive >person I wondered how the reaction occurs and why it >occurs? As the reaction was not one of fear and >stress I assumed it had to do with sublime messages >being sent to the brain. Curious as always I wanted >to know how these messages where being sent. My >confusion lies in the Google responses. >It says that the reflect starts in the sympathetic >nervous system and that it's actions during the stress >response comprise the fight-or-flight response. This >doesn't make much sense to me since there was no >stress involved in the instant reaction. In the >automatic nervous system maintenance activities are >primarily performed without conscious control or >sensation. I assumed that because there is no cause >and effect such as fear and stress that my instant >reaction of a sublime message is being performed >without conscious control yet there is a sensation. >Does anybody have any ideas, thoughts or a direction >that can lead me to understand this better. > >Thanks >Anna I assume you mean 'subliminal', rather than 'sublime' messages! But i don't think this is necessary. A stimulus doesn't have to be below your conscious attention to have an effect that seems mysterious. Goose bumps are caused by the erector pili muscles contracting and causing any hair you might have to 'puff up'. This is usually in response to cold or a percieved threat, but i reckon there are other reasons too. As you say, the response is under control of the autonomic nervous system, and is often experienced without knowing the cause. A few possibilities that i can think of: You just happened to get a cool draught at the time without noticing it consciously. You percieved a threat (either from the film or from the rest of your environment), but at an unconscious level. You have a conditioned response to something featured in the film (or something that happened in the background) that caused your hackles to rise (were the goosebumps on the back of your neck, or in some other region, or just general?). Again, this would almost certainly be subconscious. Think about what else gives you goosebumps (apart from a cold wind). It's an arousal response, so you just need to find the stimuli that produce it in you. You might want to try watching the film a few times under different conditions, see if you get any consistent effects. If you do, it would probably be interesting to see which parts of it give you goosebumps. If you can narrow it down to say, one scene or bit of dialogue or character, you might be able to figure it out. If you think it's worth spending the time on! ben z From benboc at lineone.net Sun Sep 23 17:57:40 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:57:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Scientific American special issue on Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F6A914.80401@lineone.net> Anyone else read this? Maybe i'm overreacting, but i thought the last article, by Graham P Collings, was a pretty disgraceful attempt to imply that Molecular Manufacturing, as described in 'Engines of Creation', is pure fantasy, with no scientific credibility at all. The whole article is about science fiction stories, with occasional reference to "Drexler's Imaginings" as inspiration for them. Which is fair enough, if this had been a literary magazine. But it's not. It's supposed to be about science, not literature. I read the sub-text of the article as "Don't believe a word of what this guy says, it's just science fiction". He finishes the article with: "The ongoing state of /real/ nanotechnology research, for the most part, has little to do with how the details used in fiction evolve over time. The science of science fiction lives in a parallel world to our reality, and what is known to be true or possible in our reality is mirrored only fitfully. And we wouldn't want it any other way." The whole thing is a smear job. ben z From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 18:43:26 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:43:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Russian Governor Sponsors Conception Day In-Reply-To: <46F6A4CD.9070301@lineone.net> References: <46F6A4CD.9070301@lineone.net> Message-ID: <200709231343.26857.kanzure@gmail.com> > I can imagine some red-faced Russian beaurocrat admitting that he > forgot about giving the men time off too. "Bad joke: the men would take it as sick-leave." - Bryan From amara at amara.com Sun Sep 23 19:29:06 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:29:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "The Imaginary Part" (on backreaction) Message-ID: Bee doesn't like being an imaginary part of Max Tegmark's mathematical structures. "The Imaginary Part" http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/09/imaginary-part.html I think this is her best (and funniest) blog entry, and that's saying already alot for one of the highest quality blogs I know. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Sep 24 18:14:28 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:14:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wall Street Journal on the Singularity Summit In-Reply-To: <768895.7643.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <632d2cda0709221214n4f9fc6e1x28aa9102f85042f7@mail.gmail.com> <768895.7643.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30709241114p808739cu16b7347dafb9da4@mail.gmail.com> Anne has made some excellent points. On 9/22/07, Anne Corwin wrote: > Firstly, it sounds like the guy who wrote the WSJ article didn't do much > in the way of actually listening to the speakers. They never do unless it's a subject they specifically cover, like Joel Garreau does for the Washington Post, or the folks at Wired. You're all speaking Greek. > I think that reporters and various others tend to respond primarily to the > mystique without bothering to explore beyond it To be fair, the mystique is fairly thick because the language and culture is an obstacle for them. Also, at a conference like this one, you're telling the Singularity story by starting in the middle or even the end. There's no lead up to get the uninitiated up to speed. Reading this piece, it wasn't clear he had even read any Kurzweil. He'd only googled him. So whatever little story he actually hears is all understandably sci-fi to him. > It's clear that AGI folks in the public sphere are dealing with general > anti-intellectualism as well as prejudice against nerds The WSJ has always had a love-hate relationship with Silicon Valley. Like most business media outlets, they respect steady, consistent and predictable growth, because they can prognosticate and look like stars. And that ain't the Valley. > But -- then there's the whole "distrust of privelege" factor, which is > quite a bit more complicated and serious than the junior-high-level "you're > a NERD!" jibe. Not all criticisms of AGI focus and "singularitarianism" can > be dismissed as *mere* anti-intellectualism. I can't say that the WSJ itself would have this problem. They are a bastion of privilege. And that's the real problem. The WSJ mindset, which permeates American business, is threatened by the forces of rapid, accelerating change, especially when the general economy is so volatile to begin with. Anything they think now will most likely be proved wrong. And how do you invest money based on that? > And I don't think that the mass media in general cares very much about > truth -- they care more about getting stories that will sell papers, and > marketability has very little to do with integrity. Exactly right. But if AGI folks are tired of being called elitists or defending themselves > against accusations of being simultaneously wealthy and clueless, there are > two obvious choices: (1) ignore the critics, or (2) figure out how to speak > the language of media to express the truth in such a way that future reports > on AGI conferences will likely be printed in the "science and technology" > section of the paper rather than in whatever section wannabe cultural > anthropologists are presently using to tell their tales of their travels > among the weirdos. Exactly right again. I just wonder if the Singularity Summit is the vehicle for this media language of truth. So far, it's been for specialists and aficionados. The "public" that attends are usually pretty clued in to begin with. Unless you can create a multimedia "Introduction" that gets newbies up to speed. But that's a challenge -- there's a lot of information to cover to make a salient argument and convince the uninitiated. It's been done before. People used to laugh at the idea of "home > computers", but at this point, computers that you can hold in the palm of > your hand are old news. The key here is the Killer App. People need to see that AGI has a point in their lives. Without AGI, we can't show it has any application in reality. Hence, no killer app and no general interest. It's simply premature. > The way I see it, if there is any real substance to the AGI/Singularity > discourse, people who are sufficiently perceptive will pick up on it > eventually. Moreso if someone actually builds something that makes an AGI > seem more plausible (including an actual, if highly limited, AGI). Exactly. But I think it still won't resonate until after the fact. Which is unfortunate, but how most of us humans work. > I don't know if there's much that can be done in the meantime aside from > working busily in the lab to hopefully produce tangible results, and > avoiding overwrought "THE END IS NIGH!" sentiments. People are going to > think whatever they want to think, so it would probably be best to devote > maximum energies toward actual technical progress as opposed to toward > "image management". If the substance is there, respect will follow, albeit > not on the timescale most here would probably prefer. I still believe the "substance" won't be understood until there is a tangible context to understand it in. Let me make a few other points. If Lee Gomes thinks that sitting at the feet of Arthur C. Clarke for a few cocktails is enough to take in his "lessons", he's naive and ignorant. Sorry, just had to get that one off my chest. Gomes attacks the Singularity as a reflection of science fiction. I found this fascinating, since so much SF has anticipated the last century's social and technological evolution. He must never have read Verne, Wells, Orwell, Huxley, Gibson, etc. Or watched Star Trek -- that little PDA he holds has more in common with SF than he thinks. ;-) So why not the Singularity? Making relationships with journalists and writing their articles for them is the best way to get the coverage you want. You get to educate them and they will reflect back that education in their pieces. Does SIAI have press releases and press packets? Do they break the Singularity Story down in easily regurgitatible (or plagarizable) bite-sized chunks? Because that's what reporters rely on -- good press packets that they can quote verbatim so their story isn't hard to write and not much thinking is involved. You give them a fascinating story you want them to write. And they'll usually write it. Or at least quote you accurately. :) PJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From extropy at unreasonable.com Mon Sep 24 17:43:22 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:43:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Saving your life Message-ID: <200709241745.l8OHjIj86828@unreasonable.com> I've long been interested in critical thinking and routinely read each book I come across that deals with it in some way. So when I picked up a recent book Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You http://www.amazon.com/dp/0743254236 by Gerd Gigerenzer (who Eliezer has praised for his understanding of Bayesian reasoning), I wasn't expecting anything new. Meanwhile, I've also long been wary of doctors. I've had too much personal experience with incompetence, and I'm aware of other contributory factors -- fear of lawsuit, pharmaceutical company marketing, narrow specialization, skewing of public information available to patients, etc. Still, I was stunned to read how wildly commonplace misinterpretation of probability information is. Not just by patients, but by physicians. In experiments the author (director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development) ran, over 90% of doctors who were provided information on the accuracy of medical tests as they are typically described in medical journals and textbooks drew incorrect conclusions. The typical doctor overstated conditional probabilities *ten-fold*. I haven't finished the book; what I've read so far was too compelling to wait on. In particular, chapter 5 has an eye-opening analysis of breast cancer screening that should be read by everyone who is or cares about a woman. He may be wrong, or out-dated in some respects, but this goes on my list of books that command attention. Like Thomas Barnett or Alan Dershowitz, he brings up issues that must be discussed and thoughtfully analyzed, to confirm or rebut. -- David. From sentience at pobox.com Mon Sep 24 20:43:02 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:43:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wall Street Journal on the Singularity Summit In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709241114p808739cu16b7347dafb9da4@mail.gmail.com> References: <632d2cda0709221214n4f9fc6e1x28aa9102f85042f7@mail.gmail.com> <768895.7643.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <29666bf30709241114p808739cu16b7347dafb9da4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46F82156.4060207@pobox.com> PJ Manney wrote: > > To be fair, the mystique is fairly thick because the language and > culture is an obstacle for them. Also, at a conference like this > one, you're telling the Singularity story by starting in the middle or > even the end. There's no lead up to get the uninitiated up to speed. I did that at this year's Summit. If the WSJ "journalist" who reported on the Summit was actually there, or even spoke directly to anyone who was there, I'd be quite surprised. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Sep 24 21:51:21 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:51:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wall Street Journal on the Singularity Summit In-Reply-To: <46F82156.4060207@pobox.com> References: <632d2cda0709221214n4f9fc6e1x28aa9102f85042f7@mail.gmail.com> <768895.7643.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <29666bf30709241114p808739cu16b7347dafb9da4@mail.gmail.com> <46F82156.4060207@pobox.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30709241451p75097eccwdf7767ef7879c091@mail.gmail.com> On 9/24/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > I did that at this year's Summit. If the WSJ "journalist" who > reported on the Summit was actually there, or even spoke directly to > anyone who was there, I'd be quite surprised. Fair enough. It's very possible, if not probable. I just did a quick check of the SIAI website and clicked on "Media" -- you cover your video interviews and excerpts nicely, but you don't provide a place for media outlets to get your message, either written or filmed, in one chunk -- like the press package I mentioned. I really recommend a written press release -- it's quite helpful for them. I'd ask someone like Peter Thiel or Ray who they use as their PR people and see if they would do it for you. It really needs some serious crafting if you want to communicate it in the right way so they can understand and aren't walking into a function like the Summit blind. PJ From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Sep 24 22:23:54 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:23:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Scaling laws in biology and complex systems Message-ID: Ongoing research, recent Google Tech Talk, on scaling laws in biology and complex systems, extending to societies and issues of innovation and sustainability. Not really new, except for the video at Google. Google Tech Talk video - Geoff West - August 1, 2007 From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Sep 25 15:13:48 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Sublime messages and Goose Bumps Message-ID: <73285.53005.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >I assume you mean 'subliminal', rather >than 'sublime' messages! I meant the "awe" messages in philosophy. >As you say, the response is under control of the >autonomic nervous system, and is often experienced >without knowing the cause. Yes that's what I said but that's not what Goggle says. I was not understanding how the reaction of fight or flight might be used based on this example. >You might want to try watching the film a few times >under different conditions, see if you get any >consistent effects. If you do, it would probably be >interesting to see which parts of it give you >goosebumps. If you can narrow it down to say, one >scene or bit of dialogue or character, you might be >able to figure it out. I repeatedly get goose bumps from watching images or hearing sounds that cause emotional reactions but I was curious in the full reaction. For example: Image or sound is present therefore leads to emotional reaction(biological reaction)therefore leads to physical reaction(goose bumps). I was just stuck on the biological reaction as well as if it is a conscious reaction or not. >If you think it's worth spending the time on! I find any information that leads me to understand how my mind and body work is beneficial. Unfortunately I'm not a biologist or a philosopher so the answers to some of my curious questions aren't always easy to find especially since I have a hard time with my written English (as I am French), my questions are at times hard to follow. Anyhow, I really appreciated your reply as well as the reply from others. MB, I will read "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Robert M. Sapolsky, thanks. Anna Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Sep 25 16:53:14 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:53:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sublime messages and Goose Bumps In-Reply-To: <73285.53005.