From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Oct 1 01:50:10 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:50:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The bailout In-Reply-To: <0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com> <200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com> <0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Sep 29, 2008, at 3:38 PM, John K Clark wrote: > I see that the House has rejected the 700 billion bailout of Wall > Street. WOO HOO! Some measure of sense prevails after all. > But clearly something must be done and done damn quick to > outmaneuver disaster, and this is no time to be paralyzed by dogma > even if that dogma happens to be true. If it it true then it is pointless to call it dogma. Real problems cannot be maximally addressed by ignoring what is and isn't true to be the best of our ability to ascertain it. > I was wondering about an alternative idea that I've had, a massive > 700 billion tax cut with 90% aimed at the middle class. By my "dogma", that is my attempt to map reality reasonably and handily succinctly, that would be a much better action to improve and economy. However, unless massive government spending cuts were made the government's standard activities would result in massively more debt. There is no improving the economy without greatly reducing the massive sucking of wealth by the government. Both government and the people cannot continue to consume much more than they produce. Money cannot be continuously printed and injected and interest manipulated without creating more bubbles and lowering the value of the currency. The long put off correction of the error of our ways must be undertaken and the sooner the better. It will not be easy. But the alternative is the end of US economic power. The problem will only increase by putting the correction off and the economy will oscillate ever more dangerously until the damage is effectively irreparable. > Realistically you've got to let corporations have at least 10% if > you actually expect the idea to get passed by the congress. I'd be > interested to know if any of you economic wonks think that > idea would pass the mustard. It may not, it may be too slow, > I'm just asking. The "corporations", that is business generally, is much more crucial than just people having a lot more to spend. In actually you are talking about approximately $5000 per working person. Than is all too easy to blow meaninglessly as far as creating a healthier economy is concerned. Remember that we don't make all that much in the US any more. So in practice the lion's share of such a sum would be likely to go offshore. - samantha From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 1 03:27:35 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:27:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The bailout In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com> <200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com> <0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080930220856.0110b848@satx.rr.com> At 07:50 PM 9/30/2008 -0600, samantha wrote: >unless massive government spending cuts were made >the government's standard activities would result in massively more >debt. There is no improving the economy without greatly reducing the >massive sucking of wealth by the government. This might well be true (and we know that government doesn't do anything with this appropriated wealth, just shovels it into vast fires or pits where it is destroyed), but the odd thing in the current situation (which I've heard described as a "crisis," possibly of unprecedented proportions) is that a collusive or even corrupt government first *de*regulated *private* *corporations,* allowing those large businesses to foist astonishing amount of debt on smaller US businesses and private consumers (sometimes called "fools") far beyond their plausible capacity to pay this debt: a Ponzi scheme, I think I've heard it called. This massive sucking of wealth was *allowed* by government, possibly even *helped along* by it, but (as far as I know) the massive sucking and wealth siphoning (which I've heard described as "highway robbery" or "extortion" or "sucker-punching brain-dead idiots") wasn't done by government agencies. That's the odd thing. Perhaps, though, if government spending was shut down largely or entirely, this conniving and thievery wouldn't hurt so badly, because there'd be more wealth to siphon up. But I might be wrong about all this. I do find America so difficult to understand. For example, I'm still puzzling over Mr. McCain's insight that Mr. Obama was responsible for a vote that was lost because more Republicans than Democrats voted in the negative. That's another odd thing. Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Oct 1 02:21:54 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:21:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928181617.024f9260@satx.rr.com> References: <0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <052f01c921b8$579c7420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080928181617.024f9260@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:22 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > I'm wondering if anyone on this list sees Sarah Palin as a suitable > or even good or even perhaps excellent candidate for VP? Or indeed, > should President McCain become incapable of exercising his duties > due to disability or death, that she would make your candidate of > choice for that office (of those currently on offer, of course, > since that is the choice confronting US voters, I take it, since no > "third-party" candidates have a show of getting enough votes)? I see Sarah Palin as a pathetic joke as a VP candidate. I would not in the least respect her as a neighbor much less as a VP. A candidate that wants to teach creationism, pushes abstinence only sex education (we see the result of that with her daughter), believes we are doing "God's Will" in Iraq, believes in censorship and is apparently quite vindictive when given a bit of political power? And this doesn't even touch her near-total lack of national and international political acumen. She may be a strong argument that the government school system has destroyed the minds of a large part of the US population. Then again Obama choosing the kingpin of the Drug War and strongest Senate voice in support of the Iraq fiasco who still says it was the right thing to do to this day is also a very bad and sad joke. But at least he is of credible, if evil, standing. But in wake of US economic meltdown it is hard to really believe the presidential circus is even light entertainment. Neither party is talking about anything real. This seasonal democratic farce doesn't really affect much of anything. - samantha From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 02:08:43 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 12:08:43 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The bailout In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com> <200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com> <0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> Message-ID: 2008/10/1 Samantha Atkins : > If it it true then it is pointless to call it dogma. Real problems cannot > be maximally addressed by ignoring what is and isn't true to be the best of > our ability to ascertain it. >From Wikipedia: "Dogma... is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from." If the communists or the capitalists insist that their ideology has to be right, and any evidence that things are going wrong is either ignored or put down to a deviation from the one true path, that's dogma. -- Stathis Papaioannou From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 03:47:58 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:47:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Frightful Atheism Disaster In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080930142857.022fb000@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080930142857.022fb000@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670809302047q7642b005u503c1648044db4f8@mail.gmail.com> Damien, Very, very clever! You could moonlight writing for *The Onion*. http://www.theonion.com/content/ A favorite of mine: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39261 John : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 1 04:04:09 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 00:04:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Witch hunts References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com><200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com><0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080930220856.0110b848@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: It seems that Sarah Palin believes in witch hunts. I am not using a figure of speech, incredibly the woman literally believes that witches should be hunted. See it for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S62Z37bI ZHk&feature=related John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 1 04:07:06 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:07:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Frightful Atheism Disaster In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809302047q7642b005u503c1648044db4f8@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080930142857.022fb000@satx.rr.com> <2d6187670809302047q7642b005u503c1648044db4f8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080930230416.0231e2a0@satx.rr.com> At 08:47 PM 9/30/2008 -0700, John Grigg wrote: >You could moonlight writing for The Onion. Yeah, but it would have been sharper if I'd paid more attention and replaced *all* the "temple" references. But life is short (currently, although the atheist labs are working on that). Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 04:37:08 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:37:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Witch hunts In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com> <200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com> <0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080930220856.0110b848@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670809302137x1164d3dva0ab94e40c52ca95@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:04 PM, John K Clark wrote: > It seems that Sarah Palin believes in witch hunts. I am not using a figure > of speech, incredibly the woman literally believes that > witches should be hunted. See it for yourself: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S62Z37bI ZHk&feature=related > > Well..., with the loss of the Pagan vote the Republicans have now surely failed in their bid for the White House. But if they still happen to win then we will see an expansion of the war on terror! I suppose the Vatican will be consulted as the H.F.I. is established*. Holy Federal Inquisition* John ; ) "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 1 04:33:28 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:33:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Witch hunts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200810010500.m9150LiG007965@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > John K Clark > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:04 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [ExI] Witch hunts > > It seems that Sarah Palin believes in witch hunts. I am not > using a figure of speech, incredibly the woman literally > believes that witches should be hunted. See it for yourself: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S62Z37bIZHk&feature=related > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 05:43:21 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:13:21 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Backing up the Cloud Message-ID: <710b78fc0809302243p7955d8e9p48f988361fa3e69c@mail.gmail.com> First of all, I retch a bit when I hear "The Cloud", but that will pass, you all know it will. Remember the gut reactions to "surfing the web" back in the early nineties? Oh actually I still hate that, but the internal screaming has quieted a little. Secondly, and actually on the topic of the post, people are raising the obvious questions about "Cloud Computing" - isn't it bad to have all your precious data and kitty cat photos in the hands of an unaccountable commercial entity? Well, yeah. Many technical people just hate the idea period, eg: all of slashdot (hey you kids get off my server) and RMS: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman I love it, I've loved it for years and years. Well before it was fashionable, I was a fan of having other people look after as many of my computing needs as possible, because I'm efficient. Not lazy. Nooo! Efficient. But this stuff is relevant. These services do lock up your data, and it does all disappear when they go broke. Should see a bit more of that shortly, I'd think, given the state of the economy. So, surely there is a space for a web 2.0 (*kaff*) business whose aim is to back up the data of other web 2.0 businesses? It could solve problems like: - I have a hotmail account but my friends said its dag, I should be using gmail. How do I move my mail over? - I have videos on youtube but I'm worried I'll get hacked by griefers and lose my precious emo vlog - My blog is hosted on X and I want to move it to Y - My music is all stored at ... and I want to ... etc, you get the picture. It's got good web 2.0 ingredients; it's just a bit of programming savvy wrapped around the cheapest processing and storage resources you can get your hands on. Some stuff already exists (eg: moving mail around using standard protocols) but doesn't exist in a shiny web 2.0, unified interface. It's actually a service rather than a product because the "cloud" is a moving target. Technically you'd need to talk to stuff using a grab bag of techniques, from "webscraping" to reverse engineered protocols to bonafide APIs. It'd be under constant development, just keeping everything working even as commercial services changed under you. I have a feeling you could make it really social & viral, by eg: creating plugin versions for the Space Book et al. You could even possibly capture users for your own services from the existing services by offering a "why don't you just move all your crap in here" option. It'd be a good option also for the Open Cloud people (eg: http://autonomo.us/), because while providing backups and escape options, you could promote the open alternatives (eg: wordpress not blogger, identi.ca not twitter, etc). People using this service would likely have experienced (and be experiencing!) the problems with the closed commercial cloud that the open people warn of, and so would be more receptive to solutions. It's got incrementality (<- not an actual word). You could start this small and grow it. Providing escape routes for webmail users would be a good place to start. Just keep adding services. With the backup options, you could actually backup some services into competitors, eg: flickr <-> picasa <-> photobucket, youtube <-> google video <-> photobucket. Probably that violates the terms of service in many cases... . Or you could backup into various cloud storage options, or whatever. It might fly really well as a starting point for people's services too; a place to coordinate your use of flikr + youtube + wordpress + facebook + twitter etc etc. Not a horrible portal thing, but maybe some kind of dashboard? Anyway, I think it's an idea that could work, commercially even. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 06:22:21 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:22:21 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Nuclear Huns In-Reply-To: <005501c9230e$b2750ea0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <04a501c9201a$b626bb80$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809270814q12c17fc5w2b5fcb03f3695c24@mail.gmail.com> <058601c92208$ebc37db0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809290407o772b1f01t106036141d107870@mail.gmail.com> <005501c9230e$b2750ea0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/10/1 Lee Corbin : > [1] One way to fix their situation would be to declare war on > Japan or the U.S., and then quickly surrender. If they did this, > (following the plot of "The Mouse That Roared"), especially > against the U.S., they'd soon be as well off as South Korea > or Japan. Invading powers often promise benefits for the invaded population. As a general rule, people still don't want to be invaded. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 07:47:16 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 07:47:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Witch hunts In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com> <200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com> <0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080930220856.0110b848@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:04 AM, John K Clark wrote: > It seems that Sarah Palin believes in witch hunts. I am not using a figure > of speech, incredibly the woman literally believes that > witches should be hunted. See it for yourself: > Divination and sorcery is condemned in the Bible. These were very real fears thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. Fundamentalist Xian groups who believe every word in the Bible is literally 'true' must therefore fear sorcery, just like the primitive Hebrews or Greeks. This belief is common among these fundamentalist groups. They just normally don't talk about it much in front of 'unbelievers'. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 08:08:01 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:08:01 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Witch hunts In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com> <200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com> <0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080930220856.0110b848@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/1 BillK : > Divination and sorcery is condemned in the Bible. > These were very real fears thousands of years ago when the Bible was written. > > Fundamentalist Xian groups who believe every word in the Bible is > literally 'true' must therefore fear sorcery, just like the primitive > Hebrews or Greeks. I don't know that the Greeks had anything against witches in general. The Old Testament does mention witches as evil, but it wasn't until the Christian Middle Ages that killing suspected witches became widely popular. -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 08:31:25 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:31:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Witch hunts In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com> <200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com> <0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20080930220856.0110b848@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > I don't know that the Greeks had anything against witches in general. > The Old Testament does mention witches as evil, but it wasn't until > the Christian Middle Ages that killing suspected witches became widely > popular. > It is divination, sorcery, poisioning and evil spells or the 'evil eye' that the Bible doesn't like. The Greeks were quite keen on oracles, divination and potions to cure ills or cause ills. The word 'witch' comes from the King James Bible. King James had a great fear of witches and in fact wrote a book about them. Fear of witches was very prevalent in England in the 1500s, before the new Bible translation was done. The translators doubtless were very aware of King James' beliefs and the current beliefs in society, so they selected the word 'witch' as being easily understood by the population of that time. BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 1 08:20:25 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 04:20:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The bailout References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com><200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com><0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> Message-ID: "Samantha Atkins" > unless massive government spending cuts were made the > government's standard activities would result in > massively more debt. That is of course absolutely true. However I think the primary evil is not government debt, the mother of all evil is the large percentage of the economy that the government controls. I would rather see a small government deeply in debt than a huge government that can account for every penny. Even better than both would be no government at all. Samantha, on other matters we disagree very very deeply, but on this particular question I don't think your opinion would be radical different from mine. John K Clark From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 1 14:57:33 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 07:57:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Food for thought In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809110058o5e07b6cao8728d392c061a833@mail.gmail.com> References: <1220979668_54647@s8.cableone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20080909140420.022dd498@satx.rr.com> <2d6187670809092242h55970881x5871cce9a5b4fda2@mail.gmail.com> <1221066860_58965@s7.cableone.net> <2d6187670809110041j7501f70et4e10842e18e9fbf2@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0809110058o5e07b6cao8728d392c061a833@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Emlyn wrote: > Metaphysics = Blatantly wrong and probably dangerous memetic infection > > When we say "religion is wrong!", I think normal people often think > "hey, hands off my culture!" And fair enough, from their point of > view. There's really nothing wrong with culture itself. > > So perhaps if we can disentangle the metaphysics from the culture, we > can communicate that the metaphysics is bad, but we have nothing > against the associated culture, and that might be received better. While I could quibble with portions of what is said here, the main point, that metaphysics is a problem, is an important one. When we can replace the unfounded (unfoundable) assumptions of metaphysics with a well-founded and workable appreciation of the role of subjectivity within a natural, deterministic world (with all its mystery and surprise), then we'll also be on the path to a coherent theory of social decision-making increasingly seen as increasingly moral. There's no good reason why subjective value and quality can't (and shouldn't) be rationally modeled and optimized. It's about time for Cartesian Duality, the Blind Watchmaker, the Blank Slate theory of mind, purely objective rationality, and other useful but incomplete pillars of modern enlightenment to be retired to make way for a more coherent synthesis encompassing more of our observations of our world. [Standard disclaimer: No, I'm not speaking post-modernism.] - Jef From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 17:34:52 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 12:34:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Backing up the Cloud In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809302243p7955d8e9p48f988361fa3e69c@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0809302243p7955d8e9p48f988361fa3e69c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ad6af70810011034i734ab39dn62008e3943348299@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Emlyn wrote: > Anyway, I think it's an idea that could work, commercially even. There's already a few sites that allow you to interface with a lot of different websites and steal their information. They are generally frowned upon by the websites that are being crawled of course, but whatever. There's generally two ways of doing this. You could have a backend crawler on your own servers for each of your users, thus most of your requests either coming from stolen randomized IP addresses or your own, the latter of which will become quickly blocked; the other option is to go all out with the "web 2.0" nonsense and do some fancy userscripts and firefox extensions (and the like) to automatically pull data that the user comes across in his daily browsing, or all at once if necessary. This way, the content can be pulled only once [[not that these services are lacking bandwidth (okay, except twitter)]]. Anyway, it's being done. I'd recommend looking into the twitter and facebook CLI packages, and maybe prod me to go hunt down those links to some services doing this. The name of them escape me because I cared so little at the time. Please also consider the reverse direction; I have many hundreds of gigabytes, perhaps terabytes, of archived and personal data all locally stored. Yes, I can and do backup more redundantly than just locally, but it would be interesting to consider the reverse direction, i.e. how to publish multiple gigabytes from my own sources. In the case of "web 2.0" website from one to the other, there's a few synchronization and following services, but that's already preformattted data ready to be slurped up by those socially-inclined-websites, not just raw HTML, PDF, etc. that one might have laying around and of relevance to various social groups connected over the servers you're talking about, Emlyn. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Oct 1 14:23:43 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 07:23:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Backing up the Cloud In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809302243p7955d8e9p48f988361fa3e69c@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0809302243p7955d8e9p48f988361fa3e69c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Emlyn wrote: > > Secondly, and actually on the topic of the post, people are raising > the obvious questions about "Cloud Computing" - isn't it bad to have > all your precious data and kitty cat photos in the hands of an > unaccountable commercial entity? Well, yeah. I'm an enthusiastic supporter of increasing virtualization of our computing resources, but as usual, effective understanding entails a model more complex than what's available from the soundbites and blog entries of either supporters or detractors. Computing in the cloud will continue to grow because it provides increasing synergies with decreasing costs. Should I unpack that statement and provide examples? Would be nice, but can't justify spending the time. I'll simply share an example that was for me a good lesson in distinguishing potential from over-hyped promise. Second-Life. Nearly five years ago, enthused with the potential of a virtual world with the potential to boost interaction by making irrelevant many of the constraints of the physical world, overcoming limitations of location, space, mass, etc., I and my "alts" embarked on the path of creating a virtual museum of futurist thought. With an elegant and open-ended helical architecture, and repeating segments of "Empathy, Energy, Efficacy, Extropy", I created an architecture for sharing pieces of a growing vision of our future. [I didn't realize, until just this moment, the surprising similarity of my building to a single strand of DNA with its segments of GTAC. Hmmm.] Investing hundreds of hours (and hundreds of dollars) in the virtual land and learning the workarounds necessary for effective programming in the flimsy scripting language, I waited only for the promised connections to the web: XMLRPC, "HTML on a prim",... in order to exploit and synergize with an existing and growing base of highly relevant information **outside the walls of Second Life**. I waited, and paid my rent, and waited some more... and eventually realized that I was being naive. So I packed up my inventory, which remains LOCKED UP within the walls, sold my virtual land, and moved out of my virtual residence. Since then, I visit SL very occasionally, but find that in the succeeding two years the situation has not fundamentally improved. I now monitor projects like OpenCroquet, and OpenSim, and expect that eventually I will run something similar on my own server, or better, have effectively complete access to a virtual server leveraged in the cloud. Then, it would be worth my while to return. Moral: Virtualization of computation is a very general, highly applicable good for its increasing synergies at decreasing cost, BUT NOT with a net LOSS of ownership of one's data or its usability. We're moving in a good direction, but can expect some painful learning experiences along the way. - Jef From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 00:03:14 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:03:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Backing up the Cloud In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0809302243p7955d8e9p48f988361fa3e69c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240810011703g62275526qedabf6339e2f2afb@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Jef Allbright wrote: > Moral: Virtualization of computation is a very general, highly > applicable good for its increasing synergies at decreasing cost, BUT > NOT with a net LOSS of ownership of one's data or its usability. > We're moving in a good direction, but can expect some painful learning > experiences along the way. I have a friend who spent years aggregating RSS to his google reader and had started shifting the authoritative version of excel documents to googledocs. As an early adopter of new tech, he was perhaps a bit too cavalier to try new greasemonkey scripts or perhaps installed some unfriendly browser add-on. One day he was unable to log in to his gmail account. His friends were receiving gtalks to URLs with uncharacteristic content. His account had been usurped. The hijacker changed the "password reminder email address" so he was without recourse. To say nothing further about the loss of accumulated RSS feeds, our major concern was the security impact of the documents that had been uploaded. That information had to be treated as compromised. Fortunately there was little critical exposure, but not everyone is so lucky. Corporate IT needs to firmly explain the policy regarding the casual induction of proprietary information into "the Cloud"; because once it leaves the corporate network there is no guarantee of either backup or (perhaps more importantly) destruction of that information. What mid-level management considers 'not that important' may be a trove of clues to those with nefarious intent. Painful learning experiences indeed. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 01:06:16 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:36:16 +1030 Subject: [ExI] Backing up the Cloud In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70810011034i734ab39dn62008e3943348299@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0809302243p7955d8e9p48f988361fa3e69c@mail.gmail.com> <55ad6af70810011034i734ab39dn62008e3943348299@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0810011806r44802e1ap2f5cf945091f7900@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/2 Bryan Bishop : > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Emlyn wrote: >> Anyway, I think it's an idea that could work, commercially even. > > There's already a few sites that allow you to interface with a lot of > different websites and steal their information. They are generally > frowned upon by the websites that are being crawled of course, but > whatever. Yes, that kind of spidering has been around for a while. > There's generally two ways of doing this. You could have a > backend crawler on your own servers for each of your users, thus most > of your requests either coming from stolen randomized IP addresses or > your own, the latter of which will become quickly blocked; This is probably a mostly fail option; either you have to be really dodgy, or you'll just get blocked. Probably in reality you would need to negotiate with each site you wanted to talk to and get them to agree to allow your service as enhancing theirs. Could be tricky. > the other > option is to go all out with the "web 2.0" nonsense and do some fancy > userscripts and firefox extensions (and the like) to automatically > pull data that the user comes across in his daily browsing, or all at > once if necessary. This way, the content can be pulled only once [[not > that these services are lacking bandwidth (okay, except twitter)]]. Yes, that could work; have automated stuff on the user's machine to do it as them. Much more error prone though you'd think. Note that you probably don't want to beat these services to death; I'm thinking occasional (eg: weekly?) full backups at best per user, or manually initiated transfer processes to move stuff from one service to another. Maybe it should always be manually initiated? > Anyway, it's being done. Piecemeal, if at all, as far as I can see. Note that the whole class of techniques for copying stuff from an internet based service to a file on your local machine is really not what I'm thinking of; although you could provide that service, you'd be aiming at a cloud-based system; the user's machine should really be treated as a window onto that. > I'd recommend looking into the twitter and > facebook CLI packages, and maybe prod me to go hunt down those links > to some services doing this. The name of them escape me because I > cared so little at the time. I did a little googling and didn't come up with anything polished and commercial looking. Note that the fact that the technologies exist to do this is a good thing! With something like this, you would ideally want to start in the knowledge that the guts of your shiny app were going to be based on well understood techniques and/or pre-existing code. > Please also consider the reverse > direction; I have many hundreds of gigabytes, perhaps terabytes, of > archived and personal data all locally stored. Yes, I can and do > backup more redundantly than just locally, but it would be interesting > to consider the reverse direction, i.e. how to publish multiple > gigabytes from my own sources. In the case of "web 2.0" website from > one to the other, there's a few synchronization and following > services, but that's already preformattted data ready to be slurped up > by those socially-inclined-websites, not just raw HTML, PDF, etc. that > one might have laying around and of relevance to various social groups > connected over the servers you're talking about, Emlyn. I imagine that's a task fairly specific to you, based on the kind of stuff you have that you want to publish. But you'd have to be more specific about your intent. Raw HTML and PDF can just go online as-is, but begs the question how anyone would find anything in there. Maybe you are thinking of putting it online in a searchable way? Why not just make it as google friendly as possible and wait for it to be assimilated? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 09:48:42 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:18:42 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy turns out to be effective... Message-ID: <710b78fc0810020248s493c6ab5ye251f5d8d749fcdc@mail.gmail.com> ... according to this meta study. Surprising! http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/13/1551?etoc -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From sondre-list at bjellas.com Thu Oct 2 09:11:43 2008 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:11:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Backing up the Cloud In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809302243p7955d8e9p48f988361fa3e69c@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0809302243p7955d8e9p48f988361fa3e69c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I made a blog post earlier on TED Talks, just to get people interested in them, and one of the talks I blogged about was Kevin Kelly's talk on the next 5000 days of the web. http://sondreb.com/blog/post/TED-Ideas-worth-spreading.aspx It's hard to predict what will actually happen, but there is no denying that "The Cloud" will continue to grow as a concept, with technologies adding more and more support for the ideas. I surely don't share Richard Stallman's view that people are stupid if they use web-based programs like Gmail. I believe it have saved a lot of people's important communication, but having everything stored online in The Cloud and not locally on individual computers that have used POP to download and remove the e-mail from the servers. My father runs his own business and I have moved all our family e-mail accounts over to Google Apps, and his business accounts as well. Gmail (as other Cloud Services is doing, or will do) does support open and standard protocols which means I can easily connect to Gmail using any desktop e-mail application I want to use. There is actually little difference in how corporate e-mail systems works today, most of us outsource the hosting of our Exchange or other e-mail servers. I've experienced crash and failures, with resulting e-mails being lost due to backups being restored (backups are always outdated from the minute they are actually completed). Backups are disaster-recovery, it's not a mean of actually protecting against software and computer issues. And there will always be issues and problems. Microsoft will announce more details about their cloud products and services at PDC in October (if any of you is going to the conference, it would be interesting to meet). I know a lot of what going on already, but it's going to be interesting to hear the whole story. Here is a scenario where Cloud computing will become a crucial function for people: online synchronization and storage of data. I'm willing to bet that one of the biggest hurdles people experience today, is aquiring a new mobile phone. They have no easy way of exporting all their contacts, SMS/MMS messages, photos, notes, etc. In the future, when you purchace a new mobile phone (or computer), you'll just login with your credentials (or "smart card") and your machine will be personalized and all your information will be available. Just have a look at Google Android. LOCK-IN of information stored in the cloud is something that all of us will be very alert to and I don't think we will see many services that actually is closed down and doesn't allow users to download and backup their own IP. I believe in the opposite of what Richard does, he thinks that cloud is about lock-in and forcing people to buy more proprietary systems, I think the opposite will happen. I think the web and now "the cloud" will be deciding factors that will open up and force corporations to open up. Consumers are not stupid. One of the reasons I'm more positive to a possible open future is how Microsoft have opened up and commited to open forums and standards the recent years. They have joined the OMG, they are adding UML support for their development tools and they are building a big ecosystem around their cloud framework: Live Mesh. Richard goes on saying that it's a marketing hype: Well, marketing will always jump on the latest and the newest, but that doesn't mean that SOA, Web 2.0 and now the Cloud is not important trends that has merits. "The 55-year-old New Yorker said that computer users should be keen to keep their information in their own hands, rather than hand it over to a third party." Technology is hard, computers crashes and people have little idea what's going on. They have no idea how to move their application and data between devices. I think it's pretty naive to think that the general population is able to "keep their information in their own hands" and keep it securely. Us techies have no problems with this, but I experience this as a problem every week. I won't even begin to comment Larry Ellison, he can stand for his own opinions. Richard is extreme (as we all know), but I still believe he is way off when he advises users to stay locally. It's luddite thoughts, it's like saying people should stop going to social events because there might be someone with a virus or someone might steal your ideas. Richard doesn't have control on his genes and how his cells are working inside his body, yet he doesn't seem to care - they (the cells) just work. Computer doesn't work (all the time), they crash, etc. I don't trust my local computer to work as good as my body, and the Web has had a 100% uptime since it was first created. No single computer can do such a task. It's going to be a very hard sell getting corporations to trust the cloud service providers, but it can be done and eventually there won't be any options. Regards, Sondre On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Emlyn wrote: > First of all, I retch a bit when I hear "The Cloud", but that will > pass, you all know it will. Remember the gut reactions to "surfing the > web" back in the early nineties? Oh actually I still hate that, but > the internal screaming has quieted a little. > > Secondly, and actually on the topic of the post, people are raising > the obvious questions about "Cloud Computing" - isn't it bad to have > all your precious data and kitty cat photos in the hands of an > unaccountable commercial entity? Well, yeah. > > Many technical people just hate the idea period, eg: all of slashdot > (hey you kids get off my server) and RMS: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman > > I love it, I've loved it for years and years. Well before it was > fashionable, I was a fan of having other people look after as many of > my computing needs as possible, because I'm efficient. Not lazy. Nooo! > Efficient. > > But this stuff is relevant. These services do lock up your data, and > it does all disappear when they go broke. Should see a bit more of > that shortly, I'd think, given the state of the economy. > > So, surely there is a space for a web 2.0 (*kaff*) business whose aim > is to back up the data of other web 2.0 businesses? It could solve > problems like: > > - I have a hotmail account but my friends said its dag, I should be > using gmail. How do I move my mail over? > - I have videos on youtube but I'm worried I'll get hacked by griefers > and lose my precious emo vlog > - My blog is hosted on X and I want to move it to Y > - My music is all stored at ... and I want to ... > > etc, you get the picture. > > It's got good web 2.0 ingredients; it's just a bit of programming > savvy wrapped around the cheapest processing and storage resources you > can get your hands on. Some stuff already exists (eg: moving mail > around using standard protocols) but doesn't exist in a shiny web 2.0, > unified interface. > > It's actually a service rather than a product because the "cloud" is a > moving target. Technically you'd need to talk to stuff using a grab > bag of techniques, from "webscraping" to reverse engineered protocols > to bonafide APIs. It'd be under constant development, just keeping > everything working even as commercial services changed under you. > > I have a feeling you could make it really social & viral, by eg: > creating plugin versions for the Space Book et al. > > You could even possibly capture users for your own services from the > existing services by offering a "why don't you just move all your crap > in here" option. > > It'd be a good option also for the Open Cloud people (eg: > http://autonomo.us/), because while providing backups and escape > options, you could promote the open alternatives (eg: wordpress not > blogger, identi.ca not twitter, etc). People using this service would > likely have experienced (and be experiencing!) the problems with the > closed commercial cloud that the open people warn of, and so would be > more receptive to solutions. > > It's got incrementality (<- not an actual word). You could start this > small and grow it. Providing escape routes for webmail users would be > a good place to start. Just keep adding services. > > With the backup options, you could actually backup some services into > competitors, eg: flickr <-> picasa <-> photobucket, youtube <-> google > video <-> photobucket. Probably that violates the terms of service in > many cases... . Or you could backup into various cloud storage > options, or whatever. > > It might fly really well as a starting point for people's services > too; a place to coordinate your use of flikr + youtube + wordpress + > facebook + twitter etc etc. Not a horrible portal thing, but maybe > some kind of dashboard? > > Anyway, I think it's an idea that could work, commercially even. > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com - my home > http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting > http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks > on eCulture > _______________________________________________ > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 13:07:15 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:07:15 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy turns out to be effective... In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810020248s493c6ab5ye251f5d8d749fcdc@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810020248s493c6ab5ye251f5d8d749fcdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/2 Emlyn : > ... according to this meta study. Surprising! > > http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/13/1551?etoc The trials for the most part compare psychodynamic (i.e., Freudian) psychotherapy with a waiting list or short term psychotherapy control. They don't compare psychodynamic psychotherapy with a similar number of contact hours of so-called supportive psychotherapy with a doctor, psychologist, social worker or other mental health professional. It makes sense that this sort of contact will have some beneficial effect, but it doesn't follow that psychodynamic psychotherapy will have any additional benefit. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Oct 2 16:13:52 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:13:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"? References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com> <580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com> <004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809301330q5ecbce98t6daaadb24f90641e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <016e01c924aa$721d4190$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano writes > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: >> We really should try to banish all sorts of capitalized "Truths" > > ... and this ifs [is] not so difficult. It could even be contended that the > opposite is the "normal" human way of thinking, save for the continued > influence of judeochristian rereading of platonism both in popular > cultural and at an epistemological level. Interesting point. Yet some eagerness towards abstraction may ultimately greatly assisted the west in its pursuance and discovery of general laws of nature? I'm asking. > In fact, in the ancient Greek of Democritos and Archimedes, and of > Homer before them, the word for truth is "aletheia", which means > simply "what has been unveiled", "what used to be hidden and is no > more", as in "I thought I had two amphoras of oil, but in truth I only > had one", I really like that kind of talk! "What has been unveiled" is another good one to add to our list of alternate phrases when we discuss the nature of truth. (And please forgive me *right there* for jumping a level of abstraction, as if truth could be reified and had a "nature". But you know what I mean, I hope. And *that* is the important thing.") "What used to be hidden and is no more" is another wonderful substitution to recall whenever we (rightly) start to feel that we are depending on some certain word, (in this case "truth") a little too much. > far from hinting at any supposed ultimate, metaphysical, > objective and context-independent essence of reality. Yet, when we, especially in the west, do stumble upon certain kinds of "things which had been veiled", e.g., the speed of light, should we really be blamed for claiming that we have advanced, that we now have better maps, that the accuracy of our beliefs is improved? When used cautiously, this is what people should mean when they say that we're getting closer to the truth. Even one of your examples, "I thought I had two amphoras of oil, but in truth I only had one" dares to speak of truth. Lee From scerir at libero.it Thu Oct 2 16:12:42 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:12:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Zhabotinsky References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com><200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com><0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> Message-ID: <000301c924a9$b946fd00$b70b4797@archimede> Anatol Zhabotinsky passed away on 16 September 2008 after a brief battle with lymphoma. He was one of the founders of nonlinear chemical dynamics, and the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction has played the central role in the development of the field. After an outstanding career in the former Soviet Union, where he was awarded the Lenin Prize for his achievements, Zhabotinsky moved to Brandeis in 1991 and continued to work both on chemical and biological problems. He was a Research Professor at the time of his death. the BZ reaction http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Belousov-Zhabotinsky_reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov-Zhabotinsky_reaction BZ waves http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Image:BZ_Concentric_waves.jpg http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Image:BZ_Spiral_waves.jpg http://hopf.chem.brandeis.edu/anatol.htm (at the bottom) 'youtuberies' here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6bRt4XJcw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzncgG8dPVI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch93AKJm9os&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3JbDybzYqk&feature=related ... and Sonia Delaunay http://www.centrepompidou.fr/images/oeuvres/XL/3I01600.jpg http://static.picassomio.com/images/art/pm-20695-large.jpg http://www.marisapoliani.it/images/display_imageSoniaDelaunay.jpg http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~elk/delaunay-sonia-compositions-couleurs-idees-40-4705838.jpeg http://www.grabink.com/images/tap/tap_dela002_gal.jpg From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Oct 2 16:01:55 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:01:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com><580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com><580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com><056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com><004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > [Lee wrote] > >> I would agree, except that in certain ways we do obviously act >> as though certain positions or opinions were privileged. I might >> suggest, for example, that you believe that some of your views >> concerning the development over time of concept applicability >> ought to be privileged :-) > > Lee, are you arguing with a selection of my words, or what you know of > me (my structure of beliefs?) I'm arguing with (a few of) the things you wrote, not what I know of your structure of beliefs, which, sorry, is very vague to me. (I can hardly be expected to remember all belief nuances of the many individuals even on this small forum.) So, words are important, because, especially here, they're all we have to work with. > I would expect that by now you would be familiar with my repeated > point that **all** expressions of knowledge entail a subjective point of view. Well, certainly I have criticized this view, or something similar to it before. The word "entail" here doesn't help make anything clear. And we may add that it's not going to be so easy to be sure we're talking about the same things when you use the word "knowledge", and perhaps even "subjective". I'll try to be clear at at least about what I mean. To me, for example, knowledge *can* be recorded in books, and the evidence for that is that there is so much redundancy in what is written that even those who do not know the language can decipher what is written. For example, if the entire corpus of human books, from children's books to all magazines, were made available to any evolutionarily derived race, be it based on silicon or carbon, that race would learn a very great deal about us. So is all knowledge "subjective"? I don't think so. It might help if you gave examples of what is objective ---or is that word not in your philosophic vocabulary at all? As I think it was you who recently said, the human organism is merely one of many kinds of devices which can store information, and which can conceivably work to make its maps more accurate. As for subjective and objective, I mean this: there is a sliding scale between them, from the mostly subjective (wherein an entity emits statements having more to do with its values than with what is factually the case about the world), to the mostly objective (wherein an entity emits statements that correspond in an almost certain way with reality, e.g., "the Earth moves around the sun". I could say much more, except for lack of time and, on this forum, lack of space. When you emphasize a word this strongly: > **all** expressions of knowledge entail a subjective point of view it does ring alarm bells, for even when I say "all knowledge is conjectural" I recognize that some might well-argue that for an individual, certain facts are not merely conjectural, e.g., "I am thinking", or "this device is having thoughts". No statement is 100% dependable (indeed, it is conjectural, just as our knowledge is), but some are a *lot* more dependable than others, e.g. "Japan lost World War II". So tricky are all three of those words, "knowledge", "subjective", and the vagueness of "entail" (when you, as too often you do in my opinion, do not adduce examples), that no, sorry, but I do not feel myself to "be familiar with [your] repeated point". Indeed, I cannot say I understand it. Suggestion: try saying "all expressions of knowledge entail a subjective point of view" in several different ways using entirely different words, and give examples, and be ready ---as I am---to abandon the use of any word that appears to be causing trouble between me and my interlocutor. Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Oct 2 16:48:38 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:48:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"? In-Reply-To: <016e01c924aa$721d4190$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com> <004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809301330q5ecbce98t6daaadb24f90641e@mail.gmail.com> <016e01c924aa$721d4190$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Yet, when we, especially in the west, do stumble upon certain > kinds of "things which had been veiled", e.g., the speed of light, > should we really be blamed for claiming that we have advanced, > that we now have better maps, that the accuracy of our beliefs > is improved? It appears we're getting ever closer to mutual understanding of this point, but I'll offer a small but fundamentally significant correction: "Accuracy" is simply not meaningful, independent of context. I suppose this became second-nature to me during my decades in scientific instrumentation. I've lost track of how many times a user would ask "but how accurate is this tool or technique?" and we would have to educate them to understand that we could guarantee precision, or repeatability, or any of several other metrics of measurement quality, but we could say nothing about "accuracy" which is always dependent on some reference standard (usually provided to the customer via some traceable government or scientific standards authority.) Similarly, coherence over any particular context says NOTHING about the accuracy of a belief, which belief might conceivably be subject to radical change with a single new observation that doesn't fit the previous model. I'm sensitive to the appearance that I'm repeatedly harping on a few points which may appear to some to be insignificant or inconsequential, but I often feel a little like I'd imagine Boltzmann felt around the turn of the 20th century when he tried to argue against those who saw science as promising increasingly crystalline Truth, while he went around undermining their noble and righteous vision with his talk of vague and mushy statistics and probability -- as if such could be more fundamentally true while providing less crystalline Truth. Outrageous! - Jef From estropico at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 17:32:00 2008 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:32:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia's October event: How Feasible is a Nanofactory? Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90810021032m637b008bo2c6599f303c65b9b@mail.gmail.com> How Feasible is a Nanofactory? The next ExtroBritannia event is scheduled for Saturday October the 18th 2008; 2:00pm - 4:00pm. Venue: Room 538, 5th floor (via main lift), Birkbeck College, Torrington Square, London WC1E 7HX. The event is free and everyone's welcome. Lead speaker: Professor Philip Moriarty, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham Nanotechnology, and in particular the molecular manufacturing and nanoassembler concepts first put forward by K Eric Drexler [1] in the eighties, have been lauded as key enabling technologies to advance the human condition. At the core of Drexler's approach is the manipulation of single atoms and molecules using computer-controlled actuators or probes, which he argues will enable the assembly of "virtually anything" from basic raw materials [2]. Widely decried in both the academic scientific community and in a variety of popular science publications and media [3], this "Drexlarian" molecular nanotechnology approach has thus yet to be explored or tested experimentally. Nevertheless, at the core of Drexler's approach there is a demonstrably valid idea: the controlled positioning and manipulation of single atoms and molecules using, for example, scanning probe microscopes. The talk will critically assess Drexler's approach to nanotechnology from the perspective of an experimental nanoscientist [4], focussing in particular on the aims and objectives of a recently-funded programme of work [5] on computer-controlled assembly of diamond nanostructures. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Eric_Drexler 2. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html 3. http://cohesion.rice.edu/NaturalSciences/Smalley/emplibrary/SA285-76.pdf 4. http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=70 5. http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2008/08/building-digital-matter.html The venue: Room 538, 5th floor (via main lift), Birkbeck College, Torrington Square (which is a pedestrian-only square). Torrington Square is about 10 minutes walk from either Russell Square or Goodge St tube stations. MAP: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/maps Discussion is likely to continue after the event, in a nearby pub, for those who are able to stay. There's also the option of joining some of the UKTA regulars for lunch beforehand, starting c. 1pm at The Marlborough Arms, 36 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HJ. To find us, look out for a table where there's a copy of Eric Drexler's "Engines of Creation" displayed. Our blog: http://extrobritannia.blogspot.com/ Our website: http://www.transhumanist.org.uk/ Our mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia/ From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Oct 2 17:29:50 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:29:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes > >> Lee, are you arguing with a selection of my words, or what you know of >> me (my structure of beliefs?) > > I'm arguing with (a few of) the things you wrote, not what I know > of your structure of beliefs, which, sorry, is very vague to me. > (I can hardly be expected to remember all belief nuances of the > many individuals even on this small forum.) Lee, we've been around this loop already far too many times. I'm a bit dismayed by your claim not to have built up much of a model of my point of view -- it seems to me a bit more facile than plausible, but I readily admit that I'm often dismayed by similar evidence from others, so my comment here is more to my dismay than to your veracity. >> I would expect that by now you would be familiar with my repeated >> point that **all** expressions of knowledge entail a subjective point of >> view. > > Well, certainly I have criticized this view, or something similar > to it before. The word "entail" here doesn't help make anything > clear. > When you emphasize a word this strongly: > > > **all** expressions of knowledge entail a subjective point of view > > it does ring alarm bells, for even when I say "all knowledge is > conjectural" I recognize that some might well-argue that for > an individual, certain facts are not merely conjectural, e.g., > "I am thinking", ... So many have followed the "obvious truth" of this Cartesian assumption of direct, immediate knowledge of, if nothing else, at least of one's own thoughts. But ask yourself, isn't such thinking (about one's own perceived thoughts) necessarily removed in time, and subject to alteration -- and even fabrication -- by the natural processes of the brain? Do you claim to report on your actual thinking, or what you remember thinking? In comparison with the purely introspective philosophers of past centuries, aren't you dissuaded of the presumed privileged status of such introspective "true knowledge" by the well known experiments of Libet, or the split-brain experiments with epileptic patients, or the effects on perception by drugs, neurotransmitters, emotion, disease, transcranial magnetic stimulation, or even the reverberations of recent experience? I know you're well-read, much better than the average man on the street. But why this death-grip with which you appear to hold on to superficially reassuring but superfluous concepts of absolute truth, or absolute personal identity, when to relax such a grip is to lose nothing real, while gaining the flexibility to better examine and enjoy that which remains? - Jef From xuenay at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 20:24:44 2008 From: xuenay at gmail.com (Kaj Sotala) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:24:44 +0300 Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia's October event: How Feasible is a Nanofactory? In-Reply-To: <4eaaa0d90810021032m637b008bo2c6599f303c65b9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4eaaa0d90810021032m637b008bo2c6599f303c65b9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a13bb8f0810021324r6fa9cbf0m612a98973289ebff@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:32 PM, estropico wrote: > How Feasible is a Nanofactory? Anybody recording this, or even taking notes? From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Oct 2 22:06:28 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:06:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > street. But why this death-grip with which you appear to hold on to > superficially reassuring but superfluous concepts of absolute truth, > or absolute personal identity, when to relax such a grip is to lose > nothing real, while gaining the flexibility to better examine and > enjoy that which remains? I think you need to stand somewhere. Or you need to stand nowhere. It may not seem sensible to be both somewhere and nowhere, but that superposition may be a more accurate description of what is real [sic] than either of the extremes. From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Oct 2 22:53:53 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:53:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: >> street. But why this death-grip with which you appear to hold on to >> superficially reassuring but superfluous concepts of absolute truth, >> or absolute personal identity, when to relax such a grip is to lose >> nothing real, while gaining the flexibility to better examine and >> enjoy that which remains? > > I think you need to stand somewhere. Or you need to stand nowhere. It > may not seem sensible to be both somewhere and nowhere, but that > superposition may be a more accurate description of what is real [sic] > than either of the extremes. Argh. ;-) Show me a functional (versus operational) model of a "superposition." This is crucial. You MUST stand somewhere to be a "you." I emphasize that you MUST have a subjective point of view. But there is no need or basis for any attempt to define that subjective POV in (fundamentally unfounded and unfoundable) objective terms. Don't need it, never did, although it's quite clear from cognitive and evolutionary psychology why we as individuals and as a culture tend to think and reinforce our thinking in terms of discrete selves, absolute truth, fear of the unknown, respect for authority, and so on. But that environment of evolutionary adaptation is rapidly slipping behind us and the effective heuristics of our ancestors are decreasing in utility. Let the unfounded ontological assumption go, and everything is seen to work as before, but according to a more coherent and thus more extensible model. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Oct 2 23:20:23 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:20:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Let the unfounded ontological assumption go, > and everything is seen to work as before, but according to a more > coherent and thus more extensible model. Branches in a tree. Leaves growing, doing what they do, with no concern for what they "are" or how they do "it." Leaves looking outward, discovering new possibilities (clearly beyond their present context.) Leaves looking inward, separate leaves on separate branches combine with increasing probability (toward the root of reality.) Further and further toward the root, the trunk become thicker with increasing probability. Farther and farther, interaction diminishing with distance from the leaves, until vision blurs, and the trunk continues downward (we must assume.) - Jef From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 00:53:12 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:53:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > Argh. ;-) Show me a functional (versus operational) model of a > "superposition." This is crucial. You MUST stand somewhere to be a > "you." I emphasize that you MUST have a subjective point of view. > But there is no need or basis for any attempt to define that > subjective POV in (fundamentally unfounded and unfoundable) objective > terms. Don't need it, never did, although it's quite clear from > cognitive and evolutionary psychology why we as individuals and as a > culture tend to think and reinforce our thinking in terms of discrete > selves, absolute truth, fear of the unknown, respect for authority, > and so on. But that environment of evolutionary adaptation is rapidly > slipping behind us and the effective heuristics of our ancestors are > decreasing in utility. Let the unfounded ontological assumption go, > and everything is seen to work as before, but according to a more > coherent and thus more extensible model. "Argh" ? You missed talk like a pirate day (9/19) I hope i'm not so missing your point that it causes frustration. "unfounded ontological assumption" - I'm not sure what I have assumed (that's clearly a problem). You said, "you MUST have a subjective point of view." I agree. And so must you. There is an inherent parallax for which we need to be aware. I can abandon my own point of view and merge my state of awareness completely to yours. We will have total agreement and also the same identity (I'm not reinforcing my discrete self). You can similarly abandon your viewpoint. Who would i/we express ourself(s) to if this were the case? Perhaps the mind-merge does not have to be complete to find a point of agreement - (thinking of Venn diagram where two sets share commonality at their intersection) I see the coherent/extensible model of which you speak following from that intersection to first identify then subsume the difference. I don't intend that either set reduce their membership to increase their proportionate percentage of commonality (as was happening in the loss of one set/perspective to gain another) - I propose that each set/perspective increase to include the other. I don't understand the distinction you make between functional vs operational models. I feel it's easier to simply ask rather than incorrectly suppose your meaning. I attempt to clarify my use of 'superposition' using the Venn diagram analogy: The totality of my subjective viewpoint and the totality of your subjective viewpoint are both less complete than the union of these sets. My view is incomplete. Your view is incomplete. Their sum is less incomplete. I understand one of the points you are trying to make is that given the sum of every known viewpoint, there is no way to declare completeness. (by analogy: there is no way to determine if the union of all sets maps 1:1 to the Universe) Please identify similarity/difference from your perspective given the initial parallax between us. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 00:53:47 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:53:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians In-Reply-To: References: <0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <052f01c921b8$579c7420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20080928181617.024f9260@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: The VP debate is forty minutes away. I'm going to hold off on judgement at least till then, so I can see what she has to say. I think everyone has been in too much of a hurry to judge her, and through too much of a partisan lens. We've had so many bad politicians -- and rarely because they're not smart enough, or otherwise "qualified" -- that I frankly don't know what would make a good one. If it's not in the suit, or hairdo, or education, then where is it? I know what ****I'm**** looking for -- Scott Ritter, Cindy Sheehan, Ralph Nader, Olga Bourlin, Anders Sandberg -- stability, integrity, moral clarity, and hopefully a modicum of courage. But my political picks rarely run and never win, so my actions effect only me and my circle of friends. My preliminary take on SP is that she first learned professional on-camera presentation skills as a beauty contest participant, then polished those as a sportscaster: costume, make-up, hair-do, posture, smile, eye contact with the camera, line reading, vocal modulation, etc. Thus she became a public-speaking pro. She took these skills, added balls, and became a successful political animal, at least as far as winning campaigns. With her Christian fundamentalism, this makes her a George Bush clone with lipstick and a very small penis. Finally she seems Chobham-hard unflappable. The current view from the Couric interview and others like it --that she's dim -- looked to me like the result of an iron discipline regarding staying on message, reciting approved talking points, and refusing to be "gotcha-ed" by hatchet-happy interviewers. If the US economy has been hollowed out and parasitized then what difference can anything make? What kind of experience do you need to throw dirt on a corpse? We shall see. Seven minutes away. Best, Jeff Davis "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron..." H. L. Mencken From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Oct 3 05:25:09 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:25:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy turns out to beeffective... References: <710b78fc0810020248s493c6ab5ye251f5d8d749fcdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01a401c92518$827a5d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > 2008/10/2 Emlyn : >> ... according to this meta study. Surprising! >> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/13/1551?etoc > > The trials for the most part compare psychodynamic (i.e., Freudian) > psychotherapy with a waiting list or short term psychotherapy control. > They don't compare psychodynamic psychotherapy with a similar number > of contact hours of so-called supportive psychotherapy with a doctor, > psychologist, social worker or other mental health professional. Or with extra, additional contact with friends, neighbors, and family. > It makes sense that this sort of contact will have some beneficial > effect, but it doesn't follow that psychodynamic psychotherapy will > have any additional benefit. I'm pretty skeptical too. But I'm very glad this came up, because I distinctly remember (from perhaps 25 years ago or so) a study in which four sets of randomly chosen patients were treated by 1. psychotherapists 2. doctors 3. nurses, or social workers, or some such (don't recall) 4. left alone The results were that the patients improved directly in the opposite order! Has anyone ever heard or read about such a study? Or one that would disconfirm it? To me, the conclusions of this old study (that I think I read) make sense because people get better very often when their minds just turn to other things, and they get on with life. But the more that someone's *problem* is identified and openly dwelt upon by a trained professional, the more the person is convinced that, to put it bluntly, he's really is crazy. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 07:59:29 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:59:29 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy turns out to beeffective... In-Reply-To: <01a401c92518$827a5d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <710b78fc0810020248s493c6ab5ye251f5d8d749fcdc@mail.gmail.com> <01a401c92518$827a5d70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/10/3 Lee Corbin : > But I'm very glad this came up, because I distinctly remember (from > perhaps 25 years ago or so) a study in which four sets of randomly > chosen patients were treated by > > 1. psychotherapists > 2. doctors > 3. nurses, or social workers, or some such (don't recall) > 4. left alone > > The results were that the patients improved directly in the opposite > order! Has anyone ever heard or read about such a study? Or > one that would disconfirm it? I don't know that particular study, but most of the studies done tend to show that the different types of psychotherapies are equally effective, which implies that they are equally ineffective, i.e. it's just the reassurance of talking to someone and the placebo effect of believing that they have special powers to heal the mind that helps. There are particular situations where intensive psychotherapy can make people worse, such as when they are psychotic or have certain kinds of personality disorders. Just as it is up to the judgment of the doctor when not to prescribe medication, it is up to the judgment of the therapist when avoid or limit psychotherapy. In my own practice in public mental health I mainly deal with people who are profoundly disturbed and require medication, which is dramatically effective in about 1/3 of cases, partly effective in another 1/3, and only minimally effective in the rest. The "supportive psychotherapy" given these people involves common sense things such as providing reality testing, monitoring their mental state to detect early signs of relapse, assessing risk to self or others, determining if there is some stressor responsible for a deterioration and helping them do something about it, and so on. We try to discharge as many people as possible from the public system, which means only the worst cases where it is clear that this sort of intensive support is helpful (because when it's withdrawn they end up readmitted to hospital, lose their jobs, accommodation or relationships) get kept on the books long term. This is very different from private psychiatry, which deals with what is sometimes disparagingly (and perhaps not entirely fairly) called the "worried well". -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Oct 3 08:57:45 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 01:57:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Zhabotinsky References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com><200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com><0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer> <000301c924a9$b946fd00$b70b4797@archimede> Message-ID: <01f401c92536$baad48b0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Serafino writes > Anatol Zhabotinsky passed away on 16 September 2008 after a brief > battle with lymphoma. A tragedy, all right, though it may have eased his suffering. Much less suffering would occur if people could only realize that death, true information loss, doesn't take place until many hours after the patient is pronounced dead. Zhabotinsky could have been frozen long before his cancer had become unendurable. Moreover, his family would know that he still had a chance. How long will it take for people to wake up? > He was one of the founders of nonlinear chemical > dynamics, and the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction has played the central role > in the development of the field. I first read about him in Prigogine's books. Speaking of whom, why do so few other books and articles reference Prigogine? Did he do something to offend the scientific community? Lee > ... and Sonia Delaunay > http://www.centrepompidou.fr/images/oeuvres/XL/3I01600.jpg > http://static.picassomio.com/images/art/pm-20695-large.jpg > http://www.marisapoliani.it/images/display_imageSoniaDelaunay.jpg > http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~elk/delaunay-sonia-compositions-couleurs-idees-40-4705838.jpeg > http://www.grabink.com/images/tap/tap_dela002_gal.jpg > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Oct 3 12:32:19 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:32:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"? In-Reply-To: <016e01c924aa$721d4190$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com> <004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809301330q5ecbce98t6daaadb24f90641e@mail.gmail.com> <016e01c924aa$721d4190$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20810030532j2e568937pa997b6176c79f465@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Yet, when we, especially in the west, do stumble upon certain > kinds of "things which had been veiled", e.g., the speed of light, > should we really be blamed for claiming that we have advanced, > that we now have better maps, that the accuracy of our beliefs > is improved? I think that if we do that with due caution and qualifications, we shouldn't. Also because after all "discovery" and "invention" have exactly this meaning, and both ultimately refer in a certain kind of cultural framework, which we may tentatively call scientific/western/relativist, to what "works", or at least appears to work to a growing number of people, to the detriment of possible alternate worlds inhabited by a handful of aboriginal shamans or Tibetan monk-lords or postmodern scholars. Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 13:00:15 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:00:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"? In-Reply-To: <580930c20810030532j2e568937pa997b6176c79f465@mail.gmail.com> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com> <004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809301330q5ecbce98t6daaadb24f90641e@mail.gmail.com> <016e01c924aa$721d4190$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20810030532j2e568937pa997b6176c79f465@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Also because after all "discovery" and "invention" have exactly this > meaning, and both ultimately refer in a certain kind of cultural > framework, which we may tentatively call > scientific/western/relativist, to what "works", or at least appears to > work to a growing number of people, to the detriment of possible > alternate worlds inhabited by a handful of aboriginal shamans or > Tibetan monk-lords or postmodern scholars. > It is about time alternate worlds inhabited by shamans were detrimented out of existence. I watched a travelogue yesterday which showed an Amazon tribal shaman chanting all night long, trying to save a young boy dying from malaria. It was sad. These shamans and their mythical alternate worlds only exist because proper medical care is not available. That is the problem that should be fixed. The same applies to all the New Age kooks as well, spirit-channeling, faith healing, etc. See: BillK From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Oct 3 13:04:17 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 06:04:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] DARPA Mathematical Challenges Message-ID: DARPA has announced a set of Mathematical Challenges "with the goal of dramatically revolutionizing mathematics and thereby strengthening the scientific and technological capabilities of DoD," < https://www.fbo.gov/download/9bc/9bce380aafb19f9ad3bda188bfc1ab20/DARPA-BAA-08-65.doc > It's interesting how closely so many of these dovetail with topics of interest to the Extropy list. - Jef Mathematical Challenge One: *The Mathematics of the Brain * - Develop a mathematical theory to build a functional model of the brain that is mathematically consistent and predictive rather than merely biologically inspired. Mathematical Challenge Two: *The Dynamics of Networks* - Develop the high-dimensional mathematics needed to accurately model* *and predict behavior in large-scale distributed networks that evolve over* *time occurring in communication, biology and the social sciences. Mathematical Challenge Three: *Capture and Harness Stochasticity in Nature* - Address Mumford's call for new mathematics for the 21st century. Develop methods that capture persistence in stochastic environments. Mathematical Challenge Four: *21st Century Fluids* - Classical fluid dynamics and the Navier-Stokes Equation were extraordinarily successful in obtaining quantitative understanding of shock waves, turbulence and solitons, but new methods are needed to tackle complex fluids such as foams, suspensions, gels and liquid crystals. Mathematical Challenge Five: *Biological Quantum Field Theory* - Quantum and statistical methods have had great success modeling virus evolution. Can such techniques be used to model more complex systems such as bacteria? Can these techniques be used to control pathogen evolution? Mathematical Challenge Six: *Computational Duality* - Duality in mathematics has been a profound tool for theoretical understanding. Can it be extended to develop principled computational techniques where duality and geometry are the basis for novel algorithms? Mathematical Challenge Seven: *Occam's Razor in Many Dimensions* - As data collection increases can we "do more with less" by finding lower bounds for sensing complexity in systems? This is related to questions about entropy maximization algorithms. Mathematical Challenge Eight: *Beyond Convex Optimization* - Can linear algebra be replaced by algebraic geometry in a systematic way? Mathematical Challenge Nine: *What are the Physical Consequences of Perelman's Proof of Thurston's Geometrization Theorem?* - Can profound theoretical advances in understanding three dimensions be applied to construct and manipulate structures across scales to fabricate novel materials? Mathematical Challenge Ten: *Algorithmic Origami and Biology* - Build a stronger mathematical theory for isometric and rigid embedding that can give insight into protein folding. Mathematical Challenge Eleven: *Optimal Nanostructures* - Develop new mathematics for constructing optimal globally symmetric structures by following simple local rules via the process of nanoscale self-assembly. Mathematical Challenge Twelve: *The Mathematics of Quantum Computing, Algorithms, and Entanglement* - In the last century we learned how quantum phenomena shape our world. In the coming century we need to develop the mathematics required to control the quantum world. Mathematical Challenge Thirteen: *Creating a Game Theory that Scales* - What new scalable mathematics is needed to replace the traditional Partial Differential Equations (PDE) approach to differential games? Mathematical Challenge Fourteen: *An Information Theory for Virus Evolution * - Can Shannon's theory shed light on this fundamental area of biology? Mathematical Challenge Fifteen: *The Geometry of Genome Space* - What notion of distance is needed to incorporate biological utility? Mathematical Challenge Sixteen: *What are the Symmetries and Action Principles for Biology?* - Extend our understanding of symmetries and action principles in biology along the lines of classical thermodynamics, to include important biological concepts such as robustness, modularity, evolvability and variability. Mathematical Challenge Seventeen: *Geometric Langlands and Quantum Physics* - How does the Langlands program, which originated in number theory and representation theory, explain the fundamental symmetries of physics? And vice versa? Mathematical Challenge Eighteen: *Arithmetic Langlands, Topology, and Geometry* - What is the role of homotopy theory in the classical, geometric, and quantum Langlands programs? Mathematical Challenge Nineteen: *Settle the Riemann Hypothesis* - The Holy Grail of number theory. Mathematical Challenge Twenty: *Computation at Scale* - How can we develop asymptotics for a world with massively many degrees of freedom? Mathematical Challenge Twenty-one: *Settle the Hodge Conjecture* - This conjecture in algebraic geometry is a metaphor for transforming transcendental computations into algebraic ones. Mathematical Challenge Twenty-two: * **Settle the Smooth Poincare Conjecture in Dimension 4* - What are the implications for space-time and cosmology? And might the answer unlock the secret of "dark energy"? Mathematical Challenge Twenty-three: *What are the Fundamental Laws of Biology?* - This question will remain front and center for the next 100 years. DARPA places this challenge last as finding these laws will undoubtedly require the mathematics developed in answering several of the questions listed above. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Oct 3 16:29:41 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:29:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: >> Argh. ;-) Show me a functional (versus operational) model of a >> "superposition." This is crucial. You MUST stand somewhere to be a >> "you." I emphasize that you MUST have a subjective point of view. >> But there is no need or basis for any attempt to define that >> subjective POV in (fundamentally unfounded and unfoundable) objective >> terms. Don't need it, never did, although it's quite clear from >> cognitive and evolutionary psychology why we as individuals and as a >> culture tend to think and reinforce our thinking in terms of discrete >> selves, absolute truth, fear of the unknown, respect for authority, >> and so on. But that environment of evolutionary adaptation is rapidly >> slipping behind us and the effective heuristics of our ancestors are >> decreasing in utility. Let the unfounded ontological assumption go, >> and everything is seen to work as before, but according to a more >> coherent and thus more extensible model. > > "Argh" ? You missed talk like a pirate day (9/19) I hope i'm not so > missing your point that it causes frustration. It's mildly frustrating to me how this kind of dialog always builds up some energy, then runs around in loops and up against walls within conceptual boxes closely held, until dissipating without any appreciable progress. There are some slight derivative benefits: someone may gain an inspiring thought or two, I sometimes gain thoughtful new offline contacts and benefit from the practice, and even Lee shows signs of being perturbed, not just emotionally, but moved to think at least for a short while outside simple (and perfectly correct) elliptical orbits of thought. But frustratingly, just as in our domestic politics, things soon snap back to "normal." > "unfounded ontological assumption" - I'm not sure what I have assumed > (that's clearly a problem). It's the unfounded assumption of the existence of an objective point of view (which some people here get), or even of an objective measure of where one stands in relation to a hypothetical asymptotic objective point of view (which fewer people get.) And the point I try to convey is that from the point of view of any necessarily subjective system of observation, there is no rational justification for any claim that our present model of truth is nearer of farther from Truth. It takes only one new observation to radically revise our model of truth, as we've seen repeatedly with models of our place within the Earth, solar system, galaxy, ?, ... or to extend BillK's example of theories of health in terms of displeased gods, evil humors, imbalanced chi, build-up of toxins, homeostasis and immune function as feedback loops, persistence and robustness of evolving structures, ?, ..., or to *any* model of how things Really Work. It's not just that our language is necessarily imperfect, or that our measurements are necessarily imperfect, but that fundamentally we lack any basis for knowing how far up or down we are on the tree of subjective reality. And that's perfectly all right. Indeed -- and this is my point -- we're better off in practical terms to acknowledge this inherent subjectivity, removing the unwarranted conceptual bump from our model, to reduce the friction involved in further updating our model in a world of accelerating change. In even more concrete terms, it's about realizing that within an entirely subjective model - the only coherent model -- nothing is lost with regard to discriminating and decision-making within this model, but the advantage -- and this amounts to a moral imperative -- is that progress is reframed from the classical view of successively closer approximation to Reality, to successively accelerating improvements in the process of improving our model ... of X (it doesn't matter.) It's a different dynamic, a vehicle requiring quite different gearing. For virtually all of human history, in an environment relatively unchanging in regard to human action, it has appeared "objectively obvious" that "good" is in terms of solving problems. But solving a problem is coherent only to the extent the problem is defined (which until recently it has been, as we'd been living within a special case of the more general principle I'm trying to convey.) Now, in an environment of accelerating change, focus must shift from "solving problems" specified explicitly or implicitly within a seldom changing or punctuated but slowly changing model of reality, to "improving our problem solvers" applicable to staying in the Red Queen's Race. > You said, "you MUST have a subjective > point of view." I agree. And so must you. Huh. I thought it should be clear that I meant any "you". > There is an inherent > parallax for which we need to be aware. I can abandon my own point of > view and merge my state of awareness completely to yours. We will > have total agreement and also the same identity (I'm not reinforcing > my discrete self). You can similarly abandon your viewpoint. Who > would i/we express ourself(s) to if this were the case? Seems you're dealing in superpositions again. My point is that every intentional agent must, by definition, have a point of view. No abandoning, merging, or superimposing of POV is involved. I'll assume you've already read my follow-up post, a somewhat poetic expression using the metaphor of a tree. It fully accommodates the necessarily subjective view of each individual leaf (agent, human, man, woman, athlete, artist, robot, dolphin, dog, ...) interacting with others in its local environment, discovering agreement on the basis of their branches combining with increasing probability in the direction of the (assumed) root of reality. > Perhaps the > mind-merge does not have to be complete to find a point of agreement - > (thinking of Venn diagram where two sets share commonality at their > intersection) Just as I tried to convey earlier in regard to the pragmatics of semantics and the infamous "Grounding Problem", agreement does not entail to individuals merging, but that their actions, based on relevant aspects of their models, are seen to be aligned. A key here is that all agents, rooted in (descended from) a common reality (regardless of knowing its specific nature) will necessarily have evolved aspects of their nature (their model of reality) in common. Thus there is an inherent basis for increasing probability of increasing agreement on increasingly fundamental principles of "reality" supporting the ongoing actions of any group of agents. This is the central point of my "Arrow of Morality" message. I'll pause here rather than pursuing the remaining tangential statements. P.S. This morning I came across a reminder of possible relevance: Most people are not intuitively comfortable with the concept of mathematical induction, by which reasoning in terms of X can be shown to be absolutely mathematically true regardless of the actual X. Its exact analogue in programming is recursion, with which many otherwise competent programmers remain uncomfortable. This has a direct bearing on my point. - Jef From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 17:00:01 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:00:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of human technological progress in the self-replicating space habitat? In-Reply-To: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com> References: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com> Message-ID: <55ad6af70810031000j24487eb8r880f865e2c112bdb@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul D. Fernhout Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:14 AM Subject: The logical culmination of human technological progress in the self-replicating space habitat? To: OpenVirgle I've been busy scanning my old papers of stuff I had collected or stuff I wrote (approaching 100 boxes to work through) to free up some physical space and make the information more accessible and eventually searchable, and I am am also trying also now to deal with some old computers. Here is something I wrote using a Newton (on either an eMate or MP2000) around April 15, 1997. I had to beam it from a Newton MP2000 via IRDA, scan it, and then OCR it to get the text. How such things have become more easily possible and quicker with computers than a decade ago. A new desktop computer has the performance specs of an early 1990s supercomputer. It had a couple of very simple diagrammatic sketches of space habitat construction, but I will spare you the 1MB pdf file that resulted from the scanning of what is a document in its original form was only some few K in size. I put the OCR-d text below. It is all very much in a Bernal-esque direction. And a little like Ian Bankes who I had not read then. But I had read the Skills of Xanadu by Theodore Sturgeon, and many other sci-fi writers like James P. Hogan, or other writers who speculated from hard science like Freeman Dyson, Gerry O'Neill, or Marshall Savage. Anyway, this short essay shows the future landscape that I imagined inspired by those other writers, one with both reassuring and terrifying aspects, and filled with both beauty and ugliness. Hopefully it is a future that can still have some balance in the style of Ursula K. Le Guin. If I had the gift or developed talent of fiction writing, this future is probably where most of my stories would be set. --Paul Fernhout ======================================== Circa April 15, 1997 The logical culmination of human technological progress is the self-replicating space habitat. Diagram: Asteroid / Smelting mirror / Mining Vessel / Habitat [Following Bernal and O'Neill] The self replicating space habitat (SRSH) will be a living cell, with humans as its organelles. Human memory aided by computers will be its DNA. It will get its energy from the sun via a large mylar mirror. It will be the ultimate symbiosis of human and machine, as a system designed to support life almost everywhere in the universe. The raw material used to construct these habitats will come mainly from asteroids and comets. Some material may be launched from moons, or skimmed from the surfaces of gas giants like Neptune. Some of these habitats will be rotating cylinders kilometers across and several times as long. These will provide artificial gravity. The interiors will be like parks, with some small towns. Others will be collections of small bubbles where humans and other life forms live in weightless conditions their entire lives - much like creatures in the oceans. In both cases, humans will live alongside other organisms that can adapt to these worldlets. Diagram: Asteroid / Bubble habitats under construction [Following Savage] Within a few hundred years after the first such habitats appear, humanity will number in the hundreds of billions in space. These habitats will be able to function completely independently, like an algal cell. However, like modern day bacteria, they will also be able exchange information as bacteria exchange genes. In this way, these habitats will form a network of interacting worlds - exchanging ideas, genes, and more rarely, organisms and manufactured goods. Habitats will almost never exchange common manufactured goods (like standard furnishings, lights, and food) because they will be produced locally to the habitat. Habitats will have flexible machine tools which can produce most common parts on demand, for example, a new chair might be ordered in the morning, and be ready by the afternoon - formed out of polymers deposited layer by layer in a vat. Some manufactured goods will be produced more rarely - such as those that require long term processes or specialized skills - like imitation Stradivari as violins. These will need to be shipped from the habitats that manufacture them. But in the main, common goods and most common foods will be produced locally and recycled locally. What will life be like in such habitats? In many ways, at first, it will be very much like life on earth. People will take their surroundings for granted and spend much of their time working, playing, or being social. In time though, things will evolve in new directions. Three of these directions will be very different from what we now experience. The first direction will be interactions with completely autonomous self replicating machines. These will be created for various reasons. One reason is out of maliciousness or vanity, the same reason computer viruses are created today. The other is because such autonomous self replicating roots will be very useful for building large projects quickly. These self replicating machines will evolve their own reasons for existing. Some will be human slaves, others may enslave humans. Some may be friendly, others may be warlike. Still others may be ever at the frontier, racing beyond human expansion. Some of these machines will be like sheep - harvested for their parts. Others will be like wolves, preying on the sheep, and the occasional human habitat. The second thing that will change could happen on earth as well. It is the integration of humans and computers. These cyborgs will be different from people of today in two ways. They will have ready access to the memory and calculation speed of the computer. In this way, they risk being sucked into a virtual world inside the computer. The other way they will be different is by being continually connected into a web of communication with other cyborgs. In a sense, a human in front of an web browser is already the beginning of such a cyborg. In the future, this will become more extreme, ranging from everything from magic glasses that show you what you want to see, to implanted cellular phones, to implanted neural links to the computer network. The third thing that will happen is the genetic evolution of new species of humans. Over millions of years, humans communities isolated from each other by the vast distances between stars will evolve into different species, for some groups, this will happen much faster by active genetic manipulation, just as today we create new breeds of of or corn. These new creatures might even be the result of crossing human DNA with other creatures1 - for example, human DNA might be crossed with a whale's DNA, to create a talking space fairing whale species. Such whales could be given skin that acts like a space suit that photosynthesizes, with flippers converted into solar sails. Or someone with a perverse sense of humor might recreate Tolkien's world of Hobbits, Elves, and Orcs for real in some habitat. Surely most people would object to such tinkering, and condemn it for ethical and other reasons, but it will be done nonetheless. In the first cases, it will manifest itself in such simple things as children born without genetic defects of just being extremely beautiful or smart. But in the end, it will come to the space whales and more. At some point this trend will cross the cyborg one, for genetically engineered organisms connected to computer webs. So this then will be the world of the future within a thousand years: Trillions of regular humans will live in space in self replicating space habitats. Most of these people will have never set foot on Earth and probably wouldn't want to. Many of these people take being linked to the computer all the time for granted. There will be thousands of new species of creatures, some maybe even incorporating human DNA and being sentient, Finally, there will be an untold number of self replicating robots interacting with these groups, both as friends and foes. [Note from October 2008: One thing I noted on rereading this was that if machines expand faster than humanity, this implies the mainly human sphere may soon become enclosed in an ever widening purely machine shell or enclosing sphere which expands more rapidly, and at some point, any human expansion beyond that interface will be into a universe of machines that went before if it is permitted by some of the machines. Also, I see the Cyborg networking trend is the one playing out the fastest, so fast we now take wireless internet access via cell phones almost for granted during these short ten years. Also, historically a couple of days ago the first SpaceX privately developed liquid fuel rocket went into space and achieved Earth orbit.] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenVirgle" group. To post to this group, send email to openvirgle at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openvirgle+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openvirgle?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 3 17:35:13 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:35:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of human technological progress in the self-replicating space habitat? In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70810031000j24487eb8r880f865e2c112bdb@mail.gmail.co m> References: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com> <55ad6af70810031000j24487eb8r880f865e2c112bdb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081003122908.025a4d98@satx.rr.com> >The logical culmination of human technological progress is the >self-replicating space habitat. With all due respect, this is about as persuasive as "The logical culmination of human technological progress is the flying car driven by a man in a silver lycra jumpsuit smoking a self-lighting cigarette." Paul D. Fernhout should take a look at the chapters by, for example, Steve Harris, Robert Bradbury, Robin Hanson and George Zebrowski in YEAR MILLION. (Zebrowski, by the way, wrote at prize-winning length about self-replicating space habitats in 1979, in his novel MACROLIFE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrolife .) Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 3 20:24:04 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] DARPA Mathematical Challenges In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <66950.73230.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 10/3/08, Jef Allbright wrote: > It's interesting how closely so many of these dovetail > with topics of > interest to the Extropy list. No kidding. The Networked Game Theory of Critter's Dilemma is relevant to three or four of the topics all by itself. Unfortunately I don't have a Ph.D. and I am no longer affiliated with a university so I doubt I could get one of the grants. Besides I have bigger fish to fry right now. But if someone who does qualify for a grant wants to take my ideas and run with them, I would not mind provided that he or she includes me as a coauthor. Stuart LaForge "See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss."- Friedrich Nietzsche From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 22:02:56 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:02:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > It's the unfounded assumption of the existence of an objective point > of view (which some people here get), or even of an objective measure > of where one stands in relation to a hypothetical asymptotic objective > point of view (which fewer people get.) And the point I try to convey > is that from the point of view of any necessarily subjective system of > observation, there is no rational justification for any claim that our > present model of truth is nearer of farther from Truth. OK. Can you restate "objective point of view" in solely subjective terms? I consider this an aside from thread. If there is no reality in a supposed objective view, why/how have we become so dependent on it? The same could be asked of nearly every effort humanity has employed since inception that we can recognize today as an incoherent crutch. (and have already been mentioned) > ..., or to *any* model of how things Really Work. It's not just that > our language is necessarily imperfect, or that our measurements are > necessarily imperfect, but that fundamentally we lack any basis for > knowing how far up or down we are on the tree of subjective reality. How pervasive is the objective view- that you speak of "how far up or down" when the measurement can only be made subjectively. I believe I understand what you mean here. I comment on it to illustrate that a complete deconstruction of "objective references" requires something better to replace its [incomplete|flawed] utility. > And that's perfectly all right. Indeed -- and this is my point -- > we're better off in practical terms to acknowledge this inherent > subjectivity, removing the unwarranted conceptual bump from our model, > to reduce the friction involved in further updating our model in a > world of accelerating change. That is perhaps the most succinctly you have stated your position of which I am aware. You might appreciate that it contains zero occurrences of "increasingly". > of the more general principle I'm trying to convey.) Now, in an > environment of accelerating change, focus must shift from "solving > problems" specified explicitly or implicitly within a seldom changing > or punctuated but slowly changing model of reality, to "improving our > problem solvers" applicable to staying in the Red Queen's Race. Yes. I accept your proposition. I am convinced. No doubt many of us have felt this way without being able to express it as you have. What now? You have made an observation and confirmed that the problem you defined was existent in another (subjective) frame of reference. Do you have a proposal for getting to this point in less effort for our next conversation? Does it have general applicability for dealing with someone with no a priori context? >> You said, "you MUST have a subjective point of view." I agree. And so must you. > > Huh. I thought it should be clear that I meant any "you". Sorry, those primitive statements were rhetorical devices to begin establishing the ground I intended to cover. > Seems you're dealing in superpositions again. My point is that every > intentional agent must, by definition, have a point of view. No Yes. > abandoning, merging, or superimposing of POV is involved. I'll assume > you've already read my follow-up post, a somewhat poetic expression > using the metaphor of a tree. It fully accommodates the necessarily > subjective view of each individual leaf (agent, human, man, woman, > athlete, artist, robot, dolphin, dog, ...) interacting with others in > its local environment, discovering agreement on the basis of their > branches combining with increasing probability in the direction of the > (assumed) root of reality. Yes. Order comes from the "logical" realization of leafs that they're part of branches? Is that a perspective of the relationship between branches and leaves? On this fractal metaphor is there some reason to limit discussion only to the conceptual leaps you illustrated? Why aren't leaves directly compared with the trunk? They both share the "common reality" (tree) and have "evolved aspects of their nature [...] in common." I'm not sure how they can "discover agreement on the basis of their branches combining with increasing probability in the direction of the (assumed) root of reality." I suggest there is to way to assume a root of reality any more than it is possible to discuss the reality of an objective point of view. There is also no reason there would be any more relationship between two leaves on a single tree than any two trees in a forest. I return to a fractal nature without an objective grounding. Imagine a Menger sponge composed of Necker cubes. Pick any arbitrary boundary then go one unit over. Where are you? > Thus there is an inherent basis for increasing probability of > increasing agreement on increasingly fundamental principles of > "reality" supporting the ongoing actions of any group of agents. This > is the central point of my "Arrow of Morality" message. We've been discussing an arrow of morality? Is there only one arrow? How is the direction determined? If there's more than one, do we add their vectors to determine net progress? No wonder we never get anywhere. :) > P.S. This morning I came across a reminder of possible relevance: > Most people are not intuitively comfortable with the concept of > mathematical induction, by which reasoning in terms of X can be shown > to be absolutely mathematically true regardless of the actual X. Its > exact analogue in programming is recursion, with which many otherwise > competent programmers remain uncomfortable. This has a direct bearing > on my point. It's turtles all the way down It's turtles all the way up It's turtles all the way forward and back "I like turtles" Not as poetic as your tree... I really had no way out :) From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 3 22:18:14 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:18:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Turtles every which way In-Reply-To: <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com > References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081003171515.0242ecf0@satx.rr.com> At 06:02 PM 10/3/2008 -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote: >It's turtles all the way down >It's turtles all the way up >It's turtles all the way forward and back >"I like turtles" A discussion with lots of relevant links (ignore those turles in the url, I blame shellshock myself): Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Oct 3 23:13:38 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 16:13:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > > It's the unfounded assumption of the existence of an objective point > > of view (which some people here get), or even of an objective measure > > of where one stands in relation to a hypothetical asymptotic objective > > point of view (which fewer people get.) And the point I try to convey > > is that from the point of view of any necessarily subjective system of > > observation, there is no rational justification for any claim that our > > present model of truth is nearer of farther from Truth. > > OK. Can you restate "objective point of view" in solely subjective > terms? It seems a silly question. Considering that any recognizable agent must share some fundamentals of that "tree", what do you mean by solely subjective? On the other, it seems trivially obvious that any agent could have and use private signs, meaningful solely to that agent. Do *you* know what you meant by this question? > I consider this an aside from thread. If there is no reality > in a supposed objective view, why/how have we become so dependent on > it? Were you paying attention when I said "A key here is that all agents, rooted in (descended from) a common reality (regardless of knowing its specific nature) will necessarily have evolved aspects of their nature (their model of reality) in common. Thus there is an inherent basis for increasing probability of increasing agreement on increasingly fundamental principles of 'reality' supporting the ongoing actions of any group of agents." Does that not answer your question?? Oh, I see. It contained not one, but three "increasing"s and your mind may have blanked out. > Yes. I accept your proposition. I am convinced. Of what? - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Oct 3 23:52:30 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 16:52:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> Yes. I accept your proposition. I am convinced. > > Of what? After I pressed send I worried that I had gotten into that hyper-"rational" mode where there's only structures of meaning, and feelings are noticed but excluded as irrelevant. <- My wording suggests I'm still in that mode -- that mode is too easy and too comfortable for me. But hey, I wanted to apologize in advance for being so abrupt. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Oct 4 00:17:20 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:17:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: >> ..., or to *any* model of how things Really Work. It's not just that >> our language is necessarily imperfect, or that our measurements are >> necessarily imperfect, but that fundamentally we lack any basis for >> knowing how far up or down we are on the tree of subjective reality. > > How pervasive is the objective view- that you speak of "how far up or > down" when the measurement can only be made subjectively. My point was that we lack any objective reference for knowing the relationship of our model of reality to absolute reality, so it's not even meaningful to ask the question. The scenario can't be modeled. It has no answer, unless you like "mu". > I believe I > understand what you mean here. I comment on it to illustrate that a > complete deconstruction of "objective references" requires something > better to replace its [incomplete|flawed] utility. A pragmatic theory of an evolving model of truth provides all the utility, without the incoherent assumption. >> And that's perfectly all right. Indeed -- and this is my point -- >> we're better off in practical terms to acknowledge this inherent >> subjectivity, removing the unwarranted conceptual bump from our model, >> to reduce the friction involved in further updating our model in a >> world of accelerating change. > > That is perhaps the most succinctly you have stated your position of > which I am aware. I think I'm usually succinct, but characteristically shorted on examples and the expansion necessary to fit the background of the other party. In any case, thanks. > You might appreciate that it contains zero > occurrences of "increasingly". But they were still part of the message. Three in a row. Apparently caused you to blank out earlier. ;-) >> of the more general principle I'm trying to convey.) Now, in an >> environment of accelerating change, focus must shift from "solving >> problems" specified explicitly or implicitly within a seldom changing >> or punctuated but slowly changing model of reality, to "improving our >> problem solvers" applicable to staying in the Red Queen's Race. > > Yes. I accept your proposition. I am convinced. No doubt many of us > have felt this way without being able to express it as you have. What > now? Glad you asked. In practical terms: Shift the focus of attention and resources away from obtaining expected consequences, and applying an improving model of instrumental methods in principle to an improving model of our evolving values, thus discovering an increasingly [sorry] preferred future by creating it. Sorry, that's rough and probably easily subject to misinterpreatation and criticism as it stands. No time to proofread or reword as Lizbeth just called and is expecting me to meet her for drinks. Gotta run. - Jef From sparge at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 02:53:14 2008 From: sparge at gmail.com (Spargemeister) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:53:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A sprinkle In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080921193131.022d1148@satx.rr.com> References: <6BC377443FA04AA382D9146AAE585D8C@Catbert> <7.0.1.0.2.20080921193131.022d1148@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:22 PM 9/21/2008 -0400, "Spargemeister" > > If I might enquire: what is this "sparge" of which you are master? Something > to do with beer? Sorry for the delay. I'm sure you've been paralyzed with anticipation. :-) Yes, good guess. I'm a homebrewer. Not a master, unfortunately. That's just a bit of whimsy. -Dave From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 02:53:13 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:53:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240810031953t34111cdale1d8bd8c3fa0b8d7@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > My point was that we lack any objective reference for knowing the > relationship of our model of reality to absolute reality, so it's not > even meaningful to ask the question. The scenario can't be modeled. > It has no answer, unless you like "mu". Ineffable. Too right. >> understand what you mean here. I comment on it to illustrate that a >> complete deconstruction of "objective references" requires something >> better to replace its [incomplete|flawed] utility. > > A pragmatic theory of an evolving model of truth provides all the > utility, without the incoherent assumption. "an evolving model of truth without incoherent assumption." My assumptions are only incoherent to you in the way your assumptions are incoherent to me. I believe the purpose of discourse is to find coherence between these assumptions to the extent that we share membership in the same "model of truth" We can discuss physical laws, we can discuss observed trends - we probably would not attempt to discuss ethics or try to convince each other of the merits of our favorite TV shows (or of merits of TV at all) this is a good place to answer your first question from an earlier reply re: redefine the objective point of view. In this example there is sufficiently large corroborative authority to verify the subjective measure to the physical laws of (for example) gravity that I am entitled to share the consensus understanding of what is repeatedly observable or I can be excluded from the normal-thinking group to make unprovable claims about why objects fall to earth. There is not enough consensus authority by repeatable observation of miracle healing. To those who claim it has happened to them there is no amount of "rational" explanation to make them renounce their believe. Is there subjective experience of a miracle an incoherent assumption? To you and I perhaps, to their internal model it's valid and we are the incoherent ones. I digress into example... I asked for you to explain from the position you have espoused to date, how the belief in an objective point of view became the crutch that so many lean upon for their stance on X issues. You have suggested that I cling to ideal Truth. I have tried to prove that objective "Truth" is one of many tools for exchanging ideas- no different (imo) than understanding the proper use of "heaven/savior" when conversing with Christians or "Samsara/Nirvana" with Buddhists or "Singularity" with Extropians and Transhumanists. I sought your insight into the how and why objective truth was ever perceived to have utility despite your claim that it has no inherent validity. With that established, I assumed we could replace the structural underpinnings of objective conclusions with an increasingly coherent foundation. A foundation that would be capable of providing greater support to the accelerating rate of change we're seeing. A rate of change that threatens to overwhelm an establishment founded on precariously incoherent principles such as objective truth. > I think I'm usually succinct, but characteristically shorted on > examples and the expansion necessary to fit the background of the > other party. In any case, thanks. >> You might appreciate that it contains zero >> occurrences of "increasingly". > > But they were still part of the message. Three in a row. Apparently > caused you to blank out earlier. ;-) Hey, I wasn't the one to draw attention to the increasing frequency of your use of 'increasingly.' :) I intentionally avoid using it now because it has such specific meaning to you that I will likely be misunderstood if/when I use it "incorrectly" >>> "improving our problem solvers" >> Yes. I accept your proposition. I am convinced. No doubt many of us >> have felt this way without being able to express it as you have. What >> now? * in your first reply you asked, "Of what?" - to which I laughed. Hyperrational, huh? I thought it amusing (fwiw) > Glad you asked. In practical terms: Shift the focus of attention and > resources away from obtaining expected consequences, and applying an > improving model of instrumental methods in principle to an improving > model of our evolving values, thus discovering an increasingly [sorry] > preferred future by creating it. > > Sorry, that's rough and probably easily subject to misinterpreatation > and criticism as it stands. No time to proofread or reword as Lizbeth > just called and is expecting me to meet her for drinks. Gotta run. I'm not going to criticize. I have a difficult time wrapping my head around it. If you have already written a a thesis or something, I would certainly read it. (email, or post URL) Can you break that statement down into chunks, explain each piece then build back up to the level of clarity you're trying to express? I feel your words were chosen for deliberate contexts that I do not share completely enough. I think there is value in what you are saying. I think this exercise is illustrative of the framework-building that we need to exchange idea-dense concepts. I've been interested in this kind of analysis for 15 years. Few people I have met possess both the patience to build that bridge and the persistence to firmly hold an idea until the bridge is usable. Whether you ever feel anyone else deeply understands the point you are making, I feel the attempt at communication helps us refine our content delivery methods. Maybe that's what you mean about shifting away from expected consequences to focus on improving methods? I don't mind being told that I am mistaken, but I also don't know what understanding is correct if it is never acknowledged. Sorry; drifting off-topic again, which means I should stop now. From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 03:13:21 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 23:13:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of human technological progress in the self-replicating space habitat? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081003122908.025a4d98@satx.rr.com> References: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com> <55ad6af70810031000j24487eb8r880f865e2c112bdb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081003122908.025a4d98@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240810032013g444163aam7cc69a33710bd397@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > With all due respect, this is about as persuasive as "The logical > culmination of human technological progress is the flying car driven by a > man in a silver lycra jumpsuit smoking a self-lighting cigarette." I pictured a Cylon flying KITT through space; Tweaky as a passenger/sidekick and R2D2 in the back managing the dilithium crystals and whatnot... From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 14:24:33 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 09:24:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of human technological progress in the self-replicating space habitat? In-Reply-To: <62c14240810032013g444163aam7cc69a33710bd397@mail.gmail.com> References: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081003122908.025a4d98@satx.rr.com> <62c14240810032013g444163aam7cc69a33710bd397@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200810040924.34157.kanzure@gmail.com> On Friday 03 October 2008, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > With all due respect, this is about as persuasive as "The logical > > culmination of human technological progress is the flying car > > driven by a man in a silver lycra jumpsuit smoking a self-lighting > > cigarette." > > I pictured a Cylon flying KITT through space; Tweaky as a > passenger/sidekick and R2D2 in the back managing the dilithium > crystals and whatnot... I'm not entirely sure that it was Paul's intention to make a 'logical culimination' argument but instead point to some converging technologies. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Oct 4 15:28:36 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 11:28:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of human technological progress in the self-replicating space habitat? References: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com><55ad6af70810031000j24487eb8r880f865e2c112bdb@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081003122908.025a4d98@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: >The logical culmination of human technological progress is the >self-replicating space habitat. The logical culmination of HUMAN technological progress is the self-replicating self-improving brain. Please note that I did not say anything as grand as it being the culmination of technological progress, I merely assert that it will be the last invention Homo Sapiens ever makes. John K Clark From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 17:34:08 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 12:34:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of human technological progress in the self-replicating space habitat? In-Reply-To: References: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081003122908.025a4d98@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200810041234.08528.kanzure@gmail.com> On Saturday 04 October 2008, John K Clark wrote: > The logical culmination of HUMAN technological progress is the > self-replicating self-improving brain. Could this brain be attached to a body? - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Oct 4 20:00:53 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 13:00:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <62c14240810031953t34111cdale1d8bd8c3fa0b8d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031953t34111cdale1d8bd8c3fa0b8d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: >> My point was that we lack any objective reference for knowing the >> relationship of our model of reality to absolute reality, so it's not >> even meaningful to ask the question. The scenario can't be modeled. >> It has no answer, unless you like "mu". > > Ineffable. Too right. I'll observe here that even when I try to deal with the explicit feeling in that statement, I don't really know what to do with it. "Too" right, means...what? So, right on! ;-) But, I would argue that a reference to "the ineffable" is not a reference to anything. This in distinct contrast to a reference that is to nothing. > "an evolving model of truth without incoherent assumption." My > assumptions are only incoherent to you in the way your assumptions are > incoherent to me. What a satisfying symmetry that must be! But on what do you base its likelihood? > I believe the purpose of discourse is to find > coherence between these assumptions to the extent that we share > membership in the same "model of truth" Okay... > We can discuss physical laws, > we can discuss observed trends - we probably would not attempt to > discuss ethics or try to convince each other of the merits of our > favorite TV shows (or of merits of TV at all) I would argue strongly that all of these are on a continuum, but, right on! > this is a good place to answer your first question from an earlier > reply re: redefine the objective point of view. > In this example there is sufficiently large corroborative authority > to verify the subjective measure to the physical laws of (for example) > gravity that I am entitled to share the consensus understanding of > what is repeatedly observable or I can be excluded from the > normal-thinking group to make unprovable claims about why objects fall > to earth. Wow, that was a mouthful! Rather than "redefine the objective point of view" we could use the term "inter-subjective", or, my preference would be to enlarge the context of the system of interest to encompass the multiple subsystems and thus continue to reason about in the same coherent terms. This preference for not introducing new terms unnecessarily is a basis for my frequent use of "increasing" or "increasingly." Key point is I'm not redefining "objective" but showing that no workable model of "reality" requires that additional hypothesis. > There is not enough consensus authority by repeatable > observation of miracle healing. Well, consensus, and authority have no direct bearing on the truth of a model, so I would prefer to leave out these extraneous terms as well. But I would agree that claims of the truth of "miracle healing" are lacking in evidence to the extent that they should scarcely affect the distribution of probability mass within any "rational" model. > To those who claim it has happened to > them there is no amount of "rational" explanation to make them > renounce their believe. Yes, nearly any arbitrary system of belief can appear coherent, within a particular context. Any system will act exactly in accordance with its "true" nature within its environment. But we can expect that with increasing scope of interaction with its environment, the system's model -- the context within which it makes sense of its observations -- must tend to increase. > Is there subjective experience of a miracle > an incoherent assumption? To you and I perhaps, to their internal > model it's valid and we are the incoherent ones. I think I've addressed this above. > I asked for you to explain from the position you have espoused to > date, how the belief in an objective point of view became the crutch > that so many lean upon for their stance on X issues. I think it's pertinent to point out here that I don't conceive of any agent using their inherently limited model of reality as a crutch to lean on. I see each agent acting *perfectly* according to its nature, without the incoherent assumption of a "self" independent of its nature such that it can use it to lean on, or to use the more common example of this sort of incoherence: a self independent of its nature such that it makes decisions in regard to its nature. We simply act according to our (present, but evolving) nature, within a given environment. Period. > You have > suggested that I cling to ideal Truth. I have tried to prove that > objective "Truth" is one of many tools for exchanging ideas- no > different (imo) than understanding the proper use of "heaven/savior" > when conversing with Christians or "Samsara/Nirvana" with Buddhists or > "Singularity" with Extropians and Transhumanists. I sought your > insight into the how and why objective truth was ever perceived to > have utility despite your claim that it has no inherent validity. I think I've repeatedly referred to the utility of such heuristics, and their natural and to-be-expected occurrence in an environment of adaptation with aspects so unchanging as to be *effectively* objective. As I've said so many times already, in the bigger picture there is no objective "right" or "wrong" but only the relative effectiveness of models of increasing coherence over increasing context. An information-theoretic way of looking at this is in terms of the increased fitness conferred to a system that gains little or nothing (in terms of the persistence of its pattern) from additional information in its environment and therefore can avoid paying that cost. This dimensionality reduction, or compression via heuristics, can be seen as essential to the core economics of intelligence, but as the co-evolutionary game evolves to higher levels of order, so must our (conceptual) equipment evolve to higher orders of effectiveness. >>>> "improving our problem solvers" >>> Yes. I accept your proposition. I am convinced. No doubt many of us >>> have felt this way without being able to express it as you have. What >>> now? > * in your first reply you asked, "Of what?" - to which I laughed. > Hyperrational, huh? I thought it amusing (fwiw) > If you have already written a a thesis or something, I > would certainly read it. (email, or post URL) Can you break that > statement down into chunks, explain each piece then build back up to > the level of clarity you're trying to express? I feel your words were > chosen for deliberate contexts that I do not share completely enough. As I said earlier, a few years ago I embarked on an exploration of what it would take, and quickly came to realize I don't have the available time to accommodate the rapidly compounding branches of explanation necessary to connect with my intended audience. I then considered the advantages of the less rigorous vehicle of speculative fiction, but I'm not an efficient writer and most of my time the last two years (and at least the next few) is dedicated to the launch of my business. > I think there is value in what you are saying. I think this exercise > is illustrative of the framework-building that we need to exchange > idea-dense concepts. Yes... > I've been interested in this kind of analysis > for 15 years. Few people I have met possess both the patience to > build that bridge and the persistence to firmly hold an idea until the > bridge is usable. And I lack the time, and perhaps the patience... > Whether you ever feel anyone else deeply > understands the point you are making, I feel the attempt at > communication helps us refine our content delivery methods. Yes... > Maybe > that's what you mean about shifting away from expected consequences to > focus on improving methods? Perhaps partially... > I don't mind being told that I am > mistaken, but I also don't know what understanding is correct if it is > never acknowledged. Sorry; drifting off-topic again, which means I > should stop now. And this is about all the time I can afford for now. Thanks. - Jef From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 21:50:42 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:50:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits Message-ID: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com> < ? Get more from this author Posted in Government, 3rd October 2008 18:47 GMT *Comment* Something very spooky happened in the United States last week. The chances are you noticed it too, many days before it was reported. Tuesday found me in New York, on my first stateside visit in a couple of years. The details of the Bailout plan had just been revealed and the slow burn of outrage was apparent everywhere. Admittedly, this was New York. (Long-time readers will know I was the San Francisco correspondent for *El Reg* for six years and was frequently asked by Europeans: "What do Americans think of ... x?" To which the only honest answer is, "I can't tell you what Americans think, but here in San Francisco ...") The outrage isn't the spooky part. The really odd thing is that if you had to rely on the mainstream US newspapers and TV channels - and nothing else - you'd wouldn't know something remarkable was happening. Which is that the Treasury Secretary's Bailout Plan had united parts of America who spend most of their energy hitting each other over the head, in common opposition to the proposal. It was the moment that politicians dread the most. This was not merely an outbreak of popular discontent, but a phenomenon which breaks down those convenient labels the political marketing people like to use, to shield their masters from people's true desires and intentions. Not just coarse labels like "Left" and "Right" - but the really dumb, patronizing demographic ones like "Soccer Mom" and the nadir of modern politics, those found in Mark Penn's "Microtrends." Niche marketers will have to start from scratch. Conservatives, libertarians, and lefties all raised objections to the Bailout for very sound reasons of their own. The idea that the state should bail out feckless private enterprises offended both conservatives and libertarians, who take moral responsibility seriously. The left wanted their traditional adversaries put in jail, not given a gift of new lease of life with the public's money. People discovered that to "Change Congress," you simply need a ballot box - or the threat of one. All this was reflected on political sites, forums and blogs - but not a hint of this sentiment was expressed by the professional media. So when Congress rejected the Bill on Monday, America's punditocracy expressed its shock. It also reported that the markets were "astonished" - the markets being presumed to have a better grasp of what American citizens want than American citizens themselves. All week, the media had refrained from comment that might embarrass the political class. In fact, the first professional column I read which was reflected the true feelings of many US citizens around me was written from 3,500 miles away and published in London's *Sunday Times*.>> Continues at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/03/the_bailout_and_the_pundits/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 4 22:35:08 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:35:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ...On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj ... Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits ... Comment Something very spooky happened in the United States last week. The chances are you noticed it too, many days before it was reported. ... I found most disturbing a comment by our local Senator that her email traffic was running over 85% against the bailout, but that she planned on voting in favor anyway. Of course she went on my long list of those to be voted out. Another thing I found disturbing is the attitude on the part of our "representatives" to not worry about fixing the blame, but rather fix the problem. My notion is that without knowing what caused the problem, it is impossible to know the right solution. I suspect this bailout solution will solve nothing, for it leaves in place the root cause: government requirements on banks to give out what they already know are bad loans. I find plenty of good explanations in the internet commentary, but almost nothing in the mainstream press. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 4 23:21:49 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:21:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com> <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081004181223.025408a0@satx.rr.com> At 03:35 PM 10/4/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: >I suspect this bailout solution will solve nothing, for it leaves in place >the root cause: government requirements on banks to give out what they >already know are bad loans. I find plenty of good explanations in the >internet commentary, but almost nothing in the mainstream press. Really? Is that like "The Devil made Enron do it"? I read the following from various people on one site opened at random: ======================= The government forced these banks to offer bad loans . That's what Hannity says. The government was holding a gun to the heads of the banks, forcing them to offer loans to people who could not afford them. Such clarity is refreshing. . If Sean said it, it must be true. . He was talking about Barny Frank's insisting that Banks make loans more available to minorities. It was "everyone should be able to buy a home" mentality. Whether they could afford it or not. . The banks were not forced to make loans to people who could not afford them. The banks were required to make a certain amount of loans to people who were normally denied loans for various reasons -- but they were not required to talk these people into buying a house worth three times what they could afford, nor were they required to put false information onto loan applications to make the applicant appear more solvent than they were, nor were they required to bundle the mortgages and trade them like stocks. In short, nobody passed a law that lenders had to be greedy b at st@rds. . On top of that, no one can force big business to 'make these loans' in such large numbers...big business did it for one reason...GREED. They were hungry for something after the 'dot com' crash, and so thought that they could make a killing on real estate, and so in pursuit of huge sums of money, they gave loans to anyone and everyone. . Oh and they must have forced wall street to issue all of those crazy derivatives. . Okay, the CRA loans were at most 25% of the subprime loans, and they have been among the best performing loans--they've only defaulted at about the same rate as non-subprime loans. Hannity is an a$$. And a misleading one. . Too bad your only exposure to this was this particular source. It's not exactly news that there was pressure to make housing affordable to people who normally can't afford it, and while this didn't cause the bubble, but it played a fundamental role in the explosion of bad paper. "in 1992, Congress passed the Government Sponsored Enterprises bill, which set "targets" (i.e., quotas) for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are quasi-governmental publicly-traded for-profit thing-a-ma-bobs, to encourage "affordable" and "underserved" (more or less minority) home loans." A good idea in theory, to extend the dream of home ownership to more Americans, and particularly, more minorities, lower-income Americans, but banks aren't well-suited to applying progressive social programs. How creditworthiness is defined was altered to meet egalitarian ideals. It's an unpopular issue to confront, because it reveals uncomfortable things about racial and social inequities. This is also a conservative source, but it's more credible and statistically referenced than Sean's simplistic view. . Wow, that article blames Blacks, Hispanics, diversity initiatives, quotas, the Sixties cultural revolution -- so many of the favorite neocon bugaboos. I bet it is killing the author that he couldn't figure out how to blame homosexuals, too. . the CRA "strongly urged" banks to offer what were called 'no doc' loans. (No proof of income, no down payment, no qualifying). I've talked to my local banker and he said he would not approve 'no doc' loans. The unscrupulous lenders went for it like dogs to a bone. The more loans they could write, the money they could make selling them to the investment banks. The investment banks don't vet the loans, and good loans got mixed in and bundled with bad loans when sold to the investment banks. I don't know about where you live, but here in Florida many low and middle income rental units were turned into condos leaving the people who couldn't afford to buy with limited housing opportunities. Then the "flipping" market crashed leaving the condo speculators (formerly landlords) with units they couldn't sell in the flooded condo market and renters without affordable housing. Greed, greed, greed all based on the idea that low income people should be able to buy a home (CRA social engineering). [and on and on... blah blah] ================ Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 4 23:55:04 2008 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 16:55:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] In Philadelphia Message-ID: It happens that I wound up in Philadelphia PA this evening after a meeting related to the conference in Orlando Thursday and Friday. The cyber cafe I am in closes in under an hour. I wonder if anyone has a contact for Eric Raymond and/or a suggestion for a reasonable cost motel not too far from either the airport or the rail station downtown? My cell phone is 626-264-7560 Incidentally, we may have a way to fund solving the energy crisis with space based solar power. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 5 05:13:19 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:13:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] foldup PCs, TVs Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081005001149.0238efe0@satx.rr.com> Flexible Screen Could Lead to Foldable Computers CHRIS IRVINE - Telegraph (U.K.) Researchers have demonstrated a flexible television screen which could result in people folding up their computer and putting it in their pocket. The design could be used for television and posters, as well as computers, while it could also pave the way for the development of newspaper display technology which would allow readers to upload daily news to an easy-to-carry display contraption. The concept demo was unveiled by researchers from Sony and the Max Planck Institute in Germany who believe "Rigid television screens, bulky laptops and still image posters are to be a thing of the past". It is all organic, flexible and transparent with an extremely low energy requirement, while it has an almost unlimited viewing angle and high efficiency. There is no need for a backlight and response times are up to 10 times fast than LCDs (liquid crystal displays), meaning ultra-smooth motion without blurring. Due to the transparency, it is thought multiple layers can be stacked possibly for some types of 3D effects. Previous attempts at flexible screens are hampered by size and resolution problems, while the image was also affected when the screen was folded. Moving images on posters, seen in films such as Minority Report could also be a possibility, as well as cereal boxes with talking images. Researchers told the Journal of Physics: "The displays have excellent brightness and are transparent, bendable and flexible. "There are practically no display size limitations and they could be produced relatively easily and cheaply compared to today's screens." In 2006, Sony demonstrated an earlier version of this work, but technical, mechanical and design issues prevented them from mass producing the previous model. From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 08:23:01 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:23:01 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com> <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/5 spike : > I suspect this bailout solution will solve nothing, for it leaves in place > the root cause: government requirements on banks to give out what they > already know are bad loans. I find plenty of good explanations in the > internet commentary, but almost nothing in the mainstream press. Why not simply admit that boom/bust cycles are a natural part of any market system? Leave things alone, and there will be a depression. In a decade or two when people have forgotten about 2008 they'll start bidding up the price of shares and property, banks will start lending again to get a slice of the long-awaited recovery or risk falling behind and being taken over by more adventurous players, high-regulation governments and central banks will be under pressure to loosen things up in the interests of boosting economic activity, and the whole thing will start again. -- Stathis Papaioannou From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Oct 5 14:53:50 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:53:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of human technologicalprogress in the self-replicating space habitat? References: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com><7.0.1.0.2.20081003122908.025a4d98@satx.rr.com> <200810041234.08528.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7BA5246D4E344C699C91E037A0FE6508@MyComputer> Me: > On Saturday 04 October 2008, John K Clark wrote: >> The logical culmination of HUMAN technological progress is the >> self-replicating self-improving brain. Bryan Bishop" Could this brain be attached to a body? Yes, but I don't see why such a brain would want to limit itself to that degree, it will be able to be attached itself to anything. Matter will be treated in the same way we now treat information and programmed accordingly. John K Clark From amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br Sun Oct 5 15:31:19 2008 From: amcmr2003 at yahoo.com.br (Antonio Marcos) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of human technologicalprogress in the self-replicating space habitat? In-Reply-To: <7BA5246D4E344C699C91E037A0FE6508@MyComputer> Message-ID: <927082.4181.qm@web50307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > Yes, but I don't see why such a brain would want to limit itself to that > degree, Of course it would! Not only would, but it already does every moment! We call it games.. they are nothing more than limitations (rules) to possible action. And brains consider this fun, not only acting withing those limitations but overcoming them (evolving).. just see how much success mmorpgs have.. More specifically to the limitation mentioned, I bet we would find that some emotions are impossible(in fact, thats the rules` role) when you are able to detach your `brain` from your body at will. Then, I ask you, aren`t we already inside a transhuman game? Regards, Mark. --- Em dom, 5/10/08, John K Clark escreveu: > De: John K Clark > Assunto: Re: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of human technologicalprogress in the self-replicating space habitat? > Para: "ExI chat list" > Data: Domingo, 5 de Outubro de 2008, 11:53 > Me: > > > On Saturday 04 October 2008, John K Clark wrote: > >> The logical culmination of HUMAN technological > progress is the > >> self-replicating self-improving brain. > > Bryan Bishop" > > Could this brain be attached to a body? > > Yes, but I don't see why such a brain would want to > limit itself to that > degree, it will be able to be attached itself to anything. > Matter will be > treated in the same way we now treat information and > programmed accordingly. > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Novos endere?os, o Yahoo! que voc? conhece. Crie um email novo com a sua cara @ymail.com ou @rocketmail.com. http://br.new.mail.yahoo.com/addresses From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Oct 5 16:46:22 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:46:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: The logical culmination of humantechnologicalprogress in the self-replicating space habitat? References: <927082.4181.qm@web50307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5FAFE8D5E66F4D9C9498ED78FF5D4590@MyComputer> "Antonio Marcos" > I bet we would find that some emotions are impossible(in fact, > thats the rules` role) when you are able to detach your > `brain` from your body at will. I certainly wasn't saying that a Jupiter Brain would be detached from His (yes, I capitalized it) environment, I was objecting to the idea that He would have a body. I think it is more likely He would have 6.02*10^23 bodies rather than just a body. And emotions are a dime a dozen but intelligence is hard, at least Evolution found that to be the case. John K Clark From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Oct 5 16:50:10 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 09:50:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Intelligent" computers put to the test Message-ID: <8DBDBDDC5CA54A81866EE5CA046FBDF3@patrick4ezsk6z> Programmers try to fool human interrogators: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/05/artificialintelligenceai From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 5 16:11:48 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:11:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] META: duplicate messages In-Reply-To: <7BA5246D4E344C699C91E037A0FE6508@MyComputer> References: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com><7.0.1.0.2.20081003122908.025a4d98@satx.rr.com><200810041234.08528.kanzure@gmail.com> <7BA5246D4E344C699C91E037A0FE6508@MyComputer> Message-ID: Is anyone else beside me receiving duplicative messages? Natasha From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 18:02:49 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:02:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] META: duplicate messages In-Reply-To: References: <48E61AD1.3030606@kurtz-fernhout.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081003122908.025a4d98@satx.rr.com> <200810041234.08528.kanzure@gmail.com> <7BA5246D4E344C699C91E037A0FE6508@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Is anyone else beside me receiving duplicative messages? > All ok here. No duplicate messages in archive either. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 5 19:15:18 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:15:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] test Message-ID: <16F906A2B1A54749B257A8BB4F630B6A@DFC68LF1> Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 5 19:16:45 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:16:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] META: bounces Message-ID: <7FD48CDA509448EDB4FCF325C40697E8@DFC68LF1> Why is "bounces" in the email address? Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 19:35:47 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:35:47 +0000 Subject: [ExI] META: bounces In-Reply-To: <7FD48CDA509448EDB4FCF325C40697E8@DFC68LF1> References: <7FD48CDA509448EDB4FCF325C40697E8@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Why is "bounces" in the email address? > 'bounces' is only in the Return-Path address for extropy-chat list, not in the From or To addresses. If you send a message to extropy-chat, then every list member receives the message. So you don't want error messages or undeliverable responses to be returned to that address, because then everyone on the list would be sent the error messages. So the Return-Path address is changed by adding -bounces to the address, so that the extropy-chat server receives the error messages and stores them, but doesn't forward them to the list members. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 5 19:38:53 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:38:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] META: bounces In-Reply-To: References: <7FD48CDA509448EDB4FCF325C40697E8@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <0F79906D983F4763A14DBCEA4549ACAB@DFC68LF1> Check. Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 2:36 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] META: bounces On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Why is "bounces" in the email address? > 'bounces' is only in the Return-Path address for extropy-chat list, not in the From or To addresses. If you send a message to extropy-chat, then every list member receives the message. So you don't want error messages or undeliverable responses to be returned to that address, because then everyone on the list would be sent the error messages. So the Return-Path address is changed by adding -bounces to the address, so that the extropy-chat server receives the error messages and stores them, but doesn't forward them to the list members. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 5 21:17:47 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:17:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] META: bounces In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200810052144.m95LiYR8010838@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] META: bounces > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Natasha Vita-More > wrote: > > > > Why is "bounces" in the email address? > > > > > 'bounces' is only in the Return-Path address for extropy-chat > list, not in the From or To addresses. > > If you send a message to extropy-chat, then every list member > receives the message. > So you don't want error messages or undeliverable responses > to be returned to that address, because then everyone on the > list would be sent the error messages. > So the Return-Path address is changed by adding -bounces to > the address, so that the extropy-chat server receives the > error messages and stores them, but doesn't forward them to > the list members. > > BillK Ja, what he said. Thanks BillK. Damn, I wish I had taken some time to learn internet protocols in the early 90s instead of taking engineering graduate school. {8-[ That would likely have been a far more valuable skillset. I recall from those days going to breakfast and seeing a queue with hundreds of geeks lined up outside the computer bookstore waiting for it to open. I had to ask why, and the geeks told me of this new computer thing called the web that was starting up and would be the next big thing. They were right. spike From sparge at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 02:24:30 2008 From: sparge at gmail.com (Spargemeister) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:24:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Intelligent" computers put to the test In-Reply-To: <8DBDBDDC5CA54A81866EE5CA046FBDF3@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <8DBDBDDC5CA54A81866EE5CA046FBDF3@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > Programmers try to fool human interrogators: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/05/artificialintelligenceai Wow...Ultra HAL is less convincing than Eliza. -Dave From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 6 03:39:25 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:39:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Intelligent" computers put to the test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200810060406.m9646B6P021420@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > ...On Behalf Of > Spargemeister > Subject: Re: [ExI] "Intelligent" computers put to the test > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Olga Bourlin > > Programmers try to fool human interrogators: > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/05/artificialintelligenc > > eai > > Wow...Ultra HAL is less convincing than Eliza. > > -Dave Ja, that's what I thought too Dave. Eliza is what, well over thirty years old now? Old enough that she had already been forgotten by the early 90s, and a generation of college students came along who had never heard of her, although their parents had fun with her in college. Have we made no progress in all those years? Eliza fooled plenty of college students into thinking she was human. Consider how simple it would be to make an enormous lookup table using excel and filling in the table using text downloaded from a teen chat site. It wouldn't even require any tricky programming, just a huge lookup table. I could imagine generating a very convincing conversationalist, at least on the level one sees in a typical chat group. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 6 03:44:35 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:44:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] FW: "Intelligent" computers put to the test Message-ID: <200810060411.m964BLrK016698@andromeda.ziaspace.com> From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] ... > > >Wow...Ultra HAL is less convincing than Eliza. > > -Dave >Ja, that's what I thought too Dave. Eliza is what, well over thirty years old now? ...spike Nope. Over forty years old now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA How many here ever had a heart to microprocessor talk with Eliza? Come on now, don't be shy. I did. I told her things I would never feel comfortable telling a human. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Oct 6 15:07:57 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:07:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Your genome for $5000 References: <8DBDBDDC5CA54A81866EE5CA046FBDF3@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: According the New York Times by the second quarter of next year a company called "Complete Genetics" will sequence your ENTIRE genome for $5000. This appears to be a legitimate company, it has 46 million in venture capital and more important it has Leroy Hood working for them, and he is the Henry Ford of DNA sequencing. I knew this was coming but not this fast! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised it should be so cheap so fast because the cost has dropped by a factor of 10 every year for the last 4 years. That makes Moore's law look like crap. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Oct 6 15:46:37 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:46:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wheels within wheels Message-ID: http://neoconmccain.blogspot.com/ Like the famous pot growing case in SF, the jury was not permitted to hear the high level corruption that went on in this case. One judge reccused herself, the first prosecutor was removed for misconduct. This is just incidental. I will have a report up about the military conference on space based solar power in a few day. Keith From sondre-list at bjellas.com Mon Oct 6 17:35:36 2008 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:35:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Your genome for $5000 In-Reply-To: References: <8DBDBDDC5CA54A81866EE5CA046FBDF3@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: And 23andMe has dropped to $399! https://www.23andme.com/ It used to be $1000, not sure how long they have had their service available, but I think that's a price drop of 60% in one year. "23andMe was founded in April 2006 by Linda Avey and Anne Wojcicki" I don't think they've been sequensing since 2006, either way, it's progress! - Sondre On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:07 PM, John K Clark wrote: > According the New York Times by the second quarter of next year a company > called "Complete Genetics" will sequence your ENTIRE genome for $5000. This > appears to be a legitimate company, it has 46 million in venture capital and > more important it has Leroy Hood working for them, and he is the Henry Ford > of DNA sequencing. > > I knew this was coming but not this fast! I suppose I shouldn't > be surprised it should be so cheap so fast because the cost has dropped by > a factor of 10 every year for the last 4 years. That makes Moore's law look > like crap. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 6 18:31:31 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 10/5/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I suspect this bailout solution will solve nothing, > for it leaves in place > > the root cause: government requirements on banks to > give out what they > > already know are bad loans. I find plenty of good > explanations in the > > internet commentary, but almost nothing in the > mainstream press. Yes, and all the panicked sheep that are selling off their stocks at ridiculous losses and buying Treasury Bills at pitifully low interest rates are fools because they are rewarding the government for the stupid, corrupt, and self-serving policies that got us here in the first place. The U.S. stockmarket will outlive the U.S. government because the whole world has a stake in our markets but most countries would not shed a tear for our government. > Why not simply admit that boom/bust cycles are a natural > part of any > market system? Leave things alone, and there will be a > depression. In > a decade or two when people have forgotten about 2008 > they'll start > bidding up the price of shares and property, banks will > start lending > again to get a slice of the long-awaited recovery or risk > falling > behind and being taken over by more adventurous players, > high-regulation governments and central banks will be under > pressure > to loosen things up in the interests of boosting economic > activity, > and the whole thing will start again. I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but it won't last that long. Great Depressions are no longer possible because the markets and everything else react far too quickly to any bit of information in the age of the Internet. What others call a depression, I call a white-sale on blue-chip stocks. And my only regret is that I don't have the money to go on a wallstreet shopping spree. Besides I have other investment priorities at the moment. Fear is useless *after* the bubble bursts because it is too late to sell. Stuart LaForge "See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss."- Friedrich Nietzsche From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Oct 6 20:06:44 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:06:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Your genome for $5000 References: <8DBDBDDC5CA54A81866EE5CA046FBDF3@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <01B0F87E3D68493C87CD31572341276F@MyComputer> Sondre Bjell?s Wrote: > 23andMe has dropped to $399! https://www.23andme.com/ They would only sequence the genes, and only a very small number of them. What god smacked me is that "Complete Genetics" will sequence all the genes, and all the junk DNA, everything that made you be you on the day you were born, and they will do it for the price of a good flat panel TV. John K Clark From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Oct 6 21:00:10 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:00:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Religulous References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CD9EC6EC96741E086F74E6ECB72C38B@MyComputer> I just saw the movie Religulous and it's very funny, I highly recommend it. The film treated religion with all the respect it deserves. Do yourself a favor, see it. John K Clark From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 21:19:41 2008 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:19:41 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Religulous References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4CD9EC6EC96741E086F74E6ECB72C38B@MyComputer> Message-ID: <93AC92E7A9C84479A31AFABA19F34BB3@HeMMhome> John K Clark>> The film treated religion with all the respect it deserves. I love your sarcasm... From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 7 04:49:06 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <487239.20444.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 10/6/08, The Avantguardian wrote: > What others call a depression, I call a white-sale > on blue-chip stocks. And my only regret is that I don't > have the money to go on a wallstreet shopping spree. Besides > I have other investment priorities at the moment. Fear is > useless *after* the bubble bursts because it is too late to > sell. I just wanted to clarify that I am not suggesting one buy just *any* stock. Think about companies that produce goods or services that you think that even broke people will need, check their balance sheets, and ask yourself if you trust their management team. The first rule of any market place is "buyer beware". Stuart LaForge "See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss."- Friedrich Nietzsche From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 07:04:23 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:04:23 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/7 The Avantguardian : > I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but it won't last that long. Great Depressions are no longer possible because the markets and everything else react far too quickly to any bit of information in the age of the Internet. What others call a depression, I call a white-sale on blue-chip stocks. And my only regret is that I don't have the money to go on a wallstreet shopping spree. Besides I have other investment priorities at the moment. Fear is useless *after* the bubble bursts because it is too late to sell. How does getting information in seconds rather than hours or days, as in the 1920's, prevent a depression? In any case, even if the actual period of recession or depression doesn't last very long the memory of the severity of the crash will see to it that the prolonged bull market of the 1990's and 2000's won't be repeated for many years yet. -- Stathis Papaioannou From dagonweb at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 10:35:09 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:35:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I hope you are true, but I am personally somewhat concerned Romans would have said almost the same just before their empire collapsed. There are no guarantees, whatever the past performances suggest. Modern society is by no means inherently collapse-proof. > > I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but it won't last that > long. Great Depressions are no longer possible because the markets and > everything else react far too quickly to any bit of information in the age > of the Internet. What others call a depression, I call a white-sale on > blue-chip stocks. And my only regret is that I don't have the money to go on > a wallstreet shopping spree. Besides I have other investment priorities at > the moment. Fear is useless *after* the bubble bursts because it is too late > to sell. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 12:59:55 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 23:59:55 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <487239.20444.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <487239.20444.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/7 The Avantguardian : > I just wanted to clarify that I am not suggesting one buy just *any* stock. Think about companies that produce goods or services that you think that even broke people will need, check their balance sheets, and ask yourself if you trust their management team. The first rule of any market place is "buyer beware". Actually, this advice ignores the way the market is supposed to function. Since everyone has access to the same information, the "bad" companies will be discounted and the "good" companies will have a premium, so that the expected gain remains equal. If there were a discrepancy, and a stock was seen as particularly bad value or particularly good value, the market would very quickly adjust the price to reflect this. The only way to beat the market is to have special information. This is why professional fund managers don't do any better at picking stocks than someone who chooses at random. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 13:41:23 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:41:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <487239.20444.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <580930c20810070641m6b7d266fsaaa4edeee4872a74@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The only way to beat the market is to have > special information. Yes. Or, at least, posthuman intuition and reaction time... :-) From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 7 13:56:25 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 06:56:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <580930c20810070641m6b7d266fsaaa4edeee4872a74@mail.gmail.com> References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <487239.20444.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <580930c20810070641m6b7d266fsaaa4edeee4872a74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> The only way to beat the market is to have >> special information. > > Yes. Or, at least, posthuman intuition and reaction time... :-) Yes. Or, a more effective broad synthesis of the likelihood function behind the bits of public information, which, if you think about it, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from what's normally considered "special" information. (Not to discount Stathis' very valid point.) - Jef From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 14:06:59 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 16:06:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <487239.20444.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <580930c20810070641m6b7d266fsaaa4edeee4872a74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20810070706h2b8707ccl9925fa124996a43f@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > Yes. Or, a more effective broad synthesis of the likelihood function > behind the bits of public information, which, if you think about it, > is at the opposite end of the spectrum from what's normally considered > "special" information. (Not to discount Stathis' very valid point.) In fact, what you might use to "beat the market" might be a broader (and more rapid!) synthesis of the likelihood function not of what is actually going to happen to the company, but of what is going to happen to the public, i.e., the market, as a consequence of the diffusion of public information as soon as they become public... In fact, insider information have value simply because they get you in advance information that is going to become public at a later stage or to influence data that are going to be made public at a later stage. Insider information that is going to remain secret forever and does not directly affect such data is of little use, unless you later diffuse it yourself... :-) Stefano Vaj From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Oct 7 15:04:44 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:04:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NBIC - CONTECS Final Report Message-ID: I was just reading "Converging Technologies and Their Impact on the Social Sciences and Humanities" (CONTECS) report (May 2008) and its views concerning the US NBIC directives on one hand and the European directives on the other. The report claims the US has a reductionist and technodeterministic approach, while the European approach claims to be transdiciplinary and concerned with society rather than human enhancement, per se. There is far more to the report than this observation. But I was wondering if anyone has read this report and what do you think about it? Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From scerir at libero.it Tue Oct 7 15:51:30 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:51:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] the spike (humour noir) References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4CD9EC6EC96741E086F74E6ECB72C38B@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001701c92894$9192fd10$7f094797@archimede> The volatility index (VIX) is designed to measure the volatility that options traders are expecting the stock market to experience over the subsequent 30 days. VIX is based on a complex formula that reflects the assumption that, other things being equal, options will trade for higher prices when expected volatility rises. VIX spiked this week as you can see here http://tinyurl.com/4o9eeo VIX wasn't available in the 9-11 days, because of that chaos. But I remember that one week after that tragedy it was less than 50. The present value of around 60 is very high indeed. From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Oct 7 16:23:06 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:23:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NBIC - CONTECS Final Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4420A39702CD4DF8921A541160439F6F@DFC68LF1> Bty, here are the links and my thoughts: Converging Technologies US report http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/ CONTECS Euro Final Report http://www.contecs.fraunhofer.de/ The CONTECS report was not visionary (as G. said) but a response to the US report in analyzing its substance/claims. I enjoyed reading it. I wasn't looking for visionary ideas - I have been around them for decades. I wanted as close to an objective analysis as possible and I think CONTECS delivered on this point. I found that it valued the US report and was attempting to discover a place for Europe in the NBIC arena. Even though it mentioned transhumanist on one hand, which surprised me, and the precautionary principle on the other, it did not diss Transhumanism or human performance enhancements -- it simply claims social issues of greater value. In sum, I found CONTECS a weak means for Europe to get in the game and to piece-meal out an area which it can claim as territory and a knowledge source. I was impressed that (even though it said US report was reductionist, etc. and didn't want to be bothered with Transhumanism), it did not ignore NBIC and found substantial value in it -- enough to compete for knowledge/evidence/value/. Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 10:05 AM To: 'ExI chat list'; extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com; 'World Transhumanist Association Discussion List' Subject: [ExI] NBIC - CONTECS Final Report I was just reading "Converging Technologies and Their Impact on the Social Sciences and Humanities" (CONTECS) report (May 2008) and its views concerning the US NBIC directives on one hand and the European directives on the other. The report claims the US has a reductionist and technodeterministic approach, while the European approach claims to be transdiciplinary and concerned with society rather than human enhancement, per se. There is far more to the report than this observation. But I was wondering if anyone has read this report and what do you think about it? Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: att7340a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 17:05:58 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:05:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Your genome for $5000 In-Reply-To: References: <8DBDBDDC5CA54A81866EE5CA046FBDF3@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <200810071205.58246.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 06 October 2008, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > And 23andMe has dropped to $399! They're doing SNPs. There's a difference. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 7 21:15:03 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits Message-ID: <948572.17328.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > How does getting information in seconds rather than hours > or days, as > in the 1920's, prevent a depression? Because the distinction between money and information is becoming blurred. The wealth that the U.S. recently lost never really existed to begin with except in people's minds. Consider the following example: Suppose that there is an economy composed of three people Alice, Bob, and Carrol. Alice has the only dollar in the economy. Fiscal year 1 passes and Alice being the only one with any wealth clutches it tightly. At the end of year 1, the GDP of this economy is $1.00 and per capita GDP is $0.33. Now in year 2, Alice pays Bob the dollar to fix her toaster. Bob then pays Carrol the dollar for a cup of coffee. And Carrol pays Alice the dollar for a deep tissue massage. At the end of year 2, Alice is still the wealthiest of the three but the GDP of the their economy is now $3.00, their per capita GDP is $1.00, and there was still ever only one dollar in the economy. What happened? > In any case, even > if the actual > period of recession or depression doesn't last very > long the memory of > the severity of the crash will see to it that the prolonged > bull > market of the 1990's and 2000's won't be > repeated for many years yet. I doubt either bull or bear markets will last for more than a year or two nowadays, but there is occasionally *real* wealth added to the economy and that does steadily grow with time. And the real wealth is not affected by delusions of poverty or prosperity. Stuart LaForge "See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss."- Friedrich Nietzsche From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 7 22:22:53 2008 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits Message-ID: <835465.75456.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > The wealth that the U.S. recently lost never really existed to begin with > except in people's minds. Suppose that there is an economy composed of > three people > Alice, Bob, and Carrol. Alice has the only dollar in the > economy. Fiscal year 1 passes and Alice being the only one > with any wealth clutches it tightly. At the end of year 1, > the GDP of this economy is $1.00 and per capita GDP is > $0.33. > > Now in year 2, Alice pays Bob the dollar to fix her > toaster. Bob then pays Carrol the dollar for a cup of > coffee. And Carrol pays Alice the dollar for a deep tissue > massage. At the end of year 2, Alice is still the wealthiest > of the three but the GDP of the their economy is now $3.00, > their per capita GDP is $1.00, and there was still ever only > one dollar in the economy. > > What happened? What happened? Well... 1) Alice got a fixed toaster, 2) Bob got a cup of coffee, and 3) Carroll got a deep tissue massage. These events did not happen only "in people's minds". They really happened, and they made people's lives better. It was a good year for Alice, Bob and Carroll, just as your economic statistics suggest. -gts From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 8 00:34:22 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:04:22 +1130 Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <835465.75456.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <835465.75456.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0810071734h535afcbfmaf52a32ecdd2d707@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/8 gts : >> The wealth that the U.S. recently lost never really existed to begin with >> except in people's minds. Suppose that there is an economy composed of >> three people > >> Alice, Bob, and Carrol. Alice has the only dollar in the >> economy. Fiscal year 1 passes and Alice being the only one >> with any wealth clutches it tightly. At the end of year 1, >> the GDP of this economy is $1.00 and per capita GDP is >> $0.33. >> >> Now in year 2, Alice pays Bob the dollar to fix her >> toaster. Bob then pays Carrol the dollar for a cup of >> coffee. And Carrol pays Alice the dollar for a deep tissue >> massage. At the end of year 2, Alice is still the wealthiest >> of the three but the GDP of the their economy is now $3.00, >> their per capita GDP is $1.00, and there was still ever only >> one dollar in the economy. >> >> What happened? > > What happened? Well... > > 1) Alice got a fixed toaster, > 2) Bob got a cup of coffee, and > 3) Carroll got a deep tissue massage. > > These events did not happen only "in people's minds". They really happened, and they made people's lives better. > > It was a good year for Alice, Bob and Carroll, just as your economic statistics suggest. > > -gts Not quite. 1) Alice got her toaster fixed, and gave a deep tissue massage 2) Bob got a cup of coffee but had to fix a toaster 3) Carroll got a deep tissue massage but had to make a cup of coffee So what does that gdp measure? Nothing absolute, just that there is activity. In fact, just that there is dollar measurable activity. Before they were trading the dollar around for these things, what were they doing? My bet is that they were still doing these things, just without involving the dollar. Involving that dollar isn't generating anything. It may very well be skewing Alice, Bob and Carroll's activity, however. Similarly, I've wondered if the growth of the "service economy" in recent years hasn't actually been growth at all. As it has grown, and more of us are working more hours for dollars, we have simultaneously been bemoaning the death of volunteerism, which is really an aspect of the sharing economy. Is it actually a gain when someone decides to stop volunteering at the local school canteen, or looking after their sick grandma, in favour of a job at Starbucks? On a large part of the rest of the service economy, how much of what is done is actually useful? When Carroll makes you a coffee and you pay for it, is that really a productive use of Carroll's time? Or, is it that we have great swathes of people displaced out of manufacturing, agriculture, what have you, who now are taking part in a giant make work program, generated out of the creative workers having enough money to pay other people to do things for them that they could do themselves and don't really need anyway, and those other people having no alternative? Comparative Advantage would say this is fine, but it begs the question at some point, do the activities undertaken by the less competitive parties need doing at all? Or are they just materializing out of thin air because the system needs everyone to be doing something? I posit that the service economy is actually hiding the fact that the majority of people in the west are now unemployable in any productive sense. That the economy is structured such that we can still consume massive amounts of products, while contributing nothing of substance, is probably what underlies the current financial crisis, and implies deep sustained crisis. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Oct 8 05:25:36 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:25:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Brin-l Digest, Vol 402, Issue 1 Message-ID: <1223443828_2108@s8.cableone.net> I found this amusing. Keith >From: "Doug Pensinger" > >Subject: Post Turtle > >While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, who's hand >was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a >conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to >Palin and her bid. > >The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Palin is a 'Post Turtle'." > >Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'Post >Turtle' was. > >The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road you >come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'Post >Turtle'." > >The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he >continued to explain. "You know she didn't get up there by herself, >she don't belong up there, she don't know what to do while she's up >there, and you just wonder what kind of dummy put her up there to >begin with." From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Oct 8 09:18:56 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:18:56 +1100 Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <948572.17328.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <948572.17328.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/8 The Avantguardian : > I doubt either bull or bear markets will last for more than a year or two nowadays, but there is occasionally *real* wealth added to the economy and that does steadily grow with time. And the real wealth is not affected by delusions of poverty or prosperity. It's a pity that people aren't rewarded in proportion to their contribution to real wealth. I wouldn't mind if those unable to work, or even those who just don't want to work, were given enough to sustain a basic lifestyle, but I don't like it when someone like Richard Fuld, the former CEO of Lehman Brothers, "earns" hundreds of millions of dollars while producing nothing. -- Stathis Papaioannou From sondre-list at bjellas.com Wed Oct 8 11:17:54 2008 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:17:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Your genome for $5000 In-Reply-To: <200810071205.58246.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <8DBDBDDC5CA54A81866EE5CA046FBDF3@patrick4ezsk6z> <200810071205.58246.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: I know there's a difference and thanks for pointing it out. One concern I have, what rights do I have on the information these services generate? Can I export my genome as a file that I can backup? Will genome-services be interop? So 23andme maps 10 million SNPs, while Complete Genome will map 3 billion base pairs? Should I go ahead and use money on 23andme to get my whole family tree on there (before my grandparents becomes dust), or wait until this Complete Genome get's started and drop their prices? - Sondre On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Monday 06 October 2008, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > > And 23andMe has dropped to $399! > > They're doing SNPs. There's a difference. > > - Bryan > ________________________________________ > http://heybryan.org/ > Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html > irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Oct 8 22:18:33 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:18:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810071734h535afcbfmaf52a32ecdd2d707@mail.gmail.co m> References: <835465.75456.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0810071734h535afcbfmaf52a32ecdd2d707@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> At 05:34 PM 10/7/2008, Emlyn wrote: >I posit that the service economy is actually hiding the fact that the >majority of people in the west are now unemployable in any productive >sense. That the economy is structured such that we can still consume >massive amounts of products, while contributing nothing of substance, >is probably what underlies the current financial crisis, and implies >deep sustained crisis. Having been here when I have been talking about the space based solar power project I am sure you can appreciate just how hard it is to work up interest in producing real value. I have yet to get someone to go over the numbers. Or if they have, they didn't tell me about it. Keith From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 22:54:36 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 10/8/08, hkhenson wrote: > Having been here when I have been talking about the space > based solar > power project I am sure you can appreciate just how hard it > is to > work up interest in producing real value. > > I have yet to get someone to go over the numbers. Or if > they have, > they didn't tell me about it. I did and I agree with your numbers. They are just too big and scary for even charitable billionaires to stomach. The only thing close to that mass that we have successfully put into space is the ISS and everybody hates it. Maybe you could figure out a way to recycle that monstrousity into a powersat. Stuart LaForge "See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss."- Friedrich Nietzsche From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 03:42:44 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:12:44 +1130 Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> References: <835465.75456.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0810071734h535afcbfmaf52a32ecdd2d707@mail.gmail.com> <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0810082042l30e1ff7ai1a54e06cd7b0a7d3@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/9 hkhenson : > Having been here when I have been talking about the space based solar power > project I am sure you can appreciate just how hard it is to work up interest > in producing real value. > > I have yet to get someone to go over the numbers. Or if they have, they > didn't tell me about it. > > Keith I would have, Keith, but I don't have the skills, sorry. Probably that's true of nearly everyone! -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 9 05:22:42 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:22:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A critical book you should all read Message-ID: <1223530046_8128@s7.cableone.net> _Here Comes Everybody_ by Clay Shirky. Does anyone on this list have a personal connection to Clay? I would really like to talk to him. I am not sure his insights would allow social engineering, but the should keep us from being surprised at how things develop. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 9 05:19:21 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:19:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> At 03:54 PM 10/8/2008, Stuart wrote: >--- On Wed, 10/8/08, hkhenson wrote: > > > Having been here when I have been talking about the space > > based solar > > power project I am sure you can appreciate just how hard it > > is to > > work up interest in producing real value. > > > > I have yet to get someone to go over the numbers. Or if > > they have, > > they didn't tell me about it. > >I did and I agree with your numbers. That's not good. At least one of those number is incorrect. >They are just too big and scary for even charitable billionaires to >stomach. The only thing close to that mass that we have successfully >put into space is the ISS and everybody hates it. Maybe you could >figure out a way to recycle that monstrousity into a powersat. The big economic factor is the lift to GEO. There are at least three ways to get the cost below the critical $100/kg figure. A moving cable space elevator would do it. That seems to be the lowest cost, capital expense plus 15 cents for the energy. We don't have the cable yet. The next best seems to be my pop up an push version. The problem is the laser which at $10 a watt would run some $80 billion. Still, it lifts 1 million tons, a billion kg to GEO at a yearly cost of $8 billion plus the rocket lift to 260 miles. The whole cost looks to be maybe $50/kg. The most expensive approach that still gets in under $100/kg involves a space elevator that ends about an earth radius from the surface. The lower stress means it can be constructed of existing materials. Sub orbital rockets go up to the end of the tether, latch on and are wenched up to GEO. I am told it needs 24% of the energy to go into LEO, but have not independently calculated it. At the conference in Orlando Charles Miller mentioned to me how he thought the project could be funded. In retrospect his idea is obvious. There seems to be convergence on a method to finance the project. I don't want to make it public before we are sure the numbers we set are enough to get the job done. Keith Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 9 05:32:52 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:32:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810082042l30e1ff7ai1a54e06cd7b0a7d3@mail.gmail.co m> References: <835465.75456.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0810071734h535afcbfmaf52a32ecdd2d707@mail.gmail.com> <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <710b78fc0810082042l30e1ff7ai1a54e06cd7b0a7d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1223530656_7352@s6.cableone.net> At 08:42 PM 10/8/2008, Emlyn wrote: >2008/10/9 hkhenson : > > Having been here when I have been talking about the space based solar power > > project I am sure you can appreciate just how hard it is to work > up interest > > in producing real value. > > > > I have yet to get someone to go over the numbers. Or if they have, they > > didn't tell me about it. > > > > Keith > >I would have, Keith, but I don't have the skills, sorry. Probably >that's true of nearly everyone! Hey guys, this stuff is simple addition and multiplication with a little division thrown in. Figure a year as 8000 hours. so penny a kWh gives you $80/yr revenue. If you pay off the investment in ten years that means $80/year x10 years is $800. That's the amount you can spend per kW if you want power at penny a kWh. Everyone follow this? Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Oct 9 14:07:57 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:07:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A critical book you should all read In-Reply-To: <1223530046_8128@s7.cableone.net> References: <1223530046_8128@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:22 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > _Here Comes Everybody_ by Clay Shirky. > > Does anyone on this list have a personal connection to Clay? I would really > like to talk to him. > > I am not sure his insights would allow social engineering, but the should > keep us from being surprised at how things develop. The book's key idea, that the economics of the web -- the decreasing cost of increasing connections in terms of increasingly fine-grained similarities -- promotes increasingly synergistic collaborations, should be nothing new to denizens of the Extropy list. What I find more telling, and ironic, is that despite the book's message and the already rapid rise in popularity of electronic editions of many **other** books, this author has chosen to **restrict** dissemination to hardcover dead-tree mode. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but one would do well to consider any message within the broader context. - Jef From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 9 16:13:11 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:13:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> Why is it so critical to get the lift to GEO for power sat parts down under $100/kg? For a first pass analysis, power plant capital should be repaid in 10 years by power sales. The capital cost per kW is rectenna cost plus power sat parts cost plus (mass of power sat parts in kg/kW x lift cost in dollars/kg) The main cost of rectennas is the inverters. PC power supplies are about 1/3 kW and cost around $20. So a first pass estimate of the rectenna per kW is $60 plus $140 for the antenna, poles to hold it up and wiring to collect the power. Most of the mass of a power sat is the structure to keep it facing the sun. Being agnostic about PV vs rotating machines, we have $$600 to spend for parts and lift cost. 4kg/kW is fairly close to the estimates people have been using. So if the lift cost is $100.kg, $400 is used to get the parts to GEO. That leaves $200/kW to buy the parts. At this resolution, a year is considered 8000 hours, 80,000 hours for ten years. So a penny a kWh would generate $800 income over ten years--paying for the capital equipment. It is worth considering what power cost as you raise the lift cost. For example, at the current cost to GEO of about $20,000/kg, an installed kW would cost about $80,000 and the cost per kWh would be a dollar to pay this off in ten years. Zero lift cost only cuts the price of power in half compared to $100/kg. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 17:32:54 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:32:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:13 PM, hkhenson wrote: > So a penny a kWh would generate $800 income over ten years--paying for the > capital equipment. > > It is worth considering what power cost as you raise the lift cost. > > For example, at the current cost to GEO of about $20,000/kg, an installed kW > would cost about $80,000 and the cost per kWh would be a dollar to pay this > off in ten years. > Zero lift cost only cuts the price of power in half compared to $100/kg. > This sounds a tad simplistic to me. You have to include the cost of the capital invested. i.e. pay interest on the money borrowed to invest in this venture. or a share in the profits of the business to the investors. The returns generated have to be discounted for inflation. Though the price of the power sold will possibly increase in line with inflation, depending on demand and competing alternatives. I doubt if many venture investors will be happy to suffer losses for ten years before turning a profit. They could be dead by then, or the company might go bust. I probably wouldn't invest in solar panels for my house until the payoff period was under five years. BillK From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Oct 9 17:11:13 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:11:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:13 AM, hkhenson wrote: > Why is it so critical to get the lift to GEO for power sat parts down under > $100/kg? Many of my initial questions are addressed here: For me, the biggest question not adequately addressed has to do with the extended ramifications of essentially single-point dependency on a particular geopolitical power in control of a major energy source. - Jef From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 19:35:40 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits Message-ID: <773389.716.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Dagon Gmail wrote: > I hope you are true, but I am personally somewhat concerned > Romans would > have said almost the same just before their empire > collapsed. There are no > guarantees, whatever the past performances suggest. Modern > society is by > no means inherently collapse-proof. Neither are the stars of heaven. But Rome was not built in a day and did not fall overnight. When it did finally fall, the Romans didn't all up and die, they just became Italians. Roman coin continued to be accepted for centuries. And everything that was Rome got recycled into modern civilization: republics, corporations, legal counsel, etc. But the U.S. is still a brawny, brash, and impetuous youth in the way of nation-states. All that happened was that we got drunk off of oil, ate some bad food, and started a brawl when we should have been doing our homework. Once the hangover wears-off, we will get our act together, apologize for our rude behavior, and start *creating wealth* again. If we want the market to go back up, all we need to do let down our guard a little and start buying stock and other things again whilest scrupulously avoiding 'toxic assetts'. I remind you of the words of Franklin Delanore Roosevelt, "All we have to fear is fear itself". Furthermore we need to get busy taking that dent out of the Manhattan skyline or these guys may rise from the grave and *bitch slap* us all: http://picasaweb.google.com/Dr.Tanmay.Patil/GreatestPhotographsOfAllTime#5110819199821346482 Stuart LaForge "Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up." - Solomon From jrd1415 at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 20:29:14 2008 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:29:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Google funding opportunity In-Reply-To: <176453.83216.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <176453.83216.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > http://www.project10tothe100.com/ > > Basically, they're looking for ideas that will help a lot of > people. > Given the odds (and given as I suspect most > serious world-changing R&D proposals will be dismissed out > of hand as "impossible" or "impractical", with evidence to the > contrary ignored), I doubt we'll wind up "competing" for the < prize money in any serious sense. Normally, Adrian, I'd agree with you re the pessimistic default presumption, but we're dealing with Google culture here, not your standard tired, conventional, corporate old boy fossil culture. So I think there's maybe more room for optimism. Best, Jeff Davis "You are what you think." Jeff Davis From wingcat at pacbell.net Thu Oct 9 20:38:38 2008 From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Google funding opportunity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <819886.74231.qm@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 10/9/08, Jeff Davis wrote: > Normally, Adrian, I'd agree with you re the pessimistic > default > presumption, but we're dealing with Google culture > here, not your > standard tired, conventional, corporate old boy fossil > culture. So I > think there's maybe more room for optimism. Well, that's certainly possible in the first round, but the second round is open to public voting. Anything that doesn't spell its message out simply is probably doomed. (I wonder about the chances of any entry that does not have an "optional" YouTube video attached, for example.) From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 9 21:39:14 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:39:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1223588639_11101@S4.cableone.net> At 10:11 AM 10/9/2008, Jef wrote: >On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:13 AM, hkhenson wrote: > > Why is it so critical to get the lift to GEO for power sat parts down under > > $100/kg? > >Many of my initial questions are addressed here: > > > >For me, the biggest question not adequately addressed has to do with >the extended ramifications of essentially single-point dependency on a >particular geopolitical power in control of a major energy source. What assumptions are you making to create this model? There is zero risk the sun will stop shining. The rectennas are near power loads. The US alone will take hundreds of power sats so failure of a few isn't going to be a major problem. They have to be repairable since flying rocks will hit them once in a while. They could certainly be taken out with a large number of very large nuclear weapons, but that's the same as all power systems on the ground. While there are physical reasons that some versions of the million ton per year (or more) materials pipeline might be a single facility, there is no reason I can see why the constructed power sats should not be owned by diverse organizations from national governments to electric companies. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 9 21:57:22 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:57:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1223589727_11975@s7.cableone.net> At 10:32 AM 10/9/2008, you wrote: >On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:13 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > > So a penny a kWh would generate $800 income over ten years--paying for the > > capital equipment. > > > > It is worth considering what power cost as you raise the lift cost. > > > > For example, at the current cost to GEO of about $20,000/kg, an > installed kW > > would cost about $80,000 and the cost per kWh would be a dollar to pay this > > off in ten years. > > Zero lift cost only cuts the price of power in half compared to $100/kg. > > > >This sounds a tad simplistic to me. > >You have to include the cost of the capital invested. >i.e. pay interest on the money borrowed to invest in this venture. >or a share in the profits of the business to the investors. Of course. I have seen full analysis using borrowed money as well as capital and assuming such things as 30 year paybacks. For a rough analysis you can assume a ten year payback and get essentially the same results. >The returns generated have to be discounted for inflation. >Though the price of the power sold will possibly increase in line with >inflation, depending on demand and competing alternatives. The model assumes a very steep deflation in what is charged for power. The reasons is that in any business you want to hit the max profit sweet spot on the price elasticity curve. Down around a penny a kWh (bulk, off peak or dedicated) there is a huge demand for energy to make synthetic gasoline and other liquid fuels. World energy demand at present is about 15 TW, most of that in fossil fuels. One of the people at the recent conference proposes installing a TW/year for the next 30 years. >I doubt if many venture investors will be happy to suffer losses for >ten years before turning a profit. They could be dead by then, or the >company might go bust. The current time to develop a major oil find is in that range, 7-10 years. But the point is well taken. The faster this can be done the more likely it is to attract capital. We have been talking about a scheme similar to that Germany used on PV installations to jump start building power sats. I.e., pass a law requiring utilities to buy a limited amount of power from space at a rather high price, then a much larger amount at a considerably lower price. >I probably wouldn't invest in solar panels for my house until the >payoff period was under five years. It depends to some extent what the payoff is. If you can make space based solar power for a penny a kWh and sell it for a dollar, the profit should quickly repay a considerable up front cost. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Oct 9 22:15:30 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:15:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: <1223588639_11101@S4.cableone.net> References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> <1223588639_11101@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:39 PM, hkhenson wrote: > At 10:11 AM 10/9/2008, Jef wrote: >> For me, the biggest question not adequately addressed has to do with >> the extended ramifications of essentially single-point dependency on a >> particular geopolitical power in control of a major energy source. > > What assumptions are you making to create this model? > > There is zero risk the sun will stop shining. This wasn't any concern of mine, but thanks for the reassurance... > The rectennas are near power loads. The US alone will take hundreds of > power sats so failure of a few isn't going to be a major problem. They have > to be repairable since flying rocks will hit them once in a while. Of course there are multiple possible failure modes, and if you'd included sabotage it might have hinted in the direction of my concern... > They could certainly be taken out with a large number of very large nuclear > weapons, but that's the same as all power systems on the ground. I imagine kinetic modes of (threatened) destruction would be nearly as effective, without the outright provocation entailed by a nuclear attack. My point was to the more subtle and insidious effects of, e.g., ostensibly unforeseeable "denial of service" events when a single agency holds the keys. Space is presently a militarily strategic "higher ground" which I don't imagine being easily surrendered to the "electric companies." > While there are physical reasons that some versions of the million ton per > year (or more) materials pipeline might be a single facility, there is no > reason I can see why the constructed power sats should not be owned by > diverse organizations from national governments to electric companies. Okey-dokey then. - Jef From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 22:14:13 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Google funding opportunity In-Reply-To: <819886.74231.qm@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <116166.56728.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 10/9/08, Adrian Tymes wrote: > From: Adrian Tymes > Subject: Re: [ExI] Google funding opportunity > To: "ExI chat list" > Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008, 1:38 PM > --- On Thu, 10/9/08, Jeff Davis > wrote: > > Normally, Adrian, I'd agree with you re the > pessimistic > > default > > presumption, but we're dealing with Google culture > > here, not your > > standard tired, conventional, corporate old boy fossil > > culture. So I > > think there's maybe more room for optimism. > > Well, that's certainly possible in the first round, but > the second round is open to public voting. Anything > that doesn't spell its message out simply is probably > doomed. (I wonder about the chances of any entry that > does not have an "optional" YouTube video > attached, for > example.) Have you guys read the terms of service for this particular contest? Check out this link, especially the comments: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/project_10100_google_wants_to.php excerpt: "Great idea, only the idea submitter gets no credit or opportunity to be a part of it. They get "good karma" as Google describes it." Stuart LaForge "Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up." -- Solomon From mlatorra at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 23:02:00 2008 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:02:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A critical book you should all read In-Reply-To: <1223530046_8128@s7.cableone.net> References: <1223530046_8128@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: <9ff585550810091602v5858e8d5l61545cf21c91335b@mail.gmail.com> Hi Keith, If you're on Twitter, you can follow Clay at @cshirkyor go to http://www.Shirky.com and email clay at shirky.com Regards, Mike LaTorra On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:22 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > _Here Comes Everybody_ by Clay Shirky. > > Does anyone on this list have a personal connection to Clay? I would > really like to talk to him. > > I am not sure his insights would allow social engineering, but the should > keep us from being surprised at how things develop. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > 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 kanzure at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 23:58:21 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 18:58:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Your genome for $5000 In-Reply-To: References: <8DBDBDDC5CA54A81866EE5CA046FBDF3@patrick4ezsk6z> <200810071205.58246.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200810091902.03395.kanzure@gmail.com> On Wednesday 08 October 2008, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > One?concern I have,?what rights do?I have on the information these > services generate? Can I export my genome as a file that I can > backup? Will genome-services be interop? I know that decodeme gives out CSV files. They offer a service similar to 23andme. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 01:53:47 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:53:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <62c14240810091853i728506bbn77b3af5f8cff5437@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:19 AM, hkhenson wrote: > stress means it can be constructed of existing materials. Sub orbital > rockets go up to the end of the tether, latch on and are wenched up to GEO. But where are you going to get the space wenches? Oh... you meant "winched" - probably more feasible in the long run, but your proposal might have had more impact... From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Oct 10 04:00:07 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:00:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> <1223588639_11101@S4.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1223611492_13629@s7.cableone.net> At 03:15 PM 10/9/2008, Jef wrote: >On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:39 PM, hkhenson wrote: > > At 10:11 AM 10/9/2008, Jef wrote: > > >> For me, the biggest question not adequately addressed has to do with > >> the extended ramifications of essentially single-point dependency on a > >> particular geopolitical power in control of a major energy source. > > > > What assumptions are you making to create this model? > > > > There is zero risk the sun will stop shining. > >This wasn't any concern of mine, but thanks for the reassurance... > > > The rectennas are near power loads. The US alone will take hundreds of > > power sats so failure of a few isn't going to be a major > problem. They have > > to be repairable since flying rocks will hit them once in a while. > >Of course there are multiple possible failure modes, and if you'd >included sabotage it might have hinted in the direction of my >concern... The rectennas are as vulnerable as any other part of the power system, but being ten km across and highly modular it would be hard to take out much of one by sabotage. The power sats are in GEO, 36,000 km out there. To the best of my knowledge nobody has yet physically attacked a communication satellite. Not to say it couldn't be done, but it wouldn't be a casual effort by a bunch of fanatics. > > They could certainly be taken out with a large number of very large nuclear > > weapons, but that's the same as all power systems on the ground. > >I imagine kinetic modes of (threatened) destruction would be nearly as >effective, without the outright provocation entailed by a nuclear >attack. My point was to the more subtle and insidious effects of, >e.g., ostensibly unforeseeable "denial of service" events when a >single agency holds the keys. Space is presently a militarily >strategic "higher ground" which I don't imagine being easily >surrendered to the "electric companies." You have put your finger on one of the more interesting problems. Oddly it's one that military people are most reluctant to discuss. Kind of like the 800 pound gorilla in the room nobody will mention. What may be the second least expensive way to get cargo into space is "pop up and push" with an ablation laser. Energy wise a 4 GW laser is equal to 1 ton TNT/sec. It would boil 480 gallons of water/sec. At 240 pounds per person and 8 pounds to the gallon, there is enough power in a 4 GW beam to boil all the water in 16 people in a second. At least you don't have to worry about eye protection! Used for propulsion the beam power would be focused in about 8 sq meters or a power density up to boiling 60 gal/sec/m^2. A standing person considered as a 2 meter tall block massing 200kg would have an area of 1/10 square meter. So the beam would boil 6 gallons off the top of this block or 48 pounds. So being touched for a second with a 4 GW propulsion laser would *not* completely vaporize a person, but would boil them away down to mid chest . . . unless they were wearing their tin foil hat . . . . (Note to self, invest in companies that make tin foil hats.) A propulsion laser uses very high pulse intensity--like lasers used to reshape a person's eyes. It's possible not much heat damage would be done below where the beam blasted away flesh. Except from the pavement all around them being blasted into incandescent vapor. Any one of hundreds, then thousands, of multi GW power satellites can be converted to powering such a laser. Keith From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 10 04:19:21 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Fw: Re: Google funding opportunity Message-ID: <326724.33100.qm@web110410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > From: Anna Taylor > Subject: Re: [ExI] Google funding opportunity > To: wingcat at pacbell.net > Received: Thursday, October 9, 2008, 11:38 PM > --- On Thu, 10/9/08, Adrian Ty mes >> wrote: >> Well, that's certainly possible in the first >> round, but the second round is open to public voting. Really. What would make the second round winner the best? >> that doesn't spell its message out simply is probably >> doomed.( Really. If I don't get my message clear the second time around i'm doomed? :) >> I wonder about the chances of any entry that does not >> have an "optional" YouTube video attached, for example.) Well, I guess that someone that has had an "optional" YouYube video attached is doomed:) Just Curious Anna:) __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 10 05:02:38 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:02:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fw: Re: Google funding opportunity In-Reply-To: <326724.33100.qm@web110410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <326724.33100.qm@web110410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081009235801.02436248@satx.rr.com> At 09:19 PM 10/9/2008 -0700, Anna Taylor wrote: > >> wrote: > > >> Well, that's certainly possible in the first > >> round, but the second round is open to public voting. > >Really. What would make the second round winner the best? What? > >> that doesn't spell its message out simply is probably > >> doomed. > >Really. If I don't get my message clear the second time around i'm doomed? :) What? > >> I wonder about the chances of any entry that does not > >> have an "optional" YouTube video attached, for example.) > >Well, I guess that someone that has had an "optional" YouYube video >attached is doomed:) What? You're not Sarah Palin's syntax coach, by any chance? From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Oct 10 05:06:22 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 22:06:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: <1223611492_13629@s7.cableone.net> References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> <1223588639_11101@S4.cableone.net> <1223611492_13629@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: I wrote: >> >> For me, the biggest question not adequately addressed has to do with >> >> the extended ramifications of essentially single-point dependency on a >> >> particular geopolitical power in control of a major energy source. >> Of course there are multiple possible failure modes, and if you'd >> included sabotage it might have hinted in the direction of my >> concern... >> My point was to the more subtle and insidious effects of, >> e.g., ostensibly unforeseeable "denial of service" events when a >> single agency holds the keys. Space is presently a militarily >> strategic "higher ground" which I don't imagine being easily >> surrendered to the "electric companies." ----------------------------------- Keith wrote: > You have put your finger on one of the more interesting problems. Oddly > it's one that military people are most reluctant to discuss. Kind of like > the 800 pound gorilla in the room nobody will mention. > > What may be the second least expensive way to get cargo into space is "pop > up and push" with an ablation laser. Energy wise a 4 GW laser is equal to 1 > ton TNT/sec. It would boil 480 gallons of water/sec. At 240 pounds per > person and 8 pounds to the gallon, there is enough power in a 4 GW beam to > boil all the water in 16 people in a second. At least you don't have to > worry about eye protection! > > Used for propulsion the beam power would be focused in about 8 sq meters or > a power density up to boiling 60 gal/sec/m^2. A standing person considered > as a 2 meter tall block massing 200kg would have an area of 1/10 square > meter. So the beam would boil 6 gallons off the top of this block or 48 > pounds. > Any one of hundreds, then thousands, of multi GW power satellites can be > converted to powering such a laser. Thanks Keith for a fascinating glimpse into your mind! - Jef From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 10 05:10:42 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 22:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Fw: Re: Google funding opportunity In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081009235801.02436248@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <742594.14686.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 10/10/08, Damien Broderick wrote: > What? What part didn't you understand? Anna wrote: Really. If I don't get my message clear the second time around i'm doomed? :) > What? Again What? What does that mean? > You're not Sarah Palin's syntax coach, by any > chance? Highly Unlikely:) But please let me know what "what" meant. Anna __________________________________________________________________ Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/ From dagonweb at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 06:49:39 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:49:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <62c14240810091853i728506bbn77b3af5f8cff5437@mail.gmail.com> References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <62c14240810091853i728506bbn77b3af5f8cff5437@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ha ha ha that joke was so uplifiting, On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:19 AM, hkhenson wrote: > > stress means it can be constructed of existing materials. Sub orbital > > rockets go up to the end of the tether, latch on and are wenched up to > GEO. > > But where are you going to get the space wenches? > > Oh... you meant "winched" - probably more feasible in the long run, > but your proposal might have had more impact.. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Oct 10 11:23:03 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:23:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> <1223588639_11101@S4.cableone.net> <1223611492_13629@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: <1223638068_13479@s2.cableone.net> At 10:06 PM 10/9/2008, Jef wrote: >Keith wrote: snip > > Any one of hundreds, then thousands, of multi GW power satellites can be > > converted to powering such a laser. > >Thanks Keith for a fascinating glimpse into your mind! You should see me in a bad mood. I figured out how to reduced the effort of making plutonium and bombs to the point we could have the crips and the bloods armed with nukes. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/10/30/18253/301 Keith From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 12:35:09 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:35:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: <1223589727_11975@s7.cableone.net> References: <1223504597_2379@s8.cableone.net> <783639.32336.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1223529846_7566@S4.cableone.net> <1223569076_10376@s7.cableone.net> <1223589727_11975@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:57 PM, hkhenson wrote: > The current time to develop a major oil find is in that range, 7-10 years. > But the point is well taken. The faster this can be done the more likely > it is to attract capital. We have been talking about a scheme similar to > that Germany used on PV installations to jump start building power sats. > I.e., pass a law requiring utilities to buy a limited amount of power from > space at a rather high price, then a much larger amount at a considerably > lower price. > I would be very doubtful about time estimates for a huge project such as this. Humans do not have a good record with large scale developments. If you are talking about a whole nation project like the atom bomb development or the Moon Landing where cost and resources are unlimited, then maybe it could be done. (I could see China doing something like this in a few years time). Driving around the UK, it is not unusual to see notices like - Repairs to unsafe bridge - Delays expected for 30 months. Road widening - Delays expected until Autumn 2010. Even permanent notices like - Caution Queues Likely. (with no attempt to fix the cause of the queues). etc. etc. Don't get carried away by how quickly a web site and a nice PowerPoint show can be developed. Real world work takes much longer and is almost guaranteed to run late and be wildly over budget. . BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 10 19:30:28 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:30:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] arXiv paper on "cold fusion" and EM/weak interactions Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010142855.023d94b8@satx.rr.com> A Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Authors: Y.N. Srivastava, A. Widom, L. Larsen (Submitted on 1 Oct 2008) Abstract: In a series of papers, cited in the main body of the paper below, detailed calculations have been presented which show that electromagnetic and weak interactions can induce low energy nuclear reactions to occur with observable rates for a variety of processes. A common element in all these applications is that the electromagnetic energy stored in many relatively slow moving electrons can -under appropriate circumstances- be collectively transferred into fewer, much faster electrons with energies sufficient for the latter to combine with protons (or deuterons, if present) to produce neutrons via weak interactions. The produced neutrons can then initiate low energy nuclear reactions through further nuclear transmutations. The aim of this paper is to extend and enlarge upon various examples analyzed previously, present simplified order of magnitude estimates for each and to illuminate a common unifying theme amongst all of them. Subjects: Nuclear Theory (nucl-th); General Physics (physics.gen-ph) Cite as: arXiv:0810.0159v1 [nucl-th] Submission history From: Allan Widom [view email] [v1] Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:16:59 GMT (16kb) From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 10 21:04:00 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:04:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] more belated singularity mainstream Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010155934.023a8d68@satx.rr.com> But hey--if everyone'd been onto it 10 years ago, it wouldn't be a very interesting singularity: Towards tomorrow October 11, 2008 Brave and desolate new worlds emerge in creative contemplations of what lies ahead. Andrew Stephens wonders if we now face a future that cannot be foretold. IN THE 1960 CINEMA version of H.G. Wells' classic novel The Time Machine (1895), Australian actor Rod Taylor sits manfully astride his astonishing brass-and-wood contraption, watching the future flow past him like a sped-up film. War, peace, life and death mesmerise him but it is the wondrous lure of the unknown - so promising, so luminous - that draws him onwards. It is an enchanting place, the future. How many hours, days can be idly spent there, missing out on the present? It is so easy and inexpensive to visit, the place where fantasies and anxieties dwell - little wonder we invest so much emotion and, ironically, so much time in this seductive what-if zone. It beckons us on all levels - from reading nonsense astrology or considering tonight's dinner to planning for Melbourne's population boom or speculating about seismic shifts in climate or biotechnology. Yes, we are tethered to the future, even though it is always a mystery. But is it rapidly becoming an unimaginable place? Where once we confidently envisaged the world 100 years hence, even projecting five years ahead is now a difficult challenge. Those 1950s sci-fi visions of a grand future filled with domed cities, interplanetary colonies, flying cars and a utopian architecture that resembled, more than anything, the shopping mall are replaced by ... what? Now, such is the pace of exponentially accelerating technological change that the potential wonders and horrors in store are becoming incredibly difficult to foresee with any accuracy or clarity, let alone to imagine creatively - although artists, writers and scientists across various disciplines, I would suggest, have remained noticeably steadfast in this pursuit. The question is, will such creativity survive the future? Humanity as a going concern seems to be at higher risk the further we move into the 21st century. Only a few weeks ago, Harvard Medical School molecular biologist Jack Szostak was reported in Wired magazine as having built proto-cells that can "almost be called life" - the closest anyone has come to turning a sequence of chemicals into biological life, with replicating information inside them. What might be the implications - scientifically, culturally, theologically - of such God-like advances, especially if adapted to artificial intelligence? More troubling is the approaching "singularity", itself a subject of predictions. Also known among futurists as the "spike", the singularity is not some whimsical term that has wended its way out of Star Trek or Doctor Who into the real world. It is, rather, a term coined by scientists to describe the point at which unprecedented technological progress becomes so accelerated and so fused with highly intelligent computers that it will be virtually indistinguishable from magic. Imagine, for example, that one day mobile-phone technology will become so advanced that it is implanted in your cerebral cortex, making your SMS communications with other people a form of telepathy. Magic. Or imagine that artificial intelligences (thanks to perfected mapping of the human brain) will become so sophisticated that their ability to independently upgrade themselves will far outstrip the capacity of humans to compete. Will we be forced to upload our consciousnesses on to software, to merge cybernetically with the artificial lifeforms we have created? Or will we simply become obsolete? Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil wrote The Singularity is Near in 2005, claiming that we are fast approaching the moment when technological change will spin beyond our comprehension and control. Melbourne science-fiction writer and academic Damien Broderick explored similar ideas in The Spike (1997), in which he posited that post-humanity will arrive in our lifetimes, not in the inconceivably distant future. Of course, there is the chance that nuclear war, climate change, pandemics or some other catastrophe will plunge us into a new dark age of ignorance: the oil, food and water crises already besieging the planet may prevent us from reaching the "spike". We may regress. Perhaps we may even encounter an unpredictable scenario such as that in Alfonso Cuaron's electrifying film Children of Men (2006), which imagines the world in 2027, a couple of decades after humanity mysteriously and suddenly becomes infertile: utter chaos. While much has been written about the implications of technological advances, it is the impact on human culture, individuality and creativity that alarms and/or excites many artists, writers and scientists. Their role in imagining the future is crucial to our decisions about where we want to go as a species, in understanding what it is that constitutes our humanity - the age-old quest of the humanities, sciences; of the human race itself. One of those on the quest is speculative writer Sean Williams, who adores a good tale about the future - goodness knows he has written enough of them since becoming a full-time and internationally acclaimed sci-fi novelist more than a decade ago. "People do feel like we've overstepped some kind of boundary," says Williams, "and that we are teetering on the brink of falling over into the future, out of control. I don't know whether that feeling's been there before. It could be exciting: falling forward can de diving, it can be flying. But it can also be landing smack on your face." Williams has spent much time trying to imagine what the human centuries ahead will look like. Among his first books, Metal Fatigue (1996) and The Resurrected Man (1998) were set about 2060, while his latest, the Astropolis series (2007-08), leap forward 150,000 years. Of the two, he says, trying to plausibly imagine 2060 was by far the more difficult task because he had to relate it to current culture; 150,000 years hence, the world would be well beyond our imagining - so anything goes. "Science fiction is not so much about describing what the future will be like but describing plausible futures," says Williams. "Futures that feel as though they may evolve out of the present." A big believer in "passive research" (avidly reading New Scientist and various tech-head news feeds), Williams says the most important thing for him about imagining plausible futures is considering how real people might interact with technological advances. "If it was just a matter of charting technology, it would be easy. But (unpredictable) people come into the mix. There can be strange and wonderful and terrible results." Imagining such territory hasn't been restricted to sci-fi and fantasy writers, either: it has been telling to see how many writers of literary fiction have in recent years turned out remarkable works that are "speculative". Cormac McCarthy's desolately beautiful The Road (2006) and Jim Crace's slightly more leavened The Pesthouse (2007) envisage a devastated, burnt-out US whose decimated population either scavenges violently to survive or exists in medieval ignorance. Kazuo Ishiguro took a contrasting route with Never Let me Go (2005), in which the novel's young protagonists are human clones reared for organ harvesting, while Michel Houellebecq (The Possibility of an Island, 2006) and David Mitchell (Cloud Atlas, 2004) have offered more dystopian but equally plausible futures. Yet for all of these authors, the binding and common element to their work remains questioning the nature of humanity, the core of creativity and what it is to love and to be loved. Indeed - and this may be at the heart of that concern - one of the questions that continually surfaces when speculating about the future is what happens to human creativity and individuality when the expected fusion of flesh-and-blood with artificial intelligence finally takes place - or when we upload into new, organic, replaceable bodies that have been grown in labs. This scenario is dealt with magnificently in the Emmy award-winning television series Battlestar Galactica (2004-2008). The series (only superficially in the sci-fi genre) was described by New Yorker writer Nancy Franklin as timely and resonant in "bringing into play religion and religious fanaticism, global politics, terrorism, and questions about what it means to be human". In Galactica, the Cylons are artificial intelligences (but flesh and blood) who have evolved by themselves to be indistinguishable from the humans who initially created them as robot servants. The biological Cylons think, they bleed, they feel and love, they are individuals, they even have spiritual aspirations and moral dilemmas. They are creative thinkers. The only difference is that, on death, they can upload to new bodies. So what, then, is humanity? What is "soul" or individuality? Internationally acclaimed visual artist Patricia Piccinini has been working concertedly on these issues for at least a decade. Melburnians will well-remember her high-profile art work at Republic Tower in Lonsdale Street in 1999 - a woman holding a genetically modified rat with a human ear grafted to its back (called Protein Lattice). Her other big hit is now in the main space at the Bendigo Art Gallery - The Young Family (2002-03), a hyper-real life-sized sculpture of a pig-human mother reclining with suckling infants. Humans or animals? Piccinini, working at the frontier of science and technology, especially in the arenas of cloning and stem-cells, has also created car and truck "nuggets" (small sculptures that look like the panel-beaten offspring of automobiles), animal-motorcycles and silicon stem-cell pets that resemble sentient lumps of human flesh. Her latest work at Tolarno Galleries, such as The Stags (2008), continues the themes. Piccinini, in an interview last year published in (Tender) creatures, says tellingly that rather than science or bioethics, empathy is at the heart of her work. "I think if people are disturbed by my work it is because it asks questions about fundamental aspects of our existence - about our artificiality, about our animalness, about our responsibilities towards our creations, our children and our environment - and these questions should be easy to answer, but they are not . . . I love it when people realise that all this stuff is actually about our lives today." Piccinini's lab-created cutesy monsters might well have a place in the optimistic world of Freeman Dyson (author of The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet, 1999), who wrote in The New York Review of Books last year that "the domestication of biotechnology will dominate our lives during the next 50 years at least as much as the domestication of computers has dominated our lives during the previous 50 years". Dyson sings the praises of what wonders could come out of genetically modified creatures and plants, imagining new species of termite that could be engineered to chew up derelict automobiles instead of houses, "and new species of tree (that) could be engineered to convert carbon dioxide and sunlight into liquid fuels instead of cellulose". He even predicts that once domesticated biotechnology gets into the hands of "housewives and children", there will be an explosion of creativity, in which "designing genomes will be a personal thing, a new art form as creative as painting or sculpture". He also enthusiastically imagines a resurgence of green technology that will benefit not only the rich countries but poor villages, halting the migrations from regional areas to megacities. "I am not saying that the political acceptance of green technology will be quick or easy," he cautions. "I say only that green technology has enormous promise for preserving the balance of nature on this planet as well as for relieving human misery. Future generations of people raised from childhood with biotech toys and games will probably accept it more easily than we do. Nobody can predict how long it may take to try out the new technology in a thousand different ways and measure its costs and benefits." Geraldine Barlow and Kyla McFarlane, the curators of a new exhibition called The Ecologies Project at the Monash University Museum of Art, have also found a strong thread of optimism in the work they have brought together for their show, which examines the responses of artists to the urgent global search for ecological balance. One of the questions the Project artists ask, says Barlow, is whether we are going to be active in creating the future, or merely passively subject to it? Rather than hitting visitors over the head about sustainability and the future, these two women have tended more towards being "philosophically hopeful" in their curating choices. "Even at the end of things, whether at the black epicentre of the vortex, or where forests of burnt ash stand in place of living trees, we seek a new beginning - a path towards another place, other possibilities, new forms," they write in their catalogue, which references McCarthy's The Road. It is interesting, given these refreshingly optimistic takes, to look back at American futurist Alvin Toffler's seminal non-fiction book Future Shock (1970, written with his wife Heidi), and discover that their concerns were similar to ours 40 years later. They wrote then that we needed to focus on "the human side of tomorrow" rather than embracing a "harsh metallic note". They wanted, radically, to "tame" technology but didn't foresee the enthusiasms with which we would - and still do - embrace it all. Just take a look at a recent telecommunications company ad, where a young man getting ready to leave his apartment folds up (to the size of a cell phone) his flatscreen TV, DVD player, his laptop, books, CD collection and so on, putting them all into his pocket. Finally, he folds up his sleeping girlfriend and pockets her as well. The Tofflers may not have anticipated such potential consumer joys but they did worry about the environmental impact - and global warming. "Our technological powers increase but the side-effects and potential hazards escalate," they wrote. "We risk thermopollution of the oceans themselves, overheating them, destroying immeasurable quantities of marine life, perhaps even melting the polar icecaps." How prescient. For Kurzweil of the Singularity fame, the coming storm of change is something to embrace. He really wants to be a neo-human and is trying to make sure he lives to see the arrival of the singularity, taking about 200 vitamin and mineral supplements a day to extend his life (he is now 60). While describing the singularity as "a transforming event looming in the first half of the 21st century" that will revolutionise every institution and aspect of human life, from sexuality to spirituality, he says it will usher in an era where "there will be no distinction, post-singularity, between human and machine" or between physical and virtual reality. "If you wonder what will remain unequivocally human in such a world, it is simply this quality: ours is the species that inherently seeks to extend its physical and mental reach beyond current limitations." While he acknowledges critics' concerns that we will forfeit some vital aspect of our humanity, some subtlety of our biological qualities, in this new era, he is also frank that is is difficult to look beyond the event horizon. He, too - the futurist's futurist - finds it difficult to look ahead with clarity. And yet he is optimistic: "Although the singularity has many faces, its most important implication is this: our technology will match and then vastly exceed the refinement and suppleness of what we regard as the best of human traits." Creativity, he assures us, will be enhanced by our synthesis with our own creations. Therein, perhaps, lies the heart of it. For it is deeply human to create, to imagine and to construct, whether it's a would-be utopian city, a work of visionary art or an incredibly sophisticated computer program. But whether or not a mobile phone or a bio-engineered brain-enhancer is implanted in your post-human head along the way is a possibility that remains to be seen. Patricia Piccinini is at Tolarno Galleries until November 1. www.tolarnogalleries.com The Ecologies Project is at Monash University Museum of Art until November 22. www.monash.edu.au/muma From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 21:24:44 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:24:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] more belated singularity mainstream In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010155934.023a8d68@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010155934.023a8d68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > But hey--if everyone'd been onto it 10 years ago, it wouldn't be a very > interesting singularity: > > > > Towards tomorrow > October 11, 2008 > > Brave and desolate new worlds emerge in creative contemplations of what lies > ahead. Andrew Stephens wonders if we now face a future that cannot be > foretold. > Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil wrote The Singularity is Near in 2005, > claiming that we are fast approaching the moment when technological change > will spin beyond our comprehension and control. Melbourne science-fiction > writer and academic Damien Broderick explored similar ideas in The Spike > (1997), in which he posited that post-humanity will arrive in our lifetimes, > not in the inconceivably distant future. > Hmmm. So, it is over 11 years since you wrote 'The Spike'. Still optimistic? We have new toys since then, but has anything of much significance helped to bring the Spike any nearer? BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 10 21:37:58 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:37:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] more belated singularity mainstream In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010155934.023a8d68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010163152.0244dfb8@satx.rr.com> At 09:24 PM 10/10/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: > > writer and academic Damien Broderick explored similar ideas in The Spike > > (1997), in which he posited that post-humanity will arrive in our > lifetimes, > > not in the inconceivably distant future. > >Hmmm. So, it is over 11 years since you wrote 'The Spike'. 