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <73285.53005.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 9/25/07, Anna Taylor wrote: > I meant the "awe" messages in philosophy. > > >As you say, the response is under control of the > >autonomic nervous system, and is often experienced > >without knowing the cause. > > Yes that's what I said but that's not what Goggle > says. I was not understanding how the reaction of > fight or flight might be used based on this example. Anna, a key point (and this has profound application to much of what passes for philosophical discussion on this list) is that ultimately, systems do not act for "purpose", rather, their actions always only express their functional nature. If I understand correctly your question, you're seeking to understand the functional connection between having a feeling of awe and subsequent goosebumps. This may seem mysterious because the feeling of awe seems to be a "higher level" subjective experience in the mind, while the goosebumps seem to be a "lower level" objective manifestation of the fight or flight response built in to the hardware by evolutionary processes. While there probably isn't any complete and concise authoritative account, it might be helpful for you to consider that the feeling of awe is in fact a physical response of the "hardware" of your body. In terms of evolutionary psychology, we can easily understand that feelings of awe, closely related to spiritual and religious feelings, and closely related to feelings of personal significance and power relative to that which is not self, can function to improve the effectiveness (cooperation and cohesiveness) of social structures, thus conferring a fitness advantage to members of the group. Next, consider that such feelings of awe and instinctive appreciation of greater power must be functionally very closely related to feelings of fear. At this point you may see a likely functional relationship leading from awe to the evolved fight or flight response and piloerection. Back to my initial key statement: The body doesn't connect a feeling of awe with an automatic fight or flight response for any purpose; rather it acts in direct accordance with its evolved nature in the context of its environment. I apologize for the (typical) density of my writing, which would benefit from expansion of the concepts along with examples, but I lack the available time. I can only hope that the sparse structure of this account will be useful for guiding your own thinking. - Jef From amara at amara.com Tue Sep 25 19:54:38 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:54:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] NASA Spacecraft is a 'Go' for Asteroid Belt Message-ID: Here is the final news release. I will be out of Internet range Thursday through Sunday (no, not in Florida), so if you are interested in this launch, I suggest to pay attention to the following. You can catch it on NASA TV (over the Internet too). Presently the launch dates/times are: Launch Date: Sept. 27 Launch Window: 7:20 a.m. - 7:49 a.m. EDT Go here for the Dawn coverage at Kennedy / Cape Canaveral: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/dawn/main/index.html NASA TV channel specification http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/digital.html latest preparation pictures: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173 Some background science here: http://www.scientificblogging.com/amaragraps/dawns_early_light_ceres_and_vesta ================================================================== DC Agle/Jane Platt 818-393-9011/818-354-0880 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. David.c.agle at jpl.nasa.gov/jane.platt at jpl.nasa.gov Tabatha Thompson/Dwayne Brown 202-358-3895/1726 NASA Headquarters, Washington Tabatha.Thompson-1 at nasa.gov/dwayne.c.brown at nasa.gov George Diller 321-867-2468 Kennedy Space Center, Fla. George.h.diller at nasa.gov NEWS RELEASE: 2007-108 September 25, 2007 NASA Spacecraft is a 'Go' for Asteroid Belt CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Launch and flight teams are in final preparations for the planned Sept. 27 liftoff from Pad 17-B at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., of NASA's Dawn mission. The Dawn spacecraft will venture into the heart of the asteroid belt, where it will document in exceptional detail the mammoth rocky asteroid Vesta, and then, the even bigger icy dwarf planet Ceres. "If you live in the Bahamas this is one time you can tell your neighbor, with a straight face, that Dawn will rise in the west," said Dawn Project Manager Keyur Patel of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Weather permitting, we are go for launch Thursday morning - a little after dawn." Dawn's Sept. 27 launch window is 7:20 to 7:49 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (4:20 to 4:49 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time). At the moment of liftoff, the Delta II's first-stage main engine along with six of its nine solid-fuel boosters will ignite. The remaining three solids are ignited in flight following the burnout of the first six. The first-stage main engine will burn for 4.4 minutes. The second stage will deposit Dawn in a 185-kilometer-high (100-nautical-mile) circular parking orbit in just under nine minutes. At about 56 minutes after launch, the rocket's third and final stage will ignite for approximately 87 seconds. When the third stage burns out, actuators and push-off springs on the launch vehicle will separate the spacecraft from the third stage. "After separation, the spacecraft will go through an automatic activating sequence, including stabilizing the spacecraft, activating flight systems and deploying Dawn's two massive solar arrays," said Patel. "Then and only then will the spacecraft energize its transmitter and contact Earth. We expect acquisition of signal to occur anywhere from one-and-a-half hours to three-and-a-half hours after launch." The Dawn mission will explore Vesta, and later Ceres, because these two asteroid belt behemoths have been witness to so much of our solar system's history. "Visiting both Vesta and Ceres enables a study in extraterrestrial contrasts," said Dawn Principal Investigator Christopher Russell of the University of California, Los Angeles. "One is rocky and is representative of the building blocks that constructed the planets of the inner solar system. The other may very well be icy and represents the outer planets. Yet, these two very diverse bodies reside in essentially the same neighborhood. It is one of the mysteries Dawn hopes to solve." Using the same spacecraft to reconnoiter two different celestial targets makes more than fiscal sense. It makes scientific sense. By utilizing the same set of instruments at two separate destinations, scientists can more accurately formulate comparisons and contrasts. Dawn's science instrument suite will measure mass, shape, surface topography and tectonic history, elemental and mineral composition, as well as seek out water-bearing minerals. In addition, the Dawn spacecraft itself and the way it orbits both Vesta and Ceres will be used to measure the celestial bodies' gravity fields. "Understanding conditions that lead to the formation of planets is a goal of NASA's mission of exploration," said David Lindstrom, Dawn program scientist at NASA Headquarters, Washington. "The science returned from Vesta and Ceres could unlock many of the mysteries of the formation of the rocky planets including Earth." Before all this celestial mystery unlocking can occur, Dawn has to reach the asteroid belt and its first target - Vesta. This is a four-year process that begins with launch and continues with the firing of three of the most efficient engines in NASA's space motor inventory - ion propulsion engines. Employing a complex commingling of solar-derived electric power and xenon gas, these frugal powerhouses must fire for months at a time to propel as well as steer Dawn. Over their eight-year, almost 4-billion-mile lifetime, these three ion propulsion engines will fire cumulatively for about 50,000 hours (over five years) - a record for spacecraft. The Dawn mission to asteroid Vesta and dwarf planet Ceres is managed by JPL, for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. The University of California, Los Angeles, is responsible for overall Dawn mission science. Other scientific partners include: Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico; Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Katlenburg, Germany; and Italian National Institute of Astrophysics, Rome. Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles, Va., designed and built the Dawn spacecraft. Additional information about Dawn is online at http://www.nasa.gov/dawn or http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov . For more information about NASA and agency programs on the Internet, visit http://www.nasa.gov . - end - -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 22:49:43 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:49:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Sublime messages and Goose Bumps In-Reply-To: <73285.53005.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <73285.53005.qm@web30401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709251549o16b64a4l389e16615796233d@mail.gmail.com> On 9/25/07, Anna Taylor wrote: > I repeatedly get goose bumps from watching images or > hearing sounds that cause emotional reactions but I > was curious in the full reaction. > For example: > Image or sound is present therefore leads to emotional > reaction(biological reaction)therefore leads to > physical reaction(goose bumps). > I was just stuck on the biological reaction as well as > if it is a conscious reaction or not. http://www.google.com/search?q=synesthesia maybe? From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 05:34:44 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:04:44 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps Message-ID: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> This isn't new, but it is interesting, I thought some people mightn't have seen it. It'll read as pretty strongly partisan, so get past that if you can. Do you think things are really as bad as she describes? Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps Naomi Wolf http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/?page=entire Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down -- the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel and took certain activists into custody. They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy, but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 06:38:21 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:08:21 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Police wiki lets you write the law Message-ID: <710b78fc0709262338s50dc4cf6td830c033561394d8@mail.gmail.com> http://www.stuff.co.nz/4215797a10.html Police wiki lets you write the law By ARJUN RAMACHANDRAN - SMH | Wednesday, 26 September 2007 It's said the powerful write their own laws, but now everyone can. Due to a new wiki launched by New Zealand police, members of the public can now contribute to the drafting of the new policing act. NZ Police Superintendent Hamish McCardle, the officer in charge of developing the new act, said the initiative had already been described as a "new frontier of democracy". "People are calling it 'extreme democracy' and perhaps it is," he said. "It's a novel move but when it comes to the principles that go into policing, the person on the street has a good idea ... as they are a customer," he said. "They've got the best idea about how they want to be policed." NZ Police were reviewing the old Policing Act, from 1958, which had become "anachronistic" and was "written for a completely different age, not policing of today", Superintendent McCardle said. But drafting new legislation "shouldn't just be the sole reserve of politicians", he said, so the wiki was created to invite input from members of the public. Social networks strategist Laurel Papworth, who writes a blogs on how online communities change the way society operates, said "participatory legislation" was a "great idea". "It empowers the voters to have a voice not just a vote, so that they are actually contributing to the dialogue and not just voting on the outcome," she said. But input into the NZ Police Act wiki was not being limited to New Zealand voters, Superintendent McCardle said. "The wonderful thing about a wiki is we can open it up to people all around the world - other academics and constitutional commentators interested in legislation - and make the talent pool much wider," he said. Comment on whether the idea could work for NSW Police was being sought from Police Minister David Campbell. But Ms Papworth said Australian governments had recently opened up to the public more through the use of online technology, such as forums and blogs. But she was not aware of the use of wikis to invite public contribution to legislation. Superintendent McCardle laughed off a suggestion that the initiative invited would-be criminals to write loopholes into the act to be exploited once it became law. "We have been asked if we are worried about it being defaced, but wikis generally haven't been defaced internationally - people generally are constructive and productive," he said, referring to the success of Wikipedia, the popular wiki encyclopedia. The wiki version of the Policing Act will be viewed by New Zealand parliamentarians, before an official bill is introduced into Parliament, Superintendent McCardle said. The police act wiki can be found here: http://wiki.policeact.govt.nz -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com From hibbert at mydruthers.com Thu Sep 27 17:58:26 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:58:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dawn is on its Way to the Asteroid Belt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46FBEF42.5050201@mydruthers.com> Since Amara is away, I thought I'd send this announcement out (via SpacePragmatism.com). MSNBC is reporting that the Dawn probe had a successful launch. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21010387/ Congratulations! Chris -- C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings: "A sense of age, of profound truths. Respect for something hands made, that's stood through storms and wars and time. It persuades us that things we do may last and matter." Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com http://mydruthers.com From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 19:45:02 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:45:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Frog (not yet Invisible Men, Alas...) Message-ID: <580930c20709271245i34e5e271ha3b68b39d7fca33f@mail.gmail.com> Japanese to patent transparent frogBoffins in mutant albino batrachian IP brouhahaBy Lewis Page Japanese boffins have used artificial insemination to breed mutant frogs with transparent skin. The scientists reckon this will make biological research - not to mention school biology lessons - signifcantly less messy and traumatic, as it will no longer be necessary to cut the slime-filled creatures up in order to examine their innards. "You can watch organs of the same frog over its entire life as you don't have to dissect it," enthused noted Hiroshima University* sunroof-amphibian man Professor Masayuki Sumida, according to AFP. Sumida and his team of batrachian-bothering boffins produced the new see-through-packaged critters by breeding carefully selected mutant albino frogs. The pale-skinned pond dwellers' offspring came out opaque owing to the presence of dominant regular-type genes, but by breeding these genetic carrier frogs together the crafty researchers obtained breakthrough batrachians with built-in windows. It seems the new special frogs - derived from regulation *rena japonica*japanese browns - are transparent even as tadpoles. This provides hours of fun for committed frog fanciers as "you can see dramatic changes of organs when tadpoles mutate into frogs", according to Sumida. He believes the secret of the see-through creatures will be so commercially valuable that he plans to patent them. It might seem impossible to prevent unscrupulous breeders producing illegally pirated sunroof-frog copies to be sold in supermarket carparks, but in fact Sumida's biotech has built-in BRM (Batrachian Rights Management). The glassy frogs can have children, also transparent, but the following generation die at birth. If you want to look at a frog's guts without slicing it up, you'll have to pay licensing. Sumida's plans don't stop there. He reckons a move forward from simple eugenics to actual genetic modification could produce new and still more innovative frog technology. The good professor envisaged an exciting new type of transparent amphibian which would glow luminously when it developed cancer, for instance. Obviously, glowing see-through cancerous batrachians are great; but indeed this news is no surprise when one considers the other amazing capabilities of the moist miniature marsh-dwellers (for instance the ability to sweat hallucinogenic drugs, antiseptic ointment, insect repellent, or even glue ). Surely it can't be long until some clever scientist employs Sumida's patented batrachian boffinry to develop a pocket-sized variety which can dispense a refreshing mindbending chemical, be used to stick notes to the fridge, deal with insect bites, and light up a dark hallway. One would be able to tell how much loopy juice, glue etc was left in the little fellow's reservoirs simply by looking, of course. And in extremis the adaptable amphibian could be sold to a passing Frenchman as a tasty snack. Frogs. Is there anything they can't do? (r) *There's no connection between local availability of mutant frogs and the 1945 bucket of sunshine from the States, apparently.>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/27/japan_boffins_breed_mutant_transparent_sunroof_frogs/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 23:19:30 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:19:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> On 9/26/07, Emlyn wrote: > This isn't new, but it is interesting, I thought some people mightn't > have seen it. It'll read as pretty strongly partisan, so get past that > if you can. Do you think things are really as bad as she describes? Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein need to get together. See Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine In a word, Emlyn, my answer is 'yes.' But remember this: even fascists believe they're doing the right thing. They balance what they and the country gain by their actions against what they and the country might lose if they refrained. Hence, their behavior. PJ From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Sep 28 09:10:29 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:10:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709280210i2868f69k181350a2cc757ba5@mail.gmail.com> On 9/28/07, PJ Manney wrote: > On 9/26/07, Emlyn wrote: > > This isn't new, but it is interesting, I thought some people mightn't > > have seen it. It'll read as pretty strongly partisan, so get past that > > if you can. Do you think things are really as bad as she describes? > > Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein need to get together. See Naomi Klein's > The Shock Doctrine: > > http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine > > In a word, Emlyn, my answer is 'yes.' > > But remember this: even fascists believe they're doing the right > thing. They balance what they and the country gain by their actions > against what they and the country might lose if they refrained. > Hence, their behavior. Another point is that in all this discussion "fascism" is employed as a rather metaphorical sense for anything or anybody thinking it to be a good idea in the circumstances to suspend previous constitutional guarantees... In this sense, the English government incarcerating British fascists during II WW should be considered as a fascist regime. On the other hand, fascist movements had their own views concerning non-emergency political process. Stefano Vaj From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 28 12:32:02 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:32:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It won't come as a surprise humans are more attuned to spotting moving animals than moving minivans but a brain module just for such an event? hmmm? What if they had moved berry bushes or potential mates instead of minivans? Do other humans fall under this animal monitoring module? http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9861405 Sep 27th 2007 From The Economist print edition WHICH is more dangerous, an elephant or a minivan? For most readers of this newspaper, the answer is going to be a minivan. From childhood, people in motorised civilisations are warned about the dangers of running into the road, taught the appropriate highway code and?when old enough?permitted to get behind the wheel only after having undergone a rigorous programme of training that ends with a formal examination. You might think, therefore, that such people would be more aware of the movements of vehicles than of animals. But if you did think that, you would be wrong. An experiment just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Joshua New of Yale University shows that people pay more attention to the activities of animals than to those of vehicles. That applies even among urban Westerners who rarely see an animal from one year's end to the next. Dr New was testing a theory of mind originally developed by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby of the University of California, Santa Barbara, with whom he collaborated on the experiment. Dr Cosmides and Dr Tooby were among the first to break from the idea that the brain has evolved as a general-purpose problem-solving machine. They suggested that some tasks are so important and so universal that you would expect to find specially evolved ?modules? to handle them, just as the senses are handled by specialised areas of the brain's cortex. Dr Tooby and Dr Cosmides have found evidence to support the existence of such modules in areas of human relations such as the perception of fairness. Now Dr New has provided some more evidence, in a completely different area. Building on the observations of other researchers that there seem to be natural mental categories of objects that are represented separately in the brain (animal, plant, person, tool and topography are reasonably well-established examples), he wondered if people would respond in systematically different ways to members of those categories. His experiment worked by showing volunteers pairs of photographs containing one or more objects from the five mental categories in question. The photos in each pair were identical except that one object had changed its orientation or had been removed altogether, and the volunteers had to work out what had changed. The first thing Dr New looked at was whether the brain pays more attention to the sort of change that might be expected, or to changes that are unexpected. On the face of it, either might have turned out to be the case. Paying attention to the expected is probably best for everyday existence. Noticing the unexpected, though, might save your life. In this part of the experiment, the expected won out. The volunteers were better at detecting changes involving things that do routinely move?in other words, people and animals?than of those that would be expected to be static, such as plants and coffee mugs. The question Dr New really wanted to address, though, was whether such expectations are learned or innate. For that, he included a class of object that his subjects would have learned, by experience, have a tendency to move, but which past evolution could have had no purchase on: motorised vehicles. The answer was that changes concerning animals were significantly easier to detect than those concerning cars. In the most telling comparison, 100% of volunteers noticed the movement of an elephant in the African bush. Only 72% noticed the movement of a minivan in a similar piece of bush. And that was despite the fact that the image of the van was somewhat larger in the photograph than the image of the elephant, and that the minivan was red, not grey. This highly honed ability to notice animal activity (it applies to small familiar animals, such as pigeons, as well as large unfamiliar ones, such as elephants) argues that an animal-monitoring module is innate in the brain. As, indeed, might be expected. Animals are important: small ones are supper; large ones are best avoided, lest they eat you or trample you to death. In other words, you can take the human out of the savannah. But you cannot take the savannah out of the human. From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Sep 28 13:07:18 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:07:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9/28/07, Josh Cowan wrote: > > It won't come as a surprise humans are more attuned to spotting moving > animals than moving minivans but a brain module just for such an event? > hmmm? What if they had moved berry bushes or potential mates instead of > minivans? Do other humans fall under this animal monitoring module? I haven't read this item, but I would expect it's not so much an "animal module" but rather an evolved sensitivity for perception of intention and therefore intentional agents including animals, humans, spirits, etc. - Jef From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 28 13:38:37 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:38:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The article pointed out that modern humans were better able to spot animals that had been moved than Minivans that had been moved. Jef, do you think the test would come out equal for a human that had never seen a minivan (or modern technology) and therefore assumed the minivan had intention? On Sep 28, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 9/28/07, Josh Cowan wrote: >> >> It won't come as a surprise humans are more attuned to spotting moving >> animals than moving minivans but a brain module just for such an >> event? >> hmmm? What if they had moved berry bushes or potential mates instead >> of >> minivans? Do other humans fall under this animal monitoring module? > > I haven't read this item, but I would expect it's not so much an > "animal module" but rather an evolved sensitivity for perception of > intention and therefore intentional agents including animals, humans, > spirits, etc. > > - Jef > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Sep 28 15:05:00 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:05:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9/28/07, Josh Cowan wrote: > The article pointed out that modern humans were better able to spot > animals that had been moved than Minivans that had been moved. Jef, do > you think the test would come out equal for a human that had never seen > a minivan (or modern technology) and therefore assumed the minivan had > intention? Yes, that was my point. I included the example of "spirits" to emphasize the strong human tendency to perceive intention, even where it's not. As an interesting aside, it might be interesting to consider the ramifications of intentional threats being of a higher order, "more leveraged", than "natural" threats in the environment and what that might imply in terms of cognitive priorities. Are humans, in general, more biased relative to the more fundamental threats of nature, or the more leveraged threats of intentional agents? It's a mix, but it seems to me that at this stage of human development our **social** instincts are tending toward increasing dominance of our attention and resulting choices. Now, can we reasonably extend this trend, such that with increasing awareness (technologically amplified) of ourselves and our interactions with increasingly intentional "other", attention and choice become concerned predominately with the rewards of effective positive-sum interaction and the risks of being left out? - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Sep 28 15:23:00 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:23:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: [Re-send with non-trivial correction.] On 9/28/07, Josh Cowan wrote: > The article pointed out that modern humans were better able to spot > animals that had been moved than Minivans that had been moved. Jef, do > you think the test would come out equal for a human that had never seen > a minivan (or modern technology) and therefore assumed the minivan had > intention? Yes, that was my point. I included the example of "spirits" to emphasize the strong human tendency to perceive intention, even where it's not. As an aside, it might be interesting to consider the ramifications of intentional threats being of a higher order, "more leveraged", than "natural" threats in the environment and what that might imply in terms of cognitive priorities. Are humans, in general, more biased relative to the more fundamental threats of nature, or the more leveraged threats of intentional agents? It's a mix, but it seems to me that at this stage of human development our **social** instincts are tending toward increasing dominance of our attention and resulting actions. Now, can we reasonably extend this trend, such that with increasing awareness (technologically amplified) of ourselves and our interactions with increasingly intentional "other", attention and choice become concerned predominately with the rewards of effective positive-sum interaction and the risks of being left out? - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Sep 28 15:56:31 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:56:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps Message-ID: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> Sorry - okay, this one, not the other: At 06:19 PM 9/27/2007, PJ wrote: >On 9/26/07, Emlyn wrote: > > This isn't new, but it is interesting, I thought some people mightn't > > have seen it. It'll read as pretty strongly partisan, so get past that > > if you can. Do you think things are really as bad as she describes? > >Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein need to get together. See Naomi Klein's >The Shock Doctrine: > >http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine > >In a word, Emlyn, my answer is 'yes.' > >But remember this: even fascists believe they're doing the right >thing. They balance what they and the country gain by their actions >against what they and the country might lose if they refrained. >Hence, their behavior. Naomi Wolf, in my opinion, built a persuasive thesis but I did not go for it. I would have preferred she write about how elements of a hip-hop/gangster-rap subculture manipulate women into becoming sex slaves. The idea of beauty and women wanting to be beautiful reaches far beyond the corner that Wolf paints it into. I for one have always honored women who strive to be beautiful and groom themselves to look their best. Yes, I have simplified her theory, but I didn't like it from the get-go and I don't like it now. Again, she struck out at a segment of society that seems to want to be smacked down, relying on a woman's need to be punished and feel guilty for her pleasures, and thereby she lessened the historical value of beauty for beauty's sake. Now, about this Naomi Klein. I admire her on-camera presence and articulation. Isn't she applying disaster engineering to combat disaster capitalism? This is a technique used with Critical Art Ensemble which I deplore because it heightens information for effect. In filmmaking, drama pulls in the audience and the more dramatic, the more the audience surrenders its individuality in being scooped up and driven by the filmic method of narrative and effect. (I would like to see her go head to head with Virginia Prostrel.) Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts 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 rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Sep 28 15:39:21 2007 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:39:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <580930c20709280210i2868f69k181350a2cc757ba5@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709280210i2868f69k181350a2cc757ba5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46FD2029.1070909@lightlink.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 9/28/07, PJ Manney wrote: >> On 9/26/07, Emlyn wrote: >>> This isn't new, but it is interesting, I thought some people mightn't >>> have seen it. It'll read as pretty strongly partisan, so get past that >>> if you can. Do you think things are really as bad as she describes? >> Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein need to get together. See Naomi Klein's >> The Shock Doctrine: >> >> http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine >> >> In a word, Emlyn, my answer is 'yes.' >> >> But remember this: even fascists believe they're doing the right >> thing. They balance what they and the country gain by their actions >> against what they and the country might lose if they refrained. >> Hence, their behavior. > > Another point is that in all this discussion "fascism" is employed as > a rather metaphorical sense for anything or anybody thinking it to be > a good idea in the circumstances to suspend previous constitutional > guarantees... In this sense, the English government incarcerating > British fascists during II WW should be considered as a fascist > regime. On the other hand, fascist movements had their own views > concerning non-emergency political process. With respect, that is not the sense in which the word is used here (or elsewhere), but only a shadow of one part of the usage. Using only a shadow of one part of the meaning changes the meaning substantially. Richard Loosemore From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Sep 28 15:51:28 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:51:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> At 06:07 AM 9/28/2007, Jef wrote: >On 9/28/07, Josh Cowan wrote: > > > > It won't come as a surprise humans are more attuned to spotting moving > > animals than moving minivans but a brain module just for such an event? > > hmmm? What if they had moved berry bushes or potential mates instead of > > minivans? Do other humans fall under this animal monitoring module? > >I haven't read this item, but I would expect it's not so much an >"animal module" but rather an evolved sensitivity for perception of >intention and therefore intentional agents including animals, humans, >spirits, etc. I would bet you *long* odds that if you redid this work with the people under function MRI you would see that there really is a module, that is to say a part of the brain that specialized in this task. Keith Henson From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Sep 28 16:51:36 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:51:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 9/28/07, hkhenson wrote: > At 06:07 AM 9/28/2007, Jef wrote: > >I haven't read this item, but I would expect it's not so much an > >"animal module" but rather an evolved sensitivity for perception of > >intention and therefore intentional agents including animals, humans, > >spirits, etc. > > I would bet you *long* odds that if you redid this work with the > people under function MRI you would see that there really is a > module, that is to say a part of the brain that specialized in this task. Keith, of course with fMRI we would expect to see localized activity associated with the task, but on what basis do you dispute my point that it's more about sensitivity to intentional agents than sensitivity to animals in particular? - Jef From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Sep 28 17:15:02 2007 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:15:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <46FD3696.5000406@lightlink.com> hkhenson wrote: > At 06:07 AM 9/28/2007, Jef wrote: >> On 9/28/07, Josh Cowan wrote: >>> It won't come as a surprise humans are more attuned to spotting moving >>> animals than moving minivans but a brain module just for such an event? >>> hmmm? What if they had moved berry bushes or potential mates instead of >>> minivans? Do other humans fall under this animal monitoring module? >> I haven't read this item, but I would expect it's not so much an >> "animal module" but rather an evolved sensitivity for perception of >> intention and therefore intentional agents including animals, humans, >> spirits, etc. > > I would bet you *long* odds that if you redid this work with the > people under function MRI you would see that there really is a > module, that is to say a part of the brain that specialized in this task. I have just finished writing a critical analysis, with Trevor Harley at Dundee U, in which we take several examples of famous "brain imaging" studies (mostly involving functional MRI) and ask whether the claims made are meaningful. (The paper is due to appear in M.Bunzl & S.J.Hanson (Eds.), Philosophical Foundations of fMRI. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.) In every case, we found that the claims made were either completely incoherent (that was a paper co-authored by Christof Koch), or trivial, or could easily be invalidated by changing the theoretical assumptions slightly. Which means that I bet you *long* odds that if you find an fMRI paper that claims there is a particular module in the brain, I can show you a localisation claim that is both simplistic and unbelievable. I haven't read the Cosmides & Tooby article yet, but my guess would be that there are several other explanations that would be just as plausible as the "specialized module for detecting moving beasts" explanation. I am not against the existence of such an innate module in principle, but by the sound of it their evidence is much too weak to distinguish that possibility from others .... like: 1) Detection of intention, as Jef suggests, or 2) Detection of pattern rearrangement within the percept (possibly greater for elephant than for minivan), or 3) Contextual effects like the supportive activation between elephant image and surrounding image of the savannah, or 4) Rapid assessment of risk from a minivan that is probably fouled up in an acacia bush right now and isn't going _anywhere_, versus an elephant that can turn on a dime and nail you sometime in the next 30 seconds, if it feels like it. ;-) Richard Loosemore From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Fri Sep 28 17:26:38 2007 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:26:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: My recollection is that Jeff Hawkins, in his book "On Intelligence," talks about various pattern-recognition functions of the brain as operating on a difference or change basis. That is, it throws out much of the information which is familiar and/or redundant and focuses on what's different or unusual. Thus, if you're used to seeing something, the brain can focus less on it. So maybe what's going on is that modern, urban people are much more familiar with minivans and their brains can deal with minivan movement more as "background noise," without the need to focus in on it, whereas we are much less familiar with elephants moving around in our normal experience and thus our attention would be drawn much more to them. An interesting follow up would be to do the same experiment with people who work with elephants and are used to them but unfamiliar on a daily basis with minivans, and see what their reaction would be. James Clement -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 8:51 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? At 06:07 AM 9/28/2007, Jef wrote: >On 9/28/07, Josh Cowan wrote: > > > > It won't come as a surprise humans are more attuned to spotting moving > > animals than moving minivans but a brain module just for such an event? > > hmmm? What if they had moved berry bushes or potential mates instead of > > minivans? Do other humans fall under this animal monitoring module? > >I haven't read this item, but I would expect it's not so much an >"animal module" but rather an evolved sensitivity for perception of >intention and therefore intentional agents including animals, humans, >spirits, etc. I would bet you *long* odds that if you redid this work with the people under function MRI you would see that there really is a module, that is to say a part of the brain that specialized in this task. Keith Henson _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pjmanney at gmail.com Fri Sep 28 20:36:26 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:36:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <46FD2029.1070909@lightlink.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709280210i2868f69k181350a2cc757ba5@mail.gmail.com> <46FD2029.1070909@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30709281336v4906e417ld7d6c6b9b3bdbc25@mail.gmail.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > > Another point is that in all this discussion "fascism" is employed as > > a rather metaphorical sense for anything or anybody thinking it to be > > a good idea in the circumstances to suspend previous constitutional > > guarantees... In this sense, the English government incarcerating > > British fascists during II WW should be considered as a fascist > > regime. On the other hand, fascist movements had their own views > > concerning non-emergency political process. And On 9/28/07, Richard Loosemore wrote: > With respect, that is not the sense in which the word is used here (or > elsewhere), but only a shadow of one part of the usage. > > Using only a shadow of one part of the meaning changes the meaning > substantially. To be honest, I'm not quite sure I understood Stefano's point, either. Let's go with this, unless anyone strongly disagrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#_note-0 Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.[1][2][3][4][5][6] 1. Eatwell, Roger. 1996. Fascism: A History. New York: Allen Lane. 2. Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York: St. Martin's Press. 3. Nolte, Ernst The Three Faces Of Fascism: Action Fran?aise, Italian Fascism, National Socialism, translated from the German by Leila Vennewitz, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965. 4. Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 1-4000-4094-9 5. Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914-45. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press ISBN 0-299-14874-2 6. "collectivism." Encyclop?dia Britannica. 2007. Encyclop?dia Britannica Online. 12 January 2007 "Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism."; Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics. Nelson Thomas 2003. p. 21; De Grand, Alexander. Italian Fascism: Its Origins and Development. U of Nebraska Press. p. 147 "Nationalism, statism, and authoritarianism culminated in the cult of the Duce. Finally, collectivism was important...Despite general agreement on these four themes, it was hard to formulate a definition of fascism..." What the definition doesn't mention, but is crucially important, is the "threat", either real or imagined, that is the catalyst to a fascist political movement. Westerners do not hand over their individual rights without feeling threatened if they do not. In most fascist movements, there is at least a double perceived threat from both without (other cultures or nations) and within (the aliens among us or the government's own threats of non-compliance). I see plenty of evidence of the aforementioned attributes in the political shift in the US over the last seven years. And I firmly believe that it's the cultural naivety and firm belief that "it can't happen here" in the US that has allowed it to progress as far as it has. Unfortunately, most Americans wouldn't know a fascist if they tripped over them -- because most of them have. PJ From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Fri Sep 28 20:47:49 2007 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:47:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709281336v4906e417ld7d6c6b9b3bdbc25@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709280210i2868f69k181350a2cc757ba5@mail.gmail.com> <46FD2029.1070909@lightlink.com> <29666bf30709281336v4906e417ld7d6c6b9b3bdbc25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I would definitely like to recommend the book "They Thought They Were Free: the Germans 1933-45." From the cover: "How and why 'decent men' became Nazis- the life stories of ten law-abiding citizens." One of the things I learned from reading this book was that in a climate of fear, where people can "disappear," the general population learns to keep their opinions to themselves and not to ask too many questions for fear of being singled out. I've seen the "war-protestor as anti-American" climate come and go several times, but this is the first time that the U.S. government has had the power to make people "disappear" seemingly beyond the jurisdiction of anyone besides the President. To me, that's scary! James Clement What the definition doesn't mention, but is crucially important, is the "threat", either real or imagined, that is the catalyst to a fascist political movement. Westerners do not hand over their individual rights without feeling threatened if they do not. In most fascist movements, there is at least a double perceived threat from both without (other cultures or nations) and within (the aliens among us or the government's own threats of non-compliance). I see plenty of evidence of the aforementioned attributes in the political shift in the US over the last seven years. And I firmly believe that it's the cultural naivety and firm belief that "it can't happen here" in the US that has allowed it to progress as far as it has. Unfortunately, most Americans wouldn't know a fascist if they tripped over them -- because most of them have. PJ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From amara at amara.com Fri Sep 28 21:48:12 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:48:12 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps Message-ID: You can go further back in time. Bush et al, are following the description to a Total State, as outlined in Hayek's classic very closely. This old classic _The Road to Serfdom_ should be on everyone's bookshelf. It had more influence these last 10-30 years in former-Soviet union and eastern Europe than any other political treatise. (Ayn Rand's works never made it very far there.) F.A. Hayek: _The Road to Serfdom_, 1944. (please note the date) Table of Contents Introduction 1. The Abandoned Road 2. The Great Utopia 3. Individualism and Collectivism 4. The "Inevitability" of Planning 5. Planning and Democracy 6. Planning and the Rule of Law 7. Economic Control and Totalitarianism 8. Who, Whom? 9. Security and Freedom 10. Why the Worst Get on Top 11. The End of Truth 12. The Socialist Roots of Nazism 13. The Totalitarians in Our Midst 14. Material Conditions and Ideal Ends 15. The Prospects of International Order 16. Conclusion Greetings from Tallinn, Amara From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Sep 28 22:53:47 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:53:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1191019945_66479@S1.cableone.net> At 09:51 AM 9/28/2007, Jef wrote: >On 9/28/07, hkhenson wrote: > > At 06:07 AM 9/28/2007, Jef wrote: > > > >I haven't read this item, but I would expect it's not so much an > > >"animal module" but rather an evolved sensitivity for perception of > > >intention and therefore intentional agents including animals, humans, > > >spirits, etc. > > > > I would bet you *long* odds that if you redid this work with the > > people under function MRI you would see that there really is a > > module, that is to say a part of the brain that specialized in this task. > >Keith, of course with fMRI we would expect to see localized activity >associated with the task, but on what basis do you dispute my point >that it's more about sensitivity to intentional agents than >sensitivity to animals in particular? I would bet animals. I would also bet on there being a different (though possibly overlapping) area for humans. Now I *agree* that it would be better to be sensitive to intentional agents, rather than animals because one of these days we might well have vehicles that drive themselves with intention. But they just didn't exist in the EEA. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Sep 29 00:53:09 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:53:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: <1191019945_66479@S1.cableone.net> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> <1191019945_66479@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: On 9/28/07, hkhenson wrote: > Now I *agree* that it would be better to be sensitive to intentional > agents, rather than animals because one of these days we might well > have vehicles that drive themselves with intention. But they just > didn't exist in the EEA. Now it's clear that our disconnect has been at least partially due to terminology. "Intentional agents" denotes a general class of entities capable of acting to some extent in their own interest. This easily includes humans, animals, "the Wind God", self-aware robots, etc., but clearly excludes minivans. My point was that perceived intentionality has significantly more functional involvement with human evolutionary adaptations than does the subset, perceived membership in the class of "animals". I'd guess you thought I was somehow referring to machine intelligence, but that doesn't seem to fit well at all with the surrounding context. ??? - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Sep 28 15:16:03 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:16:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709281516.l8SFGQg6000069@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> At 06:19 PM 9/27/2007, PJ wrote: >On 9/26/07, Emlyn wrote: > > This isn't new, but it is interesting, I thought some people mightn't > > have seen it. It'll read as pretty strongly partisan, so get past that > > if you can. Do you think things are really as bad as she describes? > >Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein need to get together. See Naomi Klein's >The Shock Doctrine: > >http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine > >In a word, Emlyn, my answer is 'yes.' > >But remember this: even fascists believe they're doing the right >thing. They balance what they and the country gain by their actions >against what they and the country might lose if they refrained. >Hence, their behavior. Naomi Wolf, in my opinion, built a persuasive thesis but I did not go for it. I would have preferred she write about how elements of a hip-hop/gangster-rap subculture manipulates women into becoming sex slaves. The idea of beauty and women wanting to be beautiful reaches far beyond the corner that Wolf paints it into. I for one have always honored women who strive to be beautiful and groom themselves to look their best. Yes, I have simplified her theory, but I didn't like it from the get-go and I don't like it now. Again, she struck out at a segment of society that was seemed to want to be smacked down, relying on women needed to be punished and feel guilty for their pleasures, and she lessened the historical value of beauty for beauty's sake. Now, about this Naomi Klein. I admire her on-camera presence and articulation. Isn't she is applying disaster engineering to combat disaster capitalism. This is a technique used with Critical Art Ensemble and which I deplore because it heightens information for effect. In filmmaking, drama pools in the audience and the more dramatic, the more the audience surrenders its individuality while being scooped up and driven by the filmic method of narrative and effect. I would like to see her go head to head with Virginia Prostrel. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 29 02:51:13 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:51:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com> At 10:56 AM 9/28/2007 -0500, Natasha wrote in response to Emlyn and PJ on Naomi Wolf's recent essay [ http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/ ]: >Naomi Wolf, in my opinion, built a persuasive thesis but I did not >go for it. I would have preferred she write about how elements of a >hip-hop/gangster-rap subculture manipulate women into becoming sex >slaves. The idea of beauty and women wanting to be beautiful >reaches far beyond the corner that Wolf paints it into. Natasha, this is a very, very, very, very strange response to the Wolf essay on an alleged furtive preparation by powerful elements intent on fascist domination of the USA. >I for one have always honored women who strive to be beautiful and >groom themselves to look their best. It's true that personal grooming has much to recommend it when one is faced with a turn to fascism. Damien Broderick From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 04:15:14 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:15:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> <1191019945_66479@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <62c14240709282115x29530912s25c1aaa948418f0c@mail.gmail.com> I am also more familiar with a minivan's normal behavior than an elephant. If the situation were reversed, I would imagine that familiarity with elephants would lead to an expectation of their behavior that would attenuate the fear response compared to the initial fright incurred by seeing the ruthless beast of minivan senselessly trample one of my tribe members and not even bother to eat him. I think the point here is that understanding lets us model behavior and reinforce that model to make predictions. As long as the confidence in the prediction is high enough, the threat value tends to go down. I believe this includes animals. In that case, however, a high amount of model reinforcement is required to reliably predict that a particular dog is not going to bite because its tail is wagging. Perhaps we can minimize the threat of social systems if we had better models for understanding them? From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Sep 29 04:20:52 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:20:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Beauty In-Reply-To: <200709281516.l8SFGQg6000069@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <200709281516.l8SFGQg6000069@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <1191039571_3478@S1.cableone.net> At 08:16 AM 9/28/2007, Natasha wrote: snip >The idea of beauty and women wanting to be beautiful reaches far beyond the corner that Wolf paints it into. snip If you want to read a *most* impressive book, I recommend _The Nurture Assumption_ by Judith Rich Harris. Her work is just solidly in tune with good science, something rare in the social sciences world. She has done it again with a very solid article "Parental selection: A third selection process in the evolution of human hairlessness and skin color." http://xchar.home.att.net/n2a/medhyp.htm This short article has my highest recommendation. Keith Henson From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Sep 29 05:40:56 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:40:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com> References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> At 09:51 PM 9/28/2007, you wrote: >At 10:56 AM 9/28/2007 -0500, Natasha wrote in response to Emlyn and >PJ on Naomi Wolf's recent essay [ http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/ ]: > > >Naomi Wolf, in my opinion, built a persuasive thesis but I did not > >go for it. I would have preferred she write about how elements of a > >hip-hop/gangster-rap subculture manipulate women into becoming sex > >slaves. The idea of beauty and women wanting to be beautiful > >reaches far beyond the corner that Wolf paints it into. > >Natasha, this is a very, very, very, very strange response to the >Wolf essay on an alleged furtive preparation by powerful elements >intent on fascist domination of the USA. Fascism comes in many sizes and shapes. Regardless of the cosmetics of its makeup, it is treacherous and ugly. While PJ suggests that Americans do not recognize it; I think many do. I hear it from people who sense something is awry. When I think about the decline of the values America was built upon, stemming from The Bill of Rights and the world of Thomas Paine, I long for the underlying essence of beauty. (When one thinks of Naomi Wolf, it is almost impossible not to think about her writings on beauty (thus the connection)) You might say, "What the hell does beauty have to do with human behavior, tryanny and politics?!" Beauty, according to Le Corbusier, stemming from Pythagoras, is mathematical in symmetry and proportion. Beauty, according to Benjamin Franklin, is found in simple yet carefully orchestrated musical tunes. According to Thomas Jefferson "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." According to Simone Weil, "Justice, truth, and beauty are sisters and comrades." "Beauty, throughout history, generally has been associated with that which is good. Likewise, the polar opposite of beauty is generally considered to be ugly and is often associated with evil. ... This contrast is epitomized by classic stories such as Sleeping Beauty. Likewise, beauty according to Goethe, from his 1809 Elective Affinities, is 'everywhere a welcome guest'. Moreover, human beauty "acts with far greater force on both inner and outer senses, so that he who beholds it is exempt from evil and feels in harmony with himself and with the world."(Wakjawa 2007) "An Occasional Letter On The Female Sex" (Thomas Paine, August 1775) reflects on bondage and suffering at the cost of beauty." But isn't beauty a deeply valued sense of life that begets the desire for freedom to express and experience? Paine was a "[c]hampion of the chaos of change and the beauty of unrestrained libertarianism" (Rushton 2006) The London Chronicle reprinted Ben Franklin's Causes of the American Discontents before 1768 (1774). Paine was distressed and wanted to revolt against what he thought was a completely corrupt state. He thought of America as a land were the lovers of freedom were uniting against the tyranny. And that tyranny was an illness, a sickness in human behavior. An unwelcome guest. > >I for one have always honored women who strive to be beautiful and > >groom themselves to look their best. > >It's true that personal grooming has much to recommend it when one is >faced with a turn to fascism. Your wry comment has great value and fact if that grooming is performed, with great care, on human behavior. cheers, Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 29 06:09:22 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:09:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com> <200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070929005726.022374f8@satx.rr.com> At 12:40 AM 9/29/2007 -0500, Natasha wrote : >>(When one thinks of Naomi Wolf, it is almost impossible not to >>think about her writings on beauty (thus the connection)) It's true that her 1991 book had a big impact--and that she's gorgeous, which is also impossible to ignore, but a bit irrelevant to her current concerns. >>You might say, "What the hell does beauty have to do with human >>behavior, tryanny and politics?!" No, what I was suggesting is that it does Ms. Wolf a serious disservice, as a public intellectual, to bypass the arguments in her new book about the imminent risk of a slide into *actual real political* fascism, and speak instead about something she published 16 years ago when she was 29. I'm sure there are structural links, because the same human advanced both analyses about the often-unnoticed political control of our lives, but doesn't it make more sense to focus on her specific arguments in this current book (as excerpted in the cited essay)? Damien Broderick From scerir at libero.it Sat Sep 29 06:16:56 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:16:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Beauty References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com><29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com><200709281516.l8SFGQg6000069@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <1191039571_3478@S1.cableone.net> Message-ID: <004101c80260$5bc0b110$24be1f97@archimede> books about beauty? it seems a good one http://www.amazon.com/History-Beauty-Umberto-Eco/dp/0847826465 what about the opposite? http://www.amazon.com/Ugliness-Umberto-Eco/dp/0847829863 From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Sep 29 07:40:44 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:40:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com><200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070929005726.022374f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001101c8026c$0b5a9b30$6401a8c0@brainiac> From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:09 PM > No, what I was suggesting is that it does Ms. Wolf a serious > disservice, as a public intellectual, to bypass the arguments in her > new book about the imminent risk of a slide into *actual real > political* fascism, and speak instead about something she published > 16 years ago when she was 29. I'm sure there are structural links, > because the same human advanced both analyses about the > often-unnoticed political control of our lives, but doesn't it make > more sense to focus on her specific arguments in this current book > (as excerpted in the cited essay)? Naomi Wolf was public, all right ... but I never got the sense that she was ever thought of as much of an intellectual: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20060122/ai_n16015894 Olga From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Sep 29 06:25:31 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:25:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070929005726.022374f8@satx.rr.com> References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com> <200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070929005726.022374f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200709290625.l8T6Prhf027195@ms-smtp-02.texas.rr.com> At 01:09 AM 9/29/2007, Damien wrote: > >>You might say, "What the hell does beauty have to do with human > >>behavior, tryanny and politics?!" > >... I'm sure there are structural links, >because the same human advanced both analyses about the >often-unnoticed political control of our lives, but doesn't it make >more sense to focus on her specific arguments in this current book >(as excerpted in the cited essay)? Sure. A valid point. I'll comment directly on her 10 steps in a different post, tomorrow. Nevertheless, when considering the breath of her work it is crucial to understand her underlying style in approaching topics. Her age may show a maturity in topics, which is great, but I dare say she is famous because of the book on beauty. This does not diminish her credentials and substantial insights concerning America's condition, wherein I do find a connection. Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts 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 stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 09:20:53 2007 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:20:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <29666bf30709281336v4906e417ld7d6c6b9b3bdbc25@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709280210i2868f69k181350a2cc757ba5@mail.gmail.com> <46FD2029.1070909@lightlink.com> <29666bf30709281336v4906e417ld7d6c6b9b3bdbc25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20709290220y7136c898ld5f526cbc44bd4db@mail.gmail.com> On 9/28/07, PJ Manney wrote: > To be honest, I'm not quite sure I understood Stefano's point, either. > > Let's go with this, unless anyone strongly disagrees: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#_note-0 > Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a > mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests > subordinate to the needs of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type > of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, > cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different > characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually > seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, > militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, > and opposition to economic and political liberalism.[1][2][3][4][5][6] I think we are way off-topic, and I do not really have a specific point to make, let alone in favour of the deplorable authoritarian evolution of US politics. But if I have to comment, even taking Wikipedia's oversimplification for good (I assume that many fascists would find such definition at least reductive), one wonders: - where the Bush clique and its supporters consider their interests at least in principle subordinate to "the needs of the State"? - how their divisive action can be considered "to forge a type of national unity"? - what kind of corporative (which in a fascist sense has a totally different sense from "corporate", as in "capitalistic corporations") revolution do they foster? - how would they be opposed to economic liberalism? - what kind of "ethnic, cultural, and racial attributes" would they be referring to? If, on the other hand, "fascist" is simply a comfortable shorthand for "evil", "politically inacceptable", "oppressive", "murderous", "despotic", "illiberal", "anti-democratic" etc., as it is often the case after 1945, fine with me. But I suspect that in a more precise sense America is not more fascist today than than, say, the Inca emperors or Stalin were. Stefano Vaj From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Sep 29 12:42:36 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:42:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com><29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com><580930c20709280210i2868f69k181350a2cc757ba5@mail.gmail.com><46FD2029.1070909@lightlink.com><29666bf30709281336v4906e417ld7d6c6b9b3bdbc25@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20709290220y7136c898ld5f526cbc44bd4db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003a01c80296$769b0540$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stephano writes > But if I have to comment, even taking Wikipedia's oversimplification > for good (I assume that many fascists would find such definition at > least reductive), one wonders: > - where the Bush clique and its supporters consider their interests at > least in principle subordinate to "the needs of the State"? > - how their divisive action can be considered "to forge a type of > national unity"? > - what kind of corporative (which in a fascist sense has a totally > different sense from "corporate", as in "capitalistic corporations") > revolution do they foster? > - how would they be opposed to economic liberalism? > - what kind of "ethnic, cultural, and racial attributes" would they be > referring to? Good questions. > If, on the other hand, "fascist" is simply a comfortable shorthand for > "evil", "politically inacceptable", "oppressive", "murderous", > "despotic", "illiberal", "anti-democratic" etc., as it is often the > case after 1945, fine with me. But I suspect that in a more precise > sense America is not more fascist today than than, say, the Inca > emperors or Stalin were. Yes, but "fascist" has always been a feel-good term for leftists and socialists. There has never been any political or ideological motive or propaganda advantage to be had by describing Inca, Stalinist, or present-day anti-American states (e.g. Cuba or North-Korea) as fascist. Lee From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Sep 29 15:24:42 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:24:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wolf (Was: Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps) In-Reply-To: <001101c8026c$0b5a9b30$6401a8c0@brainiac> References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com> <200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070929005726.022374f8@satx.rr.com> <001101c8026c$0b5a9b30$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200709291525.l8TFP46Q026387@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> At 02:40 AM 9/29/2007, Olga wrote: >Naomi Wolf was public, all right ... but I never got the sense that she was >ever thought of as much of an intellectual: > >http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20060122/ai_n16015894 I read similar reviews and commentary. Is an author's background of consequence and worth investigating when critiquing his/her writings? Natasha From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Sep 29 16:28:17 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:28:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: <62c14240709282115x29530912s25c1aaa948418f0c@mail.gmail.com > References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> <1191019945_66479@S1.cableone.net> <62c14240709282115x29530912s25c1aaa948418f0c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1191083216_13098@S4.cableone.net> At 09:15 PM 9/28/2007, Mike wrote: >I am also more familiar with a minivan's normal behavior than an >elephant. If the situation were reversed, I would imagine that >familiarity with elephants would lead to an expectation of their >behavior that would attenuate the fear response compared to the >initial fright incurred by seeing the ruthless beast of minivan >senselessly trample one of my tribe members and not even bother to eat >him. > >I think the point here is that understanding lets us model behavior >and reinforce that model to make predictions. As long as the >confidence in the prediction is high enough, the threat value tends to >go down. I believe this includes animals. In that case, however, a >high amount of model reinforcement is required to reliably predict >that a particular dog is not going to bite because its tail is >wagging. The point of the original post was about detecting/paying attention to animals being more likely to happen than noticing a minivan. It is analogous to the ease with which we learn to fear snakes and spiders and the relative difficulty we have in learning to fear light sockets or cars. >Perhaps we can minimize the threat of social systems if we had better >models for understanding them? I have produced a model, the short form being that detection of bleak times a-coming turns up the gain in individuals (and thus the population as a whole) for xenophobic, often religious, memes. This evolved mechanism is still with us in times of machine guns and nuclear weapons. It should account (in some measure) for most if not all wars. It lays out specific predictions for where wars will happen and how to avoid wars. Unfortunately the basic mechanism (lower population growth than economic growth) to keep humans out of war mode isn't an easy task. Though the Chinese seem to have done it, I can't see Islamic, particularly Arab culture going this way. (Though in fact, Iran has reached replacement fertility.) Keith From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Sep 29 17:17:39 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:17:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wolf (Was: Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps) References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com><200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070929005726.022374f8@satx.rr.com><001101c8026c$0b5a9b30$6401a8c0@brainiac> <200709291525.l8TFP46Q026387@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <000a01c802bc$a4afa1e0$6401a8c0@brainiac> From: "Natasha Vita-More" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:24 AM > > Is an author's background of consequence and worth investigating when > critiquing his/her writings? Oh, no ... mostly the author's thinking, viewpoint, innovation (and to some extent - objectivity) on issues. For example, three of my personal favorite historical figures (although I have other favorites) - Thomas Paine, Frederick Douglass, and Ida B. Wells - came from failed and/or humble circumstances, and yet through their writings and activism ... were able to contribute to social progress (and in much more restrictive social circumstances than we are used to these days). Olga From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 29 17:21:17 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:21:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <001101c8026c$0b5a9b30$6401a8c0@brainiac> References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com> <200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070929005726.022374f8@satx.rr.com> <001101c8026c$0b5a9b30$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070929121306.02208028@satx.rr.com> At 12:40 AM 9/29/2007 -0700, Olga wrote: >Naomi Wolf was public, all right ... but I never got the sense that she was >ever thought of as much of an intellectual: > >http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20060122/ai_n16015894 Wolf graduated magna cum laude from Yale, and was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. It's true that Paglia denounces her as someone who "cannot write a coherent paragraph. This is a woman who cannot do historical analysis... Naomi Wolf is an intelligent woman. She has been ill-served by her education." This doesn't mean she's not a "public intellectual"--just that she's one with whom some disagree and of whom some disapprove as a poor instance of the breed. Paglia, of course, comes in for similar treatment from other quarters. Wolf's vision of Jesus and the lessons she draws from it are unpalatable to me, too--but would you say Carl Jung was not an intellectual? Thomas Aquinas? Personally, I think that her article on "fascism in America" is overwrought and undernourished, but the elements of her topic are worth some discussion. Damien Broderick From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Sep 29 15:54:44 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:54:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709291555.l8TFt660003325@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com> At 12:34 AM 9/27/2007, Emlyn wrote: >This isn't new, but it is interesting, I thought some people mightn't >have seen it. It'll read as pretty strongly partisan, so get past that >if you can. Do you think things are really as bad as she describes? I think The End of America (Wolf 2007) is playing off The End of History (Fukuyama 2006). I also think that Wolf is running in a pack with others (Moore (Sicko), Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) who are marketing their ideas by emphasizing big implications. Here is the issue: Are American's critically minded enough to discern accuracy from hedging? If "we" are foolish enough not to know that America has become a fascist country, then are "we" not foolish enough to be fooled into believing anything that gets promoted? Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Sep 29 21:04:10 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:04:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com><200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070929005726.022374f8@satx.rr.com><001101c8026c$0b5a9b30$6401a8c0@brainiac> <7.0.1.0.2.20070929121306.02208028@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <004f01c802dc$48c463f0$6401a8c0@brainiac> From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:21 AM > > Wolf graduated magna cum laude from Yale, and was a Rhodes scholar at > Oxford. Yes, I was aware of that. I certainly believe in good education - and there are many ways people go about getting educated throughout their lives. In my own life I've known several people (including a some from my extended family) who generally fit that description, and yet ... I would call their intelligence "fair-to-middling." To be sure, some of them were and have continued to evolve to become - great intellectuals (but a few seemed to have gone seriously downhill from their college years). I've also known brilliant people who've never been to college. My husband - who's known a lot of those fabled "rocket scientists" at McDonnell Douglas (where he used to work for 15 years) ... found a lot of them wanting when it came to interdisciplinary thinking (e.g., there were a couple of them who were creationists). > It's true that Paglia denounces her as someone who "cannot > write a coherent paragraph. This is a woman who cannot do historical > analysis... Naomi Wolf is an intelligent woman. And beyond that (because having and intellect and being an intellectual are somewhat related, yet can be somewhat different), Naomi Wolf is an intellectual, as well. I did say I thought Naomi Wolf wasn't "much" of an intellectual - and I admit that's my own subjective spin on the matter. I don't consider Wolf to be a great innovative thinker, and - compared to historical women and men whom I admire more - not exactly in their league. But, granted - Naomi Wolf is intelligent, and she's also an intellectual. > She has been > ill-served by her education." This doesn't mean she's not a "public > intellectual"--just that she's one with whom some disagree and of > whom some disapprove as a poor instance of the breed. Paglia, of > course, comes in for similar treatment from other quarters. Naomi Wolf is definitely a public intellectual. (I wish more behind-the-scenes intellectuals were better known - it would raise the bar somewhat.) > Wolf's vision of Jesus and the lessons she draws from it are > unpalatable to me, too--but would you say Carl Jung was not an > intellectual? Thomas Aquinas? Going by the definition of an intellectual, I would say that Jung and Aquinas were definitely intellectuals. For their times, Jung and Aquinas also contributed more innovative ideas to the public discourse (than, say, either Paglia or Wolf). > Personally, I think that her article on "fascism in America" is > overwrought and undernourished, but the elements of her topic are > worth some discussion. Definitely. I agree. Olga From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Sep 29 22:00:39 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:00:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <200709291555.l8TFt660003325@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <001501c802e4$2cb900a0$6401a8c0@brainiac> From: Natasha Vita-More To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:54 AM > I think The End of America (Wolf 2007) is playing off The End of History > (Fukuyama 2006). I also think that Wolf is running in a pack with others > (Moore (Sicko), Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) who are marketing their ideas > by emphasizing big implications. And "marketing" is the operative word. I agree with this. > Here is the issue: Are American's critically minded enough to discern > accuracy from hedging? If "we" are foolish enough not to know that > America has become a fascist country, then are "we" not foolish enough to > be fooled into believing anything that gets promoted? "We" do seem to be that foolish enough. Observe: Dubya. "We" voted (loosely speaking) for him twice. As Bush once tried to say: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." (I know you all know that what Bush actually said turned out to be one of his all-time classic Bushisms, but for the record, it went something like this: "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.") Or, as Dan Quayle would have put it - and who, as it turned out, made an unwitting prediction with his all-time classic Quayleism: "What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is." Olga From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Sep 29 23:07:14 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:07:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mindless America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <001501c802e4$2cb900a0$6401a8c0@brainiac> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <200709291555.l8TFt660003325@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com> <001501c802e4$2cb900a0$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070929175803.022b84f0@satx.rr.com> At 03:00 PM 9/29/2007 -0700, Olga wrote: >Or, as Dan Quayle would have put it - and who, as it turned out, made an >unwitting prediction with his all-time classic Quayleism: "What a terrible >thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that >is." Drat, I'd always heard it as "A mind is a terrible thing to lose." There is a TV ep with that title: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0538340/ But evidently Quayle did say: "The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century." Perhaps he was thinking of the Holocene. He also said rather poignantly: "The other day the President said, I know you've had some rough times, and I want to do something that will show the nation what faith that I have in you, in your maturity and sense of responsibility. He paused, then said, would you like a puppy?" Damien Broderick From sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com Sat Sep 29 23:49:23 2007 From: sergio.ml.tarrero at mac.com (Sergio M.L. Tarrero) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:49:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Mindless America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070929175803.022b84f0@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <200709291555.l8TFt660003325@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com> <001501c802e4$2cb900a0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <7.0.1.0.2.20070929175803.022b84f0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: In Virus of the Mind (Introduction: Crisis of the Mind), Richard Brodie quotes... "What a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is very wasteful." -Dan Quayle, mutating the memes in the United Negro College Fund's motto "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". On Sep 30, 2007, at 1:07 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: >> Or, as Dan Quayle would have put it - and who, as it turned out, >> made an >> unwitting prediction with his all-time classic Quayleism: "What a >> terrible >> thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How >> true that >> is." > > Drat, I'd always heard it as "A mind is a terrible thing to lose." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 03:08:23 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:08:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Animal-monitoring modules"? In-Reply-To: <1191083216_13098@S4.cableone.net> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30709271619vc83f0d8h289442309d826e9@mail.gmail.com> <1190994606_55845@S1.cableone.net> <1191019945_66479@S1.cableone.net> <62c14240709282115x29530912s25c1aaa948418f0c@mail.gmail.com> <1191083216_13098@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <62c14240709292008kafb87exde1368533d3f29c9@mail.gmail.com> On 9/29/07, hkhenson wrote: > I have produced a model, the short form being that detection of bleak > times a-coming turns up the gain in individuals (and thus the > population as a whole) for xenophobic, often religious, memes. This > evolved mechanism is still with us in times of machine guns and > nuclear weapons. It should account (in some measure) for most if not all wars. I read once that the xenophobic meme phase seems to coincide with escapist fatasy being a popular entertainment genre. When there is less fear, science fiction becomes more prevalent in entertainment. With that in mind (without rigorous proof) I was considering the recent thread about responsible singularity PR. Do we think entertainment media can/should be used to prepare the general public to accept a higher level of technological possibility? From sti at pooq.com Sun Sep 30 04:38:45 2007 From: sti at pooq.com (Stirling Westrup) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:38:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? Message-ID: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> A friend of mine is a journalist and she's looking for some credible names in in Climatology that are skeptics of global warming so she can ask them for interviews. I've already given her three names: Richard Lindzen, Hendrik Tennekes, and (although not a climatologist) Bjorn Lomborg. Can anyone think of any others? She says she typically sends out 4-6 requests for each interview she's granted, and needs at least two sources for the article she's writing. -- Stirling Westrup -- Visionary, Technology Analyst, Researcher, Software Engineer, IT Generalist LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/e/fpf/77228 Website: http://www.pooq.com Tech Blog: http://technaut.livejournal.com Business Blog: http://willcodeforfood.livejournal.com -- Spread the word: Its all a HOAX, memes don't exist! From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Sep 30 05:15:06 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:15:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <001501c802e4$2cb900a0$6401a8c0@brainiac> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <200709291555.l8TFt660003325@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com> <001501c802e4$2cb900a0$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200709300515.l8U5FSdN026158@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> At 05:00 PM 9/29/2007, Olga wrote: >From: Natasha Vita-More > > > I think The End of America (Wolf 2007) is playing off The End of History > > (Fukuyama 2006). I also think that Wolf is running in a pack with others > > (Moore (Sicko), Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) who are marketing their ideas > > by emphasizing big implications. > >And "marketing" is the operative word. I agree with this. > > > Here is the issue: Are American's critically minded enough to discern > > accuracy from hedging? If "we" are foolish enough not to know that > > America has become a fascist country, then are "we" not foolish enough to > > be fooled into believing anything that gets promoted? > >"We" do seem to be that foolish enough. This is an instance where a pronoun does a disservice. Isn't if simply awful to included in this type of "we"? Time for Extropy and the forces of critical thinking. Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts 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 Sun Sep 30 05:11:16 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:11:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <004f01c802dc$48c463f0$6401a8c0@brainiac> References: <200709281556.l8SFurii013269@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070928214333.0233cec0@satx.rr.com> <200709290541.l8T5fIuf025287@ms-smtp-07.texas.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070929005726.022374f8@satx.rr.com> <001101c8026c$0b5a9b30$6401a8c0@brainiac> <7.0.1.0.2.20070929121306.02208028@satx.rr.com> <004f01c802dc$48c463f0$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <200709300511.l8U5BdWh001530@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> At 04:04 PM 9/29/2007, Olga wrote: Damien wrote: > I don't consider Wolf >to be a great innovative thinker, and - compared to historical women and men >whom I admire more - not exactly in their league. But, granted - Naomi Wolf >is intelligent, and she's also an intellectual. True. (As an aside, I prefer Paglia.) > > Personally, I think that her article on "fascism in America" is > > overwrought and undernourished, but the elements of her topic are > > worth some discussion. > >Definitely. I agree. Yes. Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tyleremerson at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 08:29:43 2007 From: tyleremerson at gmail.com (Tyler Emerson) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:29:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New SIAI Interviews Message-ID: <632d2cda0709300129v75fa4723r411cb2822d4f8913@mail.gmail.com> Our latest interviews are now online. We put a lot of work into each one, and I hope it shows. You can stream online, view in high-res via QuickTime, get the audio, or read the transcript. http://www.singinst.org/media/interviews/ This set includes seven of the Singularity Summit 2007 speakers: * Dr. Peter Norvig, Google Director of Research and co-author of AI: A Modern Approach * Sam Adams, IBM Distinguished Engineer within IBM's Research Division * Jamais Cascio, IEET Fellow and CRN Director of Impacts Analysis * Dr. Ben Goertzel, SIAI Director of Research and Novamente CEO * Peter Voss, Adaptive AI CEO * Dr. James Hughes, IEET Executive Director * John Smart, Acceleration Studies Foundation President Please let us know what you think about the interviews. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks to Doug Wolens for filming and editing, Tom McCabe for audio, and Drew Reynolds for transcripts. -Tyler -- Tyler Emerson Executive Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence P.O . Box 50182, Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA 866-667-2524 | emerson at singinst.org | singinst.