11 since I published it, 12 or so since I wrote it. How time flies when you're accelerating. >Still optimistic? Ya gotta laugh, you know? >We have new toys since then, but has anything of much significance >helped to bring the Spike any nearer? Moore's Observation still seems to be ticking away, and genome scanning just gets niftier every week. Of course, we'll all be going around in sackcloth and ashes for a few years now those bad people [insert names, political affiliations, economic opinions of choice] have screwed everything up again. Damien Broderick From mlatorra at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 21:47:11 2008 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:47:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] arXiv paper on "cold fusion" and EM/weak interactions In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010142855.023d94b8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010142855.023d94b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9ff585550810101447y71148f2dte87251b5639f3d0b@mail.gmail.com> And here's the Conclusion of that paper: "The analysis presented in this paper leads us to conclude that realistic possibilities exist for designing LENR devices capable of producing "green energy", that is production of excess heat at low cost without lethal nuclear waste, dangerous gamma rays or unwanted neutrons. The necessary tools and the essential theoretical know-how to manufacture such devices appear to be well within the reach of presently available technology. Vigorous efforts must now be made to develop such devices whose functionality requires all three interactions of the Standard Model acting in concert." On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > A Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions > > Authors: Y.N. > Srivastava, A. > Widom, L. > Larsen > (Submitted on 1 Oct 2008) > Abstract: In a series of papers, cited in the main body of the paper below, > detailed calculations have been presented which show that electromagnetic > and weak interactions can induce low energy nuclear reactions to occur with > observable rates for a variety of processes. A common element in all these > applications is that the electromagnetic energy stored in many relatively > slow moving electrons can -under appropriate circumstances- be collectively > transferred into fewer, much faster electrons with energies sufficient for > the latter to combine with protons (or deuterons, if present) to produce > neutrons via weak interactions. The produced neutrons can then initiate low > energy nuclear reactions through further nuclear transmutations. The aim of > this paper is to extend and enlarge upon various examples analyzed > previously, present simplified order of magnitude estimates for each and to > illuminate a common unifying theme amongst all of them. > > Subjects: Nuclear Theory (nucl-th); General Physics (physics.gen-ph) > Cite as: arXiv:0810.0159v1 [nucl-th] > > > Submission history > > From: Allan Widom [>view > email] > [v1] Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:16:59 GMT (16kb) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 21:55:31 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:55:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] more belated singularity mainstream In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010163152.0244dfb8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010155934.023a8d68@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081010163152.0244dfb8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Ya gotta laugh, you know? > I always remember the famous cartoon about the English 'stiff-upper-lip'. Two English explorers are naked and tied down on anthills under the blazing African sun, with the cannibals dancing around them. One says 'Are you OK, Hargreaves, old chap?' The other replies, 'Musn't grumble'. > > Moore's Observation still seems to be ticking away, and genome scanning just > gets niftier every week. Of course, we'll all be going around in sackcloth > and ashes for a few years now those bad people [insert names, political > affiliations, economic opinions of choice] have screwed everything up again. > > Well, from the POV of those 'bad people', they have had million dollar salaries and bonuses and Hollywood lifestyles for the last five years, so they haven't screwed up. They have done very nicely, thank you. They were just smarter than the rest of us. Market leaders, indeed. BillK From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Oct 10 21:59:40 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:59:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] more belated singularity mainstream In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010163152.0244dfb8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010155934.023a8d68@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081010163152.0244dfb8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <48EFD04C.5080108@mac.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > > Moore's Observation still seems to be ticking away, and genome > scanning just gets niftier every week. Of course, we'll all be going > around in sackcloth and ashes for a few years now those bad people > [insert names, political affiliations, economic opinions of choice] > have screwed everything up again. Yeah. They couldn't figure out bobble tech stasis fields so they needed something else to slow down the coming of Singularity. First the tech crash, then 9-11, now this. Some folks are just terrified of change. :-) - samantha From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 10 23:03:58 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:03:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Step at a time was economic parable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <155123.80158.qm@web27008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> While in a bookstore yesterday, I took a look at the engineering section to see what they had on power generation. I flicked through a copy of the "Standard Handbook of Powerplant Engineering" published by McGraw Hill and it included a section on solar power satellite generation. So, if at least one major textbook is including the topic, presumably the idea must be gaining ground and more students are being exposed to it. Also, while the cent/kWh is enough to encourage people to take up the technology all over the world, big economies on small islands (like the UK and Japan) have much higher energy costs and would love the technology. The Japanese are looking into solar satellites already. The British - well, let's face it, we buy all our automotive and most of our aeronautical and military technology in from the US anyway, if the US produced solar satellites our energy companies (mainly owned by Eon of Germany and EdF of France) would be queueing up to buy. As for space being a "military high frontier", I can think of two reasons why space would be ceded to civilian power concerns: 1. The solar satellites are likely to be in GEO, most spy satellites are in as low an orbit as they can manage, and GPS satellites orbit below GEO, so there may not be that much competition for orbits. 2. The US Supreme Court is hearing the case where the 9th district court restricted US Navy exercises on the grounds of whale welfare. If the ocean can be protected from the US Navy, then surely stakeholders in space can be protected by the courts too? Tom From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 10 23:24:01 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:24:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] more belated singularity mainstream In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010155934.023a8d68@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081010155934.023a8d68@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20081010192401.gma07icwsgg8ws8k@webmail.natasha.cc> Thanks Damien for posting this. Good to see your name mentioned in the piece. Rather than looking at the amazing designs being produced by industrial designers/artists who are looking toward the future technologies in designing stylish works which will be used to provide mind expanding experiences and habitats; journalists often write about Piccinini's ghastly artistic interpretations of animal/man beings as some sort of morbid dangerous encounter. I like the quality of work to be sure -- it is well executed. But it is yet another trying example of artists freaking out about biotechnology, and claiming only those with money will control the future and the rest will have to deal with the ugly remains of lost hope. Ick. Natasha Quoting Damien Broderick : > But hey--if everyone'd been onto it 10 years ago, it wouldn't be a very > interesting singularity: > > > > > > Towards tomorrow > > October 11, 2008 > > Brave and desolate new worlds emerge in creative contemplations of what > lies ahead. Andrew Stephens wonders if we now face a future that cannot > be foretold. > > IN THE 1960 CINEMA version of H.G. Wells' classic novel The Time > Machine (1895), Australian actor Rod Taylor sits manfully astride his > astonishing brass-and-wood contraption, watching the future flow past > him like a sped-up film. War, peace, life and death mesmerise him but > it is the wondrous lure of the unknown - so promising, so luminous - > that draws him onwards. > > It is an enchanting place, the future. How many hours, days can be idly > spent there, missing out on the present? It is so easy and inexpensive > to visit, the place where fantasies and anxieties dwell - little wonder > we invest so much emotion and, ironically, so much time in this > seductive what-if zone. It beckons us on all levels - from reading > nonsense astrology or considering tonight's dinner to planning for > Melbourne's population boom or speculating about seismic shifts in > climate or biotechnology. > > Yes, we are tethered to the future, even though it is always a mystery. > But is it rapidly becoming an unimaginable place? > > Where once we confidently envisaged the world 100 years hence, even > projecting five years ahead is now a difficult challenge. Those 1950s > sci-fi visions of a grand future filled with domed cities, > interplanetary colonies, flying cars and a utopian architecture that > resembled, more than anything, the shopping mall are replaced by ... > what? > > Now, such is the pace of exponentially accelerating technological > change that the potential wonders and horrors in store are becoming > incredibly difficult to foresee with any accuracy or clarity, let alone > to imagine creatively - although artists, writers and scientists across > various disciplines, I would suggest, have remained noticeably > steadfast in this pursuit. > > The question is, will such creativity survive the future? Humanity as a > going concern seems to be at higher risk the further we move into the > 21st century. Only a few weeks ago, Harvard Medical School molecular > biologist Jack Szostak was reported in Wired magazine as having built > proto-cells that can "almost be called life" - the closest anyone has > come to turning a sequence of chemicals into biological life, with > replicating information inside them. What might be the implications - > scientifically, culturally, theologically - of such God-like advances, > especially if adapted to artificial intelligence? > > More troubling is the approaching "singularity", itself a subject of > predictions. Also known among futurists as the "spike", the singularity > is not some whimsical term that has wended its way out of Star Trek or > Doctor Who into the real world. It is, rather, a term coined by > scientists to describe the point at which unprecedented technological > progress becomes so accelerated and so fused with highly intelligent > computers that it will be virtually indistinguishable from magic. > > Imagine, for example, that one day mobile-phone technology will become > so advanced that it is implanted in your cerebral cortex, making your > SMS communications with other people a form of telepathy. Magic. Or > imagine that artificial intelligences (thanks to perfected mapping of > the human brain) will become so sophisticated that their ability to > independently upgrade themselves will far outstrip the capacity of > humans to compete. Will we be forced to upload our consciousnesses on > to software, to merge cybernetically with the artificial lifeforms we > have created? Or will we simply become obsolete? > > Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil wrote The Singularity is Near in > 2005, claiming that we are fast approaching the moment when > technological change will spin beyond our comprehension and control. > Melbourne science-fiction writer and academic Damien Broderick explored > similar ideas in The Spike (1997), in which he posited that > post-humanity will arrive in our lifetimes, not in the inconceivably > distant future. > > Of course, there is the chance that nuclear war, climate change, > pandemics or some other catastrophe will plunge us into a new dark age > of ignorance: the oil, food and water crises already besieging the > planet may prevent us from reaching the "spike". We may regress. > Perhaps we may even encounter an unpredictable scenario such as that in > Alfonso Cuaron's electrifying film Children of Men (2006), which > imagines the world in 2027, a couple of decades after humanity > mysteriously and suddenly becomes infertile: utter chaos. > > While much has been written about the implications of technological > advances, it is the impact on human culture, individuality and > creativity that alarms and/or excites many artists, writers and > scientists. Their role in imagining the future is crucial to our > decisions about where we want to go as a species, in understanding what > it is that constitutes our humanity - the age-old quest of the > humanities, sciences; of the human race itself. > > One of those on the quest is speculative writer Sean Williams, who > adores a good tale about the future - goodness knows he has written > enough of them since becoming a full-time and internationally acclaimed > sci-fi novelist more than a decade ago. > > "People do feel like we've overstepped some kind of boundary," says > Williams, "and that we are teetering on the brink of falling over into > the future, out of control. I don't know whether that feeling's been > there before. It could be exciting: falling forward can de diving, it > can be flying. But it can also be landing smack on your face." > > Williams has spent much time trying to imagine what the human centuries > ahead will look like. Among his first books, Metal Fatigue (1996) and > The Resurrected Man (1998) were set about 2060, while his latest, the > Astropolis series (2007-08), leap forward 150,000 years. Of the two, he > says, trying to plausibly imagine 2060 was by far the more difficult > task because he had to relate it to current culture; 150,000 years > hence, the world would be well beyond our imagining - so anything goes. > > "Science fiction is not so much about describing what the future will > be like but describing plausible futures," says Williams. "Futures that > feel as though they may evolve out of the present." A big believer in > "passive research" (avidly reading New Scientist and various tech-head > news feeds), Williams says the most important thing for him about > imagining plausible futures is considering how real people might > interact with technological advances. "If it was just a matter of > charting technology, it would be easy. But (unpredictable) people come > into the mix. There can be strange and wonderful and terrible results." > > Imagining such territory hasn't been restricted to sci-fi and fantasy > writers, either: it has been telling to see how many writers of > literary fiction have in recent years turned out remarkable works that > are "speculative". Cormac McCarthy's desolately beautiful The Road > (2006) and Jim Crace's slightly more leavened The Pesthouse (2007) > envisage a devastated, burnt-out US whose decimated population either > scavenges violently to survive or exists in medieval ignorance. Kazuo > Ishiguro took a contrasting route with Never Let me Go (2005), in which > the novel's young protagonists are human clones reared for organ > harvesting, while Michel Houellebecq (The Possibility of an Island, > 2006) and David Mitchell (Cloud Atlas, 2004) have offered more > dystopian but equally plausible futures. > > Yet for all of these authors, the binding and common element to their > work remains questioning the nature of humanity, the core of creativity > and what it is to love and to be loved. > > Indeed - and this may be at the heart of that concern - one of the > questions that continually surfaces when speculating about the future > is what happens to human creativity and individuality when the expected > fusion of flesh-and-blood with artificial intelligence finally takes > place - or when we upload into new, organic, replaceable bodies that > have been grown in labs. > > This scenario is dealt with magnificently in the Emmy award-winning > television series Battlestar Galactica (2004-2008). The series (only > superficially in the sci-fi genre) was described by New Yorker writer > Nancy Franklin as timely and resonant in "bringing into play religion > and religious fanaticism, global politics, terrorism, and questions > about what it means to be human". > > In Galactica, the Cylons are artificial intelligences (but flesh and > blood) who have evolved by themselves to be indistinguishable from the > humans who initially created them as robot servants. The biological > Cylons think, they bleed, they feel and love, they are individuals, > they even have spiritual aspirations and moral dilemmas. They are > creative thinkers. The only difference is that, on death, they can > upload to new bodies. So what, then, is humanity? What is "soul" or > individuality? > > Internationally acclaimed visual artist Patricia Piccinini has been > working concertedly on these issues for at least a decade. Melburnians > will well-remember her high-profile art work at Republic Tower in > Lonsdale Street in 1999 - a woman holding a genetically modified rat > with a human ear grafted to its back (called Protein Lattice). Her > other big hit is now in the main space at the Bendigo Art Gallery - The > Young Family (2002-03), a hyper-real life-sized sculpture of a > pig-human mother reclining with suckling infants. Humans or animals? > > Piccinini, working at the frontier of science and technology, > especially in the arenas of cloning and stem-cells, has also created > car and truck "nuggets" (small sculptures that look like the > panel-beaten offspring of automobiles), animal-motorcycles and silicon > stem-cell pets that resemble sentient lumps of human flesh. Her latest > work at Tolarno Galleries, such as The Stags (2008), continues the > themes. > > Piccinini, in an interview last year published in (Tender) creatures, > says tellingly that rather than science or bioethics, empathy is at the > heart of her work. > > "I think if people are disturbed by my work it is because it asks > questions about fundamental aspects of our existence - about our > artificiality, about our animalness, about our responsibilities towards > our creations, our children and our environment - and these questions > should be easy to answer, but they are not . . . I love it when people > realise that all this stuff is actually about our lives today." > > Piccinini's lab-created cutesy monsters might well have a place in the > optimistic world of Freeman Dyson (author of The Sun, the Genome, and > the Internet, 1999), who wrote in The New York Review of Books last > year that "the domestication of biotechnology will dominate our lives > during the next 50 years at least as much as the domestication of > computers has dominated our lives during the previous 50 years". > > Dyson sings the praises of what wonders could come out of genetically > modified creatures and plants, imagining new species of termite that > could be engineered to chew up derelict automobiles instead of houses, > "and new species of tree (that) could be engineered to convert carbon > dioxide and sunlight into liquid fuels instead of cellulose". > > He even predicts that once domesticated biotechnology gets into the > hands of "housewives and children", there will be an explosion of > creativity, in which "designing genomes will be a personal thing, a new > art form as creative as painting or sculpture". He also > enthusiastically imagines a resurgence of green technology that will > benefit not only the rich countries but poor villages, halting the > migrations from regional areas to megacities. > > "I am not saying that the political acceptance of green technology will > be quick or easy," he cautions. "I say only that green technology has > enormous promise for preserving the balance of nature on this planet as > well as for relieving human misery. Future generations of people raised > from childhood with biotech toys and games will probably accept it more > easily than we do. Nobody can predict how long it may take to try out > the new technology in a thousand different ways and measure its costs > and benefits." > > Geraldine Barlow and Kyla McFarlane, the curators of a new exhibition > called The Ecologies Project at the Monash University Museum of Art, > have also found a strong thread of optimism in the work they have > brought together for their show, which examines the responses of > artists to the urgent global search for ecological balance. One of the > questions the Project artists ask, says Barlow, is whether we are going > to be active in creating the future, or merely passively subject to it? > Rather than hitting visitors over the head about sustainability and the > future, these two women have tended more towards being "philosophically > hopeful" in their curating choices. > > "Even at the end of things, whether at the black epicentre of the > vortex, or where forests of burnt ash stand in place of living trees, > we seek a new beginning - a path towards another place, other > possibilities, new forms," they write in their catalogue, which > references McCarthy's The Road. > > It is interesting, given these refreshingly optimistic takes, to look > back at American futurist Alvin Toffler's seminal non-fiction book > Future Shock (1970, written with his wife Heidi), and discover that > their concerns were similar to ours 40 years later. They wrote then > that we needed to focus on "the human side of tomorrow" rather than > embracing a "harsh metallic note". They wanted, radically, to "tame" > technology but didn't foresee the enthusiasms with which we would - and > still do - embrace it all. > > Just take a look at a recent telecommunications company ad, where a > young man getting ready to leave his apartment folds up (to the size of > a cell phone) his flatscreen TV, DVD player, his laptop, books, CD > collection and so on, putting them all into his pocket. Finally, he > folds up his sleeping girlfriend and pockets her as well. > > The Tofflers may not have anticipated such potential consumer joys but > they did worry about the environmental impact - and global warming. > "Our technological powers increase but the side-effects and potential > hazards escalate," they wrote. "We risk thermopollution of the oceans > themselves, overheating them, destroying immeasurable quantities of > marine life, perhaps even melting the polar icecaps." How prescient. > > For Kurzweil of the Singularity fame, the coming storm of change is > something to embrace. He really wants to be a neo-human and is trying > to make sure he lives to see the arrival of the singularity, taking > about 200 vitamin and mineral supplements a day to extend his life (he > is now 60). While describing the singularity as "a transforming event > looming in the first half of the 21st century" that will revolutionise > every institution and aspect of human life, from sexuality to > spirituality, he says it will usher in an era where "there will be no > distinction, post-singularity, between human and machine" or between > physical and virtual reality. > > "If you wonder what will remain unequivocally human in such a world, it > is simply this quality: ours is the species that inherently seeks to > extend its physical and mental reach beyond current limitations." > > While he acknowledges critics' concerns that we will forfeit some vital > aspect of our humanity, some subtlety of our biological qualities, in > this new era, he is also frank that is is difficult to look beyond the > event horizon. He, too - the futurist's futurist - finds it difficult > to look ahead with clarity. > > And yet he is optimistic: "Although the singularity has many faces, its > most important implication is this: our technology will match and then > vastly exceed the refinement and suppleness of what we regard as the > best of human traits." Creativity, he assures us, will be enhanced by > our synthesis with our own creations. > > Therein, perhaps, lies the heart of it. > > For it is deeply human to create, to imagine and to construct, whether > it's a would-be utopian city, a work of visionary art or an incredibly > sophisticated computer program. But whether or not a mobile phone or a > bio-engineered brain-enhancer is implanted in your post-human head > along the way is a possibility that remains to be seen. > > Patricia Piccinini is at Tolarno Galleries until November 1. > www.tolarnogalleries.com > > The Ecologies Project is at Monash University Museum of Art until > November 22. > > www.monash.edu.au/muma > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From rmadams at epotential.com Thu Oct 9 15:55:12 2008 From: rmadams at epotential.com (R. Mark Adams, Ph.D.) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] A critical book you should all read In-Reply-To: References: <1223530046_8128@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: <10289.156.80.4.2.1223567712.squirrel@mail4.webfaction.com> Well- you can get an electronic edition for the Kindle: Also Available in: List Price: Our Price: Other Offers: Kindle Edition (Kindle Book) $15.42 Not that the general point is inaccurate- namely that the electronic edition is limited to a closed platform, rather than something broadly available beyond a single kind of device. There is nothing wrong with making money on one's writings, but it seems reasonable to have those writings available, using open standards, on as many platforms as possible... -Mark Jef Allbright wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:22 PM, hkhenson wrote: >> >> _Here Comes Everybody_ by Clay Shirky. >> >> Does anyone on this list have a personal connection to Clay? I would >> really >> like to talk to him. >> >> I am not sure his insights would allow social engineering, but the >> should >> keep us from being surprised at how things develop. > > The book's key idea, that the economics of the web -- the decreasing > cost of increasing connections in terms of increasingly fine-grained > similarities -- promotes increasingly synergistic collaborations, > should be nothing new to denizens of the Extropy list. > > What I find more telling, and ironic, is that despite the book's > message and the already rapid rise in popularity of electronic > editions of many **other** books, this author has chosen to > **restrict** dissemination to hardcover dead-tree mode. > > Not that there's anything wrong with that, but one would do well to > consider any message within the broader context. > > - Jef > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- | | "Information is light. | | R. Mark Adams, Ph.D. | Information in itself, | | Computational Biologist | about anything, is light." | | rmadams at epotential.com | - Tom Stoppard | From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Oct 11 12:18:21 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:18:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A critical book you should all read In-Reply-To: <10289.156.80.4.2.1223567712.squirrel@mail4.webfaction.com> References: <1223530046_8128@s7.cableone.net> <10289.156.80.4.2.1223567712.squirrel@mail4.webfaction.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:55 AM, R. Mark Adams, Ph.D. wrote: > Well- you can get an electronic edition for the Kindle: > > Also Available in: List Price: Our Price: Other Offers: > Kindle Edition (Kindle Book) $15.42 > > Not that the general point is inaccurate- namely that the electronic > edition is limited to a closed platform, rather thhisan something broadly > available beyond a single kind of device. There is nothing wrong with > making money on one's writings, but it seems reasonable to have those > writings available, using open standards, on as many platforms as > possible... Mark, thanks for your correction on the specific -- I didn't see the Kindle edition available, and I went with another commenter's observation that there was no Kindle version available (as of May 2008.) And yes, we're in agreement on the general -- that the Kindle, being a closed **hardware** platform, is far from the increasingly frictionless view espoused by the book. I purchased the hardback dead-tree edition. This to be scanned and OCRd as with the several hundred other items already in my personal library, for the benefits of portability, ubiquity, annotation, search, and cross-referencing. Oh for the days of Xanadu, that never was. - Jef From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Oct 11 16:16:48 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:16:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?iso-8859-1?q?Buckley=27s_Son=3A_=27Sorry_Dad=2C_I=27m_Vot?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ing_for_Obama=27?= Message-ID: <0179905E82FB4744BDF90C539A39FEEC@patrick4ezsk6z> Here's another conservative who is jumping over the fence to vote for Obama ... I neither liked William F. Buckley, nor his writing. But son Christopher writes better than his father, and also appears to have a few grey cells up on "Dear Pup": http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama I'm sure just about everyone here has seen this ... parapraxis? ... by McCain, but in case you haven't ... it's kind of funny (if it weren't kind of sad): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/mccain-calls-americans-hi_n_133037.html Olga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Oct 11 18:43:40 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:43:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The International Longevity Center & Robert Butler, M.D. Message-ID: <2d6187670810111143h32ba6ec5t92dcdf0a87ec9dea@mail.gmail.com> The International Longevity Center, run by Robert Butler, M.D., is an advocacy, research and education nonprofit dedicated to improving quality of life for seniors. While certainly not Transhumanist, I admire their fight against agism. And the connection they have made between a life that is both long *and* healthy, resulting in the possibility of greater financial success, is very progressive homepage: http://www.ilcusa.org/ "The Longevity Revolution" by Robert Butler, M.D. http://www.ilcusa.org/pages/publications/the-longevity-revolution.php Do health and longevity create wealth? http://www.ilcusa.org/pages/media_items/do-health-and-longevity-create-wealth75.php John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Oct 11 19:32:17 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:32:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split Message-ID: This seems very obvious, but I'm having difficulty finding any analysis or commentary applicable to economics, politics, or social choice. Does anyone here have any useful references? More explicitly, I'm referring to the natural tendency for such systems -- with multiple, effectively closed feedback loops with multiple, diverse transform functions -- to equilibrate with maximal bipolar separation across what amounts to a hyperplane representing the subset of features of perceived common interest. More specifically, I'm referring to the tendency of political systems representing a complex mix of values (perceived preferences) to arrive at a roughly 50/50 split across populations. Or the observation that variation in preferences between human twins tends to correlate about 50/50 correlation with nature vs. nurture (actually more on the side of nature as "the" aggregate feedback loop of adaptation in this case is getting looser.) More pointedly, I'm referring to the apparent lack of formal recognition of this natural dynamic, fundamental in system-theoretic and information-theoretic terms, toward high-probability **bipolar** separation regardless of the complex hierarchy of the supporting matrix of values represented. I understand that until recently, we've lacked the computing machinery necessary to effectively represent much more than the most superficial levels of any issue regardless of importance. I recognize also that many (most?) people are by nature predisposed by nature or training to be unequipped or uncomfortable with multiple layers of abstraction. I also realize the political incorrectness of such a line of thought in regard to the democratic ideal of "one person / one vote" as if systems and information theoretic concerns must be morally irrelevant. Am I missing something here, or is this really an academic void? - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 11 20:08:03 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:08:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081011145221.0245edb8@satx.rr.com> At 12:32 PM 10/11/2008 -0700, Jef wrote: >I recognize also that >many (most?) people are by nature predisposed by nature or training to >be unequipped or uncomfortable with multiple layers of abstraction. 50% of them, anyway. [sorry] Unmasking routine "binary oppositions" or "binary contrasts" is, of course, a stock in trade of critical theorists. Binarization seems to be a default setting of the human mind. This was analyzed interestingly in Anthony Wilden's books, e.g. System and Structure, 1984; The Rules are No Game, 1987. The following is child's play, I know, and does not invoke hyperplanes, but it's my attempt at a sketch of some of Wilden's analytics, fwiw: ======== A logic is a normative set of transformation procedures on an agreed set of discursive primitives. The deconstructive intervention in philosophy and criticism--at least as it is commonly understood by its workaday interpreters and practitioners--is just the latest in a series of questions raised about the probity of applying strict logics to human discourse. Since logics are themselves a form of human discourse, this interrogation (which in turn is bound to be discursive and logical) is deeply self-reflexive. Put baldly, deconstruction's narrowest objection is to what it sees as the binarisation of discursive constructs and evaluations--though, as we shall see, this important objection is pitched in terms quite different from those of an informational or cybernetic theorist such as Anthony Wilden, who painstakingly distinguishes such connective expressions as `difference', `distinction', opposition' and `contradiction' (1987a, p. 22 et seq.). `The commonest examples,' as he playfully puts it, `are "opposed to", on the one hand, and "on the other hand", on the other' (ibid.). Difference is, of course, the hallmark of contemporary applications of deconstruction to such fields of contest as feminist and gay sexual politics: significantly, two of deconstructor Barbara Johnson's book titles include the word. Wilden specifies it thus: `a continuous or analog relation, e.g.... the real number system.' That is, numbers such as 0.67359, 1.25, 18.95539, 10^41, etc, the gaps between each number infinitely divisible. Distinction is a `discontinuous or digital relation, e.g.... the alphabet'. That is, alternatives that are rigidly `chunked', with no slippage between them. Opposites denote entities such as north and south poles, mutually obliterative electric charges, positive and negative integers (where [+1] + [-1] = 0). These are real opposites. Imaginary opposites include, importantly, `imaginary symmetrization of a two-term hierarchy', where `upper' and `lower' terms are construed in a mystified fashion as equally important even though the upper term always holds the trump card. Contradiction obtains between a proposition (at one level) and its denial (at another) by the use of the word `not'. `In the social context, "contradiction" signifies social, economic, and political conflicts between levels in an illegitimate hierarchy' (ibid., p. 24). It is not to be confounded with refusal (as in `don't contradict me, child, just go and clean your damned teeth now!'). Opposites Contract A notable tendency in poststructural theory has been to collapse these varieties of contrast into a single concept such as `binary opposition', and then denounce it as dire evidence of logocentric bigotry. A binary structure, the philosopher Elizabeth Gross (now Grosz) has suggested, `constructs an other for the privileged term, against which the latter can distinguish itself' (Gross, 1986, p. 27). Nor is this logocentric ploy innocent: "The polarised structure of binary pairing establishes one term out of a given field or system of terms as a positive value, which, by negative definition, constructs an `other' in which it can cast all that it is incapable of accepting or desiring in itself. "(ibid.) This is surely a rather oddly mystified account. Is it the privileged term in the dichotomy which does the `casting out', or the human person who makes that choice (perhaps under the overwhelming influence of her informing culture) in specifying a given dichotomy? Gross offers a Kristevan `abjective' reading: "In expelling as `waste', `residue', or `corruption' those elements it cannot bear to remain in contiguity with, the primary terms draws a border around itself, beyond which its other is cast." (ibid.) We shall need to turn our attention briefly to some basics of logic. In one form or another for thousands of years, Western philosophy has agonised over the appropriateness of applying analytic protocols (deriving formal results strictly from arbitrary axioms) to synthetic propositions (those that hang upon states of affairs in the non-discursive universe.) [etc etc--from THEORY AND ITS DISCONTENTS] From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Oct 11 21:14:57 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:14:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081011145221.0245edb8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081011145221.0245edb8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:32 PM 10/11/2008 -0700, Jef wrote: > 50% of them, anyway. Ouch. > [sorry] > > Unmasking routine "binary oppositions" or "binary contrasts" is, of course, > a stock in trade of critical theorists. Of course. My attack vector highlights that my home ground is in the Sciences and Engineering, and therefore my expectation of greater rigor and depth of analysis applied (unreasonably, it appears) to the social sciences. > Binarization seems to be a default > setting of the human mind. Easily explained in terms of the lower cost of processing information in simple terms, easily justified in terms of efficiently exploiting the "wisdom" of heuristics well-adapted to a relatively static physical and cultural environment. > This was analyzed interestingly in Anthony > Wilden's books, e.g. System and Structure, 1984; The Rules are No Game, > 1987. Thanks for these (new to me) references. > The following is child's play, I know, and does not invoke hyperplanes, but > it's my attempt at a sketch of some of Wilden's analytics, fwiw: > > ======== > > A logic is a normative set of transformation procedures on an agreed set of > discursive primitives. The deconstructive intervention in philosophy and > criticism--at least as it is commonly understood by its workaday > interpreters and practitioners--is just the latest in a series of questions > raised about the probity of applying strict logics to human discourse. Attempting to restrain my distaste for the "literary paradigm", reframing in terms of the emergent logic of abstract systems interacting in many modes, including the mode of "discourse", but not as foundational, I continue to read... > Since logics are themselves a form of human discourse, this > interrogation (which in turn is bound to be discursive and logical) is > deeply self-reflexive. Put baldly, deconstruction's narrowest objection is > to what it sees as the binarisation of discursive constructs and > evaluations--though, as we shall see, this important objection is pitched in > terms quite different from those of an informational or cybernetic theorist > such as Anthony Wilden, Ah, the promise of engineering relief appears to be within sight... > who painstakingly distinguishes such connective > expressions as `difference', `distinction', opposition' and `contradiction' > (1987a, p. 22 et seq.). `The commonest examples,' as he playfully puts it, > `are "opposed to", on the one hand, and "on the other hand", on the other' > (ibid.). > Difference is, of course, the hallmark of contemporary > applications of deconstruction to such fields of contest as feminist and gay > sexual politics: How typically characteristic of most everything coming out of Literary Criticism! Seems one must proudly present "the feminist" or "the queer" in order to establish one's bona fides. [Sorry for the appearance of bashing, but I think it's relevant to the context of my question in search of engineering rigor. I do thank you for providing this perspective on the problem, and I acknowledge on my part some unknown degree of ignorance of the Humanities.] > significantly, two of deconstructor Barbara Johnson's book > titles include the word. Wilden specifies it thus: `a continuous or analog > relation, e.g.... the real number system.' That is, numbers such as 0.67359, > 1.25, 18.95539, 10^41, etc, the gaps between each number infinitely > divisible. > Distinction is a `discontinuous or digital relation, e.g.... the > alphabet'. That is, alternatives that are rigidly `chunked', with no > slippage between them. > Opposites denote entities such as north and south poles, mutually > obliterative electric charges, positive and negative integers (where [+1] + > [-1] = 0). These are real opposites. Imaginary opposites include, > importantly, `imaginary symmetrization of a two-term hierarchy', where > `upper' and `lower' terms are construed in a mystified fashion as equally > important even though the upper term always holds the trump card. Interesting, the ever-present entanglement of moral assessments while my inner engineer seeks the clarity of an effective instrumental model. [I'm aware that this makes me appear morally na?ve from the (binarily) contrasting perspective.] > Contradiction obtains between a proposition (at one level) and > its denial (at another) by the use of the word `not'. `In the social > context, "contradiction" signifies social, economic, and political conflicts > between levels in an illegitimate hierarchy' (ibid., p. 24). It is not to be > confounded with refusal (as in `don't contradict me, child, just go and > clean your damned teeth now!'). > > Opposites Contract > > A notable tendency in poststructural theory has been to collapse these > varieties of contrast into a single concept such as `binary opposition', and > then denounce it as dire evidence of logocentric bigotry. A binary > structure, the philosopher Elizabeth Gross (now Grosz) has suggested, > `constructs an other for the privileged term, against which the latter can > distinguish itself' (Gross, 1986, p. 27). Nor is this logocentric ploy > innocent: > > "The polarised structure of binary pairing establishes one term > out of a given field or system of terms as a positive value, which, by > negative definition, constructs an `other' in which it can cast all that it > is incapable of accepting or desiring in itself. "(ibid.) > > This is surely a rather oddly mystified account. Is it the privileged term > in the dichotomy which does the `casting out', or the human person who makes > that choice (perhaps under the overwhelming influence of her informing > culture) in specifying a given dichotomy? Gross offers a Kristevan > `abjective' reading: > > "In expelling as `waste', `residue', or `corruption' those > elements it cannot bear to remain in contiguity with, the primary terms > draws a border around itself, beyond which its other is cast." (ibid.) > > We shall need to turn our attention briefly to some basics of > logic. In one form or another for thousands of years, Western philosophy has > agonised over the appropriateness of applying analytic protocols (deriving > formal results strictly from arbitrary axioms) to synthetic propositions > (those that hang upon states of affairs in the non-discursive universe.) > [etc etc--from THEORY AND ITS DISCONTENTS] Thanks Damien for the Literary Critical perspective. Sadly, as with much "analysis" in the Humanities, I find that its "depth" corresponds to a complexity mainly of its own making. Sorry for my appearing to be so critical of literary criticism. Please understand that to the extent my criticism appears negative, it is because my question originates in the context of expectation of increasingly rigorous instrumental effectiveness. [Hmm, maybe I could write (effective?) post-modernist prose. I recall posting a parody of Derida to this list one time, and a few here did take it seriously.] - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 11 23:52:11 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:52:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081011145221.0245edb8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081011183922.02339e28@satx.rr.com> At 02:14 PM 10/11/2008 -0700, Jef wrote: >Attempting to restrain my distaste for the "literary paradigm" None of the people I cited are literary critics or theorists. Anthony Wilden was a professor in communication studies at Simon Fraser, and a polymath, an early applier of systems to social theory. Elizabeth A. Grosz started as a philosopher and is now a Rutgers professor of women's and gender studies. Julia Kristeva, mentioned in passing, is a philosopher, psychoanalyst and raving lunatic of gibberish. > > Difference is, of course, the hallmark of contemporary > > applications of deconstruction to such fields of contest as > feminist and gay > > sexual politics: > >How typically characteristic of most everything coming out of Literary >Criticism! Seems one must proudly present "the feminist" or "the >queer" in order to establish one's bona fides. Literary theory of the sort you're disgusted by came out of philosophy, not the other way around. It's not the philosophy you're looking for, it's true. Much of it is not the philosophy I'm looking for, either--but after half a century or more of philosophy burying its head in abstractions it was rather refreshing to find thinkers actually paying attention to human concerns, including the contestations of sexual and more classic power politics. Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 12 00:23:42 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:23:42 +0000 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > More specifically, I'm referring to the tendency of political systems > representing a complex mix of values (perceived preferences) to arrive > at a roughly 50/50 split across populations. > > More pointedly, I'm referring to the apparent lack of formal > recognition of this natural dynamic, fundamental in system-theoretic > and information-theoretic terms, toward high-probability **bipolar** > separation regardless of the complex hierarchy of the supporting > matrix of values represented. > What is your evidence for this 50/50 split? It happens in the US two-party system, but not elsewhere. Or are you just pointing at the obvious effect of a 'first-past-the-post' system where 51% gets to be the government and 49% the opposition? Where proportional representation voting is allowed, you get a myriad of political groups voted into government. This is not a 50/50 split. But they then have to negotiate among themselves to try and find a majority grouping that can get laws passed. i.e. form a 51% grouping to enable government. I'm not sure whether your 'natural dynamic' actually exists, apart from the fact that you need at least 51% to form a government. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 12 05:44:28 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:44:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com> <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012004137.02316940@satx.rr.com> At 03:35 PM 10/4/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: >My notion is that without knowing what caused the problem, it is >impossible to know the right solution. > >I suspect this bailout solution will solve nothing, for it leaves in place >the root cause: government requirements on banks to give out what they >already know are bad loans. I find plenty of good explanations in the >internet commentary, but almost nothing in the mainstream press. Here's another bite at that topic: Private Sector Loans, Not Fannie or Freddie, Triggered Crisis DAVID GOLDSTEIN and KEVIN G. HALL - McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON -- As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems. Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height vrom 2004 to 2006. Federal Reserve Board data show that: _ More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. _ Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. _ Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday. Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages. "I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News. Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more. This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares. But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble. During those same explosive three years, private investment banks - not Fannie and Freddie - dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data. In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages. Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market. About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve. Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods. Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - who in turn pressured banks and other lenders - to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market. What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans. These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans. In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems. "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business." From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Oct 12 07:47:36 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:47:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 10 Reasons Why Geeks Make Good Fathers Message-ID: <2d6187670810120047i285701b6y1e1b58ca3564ac45@mail.gmail.com> "10 Reasons Why Geeks Make Good Fathers" Do you agree? And is there really zero chance of cheating on one's wife? http://geekalicio.us/2007/09/06/10-reasons-why-geeks-make-good-fathers/ John Grigg : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 12 07:49:21 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:49:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012004137.02316940@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com> <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081012004137.02316940@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012024114.024b3af8@satx.rr.com> At 12:44 AM 10/12/2008 -0500, I url'd: >Private Sector >Loans, Not Fannie or Freddie, Triggered Crisis >DAVID GOLDSTEIN and KEVIN G. HALL Barbara Lamar, who knows a great deal more about finance than I do, comments: Earlier, she'd remarked in regard to a recent piece [Oct 7] by the NYT's tame Republican David Brooks: Not one to mince words, Barbara. Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Oct 12 09:46:51 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:46:51 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012024114.024b3af8@satx.rr.com> References: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com> <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081012004137.02316940@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081012024114.024b3af8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 2008/10/12 Damien Broderick wrote: > Barbara Lamar, who knows a great deal more about finance than I do, > comments: > > all this. That's the key. Arguing over which specific lenders are most at > fault is a red herring, a straw man, a distraction aimed at taking people's > attention away from the actual cause of the problem.> > > Earlier, she'd remarked in regard to a recent piece [Oct 7] by the NYT's > tame Republican David Brooks: > > had over the past four decades, there would be short, swift corrections in > the market whenever speculation gets out of hand in one area or another -- > not the prolonged global meltdown we are witnessing and will live through > for the next several years. In the 1920's, the Coolidge administration favoured business, reduced taxes, promoted free market mechanisms rather than government regulation. The result was a speculative bubble ending in the 1929 stock market crash. But what lead to the great depression rather than an ordinary recession was the inaction of government and the central bank after the crash, allowing banks to fail and the money supply to contract, because using fiscal and monetary policy to correct it was anti-free market. -- Stathis Papaioannou From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 12 16:26:18 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:26:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Off-List (RE: [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <419E782968444D00A0FD770BB65E7718@DFC68LF1> Jeff, I took the content of your post and posted it to a private list of futurists I am a member of (Association of Professional Futurists). There are several responses. May I post these to the extropy list? Or would you prefer I post them to you privately? Best wishes, Natasha Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 2:32 PM To: Extropy chat list Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split This seems very obvious, but I'm having difficulty finding any analysis or commentary applicable to economics, politics, or social choice. Does anyone here have any useful references? More explicitly, I'm referring to the natural tendency for such systems -- with multiple, effectively closed feedback loops with multiple, diverse transform functions -- to equilibrate with maximal bipolar separation across what amounts to a hyperplane representing the subset of features of perceived common interest. More specifically, I'm referring to the tendency of political systems representing a complex mix of values (perceived preferences) to arrive at a roughly 50/50 split across populations. Or the observation that variation in preferences between human twins tends to correlate about 50/50 correlation with nature vs. nurture (actually more on the side of nature as "the" aggregate feedback loop of adaptation in this case is getting looser.) More pointedly, I'm referring to the apparent lack of formal recognition of this natural dynamic, fundamental in system-theoretic and information-theoretic terms, toward high-probability **bipolar** separation regardless of the complex hierarchy of the supporting matrix of values represented. I understand that until recently, we've lacked the computing machinery necessary to effectively represent much more than the most superficial levels of any issue regardless of importance. I recognize also that many (most?) people are by nature predisposed by nature or training to be unequipped or uncomfortable with multiple layers of abstraction. I also realize the political incorrectness of such a line of thought in regard to the democratic ideal of "one person / one vote" as if systems and information theoretic concerns must be morally irrelevant. Am I missing something here, or is this really an academic void? - 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 Sun Oct 12 16:30:36 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:30:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM, BillK wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: >> More specifically, I'm referring to the tendency of political systems >> representing a complex mix of values (perceived preferences) to arrive >> at a roughly 50/50 split across populations. >> >> More pointedly, I'm referring to the apparent lack of formal >> recognition of this natural dynamic, fundamental in system-theoretic >> and information-theoretic terms, toward high-probability **bipolar** >> separation regardless of the complex hierarchy of the supporting >> matrix of values represented. >> > > > What is your evidence for this 50/50 split?y > It happens in the US two-party system, but not elsewhere. Yes, when I said "more specifically", I meant, and should have said, "more concretely". I think that the predominately bipolar US political system is a particular concrete example of the tendency toward drastically oversimplified separation into X vs. not-X, but I didn't mean to imply that all perceived political groupings exemplify this tendency. I think it's also important (in this thinking) to distinguish between an adaptive system's "values", meaning it's intrinsic nature, in contrast with its "preferences",manifestations of its values/nature. [I clumsily blurred this distinction in my original post.] For example, looking at the variety of musical preferences displayed by humans might seem to work against my point, but I'm guessing that the (unfortunately statistically sparse) data on the musical preferences of genetically similar twins would be correlated, such that there would be a fairly clear bipolar separation between the groupings "music we like" and "music we don't like", but with sharply diminishing differentiation of the relative perceived merits of the individual objects within these major classifications. Of course this is a weak example, since we can assume that musical preferences are only weakly related to the more direct objects of adaptation. Likewise, in the case of US politics, it seems that the set of preferences forming the complex hyperplane separating the two major parties can be quite incoherent internally but with negligeable effect on the dynamics of the strong bipolar separation observed as we move closer to the root of the hierarchy based on what we clump together (in US terms) as "liberal" vs. "conservative." And as we move even closer to the root of the hierarchy, we arrive, with increasing probability, at the low-cost (in terms of information processing) bipolar distinction of politics of self-identification, stripped of virtually all consideration of the particulars of values -- their internal coherence or areas of overlap outside the context of self-identification -- reducing to the venerable (and computationally simple) in-group/out-group distinction that served our evolutionary ancestors so well for so long. I'm not adequately familiar with the partitioning within UK politics, but I'm guessing that the same principle holds -- that any such distinctions would tend to resolve toward a bipolar separation -- with decreasing "friction" and removal of obstacles impairing intergroup interaction. I think that this tendency for bipolar separation inherent to the dynamics of any complex adaptive system is fairly obvious -- look at the (mainly) bipolar branching of so many natural taxonomies -- and I can easily see why it has long been a theme within the field of discursive analysis (as pointed out by Damien). I also see a considerable and growing engineering literature regarding dynamics as applied to adaptive systems in electronics and mechanics and cybernetics. But so far I haven't found any academic resources crossing the cultural divide, applying the rigorous treatment within Engineering to the critical social issues addressed within the halls of the Humanities. And that is just the kind of analysis, evidence of the the existence of which that I seek, that was the point of my post. [Can you tell from that last sentence that I prefer post-fix, RPN calculators?] - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Oct 12 16:38:04 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:38:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Off-List (RE: [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <419E782968444D00A0FD770BB65E7718@DFC68LF1> References: <419E782968444D00A0FD770BB65E7718@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Jeff, > > I took the content of your post and posted it to a private list of futurists > I am a member of (Association of Professional Futurists). There are > several responses. May I post these to the extropy list? Or would you > prefer I post them to you privately? Natasha - Privately or publicly, case by case, as you see appropriate. - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 12 16:48:10 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:48:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035A8127C9A4457CA4F6F215C4E10A84@DFC68LF1> Below are some responses to your post's content. If anyone wants to quote these statements (don't know why ... But if you do), please let me know and I will provide authors' names. 1. The general question seems a good one. The Panarchy model, which has emerged from ecological systems, looks as if could be adaptable as a way of understanding change over time in social systems, but as far as I know this hasn't been done yet. However, the question is completely off-beam when it comes to the argument about politics and the 50/50 split. This is a function of the rules set which governs the political system, not a natural function of political systems. In first past the post systems, you have a tendency towards two large competing blocs - although not inevitably. In systems which use other electoral systems, this isn't the case. >From memory, Michal Laver wrote an entertaining book, Playing Politics, a few years back which explored the way in which political systems and therefore political decisions responded to the rule sets which governed them. 2. I agree [] that this is an interesting question. The most advanced work I know of related to mathematically exploring the tendencies and balances of systems is documented in "Ecology: The Ascendent Perspective" by Robert Ulanowicz. The final chapter of the book discusses the application of his thermodynamic work to such topics as economics, politics, religion, and more. He and other evolutionary ecologists have been applying thermodynamics to systems and their dynamic form and transformations with impressive success. Framing the political arena in a form that would allow a thermodynamic analysis appears challenging! It is worth noting that thermodynamics provides the insight without requiring huge computing power and without requiring modeling of individuals (agents). You might also want to check out Miller's book "Living Systems" which has chapters relating to organizations, societies, and supranational systems. I agree with Andrew that 50/50 almost certainly is more a function of political structure (rules, election proceedings etc.). Within the US it seems that the rules create coalitions such that the balance perpetually approximates 50/50. If we simplistically assume that the population has a roughly bell distribution of values, when one party has control they seem to inevitably "go too far to one side" and alienate enough of the middle to swing power to the opposite party. In our form of government and election cycles I tend to arrive at the conclusion that the only stable political party mixes are either 50/50 or single party (with a fragmented collection of dissidents). I think it is also important to recognize that the parties are hardly uniform. The Republicans are currently an amalgam of "traditional Republicans" who tend to be conservative both financially and socially, "libertarians" who want government out of their hair, "fundamentalist Christians", "right to lifers" and other "sects". Over time I have been struck by the lack of dialogue or open recognition of these differences within the Republican party and tend to conclude that they deliberately ignore the differences in order to "maintain unity" which I think has, over the past twenty years or so led them to an artificial and fragile alliance. That, in turn I think, led to a strong "We vs. Them" mentality that emerged under Gingrich and evolved to an almost anything goes attitude within the RNC. Democrats, on the other hand, seem to more openly recognize their differences and that may be encouraging deeper dialogue and a more robust alliance/party but I tend to think the Democrats are, ultimately, not strongly bonded. That said, I think the Republican party in its current form is likely a thing of the past. I think the current economic issues will likely lead to a coalition of financial conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, to effectively form a new party in which social and religious issues will fall to secondary status. The current election system tends to favor nomination of politicians who are further from the center than (I think) the actual beliefs of the populace, thus creating a more polarized election than the voters necessarily want. While creating a party in "the middle" is certainly a challenge for the middle is not as highly motivated as the extremes, that is where I think we are headed - and that might be able to break the current 50/50 into a 60/25/10/5 situation in which the extremes (such as right to lifers and social liberals) would not be able to coalesce into a viable opposition party. (Part of my logic is that I think we have an "angry middle" who are ready to take action.) 3. I'm afraid that there is good news and bad news on this matter. On the upside, there is an absolute mountain of theory and empirical studies in the public domain. The modern approach to this approach originated in Ken Arrow's voting paradox in determining social welfare functions in the 1950s. Normally, this is seen as Social Choice Theory or Public Choice Theory. Andrew is right that Michael Laver's work is quite accessible (I have a copy of his 'Politics of Private Desires', which is one of the best written books in the field). However, Michael Laver's works are not entirely complete. For a broader introduction to the genre, try Dennis Mueller's 'Public Choice'. It's not as good a read, but it is pretty much complete. I'm afraid that there is bad news as well. The whole area, which is open to systems analysis and modeling, is pretty mathematical in its approach, and the student would need a good appreciation of higher mathematics simply to follow the argument. This puts people off. It also leads to a further problem. The Chicago School dominates the commanding heights of this area of study. When combined with mathematical impenetrability, it means that the distinction between hypothesis and ideology is rarely made. As an example, please find attached a paper recently published by the Royal Economics Society. Under UK copyright law, I am providing this copy for your private study and non-commercial use. The paper is on Information and Strategic Political Polarisation, and provides evidence to support Andrew Curry's contention in an earlier e-mail. However, my point is that the key to the argument in the article is in the Appendix, which is a very heavy read. Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 2:32 PM To: Extropy chat list Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split This seems very obvious, but I'm having difficulty finding any analysis or commentary applicable to economics, politics, or social choice. Does anyone here have any useful references? More explicitly, I'm referring to the natural tendency for such systems -- with multiple, effectively closed feedback loops with multiple, diverse transform functions -- to equilibrate with maximal bipolar separation across what amounts to a hyperplane representing the subset of features of perceived common interest. More specifically, I'm referring to the tendency of political systems representing a complex mix of values (perceived preferences) to arrive at a roughly 50/50 split across populations. Or the observation that variation in preferences between human twins tends to correlate about 50/50 correlation with nature vs. nurture (actually more on the side of nature as "the" aggregate feedback loop of adaptation in this case is getting looser.) More pointedly, I'm referring to the apparent lack of formal recognition of this natural dynamic, fundamental in system-theoretic and information-theoretic terms, toward high-probability **bipolar** separation regardless of the complex hierarchy of the supporting matrix of values represented. I understand that until recently, we've lacked the computing machinery necessary to effectively represent much more than the most superficial levels of any issue regardless of importance. I recognize also that many (most?) people are by nature predisposed by nature or training to be unequipped or uncomfortable with multiple layers of abstraction. I also realize the political incorrectness of such a line of thought in regard to the democratic ideal of "one person / one vote" as if systems and information theoretic concerns must be morally irrelevant. Am I missing something here, or is this really an academic void? - Jef _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 12 16:43:44 2008 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <988709.28498.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sun, 10/12/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > But what lead to the great depression rather than > an ordinary recession was the inaction of government and > the central bank after the crash, allowing banks to fail and > the money supply to contract... Your statement above seems consistent with the Monetarist School as espoused by Milton Friedman. Barbara Lamar's comments seem more consistent with the Austrian School as espoused by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. According to the Austrians, the Fed's loose money policies before 1929 caused a speculative asset bubble that could not have ended in anything but a "big crash". The Austrians predicted the depression in those terms in real time. (The Monetarists did not 'predict' the depression until decades after it happened.) Also according to the Austrians, by the time the Fed started to contract the money supply in 1928, it was already too late to stop the crash. And according to Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, expansion of the money supply after could not have prevented the depression (the Monetarist argument) because, among other things, fear of bank runs tied the Fed's hands. >... because using fiscal and monetary policy to correct it was > anti-free market. The dismal science of modern economics still stood in its infancy. John Maynard Keynes did not publish his _General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money_ until 1936. Monetarism had not yet even appeared on the scene, except as a relatively minor and undeveloped element of Keynesianism. Keynes practically begged FDR to stimulate the world out of the depression with deficit spending, but not until the massive deficit spending of WWII did Keynes' theories finally get put to a serious test. His theories seemed to pass with flying colors, and to this day most economists mark WWII as the end of the great depression. Post-war economists crowned Keynes King. He remained King until the 70's, when Keyensian theory seemed to offer contradictory antidotes to stagflation. Milton Friedman and the Monetarists then took the crown. Economists consider recent and current Fed philosophy a modified form of Monetarism. A question on my mind these days concerns how exactly to explain the radical growth in GDP during WWII without recourse to Keynes' theories. The Monetarists claim money supply is the answer, but I note that money supply bottomed in 1933 and trended almost straight up to the war. Unemployment never dropped below ~14% until the war, marking the end of the depression. If Keynes had the wrong idea and Friedman had the right idea (the conventional view in 2008) then I wonder 1) why did it take 7-8 years of monetary expansion to end the great depression, and 2) why did the depression end so *radically* if not because of the similarly radical growth in deficit spending during WWII? If this current global financial crisis leads to (more) disaster then Friedman's theories may come under fire. It may be time for a global paradigm shift. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Oct 12 17:30:44 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:30:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split In-Reply-To: <035A8127C9A4457CA4F6F215C4E10A84@DFC68LF1> References: <035A8127C9A4457CA4F6F215C4E10A84@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Below are some responses to your post's content. If anyone wants to quote > these statements (don't know why ... But if you do), please let me know and > I will provide authors' names. Natasha - Thank you very much for these responses, providing several useful branches to my queue for follow-up. This is pretty much what I was hoping for, and Damien's response provided useful context as well. Thanks also to BillK for highlighting an especially clumsy part of my original post. Now, back to work on some rather less theoretical tasks of the day. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 12 17:43:00 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:43:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] banks and crash Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012124038.0232d6e8@satx.rr.com> Barbara Lamar replies: =========================== Dear Dr. Papaioannou, You wrote: <> Dr. Papaioannou, you need to brush up United States history. The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank was created in 1913. Years later, Wilson (who, as president, signed the Federal Reserve Act) said, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System I do not have time right now to write at greater length, but please at least read the history of the Federal Reserve Bank before you make statements about the operation of "free" financial markets in the 1920's. Your comment indicates a basic lack of understanding on your part of the effect of money and credit on an economy. Regards, Barbara Lamar From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 12 18:17:16 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:17:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <988709.28498.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <988709.28498.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012131513.02316400@satx.rr.com> At 09:43 AM 10/12/2008 -0700, gts wrote: > > But what lead to the great depression rather than > > an ordinary recession was the inaction of government and > > the central bank after the crash, allowing banks to fail and > > the money supply to contract... > >Your statement above seems consistent with the Monetarist School as >espoused by Milton Friedman. Barbara Lamar's comments seem more >consistent with the Austrian School as espoused by Ludwig von Mises >and Friedrich Hayek. fwiw, Barbara (who's not currently subscribed, I think) notes: < gts is right. My comments are consistent with the Austrian School -- I've never seen any better explanation of banking, credit, and the flow of money than Von Mises' and Hayek's. Their theories are logically sound and hold up against reality every time, whereas the "competing" theories do not. > Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 12 18:30:29 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:30:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] economic parableRe: Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <948572.17328.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <948572.17328.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Oct 7, 2008, at 2:15 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> How does getting information in seconds rather than hours >> or days, as >> in the 1920's, prevent a depression? > > Because the distinction between money and information is becoming > blurred. The wealth that the U.S. recently lost never really existed > to begin with except in people's minds. Consider the following > example: > Not quite. That wealth "in their minds" could be exchanged with others to satisfy needs and desired and invested to create more of this "mind stuff". It is no less real for being computerized and there is no less loss. > I doubt either bull or bear markets will last for more than a year > or two nowadays, but there is occasionally *real* wealth added to > the economy and that does steadily grow with time. And the real > wealth is not affected by delusions of poverty or prosperity. > Yeah right. Tell it to the folks in the bread line. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Oct 12 18:36:27 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:36:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <487239.20444.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:59 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2008/10/7 The Avantguardian : > >> I just wanted to clarify that I am not suggesting one buy just >> *any* stock. Think about companies that produce goods or services >> that you think that even broke people will need, check their >> balance sheets, and ask yourself if you trust their management >> team. The first rule of any market place is "buyer beware". > > Actually, this advice ignores the way the market is supposed to > function. Since everyone has access to the same information, the "bad" > companies will be discounted and the "good" companies will have a > premium, Not any more. The government rewires the signals as it pleases supposedly for our own good. The signals haven't been dependable since long before this crisis. They are becoming less dependable by the hour. > so that the expected gain remains equal. If there were a > discrepancy, and a stock was seen as particularly bad value or > particularly good value, the market would very quickly adjust the > price to reflect this. The only way to beat the market is to have > special information. This is why professional fund managers don't do > any better at picking stocks than someone who chooses at random. > The government decrees what the price shall be of late. When they dismantled the downside signals (shorts) there was an artificial positive spin that further distorts markets. Governments are attempting to hide from the people just how long we have been fed financial fairy tales and what the truth is. This will only make the inescapable emergence of the truth much more painful than it would otherwise have been. - samantha From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 12 21:29:54 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:29:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] my god is bigger than your god Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012162602.02465188@satx.rr.com> Always amazing when it's quite this blatant: but luckily, just to set the record straight, From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Oct 12 21:50:47 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:50:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] my god is bigger than your god In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012162602.02465188@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012162602.02465188@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670810121450k63ae1b07k8580279cfffb0568@mail.gmail.com> I didn't realize God needed to guard his reputation! LOL I remember there being a U.S. Army general who as a church guest speaker originally made the "my God is bigger than your God" quote. This makes me think of ancient peoples who felt that if their armies and lands fell to their enemies, then obviously the gods of their rivals were gaining ascendancy in the heavenly realms. Are you familiar with this particular God-Man story that applies to your subject line? http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/2000/09/28/boll/index.html The main God-Man homepage: http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 12 22:10:25 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:10:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] my god is bigger than your god In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012162602.02465188@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012162602.02465188@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Always amazing when it's quite this blatant: > > If you had one of these: you really could say 'My dog is bigger than your dog'. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 12 22:24:33 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:24:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] my god is bigger than your god In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012162602.02465188@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012172150.022e0eb0@satx.rr.com> At 10:10 PM 10/12/2008 +0000, BillK wrote: >If you had one of these: > > >you really could say 'My dog is bigger than your dog'. If you had one of these: you really could say 'My dog is bigger than your god'. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 12 22:43:30 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:43:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] my God-Man is grigger than your god In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810121450k63ae1b07k8580279cfffb0568@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012162602.02465188@satx.rr.com> <2d6187670810121450k63ae1b07k8580279cfffb0568@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012173956.022b9828@satx.rr.com> At 02:50 PM 10/12/2008 -0700, John G---- wrote: >The main God-Man homepage: > >http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html > These are great! I especially liked: http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/1999/08/26/boll/index.html and http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/1998/11/12boll.html and http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/12/08/boll/index1.html But why stop there, there's loads o' fun to be had! Thanks for the heads-up, John. Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 00:04:37 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:04:37 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <487239.20444.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/13 Samantha Atkins : >> Actually, this advice ignores the way the market is supposed to >> function. Since everyone has access to the same information, the "bad" >> companies will be discounted and the "good" companies will have a >> premium, > > Not any more. The government rewires the signals as it pleases supposedly > for our own good. The signals haven't been dependable since long before > this crisis. They are becoming less dependable by the hour. The market takes the government's behaviour into account. If the government increases taxes on tobacco, tobacco companies' share prices will drop, usually as soon as the information is known, in anticipation of lower profits. So the share price immediately reflects all the known information, and the only way you can "beat" the market is if you know about the tax increase coming before everyone else does. -- Stathis Papaioannou From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 13 03:34:51 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:34:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Oct 6, 2008, at 11:31 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > --- On Sun, 10/5/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >>> I suspect this bailout solution will solve nothing, >> for it leaves in place >>> the root cause: government requirements on banks to >> give out what they >>> already know are bad loans. I find plenty of good >> explanations in the >>> internet commentary, but almost nothing in the >> mainstream press. > > Yes, and all the panicked sheep that are selling off their stocks at > ridiculous losses and buying Treasury Bills at pitifully low > interest rates are fools because they are rewarding the government > for the stupid, corrupt, and self-serving policies that got us here > in the first place. The U.S. stockmarket will outlive the U.S. > government because the whole world has a stake in our markets but > most countries would not shed a tear for our government. Holding stocks during this major dive across the board is idiotic. Buying bargains when you think you see a bottom and great value makes sense but is of course dangerous. Buying T-bills doesn't make a lot of sense. Buying gold, commodities and hard assets does. > > >> Why not simply admit that boom/bust cycles are a natural >> part of any >> market system? Leave things alone, and there will be a >> depression. In >> a decade or two when people have forgotten about 2008 >> they'll start >> bidding up the price of shares and property, banks will >> start lending >> again to get a slice of the long-awaited recovery or risk >> falling >> behind and being taken over by more adventurous players, >> high-regulation governments and central banks will be under >> pressure >> to loosen things up in the interests of boosting economic >> activity, >> and the whole thing will start again. > There is nothing natural about artificial manipulation of the interest rates and standard practices and regulation for political reasons leading to the largest market bubble in our financial history. That bubble could not have been create by the free market. > I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but it won't last that > long. Great Depressions are no longer possible because the markets > and everything else react far too quickly to any bit of information > in the age of the Internet. Not helpful if the really bad news spreads really quickly leading to an internet speed crash. > What others call a depression, I call a white-sale on blue-chip > stocks. And my only regret is that I don't have the money to go on a > wallstreet shopping spree. Besides I have other investment > priorities at the moment. Fear is useless *after* the bubble bursts > because it is too late to sell. When the market is still falling and demonstrably has not hit bottom it can be better to take the current loss rather than a much greater loss. Many learned this during the dot com bust the hard way. For assets directly inflated by the bubble there will be no full recovery, ever. Add in the over $200 billion in direct liabilities hanging over financial institutions due to Friday's pricing of Lehman bond based CDS instruments. There is no reason whatsoever to expect financials to come back for many years. There is no reason for housing or related industries to come back to pre crash levels. Housing will not hit bottom until the price of houses drops a great deal more sucking up the over supply of homes on the market. And this is the best outcome right now. There could easily be a great deal of economic ill yet to come. So no, this is not time for a Wall Street shopping spree. Not yet. Keep your powder dry and within reach. - samantha From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 13 03:40:32 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:40:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] banks and crash References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081012124038.0232d6e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <005601c92ce5$842e9cb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien replies for Barbara > Barbara Lamar replies: > > =========================== > Dear Dr. Papaioannou, > > You wrote: > > < an ordinary recession was the inaction of government and the central > bank after the crash, allowing banks to fail and the money supply to > contract, because using fiscal and monetary policy to correct it was > anti-free market.>> Actually, Stathis is correct---one of the overriding direct causes of the great depression was that the government allowed the money supply to contract horribly. (See Milton Friedman's view's on the subject.) > ...you need to brush up United States history. This lofty tone impedes polite discussion here. Damien, I do wish that you would make my views on this matter of list etiquette known to Barbara. > The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank was created in 1913. That's right. Yet another step towards eventual disaster. But it should be noted that under the *existing* federal regulation--- already exceedingly damaging to the economy---J. P. Morgan and his friends were already acting just like the Fed was. He and his pals bailed out a lot of failing banks in 1907. What happened six years later was merely a formalization. >Years later, Wilson (who, as president, signed the Federal Reserve Act) said, > > "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. Thanks for this great quote! I had no idea that Wilson realized what he had helped to do. But I doubt that he realized that the best policy was to return to the pre-1855 near uninvolvement of the government. (Though even by then, a certain number of panics, such as that of 1837 had been provoked by government action.) > A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, > therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most > completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world." Ah, the good old days, when the government was yet to get involved in the housing market and numerous other evils. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System > > I do not have time right now to write at greater length, but please at least read the history of the Federal Reserve Bank before > you make statements about the operation of "free" financial markets in the 1920's. This is correct in my view, but it's unacceptable to speak down to others in this fashion if we want civilized discourse to remain possible. What if Stathis were merely to reply and suggest that you have no understanding and don't know what you're talking about? Can we please keep to *content*? Lee > Your comment indicates a basic lack of understanding on your part of the effect of money and credit on an economy. > > Regards, > > Barbara Lamar From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 04:19:26 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:49:26 +1130 Subject: [ExI] "This American Life" on global credit crisis Message-ID: <710b78fc0810122119g64ee8de5uc3b4c805304240d2@mail.gmail.com> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=993067&cid=25344895 Have a listen to the audio links given in this article. Really good stuff. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 13 04:18:01 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:18:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"? References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com><580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com><056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com><004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><580930c20809301330q5ecbce98t6daaadb24f90641e@mail.gmail.com><016e01c924aa$721d4190$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <161f01c92ceb$1f7185c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef wrote (Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:48 AM) > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Yet, when we, especially in the west, do stumble upon certain >> kinds of "things which had been veiled", e.g., the speed of light, >> should we really be blamed for claiming that we have advanced, >> that we now have better maps, that the accuracy of our beliefs >> is improved? > > It appears we're getting ever closer to mutual understanding of this > point, but I'll offer a small but fundamentally significant > correction: > > "Accuracy" is simply not meaningful, independent of context. > > I suppose this became second-nature to me during my decades in > scientific instrumentation... Certainly there are times in which the idea of accuracy is either not applicable or is imprecise. Yet there are many cases in which it is an extraordinarily useful concept and corresponds very well to the actual relationship between things (of course, to the degree which we are able to presume that we have knowledge about such a relationship). It would be a futile waste of time, and really quite unnecessary, for example, to modify this claim with qualifiers: "A map showing Hawaii as part of the continental U.S. is completely inaccurate---a map showing Hawaii as one or a set of islands relatively far from the rest of the U.S. is correct." > I've lost track of how many times a user > would ask "but how accurate is this tool or technique?" and we would > have to educate them to understand that we could guarantee precision, > or repeatability, or any of several other metrics of measurement > quality, but we could say nothing about "accuracy" which is always > dependent on some reference standard (usually provided to the customer > via some traceable government or scientific standards authority.) Was this always the case? If so, then you may have sounded evasive to your customers. In many such cases, I would assume, the reference standard is assumed. For example, if I made a meter stick out of wood and gave it to someone, he'd have every right to inquire as to whether it was accurate. If I affirmed that the markings I'd made lined up pretty closely with those of a standard, purchased meter stick, then I could assert that "Yes, this is accurate". Presumably we would both know that even a manufactured meter stick does not infinitely closely approximate the standard meter > Similarly, coherence over any particular context says NOTHING about > the accuracy of a belief, which belief might conceivably be subject to > radical change with a single new observation that doesn't fit the > previous model. This is *always* in principle possible. However, as a matter of practical necessity, I'm sure that you won't quibble with "Some people have been to Hawaii" I don't understand why you would hesitate to affirm that statement as "accurate". > I'm sensitive to the appearance that I'm repeatedly harping on a few > points which may appear to some to be insignificant or > inconsequential... Not at all. In discussions like this, that's the norm! (Or ought I have rather said "In a number of discussions resembling this, depending on context in most cases, one should expect apparently trivial points to be pursued by some participants." For me, as I am sure for you, complete accuracy is unattainable, and one should measure the value of a statement by this ratio: overall accuracy (or, if you must, "accuracy in an apparently given context") divided by the number of words used. Lee From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 13 04:55:21 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:55:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] year million again In-Reply-To: <001701c92894$9192fd10$7f094797@archimede> Message-ID: <200810130522.m9D5M0K7007448@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I went out Tuesday on a trip to the east coast. I had two bad newses for our own Damien Broderick and several ExI-chat regulars and former regulars. The first was that Damien's book Year Million was missing from the front endcap at the San Francisco main terminal bookstore, which is perhaps the most coveted real estate in all of booksellerdom. The second bad news is the book that was in its place: a hastily compiled biography of Sarah Palin. But all bad things must come to an end too: as I came thru there this evening, Year Million is back on the front endcap, so perhaps they just ran out when I came thru Tuesday, which is also a good thing, so long as they restock. The Sarah Palin book is still there, so Damien and his friends are sharing top billing, but still this may be the most mainstream exposure of the proletariat to extropian notions. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 13 05:57:38 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:57:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] year million again In-Reply-To: <200810130522.m9D5M0K7007448@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <001701c92894$9192fd10$7f094797@archimede> <200810130522.m9D5M0K7007448@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081013005420.02646078@satx.rr.com> At 09:55 PM 10/12/2008 -0700, Spike wrote: > >the book that was in its place: a hastily compiled biography of Sarah Palin. > >...The Sarah Palin book is still there, so Damien and his friends are >sharing top billing The horror, the horror. Thanks for the heads-up, Spike. And yes, if nominated I will accept, if elected I will serve. Least an Australian lad could do in these times of trouble. Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 11:45:57 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:45:57 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/13 Samantha Atkins : > There is nothing natural about artificial manipulation of the interest rates > and standard practices and regulation for political reasons leading to the > largest market bubble in our financial history. That bubble could not have > been create by the free market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 13:22:35 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:22:35 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/13 Samantha Atkins : > Holding stocks during this major dive across the board is idiotic. Buying > bargains when you think you see a bottom and great value makes sense but is > of course dangerous. Buying T-bills doesn't make a lot of sense. Buying > gold, commodities and hard assets does. But most commodities and hard assets have depreciated against the USD, and gold has only appreciated slightly. The USD has also appreciated against most other currencies, even though ironically the US is responsible for the recent economic rot. This is because the USD is special: it is the world's reserve currency, due to the size of the US economy and the demonstrated willingness of the US government to do whatever it takes to protect their perceived economic interests. China and Japan aren't going to sell their dollars to buy gold or Euro, because the subsequent collapse in the dollar would damage their own economies, as when a creditor forces a debtor into insolvency. -- Stathis Papaioannou From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Oct 13 13:53:12 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:53:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) Message-ID: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> Another comment: Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More _____ I agree with Jay that the Republican party today is an extremely fragile coalition and think it could break up if there is a landslide Democratic victory this election. Democrats are also a fragile coalition of hourly wage workers, environmentalists, lawyers, academics, public employees and members of the media and entertainment industries (except conservative talk and Christian radio and TV), but not nearly as fragile as the Republicans. If Jay is right that a coalition of Democratic and Republican financial conservatives will form a new party, I think the US will end up like the UK with three major parties (left, center and right) or perhaps, like Canada, more than three parties with representation in Congress. The new US party of the left would be a coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans; the center would be the financial conservatives and the right would be the current social conservatives. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Oct 13 15:21:25 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:21:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] year million again. References: <001701c92894$9192fd10$7f094797@archimede><200810130522.m9D5M0K7007448@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081013005420.02646078@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3FF8FD44447242ED92141683CE41F6BF@MyComputer> In the past I have castigated Damien for believing in stuff that Nature refuses to print, however in the August 7 2008 issue there is a rather favorable review of his book "The Year Million". You can read part of it at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7205/full/454696b.html John K Clark From dagonweb at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 17:13:50 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:13:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: > > I agree with Jay that the Republican party today is an extremely fragile > coalition and think it could break up if there is a landslide Democratic > victory this election. > Democrats are also a fragile coalition of hourly wage workers, > environmentalists, lawyers, academics, public employees and members of the > media and entertainment industries (except conservative talk and Christian > radio and TV), but not nearly as fragile as the Republicans. > > If Jay is right that a coalition of Democratic and Republican financial > conservatives will form a new party, I think the US will end up like the UK > with three major parties (left, center and right) or perhaps, like Canada, > more than three parties with representation in Congress. The new US party of > the left would be a coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian > Republicans; the center would be the financial conservatives and the right > would be the current social conservatives. > I don't much care as long as the US stops being a military superpower. That has to end, at any cost. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 13 17:14:27 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:14:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com> <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <165901c92d57$46eb24f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef wrote (Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:29 AM) >> Jef writes >> >>> Lee, are you arguing with a selection of my words, or what you know of >>> me (my structure of beliefs?) >> >> I'm arguing with (a few of) the things you wrote, not what I know >> of your structure of beliefs, which, sorry, is very vague to me. >> (I can hardly be expected to remember all belief nuances of the >> many individuals even on this small forum.) > > Lee, we've been around this loop already far too many times. I'm a > bit dismayed by your claim not to have built up much of a model of my > point of view -- it seems to me a bit more facile than plausible, but > I readily admit that I'm often dismayed by similar evidence from > others, so my comment here is more to my dismay than to your veracity. In that case, instead of perceiving "facileness" on my part, remember these words: Andrew Clough writes "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to assume your opponent is the ignorant one-until you can show it isn't you." -M.N. Plano And you are *hardly* the worst offender regarding this sage advice. >> > **all** expressions of knowledge entail a subjective point of view >> >> it does ring alarm bells, for even when I say "all knowledge is >> conjectural" I recognize that some might well-argue that for >> an individual, certain facts are not merely conjectural, e.g., >> "I am thinking", ... > > So many have followed the "obvious truth" of this Cartesian assumption > of direct, immediate knowledge of, if nothing else, at least of one's > own thoughts. But ask yourself, isn't such thinking (about one's own > perceived thoughts) necessarily removed in time, and subject to > alteration -- and even fabrication -- by the natural processes of the > brain? Oh, please don't infer from what I wrote that I *endorse* that position at all. I was merely saying that some will debate (and rationally and endlessly) that at least this one thing is certain. To many prominent thinkers (e.g. Descartes himself), the claim did seem unquestionable. > I know you're well-read, much better than the average man on the > street. But why this death-grip with which you appear to hold on to > superficially reassuring but superfluous concepts of absolute truth, > or absolute personal identity, I shun "Absolute Truth" especially when in capital letters. *All* knowledge is conjectural, is the statement---as you must know---which I endorse as I've said repeatedly. I believe that my concept of personal identity is as real as the concept of "species". For example, it's silly to deny that elephants exist as a separate species, or that my car exists as a real assembly of components, and so on. You may disagree with me, but to suggest that I have some sort of death-grip on these concepts is not correct: I believe in one's personal identity to the same degree as I believe in elephants, and *all* knowledge is conjectural. Lee From dagonweb at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 17:18:27 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:18:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: References: <358799.1534.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > But most commodities and hard assets have depreciated against the USD, > and gold has only appreciated slightly. The USD has also appreciated > against most other currencies, even though ironically the US is > responsible for the recent economic rot. This is because the USD is > special: it is the world's reserve currency, due to the size of the US > economy and the demonstrated willingness of the US government to do > whatever it takes to protect their perceived economic interests. China > and Japan aren't going to sell their dollars to buy gold or Euro, > because the subsequent collapse in the dollar would damage their own > economies, as when a creditor forces a debtor into insolvency. So what you are saying is creditors owning US debts or dollars are only going to sell dollars if there is a panic, like when someone starts selling dollars in significant quantities, all of a sudden - like when one of the debtors suddenly has a very significant natural disaster - or some bank makes a floating point mistake? (looks in the illuminati script) ... how remarkeble.... (mutters ... *december*) .... ok, gotscha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 13 17:27:23 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:27:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"? References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com> <004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809301330q5ecbce98t6daaadb24f90641e@mail.gmail.com> <016e01c924aa$721d4190$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20810030532j2e568937pa997b6176c79f465@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <167801c92d59$62716e30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stefano wrote (Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 5:32 AM) > Lee wrote: > >> Yet, when we, especially in the west, do stumble upon certain >> kinds of "things which had been veiled", e.g., the speed of light, >> should we really be blamed for claiming that we have advanced, >> that we now have better maps, that the accuracy of our beliefs >> is improved? > > I think that if we do that with due caution and qualifications, we shouldn't. Agreed. So long as we resist the temptation to affirm that what we have found is beyond criticism, we are entirely justified in believing our beliefs that have survived serious criticism, and especially those that can be reproduced publicly. > Also because after all "discovery" and "invention" have exactly this > meaning, and both ultimately refer in a certain kind of cultural > framework, which we may tentatively call > scientific/western/relativist, to what "works", or at least appears to > work to a growing number of people, to the detriment of possible > alternate worlds inhabited by a handful of aboriginal shamans or > Tibetan monk-lords or postmodern scholars. Quite right. But don't you confess that on a day-to-day basis, the real Stefano goes around with a conviction *nearing* certainty that (a) he's alive (b) the city around him is definitely real (c) someone did say in fact what you most clearly and certainly heard him to say (d) that if you drop your newpaper, it will fall to the ground, and so on and so on? It's only at odd moments that you call these beliefs about daily life into question, (e.g. the entirely actual possibility that we are living in a simulation). Normally, it is quite useless when driving home from work to wonder whether the light ahead is red or is merely a perception by a possibly non-existent being, blah, blah, blah. Therefore, I make this compromise with the non-realists: just assume that your working model of the universe is "correct", simply for expediency. Almost always, they'll go along with that. Lee From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 17:07:19 2008 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] banks and crash Message-ID: <290614.9204.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lee: > Actually, Stathis is correct... (See Milton Friedman... Ah, another Friedman disciple! I don't know if you read my post to Stathis in the thread that spawned this one, but current events have inspired me to question all my cherished assumptions about economics, including even the Friedman orthodoxy. I realize this amounts to heresy to some, but I question not only the Monetarist theory about the causes of the Great Depression (GD) but also the Monetarist theory about the causes of the recovery. Most economists consider the GD to have ended with WWII. In the depression years prior to WWII, unemployment never dropped below the sickly level of ~14%. During the war, unemployment dropped to about 1% and GDP took off like a rocket. So I ask: what exactly happened during the war years to end the GD? Keynesians offer what seems like a reasonable explanation: massive deficit spending on the war machine increased aggregate demand. If the Monetarists also have a reasonable answer then I don't understand it. Money supply bottomed in 1933 and trended higher to at least 1941. If expansion of the money supply should end a depression they why did the GD not end in 1934? Why so many years of pain? Also, why did GDP surge so *radically* during of the war if not because of the similarly *radical* growth in deficit spending? I realize that appearances can deceive, but it appears on the surface that massive deficit spending during WWII caused massive growth in GDP and massive growth in employment, exactly as Keynes predicted. I have not seen similar statistics about any massive increase in the money supply during WWII, assuming they exist. I have a pet theory that might explain this discrepancy, which I might share with you after I see your reply. A side note: today Paul Krugman, a prominent Neo-Keynesian, won the Nobel Prize in Economics. It would seem that rumors of Keynes' death have been greatly exaggerated. -gts From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 13 17:36:52 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:36:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com><62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <168a01c92d5a$caa1d5c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > [Jef wrote] > >> And that's perfectly all right. Indeed -- and this is my point -- >> we're better off in practical terms to acknowledge this inherent >> subjectivity, removing the unwarranted conceptual bump from our model, >> to reduce the friction involved in further updating our model in a >> world of accelerating change. > > That is perhaps the most succinctly you have stated your position of > which I am aware. You might appreciate that it contains zero > occurrences of "increasingly". Mike, in your opinion, what is said here that is not captured simply by "I could be wrong"? > I suggest there is no way to assume a root of reality any more > than it is possible to discuss the reality of an objective point of > view. Can you give me any examples for what it *is* possible to discuss the reality of? I just want to make sure I understand you. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Oct 13 17:50:31 2008 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:50:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits References: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com><200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081004181223.025408a0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <168b01c92d5c$32c17470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien (Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 4:21 PM) commented on a number of views he'd read, but it wasn't too easy to see what he himself was affirming. But apparently he writes > A good idea in theory, to extend the dream of home ownership to more > Americans, and particularly, more minorities, lower-income Americans, > but banks aren't well-suited to applying progressive social programs. > How creditworthiness is defined was altered to meet egalitarian ideals. Quite right. But did anyone mention the legal climate that congress has created since the late sixties? Mortgage and loan lenders can be *sued* for turning down loans, and very often successfully so, because of pieces of legislation going back to 1977. And the last thing that the lenders want is a law-suit. I think that their solution was, later on, to very cleverly start bundling what they feared were bad loans into packages, packages which ultimately would receive backing from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which ultimately have the implied power of the government behind them. So the *immediate* cause of the collapse was the existence of all the bad loans, which had been forced upon an otherwise very careful (and very self-interested) banking community. But the *distal* cause remained, and remains, the very idea that the government can inject "stimulants" into the economy whenever it feels like it. Lee From eschatoon at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 18:24:17 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:24:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] test, please ignore Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810131124v62b854eaw4ada217e0bf03104@mail.gmail.com> Testing to see if my messages with this new email reach the list now -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 13 18:25:43 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:25:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <168b01c92d5c$32c17470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com> <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081004181223.025408a0@satx.rr.com> <168b01c92d5c$32c17470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081013131723.023b0e50@satx.rr.com> At 10:50 AM 10/13/2008 -0700, Lee wrote: >Damien (Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 4:21 PM) commented on a >number of views he'd read, but it wasn't too easy to see what he himself >was affirming. Almost every word was quoted comments (marked off in a large chunk with baffling obscurity with double lines, i.e. ================, fore and after). >So the *immediate* cause of the collapse was the existence of all >the bad loans, which had been forced upon an otherwise very careful >(and very self-interested) banking community. Hahahahahaha. As I said at the top of that earlier post mostly of comments: Really? Is that like "The Devil made Enron do it"? I'd endorse a careful listen to the interesting radio program Emlyn recommended last night (365: Another Frightening Show About the Economy): http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263 Damien Broderick From dagonweb at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 18:28:07 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:28:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] test, please ignore In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810131124v62b854eaw4ada217e0bf03104@mail.gmail.com> References: <1fa8c3b90810131124v62b854eaw4ada217e0bf03104@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Damn, just my luck, missed it. On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Eschatoon Magic wrote: > Testing to see if my messages with this new email reach the list now > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 18:41:57 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:41:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <168a01c92d5a$caa1d5c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> <168a01c92d5a$caa1d5c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240810131141g392b3581w8898d3a95bbd2732@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: >> I suggest there is no way to assume a root of reality any more >> than it is possible to discuss the reality of an objective point of >> view. > > Can you give me any examples for what it *is* possible to > discuss the reality of? I just want to make sure I understand > you. No - I cannot. The context in which I wrote the original was that (I felt) Jef repeatedly pigeonholed me as a "believer" in absolute anything. I made the connection to "objective" reality and what I thought was Jef's attempt to point to some kind of "root" in his tree analogy. We are left with [?] each member in the conversation has their "inherent subjectivity" - I think the thread trailed away once it became clear there was no way to "win." I reiterate: No; I am unable to provide examples. If the exercise is to prove a class, then a series of object examples can illuminate the class but never prove it completely. If other classes are meant to be used inductively, they must either be a priori agreed upon or else also proven by another method. I become discouraged when faced with the idea that people truly care only about their own concerns. An other scenario is that I'm having a solipsist argument where what I perceive as agreement is a reflection of a desire for agreement (arbitrarily relaxing the requirement for exactness to achieve it) Either way, it seems a futile effort. From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Oct 13 19:54:16 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:54:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <62c14240810131141g392b3581w8898d3a95bbd2732@mail.gmail.com> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> <168a01c92d5a$caa1d5c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810131141g392b3581w8898d3a95bbd2732@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > The context in which I wrote the original was that (I felt) Jef > repeatedly pigeonholed me as a "believer" in absolute anything. You sound a bit angry. I am sorry for my impatience. I never intended anything like what you apparently perceived. > I > made the connection to "objective" reality and what I thought was > Jef's attempt to point to some kind of "root" in his tree analogy. My main point had to do with our inherent inability to point to any such root -- it may be 1 mile away or 10 or 100 miles away for all we can ever know -- so no matter how good your trigonometry, you can't determine the "true" pointing vector. If you're in a tree and all you can ever see is fractally converging branches, is there *any* practical value to knowledge of the "ultimate point of convergence"? Can you even form a coherent function model of such a referent? > We > are left with [?] each member in the conversation has their "inherent > subjectivity" - I think the thread trailed away once it became clear > there was no way to "win." I've never hoped to win, but I often feel an unreasonable desire to be heard and understood. > I reiterate: No; I am unable to provide examples. If the exercise is > to prove a class, then a series of object examples can illuminate the > class but never prove it completely. If other classes are meant to be > used inductively, they must either be a priori agreed upon or else > also proven by another method. I become discouraged when faced with > the idea that people truly care only about their own concerns. I often feel discouraged that people grasp for absolutes (if qualified by "contingent", fine, but contingent on what specifically?) and blithely refer to "the simple truth" when there can be only subjective probabilities. In the bigger picture, pragmatic predictive success has never been about knowing what's correct, but about knowing more and more what's unlikely to be correct. I care about this because it has a direct bearing on our prospects for social decision-making seen as increasingly moral over increasing scope of consequences. Any assumption of absolute knowledge eventually impedes the process (from any -- necessarily subjective -- point of view.) This understanding is critical to shifting the focus from expected *outcomes increasingly unspecifiable*, to increasingly effective *methods in principle* for achieving increasingly desireable outcomes. The race continues to evolve, while our faithful old race car becomes obsolete. > An > other scenario is that I'm having a solipsist argument where what I > perceive as agreement is a reflection of a desire for agreement > (arbitrarily relaxing the requirement for exactness to achieve it) > Either way, it seems a futile effort. I think it's damn close to futile, but not absolutely futile, and that's what makes it interesting. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 13 20:29:14 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:29:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <016901c924a8$5613e5a0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> <168a01c92d5a$caa1d5c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810131141g392b3581w8898d3a95bbd2732@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081013151047.023f77a0@satx.rr.com> At 12:54 PM 10/13/2008 -0700, Jef wrote: >In the bigger picture, pragmatic predictive success >has never been about knowing what's correct, but about knowing more >and more what's unlikely to be correct. This is a nicely phrased falsificationist perspective. Perhaps one ought to add: unlikely to be correct *of any models so far considered and tested with some degree of precision*. It's a while since I read Imre Lakatos, but I think his competing research programs version of Popper might go like that. And I suppose "correct" means "comparatively effective or fruitful for current focal purposes, without screwing up too much else off in the penumbra." That is, in Asimov's striking phrase, it doesn't unexplain more than it newly explains. And then--O Lord, can't we ever stop, just sit down and rest for a moment?--"unlikely to be correct" *as currently formulated*. First it was waves, then it was particles, then it was waves again, then particles and waves, or wavy strings, or neither but something that can be handled heuristically with a blend of those simplifications, etc etc. My own little bug creeps out blinking into the light: if and when a powerful theory emerges (in physics or psychophysics) that not only permits some "anomalous paranormal effects" but really hints strongly that they ought to exist, then psi, for a long time seen as "unlikely to be correct," might pop up as a prediction/retrodiction. Then all the good empirical work compiled by the allegedly crackpot heretics will fit into place, and the trash will remain with the woo-woo mystagogues and priests--and good riddance. Damien Broderick From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 21:14:19 2008 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:14:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> <168a01c92d5a$caa1d5c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810131141g392b3581w8898d3a95bbd2732@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240810131414h646a71b4v5c3fac723c8f6f27@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> The context in which I wrote the original was that (I felt) Jef >> repeatedly pigeonholed me as a "believer" in absolute anything. > > You sound a bit angry. I am sorry for my impatience. I never > intended anything like what you apparently perceived. Sorry, no intention to sound angry. I used language less cautiously in response to Lee. > determine the "true" pointing vector. If you're in a tree and all you > can ever see is fractally converging branches, is there *any* > practical value to knowledge of the "ultimate point of convergence"? > Can you even form a coherent function model of such a referent? No inherent value. Practical value? Coherent function model of such? Only if we both can agree what practical value the idea-token means. >> subjectivity" - I think the thread trailed away once it became clear >> there was no way to "win." > > I've never hoped to win, but I often feel an unreasonable desire to be > heard and understood. admittedly infused with sarcasm - game theory kind of win (whether zero or non-zero sum is indeterminate) > assumption of absolute knowledge eventually impedes the process (from > any -- necessarily subjective -- point of view.) This understanding > is critical to shifting the focus from expected *outcomes increasingly > unspecifiable*, to increasingly effective *methods in principle* for > achieving increasingly desireable outcomes. The race continues to > evolve, while our faithful old race car becomes obsolete. I still agree with this. From pjmanney at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 21:29:50 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:29:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "This American Life" on global credit crisis In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810122119g64ee8de5uc3b4c805304240d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810122119g64ee8de5uc3b4c805304240d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <29666bf30810131429g7dda8co7dfd83917fd7ae9d@mail.gmail.com> Leave it to "This American Life" to get to the heart of the problem in a way average people can understand. It's not only great radio, they're my heroes. Be sure to listen to both links. It's a real lesson in hubris (like we needed another one). The second podcast, "Another Frightening Show About the Economy", http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=365 is the most eyeopening, on credit default swaps -- something, btw, most analyses I've seen never even touch on. This is scarier than the worst slasher movie ever. Talk about losing sleep over the endless greed and stupidity of people... PJ On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Emlyn wrote: > > http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=993067&cid=25344895 > > Have a listen to the audio links given in this article. Really good stuff. > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com - my home > http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting > http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks > on eCulture > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Oct 13 21:39:54 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:39:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081013151047.023f77a0@satx.rr.com> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810021506n10f52c53l18d513e0a5e9bc69@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810021753g3e5026a9w38b50a0bb1db527e@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240810031502p2a67849emda8b37f12e9e3b47@mail.gmail.com> <168a01c92d5a$caa1d5c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240810131141g392b3581w8898d3a95bbd2732@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081013151047.023f77a0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:54 PM 10/13/2008 -0700, Jef wrote: > >> In the bigger picture, pragmatic predictive success >> has never been about knowing what's correct, but about knowing more >> and more what's unlikely to be correct. > > This is a nicely phrased falsificationist perspective. Perhaps one ought to > add: unlikely to be correct *of any models so far considered and tested with > some degree of precision*. Yes, sometimes "increasingly coherent over increasing context" is elided as a gesture of sensitivity to the Dear Reader. ;-) > It's a while since I read Imre Lakatos, but I > think his competing research programs version of Popper might go like that. Very similar, I suppose. > And I suppose "correct" means "comparatively effective or fruitful for > current focal purposes, without screwing up too much else off in the > penumbra." That is, in Asimov's striking phrase, it doesn't unexplain more > than it newly explains. Yes, lest we ignore the importance of context. > And then--O Lord, can't we ever stop, just sit down and rest for a > moment?--"unlikely to be correct" *as currently formulated*. First it was > waves, then it was particles, then it was waves again, then particles and > waves, or wavy strings, or neither but something that can be handled > heuristically with a blend of those simplifications, etc etc. Yes, supporting my central point that "the truth" is growing, rather than converging. > My own little bug creeps out blinking into the light: if and when a powerful > theory emerges (in physics or psychophysics) that not only permits some > "anomalous paranormal effects" but really hints strongly that they ought to > exist, then psi, for a long time seen as "unlikely to be correct," might pop > up as a prediction/retrodiction. Then all the good empirical work compiled > by the allegedly crackpot heretics will fit into place, and the trash will > remain with the woo-woo mystagogues and priests--and good riddance. Well, then looking forward to that strong hint. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 13 21:45:23 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:45:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "This American Life" on global credit crisis In-Reply-To: <29666bf30810131429g7dda8co7dfd83917fd7ae9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810122119g64ee8de5uc3b4c805304240d2@mail.gmail.com> <29666bf30810131429g7dda8co7dfd83917fd7ae9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081013164138.02501018@satx.rr.com> At 02:29 PM 10/13/2008 -0700, PJ wrote: >The second podcast, "Another Frightening Show About the Economy", >http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=365 >is the most eyeopening, on credit default swaps -- something, btw, >most analyses I've seen never even touch on. This is scarier than the >worst slasher movie ever. Talk about losing sleep over the endless >greed and stupidity of people... Oh, PJ, don't you understand anything? Lee has patiently explained that it's all due to the government bowing and scraping to the poor, forcing their will upon those luckless "very careful (and very self-interested)" finance people you so unkindly dub greedy and stupid. Damien Broderick From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 22:34:20 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:04:20 +1130 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <710b78fc0810131534n6db061a0mec1d4f75e9c3e8e4@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/14 Natasha Vita-More : > If Jay is right that a coalition of Democratic and Republican financial > conservatives will form a new party, I think the US will end up like the UK > with three major parties (left, center and right) Center-right, Right, and Right Outa The Ballpark? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 13 22:59:20 2008 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:59:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] more belated singularity mainstream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <100908.89144.qm@web27008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The fact that there's more singularity mainstream coverage may reflect Arthur C Clarke's maxim "New ideas pass through three periods: 1) It can't be done. 2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing. 3) I knew it was a good idea all along!" Also, when talking about space elevators he said "As its most enthusiastic promoter, I am often asked when I think the first space elevator might be built. My answer has always been: about 50 years after everyone has stopped laughing. Maybe I should now revise it to 25 years." So, somewhere over the past decade the concept of "the singularity", "the spike" and all the variations they entail has gone from an out-there concept to something people have stopped laughing about. There's still a long way to the reality of a technological singularity happening, but the media reports show that it is an idea whose time is genuinely coming. Computing power is coming along, genetics is coming along, mass use of "smart drugs" (OK, so it's currently abuse of Ritalin and Provigil, but it's got to start somewhere right) in higher education, the newest collaborations on the internet - it's all adding up to slow steps up the foothills of the singularity. Arthur C Clarke also had the doomy quotes of "Our lifetime may be the last that will be lived out in a technological society." and "This is the first age that's ever paid much attention to the future, which is a little ironic since we may not have one." With the current financial crisis drawing metaphors from the Great Depression and the worst days of the 1970s, the crucial question is: which will come first? A self-sustaining singularity that can keep itself going despite problems in human civilisations and any shortages of materials/energy generated by human mismanagement of the earth, or a collape so severe the singularity may be postponed indefinitely? I try to be optimistic, but as someone who sees global climate change as a real threat and wonders what will happen if oil, food and drinkable water become *really* scarce, you have to wonder sometimes. Still, you never know - if we're in the grip of another 1930s, maybe there'll be a new "Hoover Dam" which boosts human progress, or if we're in another 1970s, for the cost of what Jimmy Carter proposed spending on energy independence the 21st century president could propose spending on Solar Power Satellites. (It's not impossible - the Carter plan cost over $100 billion in today's money, and that's a similar figure given to some plans for building several solar power satellites). Tom From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 23:37:00 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:37:00 +1100 Subject: [ExI] banks and crash In-Reply-To: <290614.9204.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <290614.9204.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/14 gts : > I realize that appearances can deceive, but it appears on the surface that massive deficit spending during WWII caused massive growth in GDP and massive growth in employment, exactly as Keynes predicted. I have not seen similar statistics about any massive increase in the money supply during WWII, assuming they exist. Deficit spending while the central bank keeps interest rates unchanged has the effect of increasing the money supply. -- Stathis Papaioannou From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 23:59:08 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:59:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <165901c92d57$46eb24f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <165901c92d57$46eb24f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200810131859.08997.kanzure@gmail.com> On Monday 13 October 2008, Lee Corbin wrote: > I believe that my concept of personal identity is as real as the > concept of "species". For example, it's silly to deny that elephants > exist as a separate species, or that my car exists as a real assembly > of components, and so on. You may disagree with me, but to > suggest that I have some sort of death-grip on these concepts > is not correct: I believe in one's personal identity to the same > degree as I believe in elephants, and *all* knowledge is conjectural. I'd like to throw at you that elephants are different than your identity because of the very practical consequence of mating an elephant and a nonelephant. When you get down to it, they don't mate, and thus aren't the same species. More specifically either mating doesn't lead to conception, or the resultant embryo fails to successfully mate usually through genetic abnormalities leading to death and such. This is a "field test" use of that 'elephants' classification .. a test for 'living' is hard as well, but it's much more along than any equivalent for identity, which is necessarily subjective within the assumptions of our discussions so far. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 14 00:23:24 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:23:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth" In-Reply-To: <200810131859.08997.kanzure@gmail.com> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <165901c92d57$46eb24f0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200810131859.08997.kanzure@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Monday 13 October 2008, Lee Corbin wrote: >> I believe that my concept of personal identity is as real as the >> concept of "species". For example, it's silly to deny that elephants >> exist as a separate species, or that my car exists as a real assembly >> of components, and so on. You may disagree with me, but to >> suggest that I have some sort of death-grip on these concepts >> is not correct: I believe in one's personal identity to the same >> degree as I believe in elephants, and *all* knowledge is conjectural. > > I'd like to throw at you that elephants are different than your identity > because of the very practical consequence of mating an elephant and a > nonelephant. When you get down to it, they don't mate, and thus aren't > the same species. More specifically either mating doesn't lead to > conception, or the resultant embryo fails to successfully mate usually > through genetic abnormalities leading to death and such. This is > a "field test" use of that 'elephants' classification .. a test > for 'living' is hard as well, but it's much more along than any > equivalent for identity, which is necessarily subjective within the > assumptions of our discussions so far. Gasp! Do you suggest that we know elephants not for what they *are*, but rather, based on *observations* of them with respect to correspondence to a class of entity? Could it be then, that personal identity is in fact the same kind of thing; based not on physically/functionally similarity, but in terms of perceived agency acting on behalf of a given entity? But, but, that would imply that two exact physical/functional duplicates, diverging by only a few minutes but already in deep conflict over ownership of possessions or liability for acts, would be considered separate persons! Or conversely that two agents, robots highly specialized for specific tasks, but acting solely and completely on behalf of a particular human entity, would be considered mere extensions of that person! Makes sense to me... - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 00:32:55 2008 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] banks and crash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <350811.2005.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 10/13/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Deficit spending while the central bank keeps interest > rates unchanged has the effect of increasing the money supply. Perhaps, but can you show me the money supply data for, say, 1939 to 1946? And can you show me a positive correlation, (statistically significant or not), between growth of the money supply and growth of GDP for the same period? I would like to believe that money supply explains the dramatic increase in GDP during the war, but I've looked around and so far I haven't found the evidence. Thanks Stathis, -gts From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 01:53:32 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:53:32 +1100 Subject: [ExI] banks and crash In-Reply-To: <350811.2005.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <350811.2005.qm@web36505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/14 gts : > --- On Mon, 10/13/08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> Deficit spending while the central bank keeps interest >> rates unchanged has the effect of increasing the money supply. > > Perhaps, but can you show me the money supply data for, say, 1939 to 1946? And can you show me a positive correlation, (statistically significant or not), between growth of the money supply and growth of GDP for the same period? > > I would like to believe that money supply explains the dramatic increase in GDP during the war, but I've looked around and so far I haven't found the evidence. A quick search brings up the following, although it seems to have a conservative/monetarist bias: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/06/fiscal_policy_f.html "Why then did deficit spending appear to have a powerful effect on total spending during the war? Because the Fed set a 1% interest rate and kept the printing presses running full speed to keep it there. >From January 1942 to January 1946, the monetary base expanded by 79%." -- Stathis Papaioannou From pjmanney at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 02:12:12 2008 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:12:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Convergence08 Message-ID: <29666bf30810131912o600e9032we67e0d78df69bf95@mail.gmail.com> *This is a reminder about Convergence 08* http://www.convergence08.org/ On November 15-16, 2008, the world's most dangerous ideas will collide in Mountain View, California. Convergence08 examines the world-changing possibilities of [image: Nanotech] and the life-changing promises of [image: Biotech]. It is the premier forum for debate and exploration of [image: Cogtech] ethics, and ground zero of the past and future [image: Infotech]revolution. Convergence 08 is an innovative, lively unconference, the first and only forum dedicated to NBIC (Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno) technologies. Please register and sign up to speak at this unconference at: http://convergence08.pbwiki.com/FrontPage We look forward to seeing you there! Early Bird Registration* General: $145 Student: $70 Standard Registration General: $195 Student: $120 Early bird rates available until Oct 20, 2008. Groups of 5+ = 20% registration discount (does not apply to students). 75 student registrations available. Student ID required. Register Today early bird registration closes in *7* days -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 03:25:18 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:25:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> Dagon wrote: > I don't much care as long as the US stops being a military superpower. That > has to end, at any cost. > Ummm...., I think the US needs to be a military superpower (at least for the near future) to offset those nations who would engage in "Germany in the late 30's" behavior (I sure don't see Europe doing it anytime soon). Russia and especially China come to mind as nations that must be stood up to along the lines of a schoolyard bully. But we are a nation of finite resources (despite being in complete denial) and we can only spend so much on the military and therefore we must do it wisely. The alliance I look forward to seeing is the United States, Europe, a remiliterized Japan (they are heading that way) and a blue water navy India (they are still in debate as to what the size and nature of their military, especially navy, should be) as the "21st Century global Nato" to offset Russian (and especially) Chinese aspirations for unlawful military/political expansion. By being strongly allied with these nations we would reduce the need for our massive defense spending. And we *might* overcome the urge to regularly play global lone cowboy (and thereby avoid the high financial and political/good will costs associated with it). John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 03:28:35 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:58:35 +1130 Subject: [ExI] Direct solar electrolysis - decentralised fuel infrastructure, is it viable? Message-ID: <710b78fc0810132028r4cf2b9a8m56134204932d73e8@mail.gmail.com> Keith's evangelism of solar power satellites is very interesting, but the extreme centralisation of the power production has to make you nervous; at best, it's business as usual big capital monopoly on power. I think we should probably do it, actually, but the barriers seem so large. On a related note, I recently watched the talk "Energy Literacy" by Saul Griffith (http://etech.blip.tv/file/1018152/), and was of course daunted by the scale of terrestrial plant we'd need to construct (and the amount of land it would require) to do anything serious about greening world energy production. It got me to thinking, is there a way to decentralise this? Could we think of a way that, instead of requiring mega engineering, mobilised thousands (millions?) of "mom and pop" operations to do the work? Also, I'm based in South Australia, one of the great early losers of the climate change debacle. The feeder river into the state (there is only one of any consequence), the River Murray, is just about dead, and it's just not really raining any more. So, the northern part of the state which is unusable for agriculture (think red desert) is marching south at speed, the ability to provide enough water for the state capital Adelaide is in doubt, and farmers are no longer allowed to irrigate in many places, ie: are sooo screwed. So what we have here is: - Sunshine (not much ozone layer to worry about way down south here, either) - Land (unusable) So I think solar power is probably a go. What we should really do here is create some godawfully huge solar power farms, cover masses of that desert, produce massive amounts of power, use it to run lots of desalination plants, and away we go. The city isn't landlocked, after all. If we threw money at it on a large enough scale, we could set up serious world leading research facilities, boost the unis, and eventually maybe have something of interest to export. But I digress. I'm thinking, what can small amounts of capital do here? You could set up a little solar farm, presumably, for thousands rather than millions, on cheap land (you can buy ghost towns for less than a modest house in the city), but then what? I get the impression it is expensive to be a traditional power plant; you can just pump the output of your small solar farm into the grid and expect that to be ok or make you money. Or you could make hydrogen, I'm thinking. Pump the solar generated electricity into hydrogen electrolysis equipment, voila lots of hydrogen. You need water, problematic potentially, but do you need much? Anyway, suddenly you are making fuel. That fuel can now be trucked around, or you could sell it directly if you were next to a decent road, just put a fuel station ("gas" station) on the front of your farm. And that turns out already to be being done in California, apparently. I can't find a link to anything direct about that, but apparently there is such a station there. Can someone link something more specific? So... could you turn this into something commercially viable for a mom & pop operation, such that they lay down their dollars, a solar farm + hydrolysis equipment + storage facilities + commercial gas station is constructed, and they then operate this, selling their gas? I don't have numbers, and am struggling to put any together, just not my expertise I'm afraid. With 25 year lifespan on the kinds of solar cells you'd use, you don't have the problem of replacing cells all the time, but it could possibly be scuttled by a poor hydrolysis efficiency compared to centralised large facilities. Also it assumes people actually start wanting hydrogen in the future; right now no one wants it, certainly not at the price of electrolysis (see here: http://www.iags.org/n032805t2.htm). I also can't get a feel for how much land you'd need to produce a via amount of hydrogen. I have access to a nanosolar solar cell sample here, with peak output of about 0.33 watts for a piece about 0.01m^2 , so thats 33 watts for 1m^2, or 1kW for 30m^2. It's not a high efficiency type of cell (20% I think), but flexible printed stuff, cheap apparently, no numbers available though sorry. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 14 03:46:30 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:46:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split In-Reply-To: <828DE928-52ED-4B0C-9C0B-B0E7DBAF96A4@meme.com.au> References: <200810111813.00911.kanzure@gmail.com> <828DE928-52ED-4B0C-9C0B-B0E7DBAF96A4@meme.com.au> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Tony wrote: > Bryan, I suspect Jef is reversing the active roles here. I suspect I didn't communicate my conjecture very clearly. And I'm tired right now, so I may not do any better. My point was not about a tendency toward equally distributed bifurcation along any particular (perceived) boundaries, but rather, that adaptive systems, by virtue of their effectively closed feedback loops, will tend to arrive at equilibrium (at some point), and then, any variation in features involved in that feedback loop will tend to correlate roughly 50/50 between the system itself and its environment of adaptation. Further, that with *complex* feature sets involved in that aggregate feedback loop, multiple features will tend to vary together as if situated on a hyperplane maximally separating (or mirroring) the system and its environment. A central supporting idea, and why I called this conjecture "obvious", is that to the extent a (complex and responsive) feedback loop leads to a system being adapted to its environment of interaction, the system will tend to become a "mirror" of its environment in terms of the features involved in the feedback loop. It is this "mirroring" that I see leading to a 50/50 split in terms of variation about the set point. Sorry, too tired to even proofread this, but perhaps it provides some useful clarification. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 14 04:52:25 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:52:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] climate change scientific papers and NATURE Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081013234851.022ab2f0@satx.rr.com> This is important and interesting in its own right, of course, but I draw the last par of the extract below to the attention of those here (hi, John Clark!) who just know in their bones that It's True (whatever it is) only if NATURE publishes it: David Bellamy is an environmental campaigner and former television presenter. He was senior lecturer in Botany at Durham University until 1982, where he is now an honorary professor "Global warming is the biggest scam since the church sold indulgences back in the Middle Ages. If our Government actually believes that all those people are going to die, why did it build Terminal Five? "I've been doing research on the stability of ecosystems, which is all tied up with human activity, for 22 years. That's why I became a leading greenie in the early days. I have probably stood on more picket lines than anyone to stop forest-clearing, wind farms and the overfishing of the sea. But when the scientific arguments don't add up, one starts to question them: CO2 levels have risen in the atmosphere, but why don't all the other bits of science fall in around that? "The speed of retreat of glaciers worldwide has not changed. The latest data shows that both the northern and southern ice caps are actually growing. The recent studies of the ice core show that rises in temperature are followed by a release of carbon dioxide, not the other way around. I'll be in New Zealand soon, and two of the major glaciers there are growing like the clappers. And from 1998 there has been no rise at all in the temperature of the earth. Indeed, all the sunspot data tells us we're headed for 15 very cold years. "Many peer-reviewed papers show that as CO2 goes up, many plants and forests grow up to 40 per cent faster. The New Scientist has reported that 300,000 square kilometres of former desert are now covered with trees. Why don't we have all those good points publicised? "Global temperature has risen at a natural rate that began 300 years ago. That slope of change has not changed since then, so how can we say that carbon is the driver? The sun has more correlations with temperature change than carbon. "The whole world is hooked on a fear of carbon, and there really is nothing to fear. "The scientific consensus is not strong, but every time I turn on the television or read a newspaper, I hear that it is. The BBC constantly tells us the lakes in Africa are drying up because of global warming. The lakes are drying up because of the dams around them, and the fact that we are using that local water to produce cut flowers for the European market. Why aren't we told these things? "If you go through the peer-reviewed literature on our side of the argument, it's near-unanimous in not predicting climate catastrophe. But it has got to a state of McCarthyism within science. As a university don, I used to try to get every tenth paper of mine into [the weekly science journal] Nature. But Nature will not touch any papers which are anti the global-warming ethic. I have been called a Holocaust denier. If they weren't really frightened they were losing the argument, they wouldn't write those things." ' From max at maxmore.com Tue Oct 14 04:43:16 2008 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:43:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "This American Life" on global credit crisis Message-ID: <200810140510.m9E5A272019379@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Damien: If that's what Lee said (I'm behind on those posts), then he's right--as *part* of the cause. Certainly more regulations are the answer only to the most bone-headed statist observer. It's very disturbing to see otherwise smart people continue to blame the greedy capitalists for acting within the context of incentives distorted by idiotic government policies. Another viewpoint from someone whose work I've read before and thought well of: Anatomy of a Train Wreck: Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown Stan J. Liebowitz The Independent Institute, October 3, 2008 http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=30 http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf Why did the mortgage market melt down so badly? Why were there so many defaults when the economy was not particularly weak? Why were the securities based upon these mortgages not considered anywhere as risky as they actually turned out to be? This report concludes that, in an attempt to increase home ownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, virtually every branch of the government undertook an attack on underwriting standards starting in the early 1990s. Regulators, academic specialists, GSEs, and housing activists universally praised the decline in mortgage-underwriting standards as an "innovation" in mortgage lending. This weakening of underwriting standards succeeded in increasing home ownership and also the price of housing, helping to lead to a housing price bubble. The price bubble, along with relaxed lending standards, allowed speculators to purchase homes without putting their own money at risk. The recent rise in foreclosures is not related empirically to the distinction between subprime and prime loans since both sustained the same percentage increase of foreclosures and at the same time. Nor is it consistent with the "nasty subprime lender" hypothesis currently considered to be the cause of the mortgage meltdown. Instead, the important factor is the distinction between adjustable-rate and fixed-rate mortgages. This evidence is consistent with speculators turning and running when housing prices stopped rising. >At 02:29 PM 10/13/2008 -0700, PJ wrote: > > >The second podcast, "Another Frightening Show About the Economy", > >http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=365 > >is the most eyeopening, on credit default swaps -- something, btw, most > >analyses I've seen never even touch on. This is scarier than the worst > >slasher movie ever. Talk about losing sleep over the endless greed and > >stupidity of people... > >Oh, PJ, don't you understand anything? Lee has patiently explained >that it's all due to the government bowing and scraping to the poor, >forcing their will upon those luckless "very careful >(and very self-interested)" finance people you so unkindly dub greedy >and stupid. > >Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 06:13:02 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:13:02 +1100 Subject: [ExI] "This American Life" on global credit crisis In-Reply-To: <200810140510.m9E5A272019379@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200810140510.m9E5A272019379@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/14 Max More : > Damien: If that's what Lee said (I'm behind on those posts), then he's > right--as *part* of the cause. Certainly more regulations are the answer > only to the most bone-headed statist observer. > > It's very disturbing to see otherwise smart people continue to blame the > greedy capitalists for acting within the context of incentives distorted by > idiotic government policies. What happened to the outraged bankers who complained about being forced to enter into these risky loan agreements prior to the current crisis? Did the government somehow silence them? -- Stathis Papaioannou From eschatoon at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 07:49:48 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:49:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "This American Life" on global credit crisis In-Reply-To: <200810140510.m9E5A272019379@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200810140510.m9E5A272019379@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810140049j1a03743asfeb2f556b82745e8@mail.gmail.com> We have seen the same thing in Europe - I wonder why we immediately copy all questionable new fashions from the US and never copy the good things. Little people have been encouraged to spend money that they don't have, and in most cases will never have. Big real estate development projects have been funded with virtual money and resold to little people at artificially outrageous prices. And the idiotic government policies to which Max refers are, of course, not caused by stupid bureaucrats, but by greedy bureaucrats who have made and continue to make a lot of money this way. At the end, of course, the little people will pay the price of the bailout. G. On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Max More wrote: > Damien: If that's what Lee said (I'm behind on those posts), then he's > right--as *part* of the cause. Certainly more regulations are the answer > only to the most bone-headed statist observer. > > It's very disturbing to see otherwise smart people continue to blame the > greedy capitalists for acting within the context of incentives distorted by > idiotic government policies. > > Another viewpoint from someone whose work I've read before and thought well > of: > > Anatomy of a Train Wreck: Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown > Stan J. Liebowitz > The Independent Institute, October 3, 2008 > http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=30 > http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf > > Why did the mortgage market melt down so badly? Why were there so many > defaults when the economy was not particularly weak? Why were the securities > based upon these mortgages not considered anywhere as risky as they actually > turned out to be? > > This report concludes that, in an attempt to increase home ownership, > particularly by minorities and the less affluent, virtually every branch of > the government undertook an attack on underwriting standards starting in the > early 1990s. Regulators, academic specialists, GSEs, and housing activists > universally praised the decline in mortgage-underwriting standards as an > "innovation" in mortgage lending. This weakening of underwriting standards > succeeded in increasing home ownership and also the price of housing, > helping to lead to a housing price bubble. The price bubble, along with > relaxed lending standards, allowed speculators to purchase homes without > putting their own money at risk. > > The recent rise in foreclosures is not related empirically to the > distinction between subprime and prime loans since both sustained the same > percentage increase of foreclosures and at the same time. Nor is it > consistent with the "nasty subprime lender" hypothesis currently considered > to be the cause of the mortgage meltdown. Instead, the important factor is > the distinction between adjustable-rate and fixed-rate mortgages. This > evidence is consistent with speculators turning and running when housing > prices stopped rising. > > >> At 02:29 PM 10/13/2008 -0700, PJ wrote: >> >> >The second podcast, "Another Frightening Show About the Economy", >> >http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=365 >> >is the most eyeopening, on credit default swaps -- something, btw, most >> >analyses I've seen never even touch on. This is scarier than the worst >> >slasher movie ever. Talk about losing sleep over the endless greed and >> >stupidity of people... >> >> Oh, PJ, don't you understand anything? Lee has patiently explained >> that it's all due to the government bowing and scraping to the poor, >> forcing their will upon those luckless "very careful >> (and very self-interested)" finance people you so unkindly dub greedy >> and stupid. >> >> Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 09:38:15 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:38:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"? In-Reply-To: <167801c92d59$62716e30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com> <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com> <004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20809301330q5ecbce98t6daaadb24f90641e@mail.gmail.com> <016e01c924aa$721d4190$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> <580930c20810030532j2e568937pa997b6176c79f465@mail.gmail.com> <167801c92d59$62716e30$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <580930c20810140238m38a058adjd58d9e31f882da7a@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > So long as we resist the temptation to affirm that what we have > found is beyond criticism, we are entirely justified in believing > our beliefs that have survived serious criticism, and > especially those that can be reproduced publicly. Mmhhh, you are giving it an "objectivist" spin which is really unnecessary. We have unveiled something new, OK, we are less wrong than we were before simply because our reality evolves and - in our perception thereof, obviously - it allows now to achieve things were were not able to before, or to cast a more penetrant glance on our world. > Quite right. But don't you confess that on a day-to-day basis, the > real Stefano goes around with a conviction *nearing* certainty > that (a) he's alive (b) the city around him is definitely real (c) someone > did say in fact what you most clearly and certainly heard him to say > (d) that if you drop your newpaper, it will fall to the ground, and so on > and so on? > It's only at odd moments that you call these beliefs about daily life > into question, (e.g. the entirely actual possibility that we are living > in a simulation). Normally, it is quite useless when driving home from > work to wonder whether the light ahead is red or is merely a perception > by a possibly non-existent being, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, if something that hurts appears to hit me on the nose, I react without giving the least thought as to the objective, essential reality of the same. It's only at odd moments in life that you wonder whether there are real noumena behind the phenomena you believe to perceive... :-) > Therefore, I make this compromise with the non-realists: just assume > that your working model of the universe is "correct", simply for expediency. > Almost always, they'll go along with that. I make this compromise with realists: just assume that anybody's working model of the universe by definition is as correct (for him or her) as any objectivist model would be, since otherwise he or she would change it. In other words: subjective realities work exactly as allegedly "objective" realities for those who are concerned by them. Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 09:39:38 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:39:38 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Direct solar electrolysis - decentralised fuel infrastructure, is it viable? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810132028r4cf2b9a8m56134204932d73e8@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810132028r4cf2b9a8m56134204932d73e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Emlyn wrote: > I'm thinking, what can small amounts of capital do here? You could set > up a little solar farm, presumably, for thousands rather than > millions, on cheap land (you can buy ghost towns for less than a > modest house in the city), but then what? I get the impression it is > expensive to be a traditional power plant; you can just pump the > output of your small solar farm into the grid and expect that to be ok > or make you money. > Solar power is on the cusp at present. The cost of solar panels is falling and the power production from them is increasing. (Think Moore's Law). The cost of electricity is rising. The two graphs will cross very soon (if not already) and then solar panels will become a no-brainer. Nobody will even think of building a roof without putting solar panels on it (or spraying solar cells on existing roofs and walls and transparent solar cells on windows, when the technology arrives). You won't have to speculate when that point arrives. The shops will be full of DIY solar power kits flying off the shelves. Socialist (horror!) governments will be giving grants to poor people to get solar power kits installed because that will be cheaper than giving poor people money to pay their electricity bills. It will indeed be power at the local level. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 09:52:39 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:52:39 +1100 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/14 John Grigg : > Dagon wrote: >> >> I don't much care as long as the US stops being a military superpower. >> That has to end, at any cost. > > Ummm...., I think the US needs to be a military superpower (at least for the > near future) to offset those nations who would engage in "Germany in the > late 30's" behavior (I sure don't see Europe doing it anytime soon). Russia > and especially China come to mind as nations that must be stood up to along > the lines of a schoolyard bully. http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 10:03:30 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:03:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html > Stathis, Your link is very useful information. But it is generally regarded as good practice to quote a little from the link contents, or otherwise write an explanation as to why people should bother to click on the link and take the trouble to read it. We live in a world of clickable links, most of which we successfully ignore, because we have more interesting things to do. Give people an incentive to click on your links! :) BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 10:18:43 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:18:43 +1100 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/14 BillK : > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html >> > > > Stathis, > Your link is very useful information. > But it is generally regarded as good practice to quote a little from > the link contents, or otherwise write an explanation as to why people > should bother to click on the link and take the trouble to read it. Yeah, I know. But this is such a hackneyed topic that I didn't think anything I might add could possibly be new or interesting. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 10:20:16 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:20:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Direct solar electrolysis - decentralised fuel infrastructure, is it viable? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0810132028r4cf2b9a8m56134204932d73e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20810140320o3799b55axc97f2c91859c5afe@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:39 AM, BillK wrote: > You won't have to speculate when that point arrives. The shops will be > full of DIY solar power kits flying off the shelves. Socialist > (horror!) governments will be giving grants to poor people to get > solar power kits installed because that will be cheaper than giving > poor people money to pay their electricity bills. ... which in turn might end up not being the case if fusion energy becomes abundant and cheap through either space-based solar power or fusion reactors sooner than the price of electricity go so high as to justify collecting any possible ounce of photons at sea level for energy production. Stefano Vaj From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 10:00:10 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Direct solar electrolysis - decentralised fuel infrastructure, is it viable? Message-ID: <450563.20935.