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Sep 30 15:17:27 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:17:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? In-Reply-To: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> Message-ID: <000001c80375$13eb64f0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Stirling you might have her try... Colorado State University's Bill Gray Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service Myron Ebell, director of global warming and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moore's University Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top earth scientists, published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded, "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers." German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany Patrick J. Michaels, the author of several books on climate change, including a entitled "Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming." Best Regards, Gary Miller -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stirling Westrup Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 12:39 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? A friend of mine is a journalist and she's looking for some credible names in in Climatology that are skeptics of global warming so she can ask them for interviews. I've already given her three names: Richard Lindzen, Hendrik Tennekes, and (although not a climatologist) Bjorn Lomborg. Can anyone think of any others? She says she typically sends out 4-6 requests for each interview she's granted, and needs at least two sources for the article she's writing. -- Stirling Westrup -- Visionary, Technology Analyst, Researcher, Software Engineer, IT Generalist LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/e/fpf/77228 Website: http://www.pooq.com Tech Blog: http://technaut.livejournal.com Business Blog: http://willcodeforfood.livejournal.com -- Spread the word: Its all a HOAX, memes don't exist! _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 9:46 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 9:46 PM From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Sep 30 16:25:39 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:25:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> Message-ID: <001101c8037f$0aba71a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stirling writes >A friend of mine is a journalist and she's looking for some credible names in > in Climatology that are skeptics of global warming so she can ask them for > interviews. > > I've already given her three names: > > Richard Lindzen, > Hendrik Tennekes, and > (although not a climatologist) Bjorn Lomborg. > > Can anyone think of any others? Be sure to see http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing... ... to tha absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the Church of Chicken Little. Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our attention: Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose the perceived alarmism of man-made global warming. The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. Once Believers, Now Skeptics Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. ... Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. ... Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye," Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. ... Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. "But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" he added. ... Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. "I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself," Murty explained on August 17, 2006. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. ... Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed." "The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything," Bellamy added. ... Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous 'global warming,' But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation." de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. ... Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine' s 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. ... Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book "Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. ... Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. ... Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970's all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies," Jaworowski added. ... Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change." "However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. ... Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. "I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given," Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. "The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario," Veizer wrote. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 16:52:26 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:52:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? In-Reply-To: <001101c8037f$0aba71a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> <001101c8037f$0aba71a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Be sure to see > > http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html > > Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing... > ... to the absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the Church of Chicken > Little. Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our attention: > As the last reader comment on that item notes - the Wikipedia article lists about 40 scientists who have expressed doubts about global warming. He also notes that this opposes the thousands of scientists who support the theory that humans are a major part of the cause of global warming. You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of evolution. Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Sep 30 14:43:57 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:43:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? In-Reply-To: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> Message-ID: <200709301444.l8UEiKYA016237@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> At 11:38 PM 9/29/2007, Stirling wrote: >Richard Lindzen, >Hendrik Tennekes, and >(although not a climatologist) Bjorn Lomborg. > >Can anyone think of any others? Max More gave a talk at World Future Society on this if you would like a philosopher's opinion. Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium -University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Sep 30 17:57:54 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:57:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? In-Reply-To: References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> <001101c8037f$0aba71a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070930124804.021e0b50@satx.rr.com> At 05:52 PM 9/30/2007 +0100, BillK wrote: >You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of evolution. >Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer. By a happy coincidence, I understand that Fred Singer was one of these latter. One quote: "Fred Singer is an Exxon shill. He used to work for the Tobacco industry, saying that there was no clear link between smoking and lung cancer." A rather hysterical site gives some details: < http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html > Another: "before that he shilled for the sugar industry, I believe.... I once did a great deal of research on the role of nutrition and behavior in prisoners and children. Amazing results which Singer led the way in debunking as I remember, then it came out who was funding him." This might not be correct; hard to see what an atmospheric physicist would be doing speaking about sugar, but hey, what was he doing talking about the safety of tobacco? Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Sep 30 18:04:21 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:04:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com><001101c8037f$0aba71a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <002301c8038c$58c2df10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >> Be sure to see >> >> http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html >> >> Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing... >> ... to the absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the Church of Chicken >> Little. Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our attention: > > As the last reader comment on that item notes... > He also notes that this opposes the thousands of scientists who > support the theory that humans are a major part of the cause of global > warming. > > You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of evolution. > Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer. There are a number of differences. One is to check if you can be suspicious of some prior crackpot element. Clearly in the case of evolution we have ample explanation of the motives of some of the creationists and so on---religion is a huge force in human thinking and motivation. So what would be the analogy here? Do a lot of the names on these list jump out at you as being bought and paid for by people who can somehow make money if global warming is false? Another is the incredible yet obvious, amazing yet not-so-perplexing political component of this scientific issue. Political component? Now, how could that be? I ask seriously, but especially if anyone wishes to make an unbiased stab at answering, i.e. answering in such a way that the writer's own biases or political allegiances are not patent (though of course all comments welcome). But being political, one may ask (just as one does in tobacco cases) who does the funding? In this case, it's almost entirely governments and those who hope for government grants. Thus we instantly see the especially harmful effects of funding that is partly or mainly politically or ideologically motivated. The iron law of government bureaucracies is growth, growth, and more growth. A "crisis" real or imagined is damn, damn fine for government growth, and is a very convenient truth for those who believe that governments ought to be actively improving our lives a lot more than they supposedly are already. Lee From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Sun Sep 30 18:47:01 2007 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:47:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? In-Reply-To: <002301c8038c$58c2df10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com><001101c8037f$0aba71a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002301c8038c$58c2df10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: BillK, you're not suggesting that there are no financial incentives for those who write research papers against Global Warming, are you? See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/science/28climate.html?ex=1311739200&en=00 d5453101bbc950&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss and http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html Nor is the government strictly one-sided: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/19/noaa/index_np.html There are tremendous amounts of money to be made and lost by corporations as a result of environmental decisions by governments, which under our current structure leads to tremendous pressure by some to retain the status quo, and by others to push for changes and punish their competition. James Clement -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:04 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? BillK writes > On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >> Be sure to see >> >> http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html >> >> Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing... >> ... to the absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the Church of Chicken >> Little. Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our attention: > > As the last reader comment on that item notes... > He also notes that this opposes the thousands of scientists who > support the theory that humans are a major part of the cause of global > warming. > > You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of evolution. > Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer. There are a number of differences. One is to check if you can be suspicious of some prior crackpot element. Clearly in the case of evolution we have ample explanation of the motives of some of the creationists and so on---religion is a huge force in human thinking and motivation. So what would be the analogy here? Do a lot of the names on these list jump out at you as being bought and paid for by people who can somehow make money if global warming is false? Another is the incredible yet obvious, amazing yet not-so-perplexing political component of this scientific issue. Political component? Now, how could that be? I ask seriously, but especially if anyone wishes to make an unbiased stab at answering, i.e. answering in such a way that the writer's own biases or political allegiances are not patent (though of course all comments welcome). But being political, one may ask (just as one does in tobacco cases) who does the funding? In this case, it's almost entirely governments and those who hope for government grants. Thus we instantly see the especially harmful effects of funding that is partly or mainly politically or ideologically motivated. The iron law of government bureaucracies is growth, growth, and more growth. A "crisis" real or imagined is damn, damn fine for government growth, and is a very convenient truth for those who believe that governments ought to be actively improving our lives a lot more than they supposedly are already. Lee _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From scerir at libero.it Sun Sep 30 18:37:42 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:37:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> Message-ID: <009101c80390$fd496a00$3aba1f97@archimede> > Can anyone think of any others? Try Freeman Dyson here (page 2) http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/29/freeman_dyson/ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Sep 30 20:50:01 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:50:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com><001101c8037f$0aba71a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002301c8038c$58c2df10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <002f01c803a3$bef1a840$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> James writes > BillK, you're not suggesting that there are no financial incentives for > those who write research papers against Global Warming, are you? See Er, to keep the record straight, wouldn't it be me instead of BillK to whom your remark should be aimed? Lee > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/science/28climate.html?ex=1311739200&en=00 > d5453101bbc950&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss > > and > > http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html > > Nor is the government strictly one-sided: > > http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/19/noaa/index_np.html > > There are tremendous amounts of money to be made and lost by corporations as > a result of environmental decisions by governments, which under our current > structure leads to tremendous pressure by some to retain the status quo, and > by others to push for changes and punish their competition. > > James Clement > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:04 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? > > BillK writes > >> On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >>> Be sure to see >>> >>> > http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html >>> >>> Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing... >>> ... to the absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the > Church of Chicken >>> Little. Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our > attention: >> >> As the last reader comment on that item notes... >> He also notes that this opposes the thousands of scientists who >> support the theory that humans are a major part of the cause of global >> warming. >> >> You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of evolution. >> Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer. > > There are a number of differences. One is to check if you can be > suspicious of some prior crackpot element. Clearly in the case > of evolution we have ample explanation of the motives of some > of the creationists and so on---religion is a huge force in human > thinking and motivation. So what would be the analogy here? > Do a lot of the names on these list jump out at you as being bought > and paid for by people who can somehow make money if global > warming is false? > > Another is the incredible yet obvious, amazing yet not-so-perplexing > political component of this scientific issue. > > Political component? Now, how could that be? I ask seriously, but > especially if anyone wishes to make an unbiased stab at answering, > i.e. answering in such a way that the writer's own biases or political > allegiances are not patent (though of course all comments welcome). > > But being political, one may ask (just as one does in tobacco cases) who > does the funding? In this case, it's almost entirely governments and those > who hope for government grants. Thus we instantly see the especially > harmful effects of funding that is partly or mainly politically or > ideologically motivated. > > The iron law of government bureaucracies is growth, growth, and more > growth. A "crisis" real or imagined is damn, damn fine for government > growth, and is a very convenient truth for those who believe that > governments ought to be actively improving our lives a lot more than > they supposedly are already. > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 21:50:58 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:50:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <200709300515.l8U5FSdN026158@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <200709291555.l8TFt660003325@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com> <001501c802e4$2cb900a0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <200709300515.l8U5FSdN026158@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240709301450t61e3833dna53e448e95e9ee4b@mail.gmail.com> On 9/30/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: >> "We" do seem to be that foolish enough. > This is an instance where a pronoun does a disservice. Isn't if simply > awful to included in this type of "we"? > > Time for Extropy and the forces of critical thinking. Sounds like a group of comic book superheroes From pharos at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 22:20:05 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:20:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? In-Reply-To: <002f01c803a3$bef1a840$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <46FF2855.30303@pooq.com> <001101c8037f$0aba71a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002301c8038c$58c2df10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002f01c803a3$bef1a840$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > James writes > > > BillK, you're not suggesting that there are no financial incentives for > > those who write research papers against Global Warming, are you? See > > Er, to keep the record straight, wouldn't it be me instead of BillK > to whom your remark should be aimed? > I'll second that! :) BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Sep 30 22:28:58 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:28:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? Message-ID: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> James writes > you're not suggesting that there are no financial incentives for > those who write research papers against Global Warming, are you? See > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/science/28climate.html?ex=1311739200&en=00d5453101bbc950&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Thanks. Indeed I was not aware that any outside agencies were paying any scientists who did not support the view that global warming was being oversold. But you should wince a little at the tone of that article, which begins Utilities Pay Scientist Ally on Warming > BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > Published: July 28, 2006 > WASHINGTON, July 27 - Coal-burning utilities are contributing money to > one of the few remaining climate scientists openly critical of the broad > consensus that fossil fuel emissions are intensifying global warming. The bias of this lead sentence is large and obvious. The writer is apparently someone who would find it somewhat painful to complete any full sentence without pushing the point of view he personally believes in. Everything from "few remaining..." to "broad consensus". Now explain *why* a journalist, indeed writing for the Associated Press, would have such an agenda? Of course, we do or should be able to individually acknowledge the general overt bias of western media in politically related questions, of which this is a sample. > There are tremendous amounts of money to be made and lost by corporations as > a result of environmental decisions by governments, which under our current > structure leads to tremendous pressure by some to retain the status quo, and > by others to push for changes and punish their competition. Yes (and thank you for admitting that last phrase; we must strive for objectivity). But you haven't said whether you agree with the point that the traditional left seems to have a horse in this race that's not simply scientific. The bigger question I'm addressing is the bias itself, from both sides, and why we think what we think. On a number of occasions, I have to brag, a desire to explain *this* phenomenon in unbiased terms has always seemed to be coming much more from my side of the political spectrum. No one has yet addressed either way my contention that the social idealism (quite apart from literally saving the Earth) of many on the left---idealism that manifests itself in wanting bigger government and greater regulation---is behind a great deal of the support for global warming and a very great amount of support for the belief in catastrophic global warming. One way to address this might be if anyone has attempted to poll scientists who are entirely unpolitical or ideological (I understand the difficulty of this). But we may ourselves have some success in soliciting opinion from well-known extropians who have never voiced a political opinion. Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:04 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? > > BillK writes > >> On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >>> Be sure to see >>> >>> > http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html >>> >>> Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing... >>> ... to the absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the > Church of Chicken >>> Little. Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our > attention: >> >> As the last reader comment on that item notes... >> He also notes that this opposes the thousands of scientists who >> support the theory that humans are a major part of the cause of global >> warming. >> >> You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of evolution. >> Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer. > > There are a number of differences. One is to check if you can be > suspicious of some prior crackpot element. Clearly in the case > of evolution we have ample explanation of the motives of some > of the creationists and so on---religion is a huge force in human > thinking and motivation. So what would be the analogy here? > Do a lot of the names on these list jump out at you as being bought > and paid for by people who can somehow make money if global > warming is false? > > Another is the incredible yet obvious, amazing yet not-so-perplexing > political component of this scientific issue. > > Political component? Now, how could that be? I ask seriously, but > especially if anyone wishes to make an unbiased stab at answering, > i.e. answering in such a way that the writer's own biases or political > allegiances are not patent (though of course all comments welcome). > > But being political, one may ask (just as one does in tobacco cases) who > does the funding? In this case, it's almost entirely governments and those > who hope for government grants. Thus we instantly see the especially > harmful effects of funding that is partly or mainly politically or > ideologically motivated. > > The iron law of government bureaucracies is growth, growth, and more > growth. A "crisis" real or imagined is damn, damn fine for government > growth, and is a very convenient truth for those who believe that > governments ought to be actively improving our lives a lot more than > they supposedly are already. > > Lee From pjmanney at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 22:45:41 2007 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:45:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps In-Reply-To: <62c14240709301450t61e3833dna53e448e95e9ee4b@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0709262234x7adfb2e2ka70fbdbab29440de@mail.gmail.com> <200709291555.l8TFt660003325@ms-smtp-03.texas.rr.com> <001501c802e4$2cb900a0$6401a8c0@brainiac> <200709300515.l8U5FSdN026158@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> <62c14240709301450t61e3833dna53e448e95e9ee4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30709301545s1a1547ebt4307bd007f17c799@mail.gmail.com> On 9/30/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: > Sounds like a group of comic book superheroes Here's my favorite superhero, satirist Stephen Colbert, interviewing Naomi Wolf on the subject of fascism: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=103036 And I noticed her grooming is impeccable, too. ;-) PJ From clementlawyer at hotmail.com Sun Sep 30 22:54:35 2007 From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:54:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? In-Reply-To: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <006501c803b1$c2687720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee; Like any issue, there are those whose motives are unimpeachable (whether they're factually right or wrong), and those whose motives are biased. This is the sole point of my posting - that neither side is completely free from bias, and we should avoid making sweeping statements that try to paint everyone on one side with a single brush. Maybe the media and the politicians can make use of such mud-slinging, but anyone who has the skills of critical thinking should be more concerned with uncovering and evaluating the facts for themselves. James -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 3:29 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? James writes > you're not suggesting that there are no financial incentives for > those who write research papers against Global Warming, are you? See > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/science/28climate.html?ex=1311739200&en=00 d5453101bbc950&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Thanks. Indeed I was not aware that any outside agencies were paying any scientists who did not support the view that global warming was being oversold. But you should wince a little at the tone of that article, which begins Utilities Pay Scientist Ally on Warming > BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > Published: July 28, 2006 > WASHINGTON, July 27 - Coal-burning utilities are contributing money to > one of the few remaining climate scientists openly critical of the broad > consensus that fossil fuel emissions are intensifying global warming. The bias of this lead sentence is large and obvious. The writer is apparently someone who would find it somewhat painful to complete any full sentence without pushing the point of view he personally believes in. Everything from "few remaining..." to "broad consensus". Now explain *why* a journalist, indeed writing for the Associated Press, would have such an agenda? Of course, we do or should be able to individually acknowledge the general overt bias of western media in politically related questions, of which this is a sample. > There are tremendous amounts of money to be made and lost by corporations as > a result of environmental decisions by governments, which under our current > structure leads to tremendous pressure by some to retain the status quo, and > by others to push for changes and punish their competition. Yes (and thank you for admitting that last phrase; we must strive for objectivity). But you haven't said whether you agree with the point that the traditional left seems to have a horse in this race that's not simply scientific. The bigger question I'm addressing is the bias itself, from both sides, and why we think what we think. On a number of occasions, I have to brag, a desire to explain *this* phenomenon in unbiased terms has always seemed to be coming much more from my side of the political spectrum. No one has yet addressed either way my contention that the social idealism (quite apart from literally saving the Earth) of many on the left---idealism that manifests itself in wanting bigger government and greater regulation---is behind a great deal of the support for global warming and a very great amount of support for the belief in catastrophic global warming. One way to address this might be if anyone has attempted to poll scientists who are entirely unpolitical or ideological (I understand the difficulty of this). But we may ourselves have some success in soliciting opinion from well-known extropians who have never voiced a political opinion. Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:04 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects? > > BillK writes > >> On 9/30/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >>> Be sure to see >>> >>> > http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/global-warming-.html >>> >>> Global Warming scientist skeptics list is growing... >>> ... to the absolute chagrin of the kool-aid drinking members of the > Church of Chicken >>> Little. Stumbled across this today and thought it worthy of our > attention: >> >> As the last reader comment on that item notes... >> He also notes that this opposes the thousands of scientists who >> support the theory that humans are a major part of the cause of global >> warming. >> >> You can probably find more 'scientists' that deny the theory of evolution. >> Some even still deny that smoking causes cancer. > > There are a number of differences. One is to check if you can be > suspicious of some prior crackpot element. Clearly in the case > of evolution we have ample explanation of the motives of some > of the creationists and so on---religion is a huge force in human > thinking and motivation. So what would be the analogy here? > Do a lot of the names on these list jump out at you as being bought > and paid for by people who can somehow make money if global > warming is false? > > Another is the incredible yet obvious, amazing yet not-so-perplexing > political component of this scientific issue. > > Political component? Now, how could that be? I ask seriously, but > especially if anyone wishes to make an unbiased stab at answering, > i.e. answering in such a way that the writer's own biases or political > allegiances are not patent (though of course all comments welcome). > > But being political, one may ask (just as one does in tobacco cases) who > does the funding? In this case, it's almost entirely governments and those > who hope for government grants. Thus we instantly see the especially > harmful effects of funding that is partly or mainly politically or > ideologically motivated. > > The iron law of government bureaucracies is growth, growth, and more > growth. A "crisis" real or imagined is damn, damn fine for government > growth, and is a very convenient truth for those who believe that > governments ought to be actively improving our lives a lot more than > they supposedly are already. > > Lee _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Sep 30 23:39:55 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:39:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Oxytocin Sprays Appearing In-Reply-To: <632d2cda0709300129v75fa4723r411cb2822d4f8913@mail.gmail.com> References: <632d2cda0709300129v75fa4723r411cb2822d4f8913@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005201c803bb$368172c0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> First of all before I get dinged for being offtopiclet me say why I think this is not off topic. If this is true then the implication for both feeling trust and creating trust in others could be dramatically enhanced. My question, has anyone experimented with the new Oxytocin sprays that are appearing on the market? The hormone itself seems to have a lot of scientific evidence supporting it. HYPERLINK "http://www.socialbehavior.unizh.ch/researchgroups/psychology/BiolPsychiatry -Mind-reading06.pdf"http://www.socialbehavior.unizh.ch/researchgroups/psycho logy/BiolPsychiatry-Mind-reading06.pdf HYPERLINK "http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-13.html"http ://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-13.html HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin HYPERLINK "http://brainethics.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/oxytocin-is-the-window-to-the-s oul/"http://brainethics.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/oxytocin-is-the-window-to-t he-soul/ HYPERLINK "http://www.reuniting.info/science/oxytocin_health_bonding"http://www.reunit ing.info/science/oxytocin_health_bonding HYPERLINK "http://www.smh.com.au/news/mind-matters/to-sniff-at-danger/2006/01/12/11369 56247384.html"http://www.smh.com.au/news/mind-matters/to-sniff-at-danger/200 6/01/12/1136956247384.html But the advertising of the sprays is pretty cheesy and I wonder how they're getting synthesizing or extracting the hormone in sufficient concentration to actually do anything. And at $50 I'd feel less silly if someone else admitted to trying it first. HYPERLINK "http://www.verolabs.com/"http://www.verolabs.com/ I was also surprised to find injectable versions called Pitocin and Syntocinon which it seems is being used to induce labor. HYPERLINK "http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/oxytocin.htm"http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/ge neric/oxytocin.htm Best Regards, Gary No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 9:46 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From therion at indiainfo.com Thu Sep 27 22:48:25 2007 From: therion at indiainfo.com (Enrique Lescure) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:18:25 +0530 Subject: [ExI] Technocracy Message-ID: <20070927224825.504DE43D1A@ws5-1.us4.outblaze.com> Hi everyone I wonder if you have never thought of combining transhumanism with technocracy? You are maybe aware of the post-scarcity society espoused by Gene Rodenberry in Star Trek, where money had ceased to be? Well, Gene was in fact inspired by the proposal put forth by the Technocratic movement. The proposal was to divide the available production capacity in equal shares determined by energy in kw hours. All this production capacity would be administrated by a continental service known as a technate. The citizens would decide what they would like to have produced for themselves, and the technate would produce it. It is thus not a planned economy, and not a market economy. The goal is to automatise as much as possible. Work hours will be reduced to the lowest optimal level. Instead of focus on economic growth, we could balance our output with the input of nature and still live in a high energy society. Of course, technocracy is not perfect, but I think it is worth to investigate. Look into this site for example: http://en.technocracynet.eu /Enrique -- ______________________________________________ IndiaInfo Mail - the free e-mail service with a difference! www.indiainfo.com Check out our value-added Premium features, such as an extra 20MB for mail storage, POP3, e-mail forwarding, and ads-free mailboxes!