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 10/13/08, Emlyn wrote: > So... could you turn this into something commercially > viable for a mom > & pop operation, such that they lay down their dollars, > a solar farm + > hydrolysis equipment + storage facilities + commercial gas > station is > constructed, and they then operate this, selling their gas? If you think it is commercially viable, then I urge you to *not* discuss it on the open list. I remind you that there is a known safe and efficacious drug that cures most cancers in rats but dying cancer patients never receive because the drug is in the public domain. Google 'dichloroacetate' if you don't believe me. Nothing outside of software ever gets developed or manufactured in our greedy world unless some company can patent it and monopolize it for all it is worth. We must work within the systemic boundaries of the horrible corner that we as a society have painted ourselves into if we would have any hope of escaping this malthusian trap and servitude to the oil companies. Of course if you trust the government to be interested in it enough to implement it correctly with public funding, then feel free to continue. Stuart LaForge "Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up." -- Solomon From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 10:31:02 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:31:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20810140331l27f47e5an16e8381359753c96@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:25 AM, John Grigg wrote: > Ummm...., I think the US needs to be a military superpower (at least for the > near future) to offset those nations who would engage in "Germany in the > late 30's" behavior (I sure don't see Europe doing it anytime soon). It may well be in the interest of the US to remain a military superpower as long as they can, but one should make the little perspectivist effort to realise that they may well be perceived in exactly the same terms by other, competing, countries. > the "21st Century global Nato" to offset > Russian (and especially) Chinese aspirations for unlawful military/political > expansion. As opposed to "lawful" military/political expansion or egemony, "lawful" as defined by international institutions largely dominated by the US and their friends? :-) Would you really blame the Russian Federation for preferring an Eurasiatic scenario where the geopolitical "heartland" establishes an alliance and a Monroe-like doctrine preventing political interferences, military attacks and exploitment of local natural resources by outer powers? Stefano Vaj From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 10:44:02 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:44:02 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <168b01c92d5c$32c17470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <580930c20810041450j716286bcl218d834fa1b7258@mail.gmail.com> <200810042301.m94N1vGq025024@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081004181223.025408a0@satx.rr.com> <168b01c92d5c$32c17470$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 2008/10/14 Lee Corbin : > Quite right. But did anyone mention the legal climate that congress > has created since the late sixties? Mortgage and loan lenders can > be *sued* for turning down loans, and very often successfully so, > because of pieces of legislation going back to 1977. And the last > thing that the lenders want is a law-suit. > I think that their solution was, later on, to very cleverly start bundling > what they feared were bad loans into packages, packages which > ultimately would receive backing from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, > which ultimately have the implied power of the government behind them. Did the government also force the free market to bid up the share prices of the banks making these obviously bad loans, and to pay the executives hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses? Well, perhaps the market didn't know how bad the loans were until it was too late. But then how would the market have known if the bad loans were due to some smart banker realising he could make a quick profit, rather than the alleged government encouragement? -- Stathis Papaioannou From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 12:30:45 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:30:45 +0000 Subject: [ExI] dichloroacetate: Yet another internet conspiracy theory Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:00 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > I remind you that there is a known safe and efficacious drug that cures most cancers in rats but dying cancer > patients never receive because the drug is in the public domain. Google 'dichloroacetate' if you don't believe me. > Well, I googled and I don't believe you. DCA is *not* known to be safe. Numbness and paralysis and increased risk of liver damage or liver cancer are some of the recorded side effects. Reducing tumors (not 'curing cancer') in rats doesn't mean that it will do the same in humans. Cancer researchers have 'cured' thousands of rats. The optimal dosage is unknown. Many medicines poison humans if too much is given. This is the main factor that the original researchers in Edmonton are now working on. Developing cancer drugs does not depend on the giant drugs companies. Much research and trials are done by the cancer charities. Trials of DCA are already being organized. However, many drugs are tried, but few succeed. Cancer often goes though periods of remission. A few people saying 'It worked for me!' is pretty much useless information. It only indicates that proper trials might be worthwhile. Many more people claim that visiting Lourdes cured their illnesses. This is symptomatic of what happens on the Internet. A few 'believers' (in anything!) get together and start encouraging each other in whatever belief they have a common interest in. The failures are never reported and leave. Only the believers remain. This isn't science! This is gossip. Science works by proper double-blind testing, peer review and other scientists duplicating the results. BillK From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 13:36:24 2008 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <276263.73714.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lee: >> Quite right. But did anyone mention the legal climate >> that congress has created since the late sixties? >> Mortgage and loan lenders can be *sued* for turning down loans, >> and very often successfully so, because of pieces of legislation >> going back to 1977. So say some conservatives, who want to blame the Community Reinvestment Act which made discriminatory lending practices unlawful. But the reality is that the crisis stems from the explosion in the market in subprime mortgages which started circa 2001 -- more than 20 years after the CRA was passed. If you want to understand the causes of the current financial crisis, you need to look at the causes of this relatively recent explosion in the market for subprime and alt-A mortgages. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 14:13:20 2008 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] "This American Life" on global credit crisis In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810140049j1a03743asfeb2f556b82745e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <412091.60493.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Anatomy of a Train Wreck: Causes of the Mortgage > Meltdown Stan J. Liebowitz > The Independent Institute, October 3, 2008 ... > This report concludes that... [among other things]... > The recent rise in foreclosures is not related empirically > to the distinction between subprime and prime loans... That claim seems counter-intuitive and contrary to everything I've read, so I downloaded the paper to get an idea what the author really means. >From the paper: "There is no evidence to support a claim that somehow the subprime market had this unprecedented increase in foreclosures and that later the prime loans accidentally caught the contagion. Both markets were hit at the same time, and the force was at least as strong in the prime market. But this is not to say that foreclosures were not higher in the subprime market. They were. Historically, subprime default rates have been ten times as large as the default rates for prime loans, and that has largely continued through the mortgage meltdown (just compare the numbers on the vertical axes of the figures 4 and 5)." That makes more sense. Subprime mortgages default at about 10X the rate of prime mortgages, and they continue to default at that high rate. Add to this the phenomenal growth in the markets for subprime and alt-a mortgages during this decade, and there you have a recipe for disaster. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 14:44:06 2008 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Sudden outbreak of democracy baffles US pundits In-Reply-To: <276263.73714.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <520561.85082.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lee, following up on my last to you... "Although subprime and other risky mortgages were relatively rare before the mid-1990s, their use increased dramatically during the subsequent decade. In 2001, newly originated subprime, Alt-A, and home equity lines (second mortgages or "seconds") totaled $330 billion and amounted to 15 per cent of all new residential mortgages. Just three years later, in 2004, these mortgages accounted for almost $1.1 trillion in new loans and 37 percent of residential mortgages. Their volume peaked in 2006 when they reached $1.4 trillion and 48 percent of new residential mortgages.[3]" http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2127.cfm To summarize, the story of risky mortgages looks like this: 1990s: negligible at first, then small share of market. 2001: $330 billion, 15% of market. 2004: $1.1 trillion, 37% of market. 2006: $1.4 trillion, 48% of market. -gts From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 19:32:09 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] dichloroacetate: Yet another internet conspiracy theory Message-ID: <9196.55130.qm@web65609.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 10/14/08, BillK wrote: > Well, I googled and I don't believe you. Well then try doing a search on PubMed. I get 88 hits from peer-reviewed journals. > DCA is *not* known to be safe. > Numbness and paralysis and increased risk of liver damage > or liver > cancer are some of the recorded side effects. Considering that cancer drugs typically *kill* rapidly dividing cells, that is hardly surprising. A very commonly prescribed chemotherapy called BCNU or carmustine is not all that different from small doses of mustard gas. So the difference between a weapon of mass destruction and a cancer drug is simply dosage. Just make sure you are not confusing toxicology reports of long-term exposure to trace amounts of DCA in drinking water say with its acute effects in a cancer patient undergoing ablative chemotherapy. > Reducing tumors (not 'curing cancer') in rats > doesn't mean that it > will do the same in humans. > Cancer researchers have 'cured' thousands of rats. Of course, excuse me for slipping to the imprecision of the typical science journalist to make a point. My point is that the researcher who discovered its chemotherapeutic effect is having an aweful hard time securing funding just to find out it's proper dosing. Especially since DCA's use in treating acidosis *is* patented and FDA approved. > This is symptomatic of what happens on the Internet. A few > 'believers' > (in anything!) get together and start encouraging each > other in > whatever belief they have a common interest in. The > failures are never > reported and leave. Only the believers remain. > This isn't science! This is gossip. How is it a conspiracy theory to suggest that people will be reluctant to spend millions on something that they cannot hope to profit from, even if it is to save lives? Why are there flu vaccine shortages or government subsidies for flu vaccine manufacture when the technology to make these vaccines have been around forever? You don't need the Illuminati, just Critter's Dilemma. > Science works by proper double-blind testing, peer review > and other > scientists duplicating the results. All the above is contigent on the generousity of politicians who barely graduated college, can't pronounce nuclear, and think God is their drinking buddy. At least in my country. I hope yours is better. "Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up." -- Solomon From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 22:41:01 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:11:01 +1130 Subject: [ExI] Direct solar electrolysis - decentralised fuel infrastructure, is it viable? In-Reply-To: <450563.20935.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <450563.20935.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/14 The Avantguardian : > --- On Mon, 10/13/08, Emlyn wrote: >> So... could you turn this into something commercially >> viable for a mom >> & pop operation, such that they lay down their dollars, >> a solar farm + >> hydrolysis equipment + storage facilities + commercial gas >> station is >> constructed, and they then operate this, selling their gas? > > If you think it is commercially viable, then I urge you to *not* discuss it on the open list. I remind you that there is a known safe and efficacious drug that cures most cancers in rats but dying cancer patients never receive because the drug is in the public domain. Google 'dichloroacetate' if you don't believe me. > > Nothing outside of software ever gets developed or manufactured in our greedy world unless some company can patent it and monopolize it for all it is worth. We must work within the systemic boundaries of the horrible corner that we as a society have painted ourselves into if we would have any hope of escaping this malthusian trap and servitude to the oil companies. Of course if you trust the government to be interested in it enough to implement it correctly with public funding, then feel free to continue. > It might be interesting, don't talk about it! There's a special circle of hell reserved for everyone involved in the intellectual property business. Well probably there isn't, so it needs building... This ongoing crapola where promising non patentable compounds languish is really pathetic. As is coming up so often lately in so many areas, it seems like another place where the market just totally fails. Now it may very well be that it isn't strictly the fault of the market, but rather of the intellectual property regulatory framework, but we are still left with a problem. My knee-jerk reaction here is that we need a shedload of public money to make up for this, to fund bringing to market these kinds of promising drugs. Surely, if the government is also on the hook for paying for less effective treatments for these cancers otherwise, on a big scale, then it could make financial sense for government to pay to bring superior public domain drugs to market where these look likely to exist? Another possible angle is a large charitable organisation to do this work. Does this already exist? Is there a free market solution? I guess the correct question is, how can we modify the regulatory system such that there is incentive to bring this stuff to market, without compromising the safety of the system? -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 00:38:43 2008 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> US Citizens who don't want to waste their votes may want to consider this interesting candidate as a write-in. http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Nby&altl=Npsf -gts From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 01:17:51 2008 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:17:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Direct solar electrolysis - decentralised fuel infrastructure, is it viable? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810132028r4cf2b9a8m56134204932d73e8@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810132028r4cf2b9a8m56134204932d73e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Emlyn wrote: > Keith's evangelism of solar power satellites is very interesting, but > the extreme centralisation of the power production has to make you > nervous; at best, it's business as usual big capital monopoly on > power. I think we should probably do it, actually, but the barriers > seem so large. I don't see why you worry about centralization. Bechtel builds a huge number of power plants and controls none of them. > On a related note, I recently watched the talk "Energy Literacy" by > Saul Griffith (http://etech.blip.tv/file/1018152/), and was of course > daunted by the scale of terrestrial plant we'd need to construct (and > the amount of land it would require) to do anything serious about > greening world energy production. > > It got me to thinking, is there a way to decentralise this? Could we > think of a way that, instead of requiring mega engineering, mobilised > thousands (millions?) of "mom and pop" operations to do the work? Unfortunately with the current level of technology, no. It's not hard to calculate. > Also, I'm based in South Australia, one of the great early losers of > the climate change debacle. The feeder river into the state (there is > only one of any consequence), the River Murray, is just about dead, > and it's just not really raining any more. So, the northern part of > the state which is unusable for agriculture (think red desert) is > marching south at speed, the ability to provide enough water for the > state capital Adelaide is in doubt, and farmers are no longer allowed > to irrigate in many places, ie: are sooo screwed. > > So what we have here is: > - Sunshine (not much ozone layer to worry about way down south here, either) > - Land (unusable) > > So I think solar power is probably a go. It's not an economic go in Arizona where there is a hell of a demand for power in the summer, in the daytime. > What we should really do here is create some godawfully huge solar > power farms, cover masses of that desert, produce massive amounts of > power, use it to run lots of desalination plants, and away we go. The > city isn't landlocked, after all. If we threw money at it on a large > enough scale, we could set up serious world leading research > facilities, boost the unis, and eventually maybe have something of > interest to export. But I digress. > I'm thinking, what can small amounts of capital do here? You could set > up a little solar farm, presumably, for thousands rather than > millions, on cheap land (you can buy ghost towns for less than a > modest house in the city), but then what? I get the impression it is > expensive to be a traditional power plant; you can just pump the > output of your small solar farm into the grid and expect that to be ok > or make you money. The ROI is terrible. The only reason it makes any sense at all is huge government subsidies. > Or you could make hydrogen, I'm thinking. Pump the solar generated > electricity into hydrogen electrolysis equipment, voila lots of > hydrogen. At 100% efficiency it takes 30 kWh to make a kg of hydrogen. In practice current cells take 48 kWh. A kg of H provides roughly the same energy as a gallon of gasoline. If the energy costs you upwards of 50 cents a kWh (and it may be more like a dollar per kWh) then until gasoline goes to $24 a gallon, you are not going to make money on your desert filling station. Sorry. > You need water, problematic potentially, but do you need > much? Anyway, suddenly you are making fuel. That fuel can now be > trucked around, or you could sell it directly if you were next to a > decent road, just put a fuel station ("gas" station) on the front of > your farm. Hydrogen doesn't truck around fer beans. Big problem, so bad that using carbon to carry it is a good idea in spite of the cost. > And that turns out already to be being done in California, apparently. > I can't find a link to anything direct about that, but apparently > there is such a station there. Can someone link something more > specific? > > So... could you turn this into something commercially viable for a mom > & pop operation, such that they lay down their dollars, a solar farm + > hydrolysis equipment + storage facilities + commercial gas station is > constructed, and they then operate this, selling their gas? I don't > have numbers, and am struggling to put any together, just not my > expertise I'm afraid. With 25 year lifespan on the kinds of solar > cells you'd use, you don't have the problem of replacing cells all the > time, but it could possibly be scuttled by a poor hydrolysis > efficiency compared to centralised large facilities. Also it assumes > people actually start wanting hydrogen in the future; right now no one > wants it, certainly not at the price of electrolysis (see here: > http://www.iags.org/n032805t2.htm). > > I also can't get a feel for how much land you'd need to produce a via > amount of hydrogen. I have access to a nanosolar solar cell sample > here, with peak output of about 0.33 watts for a piece about 0.01m^2 , > so thats 33 watts for 1m^2, or 1kW for 30m^2. It's not a high > efficiency type of cell (20% I think), but flexible printed stuff, > cheap apparently, no numbers available though sorry. Sunlight comes down at more like a kW/m^2. so 33 watts would be 3.3% If you wanted to do something wild, consider putting a long pipe with osmotic membranes on it into the ocean, down more than 5000 feet. You can pump fresh water out of it. The lift is only a few hundred feet. Keith > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com - my home > http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting > http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks > on eCulture > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 03:26:59 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:56:59 +1130 Subject: [ExI] Direct solar electrolysis - decentralised fuel infrastructure, is it viable? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0810132028r4cf2b9a8m56134204932d73e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0810142026k37cec218i9b266496fc2c40f9@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/15 Keith Henson : > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Emlyn wrote: >> Keith's evangelism of solar power satellites is very interesting, but >> the extreme centralisation of the power production has to make you >> nervous; at best, it's business as usual big capital monopoly on >> power. I think we should probably do it, actually, but the barriers >> seem so large. > > I don't see why you worry about centralization. Bechtel builds a huge > number of power plants and controls none of them. Energy supply is centralised now in the sense that I mean. Decentralised on a world scale, but centralised from the point of view of a single person. > >> On a related note, I recently watched the talk "Energy Literacy" by >> Saul Griffith (http://etech.blip.tv/file/1018152/), and was of course >> daunted by the scale of terrestrial plant we'd need to construct (and >> the amount of land it would require) to do anything serious about >> greening world energy production. >> >> It got me to thinking, is there a way to decentralise this? Could we >> think of a way that, instead of requiring mega engineering, mobilised >> thousands (millions?) of "mom and pop" operations to do the work? > > Unfortunately with the current level of technology, no. > > It's not hard to calculate. [[snipped Keith demolishing my musings]] Thanks Keith, that helped. I found a really informative reference on a "hydrogen economy" here: http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html Useful stuff like: "Electricity from wind turbines, solar arrays, etc. can also make hydrogen through electrolysis. It makes no sense to do so because the same electricity is better used to replace fossil fuel. The saved fossil fuel has three times more energy content. (Recall that converting fossil fuel to electricity is very inefficient.) The saved fossil fuel can be converted to hydrogen. The net effect is more hydrogen for the same energy inputs. This point cannot be overemphasized." -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 04:41:06 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:41:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Space Elevator conference happening in November Message-ID: <2d6187670810142141t1975191cx112ad078d8b1a593@mail.gmail.com> And it is taking place in Japan... http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/02/space.elevator/index.html Any opinions here as to when carbon nanotube technology will be mature enough to actually build a space elevator? John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Oct 15 04:14:30 2008 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Remembering Blue Man Theory: values, morals, norms, cultures Message-ID: <334850.5290.qm@web110413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I recall way back when I wrote looking at life as every individual is a Blue Man Theory. If I could have produced a video or song, this would match it really well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGOe1t1dRYU Any thoughts? Anna:) __________________________________________________________________ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/ From eschatoon at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 04:56:04 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:56:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> <923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com> This would be great, too bad it is a joke (I think). Perhaps in 2012? Is the MM our MM? On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:38 AM, gts wrote: > US Citizens who don't want to waste their votes may want to consider this interesting candidate as a write-in. > > http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Nby&altl=Npsf > > -gts -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 15 05:05:56 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:05:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> <923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com> At 06:56 AM 10/15/2008 +0200, Eschatoon Magic wrote: >Is the MM our MM? Well, since it's gts's gag, clearly yes. And he isn't eligible unless they change the rules for Ahhhrnold, since Max, although a citizen, wasn't born in the USA (which also blocks my chances, dammit, but then I'm not even a citizen). Damien Broderick From eschatoon at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 05:43:29 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:43:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> <923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com> Right, the born-in-US blocks Arnold Terminator's chances. Too bad, he is the only current US Republican politician that I would support. Shouldn't we plan for a real version of this gag in 2012? Of course a transhumanist candidate with an independent platform would not be elected or receive a significant number of votes, but if the spin is right a transhumanist campaign could receive a lot of media attention. G. On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:56 AM 10/15/2008 +0200, Eschatoon Magic wrote: > >> Is the MM our MM? > > Well, since it's gts's gag, clearly yes. And he isn't eligible unless they > change the rules for Ahhhrnold, since Max, although a citizen, wasn't born > in the USA (which also blocks my chances, dammit, but then I'm not even a > citizen). > > Damien Broderick > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From aleksei at iki.fi Wed Oct 15 05:57:40 2008 From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:57:40 +0300 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> <923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com> <1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1db0b2da0810142257m17b82d15y82f9558a96643bf8@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Eschatoon Magic wrote: > Shouldn't we plan for a real version of this gag in 2012? Of course a > transhumanist candidate with an independent platform would not be > elected or receive a significant number of votes, but if the spin is > right a transhumanist campaign could receive a lot of media attention. I'd guess that it'd be better to do this later than 2012, but yeah, might very well be a worthwhile project for some point in time. -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei From amara at kurzweilai.net Wed Oct 15 05:57:21 2008 From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:57:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com><923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com> <1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <013601c92e8a$e454b150$0201a8c0@PC> I think we should run a virtual candidate. Like Ramona 5.0. > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Eschatoon Magic > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:43 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate > > Right, the born-in-US blocks Arnold Terminator's chances. Too bad, he > is the only current US Republican politician that I would support. > > Shouldn't we plan for a real version of this gag in 2012? Of course a > transhumanist candidate with an independent platform would not be > elected or receive a significant number of votes, but if the spin is > right a transhumanist campaign could receive a lot of media attention. > > G. > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Damien Broderick > wrote: > > At 06:56 AM 10/15/2008 +0200, Eschatoon Magic wrote: > > > >> Is the MM our MM? > > > > Well, since it's gts's gag, clearly yes. And he isn't > eligible unless they > > change the rules for Ahhhrnold, since Max, although a > citizen, wasn't born > > in the USA (which also blocks my chances, dammit, but then > I'm not even a > > citizen). > > > > Damien Broderick > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > -- > Eschatoon Magic > http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon > aka Giulio Prisco > http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 06:28:43 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:28:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <013601c92e8a$e454b150$0201a8c0@PC> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> <923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com> <1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com> <013601c92e8a$e454b150$0201a8c0@PC> Message-ID: <2d6187670810142328t392ade0aocf187b1b4f381ab8@mail.gmail.com> I think our presidential candidate should be Natasha Vita-More. She would definitely be a refreshing alternative to Sarah Palin. We would somehow have to arrange a debate between Natasha and Palin! hee John : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at kurzweilai.net Wed Oct 15 06:29:41 2008 From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:29:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <013601c92e8a$e454b150$0201a8c0@PC> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com><923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com><1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com> <013601c92e8a$e454b150$0201a8c0@PC> Message-ID: <017201c92e8f$685ce810$0201a8c0@PC> Whoops, looks like she's already started.... http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Sbnpob&altl=540 > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Amara D. Angelica > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:57 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: Re: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate > > I think we should run a virtual candidate. Like Ramona 5.0. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > > Eschatoon Magic > > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:43 PM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate > > > > Right, the born-in-US blocks Arnold Terminator's chances. > Too bad, he > > is the only current US Republican politician that I would support. > > > > Shouldn't we plan for a real version of this gag in 2012? > Of course a > > transhumanist candidate with an independent platform would not be > > elected or receive a significant number of votes, but if the spin is > > right a transhumanist campaign could receive a lot of media > attention. > > > > G. > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Damien Broderick > > wrote: > > > At 06:56 AM 10/15/2008 +0200, Eschatoon Magic wrote: > > > > > >> Is the MM our MM? > > > > > > Well, since it's gts's gag, clearly yes. And he isn't > > eligible unless they > > > change the rules for Ahhhrnold, since Max, although a > > citizen, wasn't born > > > in the USA (which also blocks my chances, dammit, but then > > I'm not even a > > > citizen). > > > > > > Damien Broderick > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Eschatoon Magic > > http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon > > aka Giulio Prisco > > http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 07:22:25 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:22:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810142328t392ade0aocf187b1b4f381ab8@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> <923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com> <1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com> <013601c92e8a$e454b150$0201a8c0@PC> <2d6187670810142328t392ade0aocf187b1b4f381ab8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670810150022r39d0f308kd4066787ab539d64@mail.gmail.com> My envisioned Transhumanist Presidential Administration: President- Natasha Vita-More First Gentleman- Max More Vice President- Harvey Newstrom Secretary of State- Bruce Klein Attorney General- Greg Burch Secretary of the Treasury- Robin Hanson Secretary of Defense- Mike Lorrey Secretary of Transportation- Keith Henson Secretary of Education- Shannon Vyff Secretary of Energy- John K Clark Secretary of Commerce- Lee Corbin Secretary of Housing and Urban Development- Jeff Davis Secretary of Health and Human Services- Damien Broderick Secretary of the Interior- Samantha Atkins Secretary of Agriculture- Brent Allsop Secretary of Homeland Security- Eliezer Yudkowsky Ambassador to Taxifornia- Spike Ambassador to Sweden- Michael Anissimov Ambassador to Italy- Amara Graps Ambassador to Australia- John Grigg : ) Did I make the right choices? hee John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 08:38:29 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:38:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <580930c20810140331l27f47e5an16e8381359753c96@mail.gmail.com> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810140331l27f47e5an16e8381359753c96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670810150138j6bc38c30x93637c2bdb182525@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:25 AM, John Grigg > wrote: > > Ummm...., I think the US needs to be a military superpower (at least for > the > > near future) to offset those nations who would engage in "Germany in the > > late 30's" behavior (I sure don't see Europe doing it anytime soon). > > It may well be in the interest of the US to remain a military > superpower as long as they can, but one should make the little > perspectivist effort to realise that they may well be perceived in > exactly the same terms by other, competing, countries. > Yes, this of course is going to happen due to the propaganda of American rivals (even when the U.S. does the right thing in the world arena). > the "21st Century global Nato" to offset > > Russian (and especially) Chinese aspirations for unlawful > military/political > > expansion. > > As opposed to "lawful" military/political expansion or egemony, > "lawful" as defined by international institutions largely dominated by > the US and their friends? :-) > The U.S. and it's allies are far from perfect, but we do have an internal self-correcting (at least sometimes) moral compass that Russia and China sure don't seem to have. They are essentially tyrannies. > > Would you really blame the Russian Federation for preferring an > Eurasiatic scenario where the geopolitical "heartland" establishes an > alliance and a Monroe-like doctrine preventing political > interferences, military attacks and exploitment of local natural > resources by outer powers? > Did Georgia really want to be part of this Eurasiastic alliance? lol Yes, Russia will do their best to create an alliance to oppose the West. And they will bully their neighbors to make it happen. The Russian love/hate relationship with the West continues... John > > Stefano Vaj > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 12:24:19 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:24:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Direct solar electrolysis - decentralised fuel infrastructure, is it viable? In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> References: <450563.20935.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200810150724.20009.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 14 October 2008, Emlyn wrote: > Is there a free market solution? I guess the correct question is, how > can we modify the regulatory system such that there is incentive to > bring this stuff to market, without compromising the safety of the > system? Screw the market incentive. You give me the knowhow and you give me the tools and I'll get it done. Sigh. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 12:25:54 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:25:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Direct solar electrolysis - decentralised fuel infrastructure, is it viable? In-Reply-To: References: <710b78fc0810132028r4cf2b9a8m56134204932d73e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200810150725.54969.kanzure@gmail.com> On Tuesday 14 October 2008, Keith Henson wrote: > I don't see why you worry about centralization. ?Bechtel builds a > huge number of power plants and controls none of them. That's not quite the problem with centralization or decentralization. It may turn out that aggregation is an important feature of power infrastructure to the point that, if you have a few million people each with their own single solar cell, it just doesn't work out. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap From artillo at comcast.net Wed Oct 15 13:05:22 2008 From: artillo at comcast.net (artillo at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:05:22 +0000 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate Message-ID: <101520081305.20525.48F5EA92000D87D00000502D2200750744010404079B9D0E@comcast.net> Two of the best ones I've seen are listed below: Christopher Walken hoo yeah!!! http://www.walken2008.com/ and my eternal favorite, Cthulu! http://shop.cafepress.com/cthulhu I'd vote for pretty much anyone on this list for president, at least we've all got brains, know how to use them, and appreciate and regularly participate in constructive, rational arguments! Cheers and happy building, Artillo From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Oct 15 14:35:32 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:35:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810142328t392ade0aocf187b1b4f381ab8@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com><923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com><1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com><013601c92e8a$e454b150$0201a8c0@PC> <2d6187670810142328t392ade0aocf187b1b4f381ab8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you. I would gladly run, and so would my avatar. All candidates need a backup. It would be a good idea since the Convergence08 is all about men, including LifeBoats project on risk. We need some women/femal blood in here! PJ, what the hell is going on? Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Grigg Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:29 AM To: amara at kurzweilai.net; ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate I think our presidential candidate should be Natasha Vita-More. She would definitely be a refreshing alternative to Sarah Palin. We would somehow have to arrange a debate between Natasha and Palin! hee John : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 731 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 15 17:10:34 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:10:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 65 U.S. Nobel laureates endorse Obama References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080613143038.0232f7c8@satx.rr.com><9ff585550806131341k15134235xfe710d5ddffa53fe@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080613154721.02294760@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/10/14/65_US_Nobel_laureates_endorse_Obama/UPI-87491224015215/ From pharos at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 17:44:15 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:44:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] 65 U.S. Nobel laureates endorse Obama In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080613143038.0232f7c8@satx.rr.com> <9ff585550806131341k15134235xfe710d5ddffa53fe@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080613154721.02294760@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, John K Clark wrote: > http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/10/14/65_US_Nobel_laureates_endorse_Obama/UPI-87491224015215/ > Nobel Laureates Support New UN Human Rights Council http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2006/02/nobel_peace_pri.php Physics Nobel Laureates Support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199912/ctbt.cfm Support UN arms treaty, say Nobel laureates http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/24/armstrade.davidmunk 26 Nobel Laureates Support Open Access Mandate at NIH http://www.library.uiuc.edu/blog/scholcomm/archives/2007/07/26_nobel_laurea.html 25 Nobel Prize Winners in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology http://www.agbioworld.org/declaration/nobelwinners.html Tibet gets support from 26 Nobel laureates http://blog.studentsforafreetibet.org/2008/03/20/tibet-gets-support-from-26-nobel-laureates-speaker-pelosi/ And, ominously ----- Nobel Laureates Support Kerry for President http://pub.ucsf.edu/today/news.php?news_id=200406243 Looks like Nobel Laureates are just as clueless as anybody else outside their own field of work. I wonder how many Nobel Laureates McCain could get if he was bothered? BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 15 17:59:23 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:59:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 65 U.S. Nobel laureates endorse Obama In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080613143038.0232f7c8@satx.rr.com> <9ff585550806131341k15134235xfe710d5ddffa53fe@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080613154721.02294760@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081015125728.02325918@satx.rr.com> At 06:44 PM 10/15/2008 +0100, BillK wrote: >I wonder how many Nobel Laureates McCain could get if he was bothered? Antonio Egas Moniz would be there in a heartbeat. Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 18:37:02 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:37:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "W." A new film by Oliver Stone Message-ID: <2d6187670810151137h15fa6085u580174a2db97de10@mail.gmail.com> The extended length trailer I saw for it was amazing. I can't wait to see this film. Fandango article about Stone's approach to the source material: http://www.fandango.com/stoneshowsamazingrestraintwithbushpic`w/news/2019 extended length trailer: http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/26/extended-w-movie-trailer/ John Grigg : ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlatorra at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 19:06:20 2008 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:06:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] TED video - great dynamic display of quantitative info Message-ID: <9ff585550810151206y3a1ae42blbaa8cc97b9973383@mail.gmail.com> Hans Rosling: Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen. http://tinyurl.com/4x3pq2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 19:56:03 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:56:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Remembering Blue Man Theory: values, morals, norms, cultures In-Reply-To: <334850.5290.qm@web110413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <334850.5290.qm@web110413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670810151256he705f00meb4f805335f1d79b@mail.gmail.com> > Any thoughts? > Anna:) Love may be color blind but it sure *is not blind.* Facial/body symmetry, and all that good stuff. Oh, and don't forget about the male needing resources to attract the female. But perhaps you are discussing another type of love. John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com Thu Oct 16 02:33:06 2008 From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:33:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] New Presidential Candidate In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810150022r39d0f308kd4066787ab539d64@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810141541h40ca09a3w6ae98d721e5f32d4@mail.gmail.com><923231.94109.qm@web36502.mail.mud.yahoo.com><1fa8c3b90810142156u4dee2bc8g210ef57b5be0adb1@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20081015000349.02486368@satx.rr.com><1fa8c3b90810142243w6e1ecb74wc101f1ad274a6b0f@mail.gmail.com><013601c92e8a$e454b150$0201a8c0@PC><2d6187670810142328t392ade0aocf187b1b4f381ab8@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810150022r39d0f308kd4066787ab539d64@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: John Grigg on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:22 AM, > Vice President- Harvey Newstrom If drafted, I will not run [away]; If nominated, I will not accept [merely that]; If elected, I will not serve [the current status quo]. -- Harvey Newstrom From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Oct 16 09:21:47 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:21:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810150138j6bc38c30x93637c2bdb182525@mail.gmail.com> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810140331l27f47e5an16e8381359753c96@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810150138j6bc38c30x93637c2bdb182525@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20810160221k1a3008d0q6d1cb78227f8c16f@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM, John Grigg wrote: > Yes, this of course is going to happen due to the propaganda of American > rivals (even when the U.S. does the right thing in the world arena). "Doing the right thing" in the international arena often means for a government to protect the sovereignty and freedom of the country they were appointed to rule, rather than betray their people in favour of foreign entities. Now, it happens that on such basis what is the right thing for country A is not exactly the best possible scenario for country B... > The U.S. and it's allies are far from perfect, but we do have an internal > self-correcting (at least sometimes) moral compass that Russia and China > sure don't seem to have. They are essentially tyrannies. Well, face to such articles of faith, not much room for debate exists, does it? :-) > Did Georgia really want to be part of this Eurasiastic alliance? In Tbilisi or in Tskhinvali? Before or after being taken over by the western-leaning mafia currently ruling it? :-) > Yes, Russia will do their best to create an alliance to oppose the West. And > they will bully their neighbors to make it happen. The Russian love/hate > relationship with the West continues... In fact, Russia was much closer to the US than to Europe, China and India in both the Gorbaciov and Eltsin era. Now, they seem to believe that their interests are better served by changing priorities. Only the future will tell whether this greater attention to their immediate neighbours will pay off. For sure, moral will have little to do with that either way. In more general terms, I think most people, and transhumanists especially, are probably better off in a multipolar world than in a unipolar one, was it just for the competitive dynamics that the first still seems able to maintain better than the second. Stefano Vaj From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Oct 16 10:13:12 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:13:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <580930c20810160221k1a3008d0q6d1cb78227f8c16f@mail.gmail.com> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810140331l27f47e5an16e8381359753c96@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810150138j6bc38c30x93637c2bdb182525@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810160221k1a3008d0q6d1cb78227f8c16f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670810160313i14310cf2r7b3900c69098852b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:21 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM, John Grigg > wrote: > > Yes, this of course is going to happen due to the propaganda of American > > rivals (even when the U.S. does the right thing in the world arena). > > "Doing the right thing" in the international arena often means for a > government to protect the sovereignty and freedom of the country they > were appointed to rule, rather than betray their people in favour of > foreign entities. Now, it happens that on such basis what is the right > thing for country A is not exactly the best possible scenario for > country B... > Are you saying international politics is a zero sum game? LOL! > > The U.S. and it's allies are far from perfect, but we do have an internal > > self-correcting (at least sometimes) moral compass that Russia and China > > sure don't seem to have. They are essentially tyrannies. > > Well, face to such articles of faith, not much room for debate exists, > does it? :-) > And that's just how I like it! ; ) But I am right. > > > Did Georgia really want to be part of this Eurasiastic alliance? > > In Tbilisi or in Tskhinvali? Before or after being taken over by the > western-leaning mafia currently ruling it? :-)> Russia used classic political gamesmanship ("we must protect our bullied friends there") as an excuse to invade. Politics in the region tends to be an ugly bloodsport. > > >Yes, Russia will make an alliance to oppose the West. And they will bully > their neighbors to make it happen. The Russian love/hate > > relationship with the West continues... > > In fact, Russia was much closer to the US than to Europe, China and > India in both the Gorbaciov and Eltsin era. Now, they seem to believe > that their interests are better served by changing priorities. Only > the future will tell whether this greater attention to their immediate > neighbours will pay off. For sure, moral will have little to do with > that either way. > Putin and it appears his successor, seem very fond of the classic Soviet era ways of ruling a nation, and intimidating/muzzling their journalists and the national media outlets is a classic example of this behavior. And with oil revenues filling their coffers, the military is going to be pumped up, steroids style, once again. Yes, ethics will have little to do with their expansionist plans. > > In more general terms, I think most people, and transhumanists > especially, are probably better off in a multipolar world than in a > unipolar one, was it just for the competitive dynamics that the first > still seems able to maintain better than the second. > Yes, I heartily agree due to the fact that technological competition between nations and political blocs creates so much needed innovation. But if things overheat we will see conflict and war vastly worse than what two world wars delivered. John Grigg > 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 stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Oct 16 14:05:46 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:05:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810160313i14310cf2r7b3900c69098852b@mail.gmail.com> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810140331l27f47e5an16e8381359753c96@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810150138j6bc38c30x93637c2bdb182525@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810160221k1a3008d0q6d1cb78227f8c16f@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810160313i14310cf2r7b3900c69098852b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20810160705o6c42a939r73bb7eb6d5d75f54@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:13 PM, John Grigg wrote: > Are you saying international politics is a zero sum game? LOL! No, sometimes the net risult is minus than zero. :-) More seriously, one cannot really expect each and every international game to allow for win-win solutions, can one? > And that's just how I like it! ; ) But I am right. So sayeth the Ayatollah... :-) Amen. > Russia used classic political gamesmanship ("we must protect our bullied > friends there") as an excuse to invade. Politics in the region tends to be > an ugly bloodsport. Not as in the rest of the world, you mean? :-) >> In more general terms, I think most people, and transhumanists >> especially, are probably better off in a multipolar world than in a >> unipolar one, was it just for the competitive dynamics that the first >> still seems able to maintain better than the second. > > Yes, I heartily agree due to the fact that technological competition between > nations and political blocs creates so much needed innovation. But if > things overheat we will see conflict and war vastly worse than what two > world wars delivered. Why, wouldn't it be nice to have only the good of a cold war without the bad and the risks of it? :-) Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 16 14:11:27 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:11:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] sex team In-Reply-To: <580930c20810160221k1a3008d0q6d1cb78227f8c16f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200810161438.m9GEcFpV021383@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I was in Florida last weekend for my 30th high school reunion (oy vey). Went to the football game, where they introduced the candidates for homecoming queen, told a little about each girl, which sports and where they were going to college and so forth. The last item was their favorite leisure activity. One of the girls had put "texting." Being the old geezer that I am, I forgot that texting is sending email using a phone, which never did make sense to me anyways. If you have a phone and your friend has a phone, why wouldn't you just call? In any case, it sounded to me on that stadium speaker as if it was "sex team," and I though oh my, I was born 30 years too early. It existed back in those days, but we didn't have a team for it. It would be really cool tho. Would the cheerleaders be criticized for being overly footballually suggestive? How would you keep sc... uh, disregard previous. Actually several of the terms might be borrowed and given entirely new meanings, such as pass, squeeze play, holding, etc. The huddles might be a lotta fun. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 16 20:36:08 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:36:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 65 U.S. Nobel laureates endorse Obama References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080613143038.0232f7c8@satx.rr.com><9ff585550806131341k15134235xfe710d5ddffa53fe@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080613154721.02294760@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: "BillK" > I wonder how many Nobel Laureates McCain could > get if he was bothered? Not many. They only asked American Laureates to sign the letter endorsing Obama, and all had won in only 3 disciplines, Physics, Chemistry or Medicine. They had one other characteristic, all were still alive. I don't know the exact number but there can't be a lot more than 65 people in the world who meet all those criteria. I found that damn impressive. Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com> > Antonio Egas Moniz would be there in a heartbeat. Yes, I'll give you that. John K Clark From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 16 22:19:37 2008 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] IP overhaul- was Direct solar electrolysis Message-ID: <656764.83281.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 10/14/08, Emlyn wrote: > Is there a free market solution? I guess the correct > question is, how > can we modify the regulatory system such that there is > incentive to > bring this stuff to market, without compromising the safety > of the > system? The most parsimonious change to the patent laws that I can come up with that may relieve this problem is to have patents not automatically expire after 20 years but instead have them be split into two identical patents and sold to the highest bidders every 20 years. If nobody buys *any* of the patents, then they can be mothballed as public domain. Thus patents would be allowed to exist indefinitely as tradable commodities that grant the bearers the right to a '20 year shared monopoly' on a given technology. Of course the government could also be allowed to award previously expired patents to bidders in the event that an older technology is needed. For example if society needed steam engines again for some reason, the government could reissue the patent on the steam engine to the highest bidder. I also imagine that competing patent-holders could attempt to buy each other out, should the levels of demand not warrant multiples of the same monopoly. Stuart LaForge "Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up." -- Solomon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Oct 17 02:41:18 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:41:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <580930c20810160705o6c42a939r73bb7eb6d5d75f54@mail.gmail.com> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810140331l27f47e5an16e8381359753c96@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810150138j6bc38c30x93637c2bdb182525@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810160221k1a3008d0q6d1cb78227f8c16f@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810160313i14310cf2r7b3900c69098852b@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810160705o6c42a939r73bb7eb6d5d75f54@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670810161941r51380b28uce1faef697934f2b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:13 PM, John Grigg > wrote: > > Are you saying international politics is a zero sum game? LOL! > > No, sometimes the net risult is minus than zero. :-) > More seriously, one cannot really expect each and every international > game to allow for win-win solutions, can one? > Sadly, true. > > And that's just how I like it! ; ) But I am right. > > So sayeth the Ayatollah... :-) > A glib answer (hey, I'm often quite guilty of that myself!) that is totally inaccurate. What you cut out was my comment about the United States and other democracies having an internal moral compass that is generally self-correcting over time. This comes in the form of a constitution (that is respected), three branches of government to divide up the power and reduce the chance of tyranny, an empowered judicial system, multiple political parties (rather than a totally stacked deck), a citizenry who have not been cowed by the leadership and secret police, relatively honest politicians and judges, government enforcement organizations empowered (at least sometimes) to successfully prosecute those in power who break the law and exploit their status, journalists who have not been deeply intimidated and muzzled by the state, a military that respects civilian rule, and basically clean elections. Yes, the U.S. still has a ways to go. But put China, Iran or Russia to the test regarding most or all of these key points and they will come up horribly short because they are ultimately *tyrannies.* > > Amen. > > > Russia used classic political gamesmanship ("we must protect our bullied > > friends there") as an excuse to invade. Politics in the region tends to > be > > an ugly bloodsport. > > Not as in the rest of the world, you mean? :-) > Hey, I bet the rest of the world learned it from *you* Italians (or should I say "Romans!"). ; ) But then again the Medieval Italians were probably the greatest students/masters of political gamemanship. > >> In more general terms, I think most people, and transhumanists > >> especially, are probably better off in a multipolar world than in a > >> unipolar one, was it just for the competitive dynamics that the first > >> still seems able to maintain better than the second. > > > > Yes, I heartily agree due to the fact that technological competition > between > > nations and political blocs creates so much needed innovation. But if > > things overheat we will see conflict and war vastly worse than what two > > world wars delivered. > > Why, wouldn't it be nice to have only the good of a cold war without > the bad and the risks of it? :-) > Keep in mind, sometimes cold wars get white hot... But it is a risk humanity will be taking and hopefully we will not only survive *but thrive.* John : ) > > 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 stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Oct 17 09:33:28 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:33:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split) In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810161941r51380b28uce1faef697934f2b@mail.gmail.com> References: <691AF46D3AFB4092A55B73C76E21A723@DFC68LF1> <2d6187670810132025w13af8b94u8539a59c5cbdfa41@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810140331l27f47e5an16e8381359753c96@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810150138j6bc38c30x93637c2bdb182525@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810160221k1a3008d0q6d1cb78227f8c16f@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810160313i14310cf2r7b3900c69098852b@mail.gmail.com> <580930c20810160705o6c42a939r73bb7eb6d5d75f54@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810161941r51380b28uce1faef697934f2b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20810170233idb76843xe07ea1039680e1d5@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:41 AM, John Grigg wrote: > A glib answer (hey, I'm often quite guilty of that myself!) that is totally > inaccurate. Yes, this was a little too glib from my side. I apologise. > What you cut out was my comment about the United States and > other democracies having an internal moral compass that is generally > self-correcting over time. This comes in the form of a constitution (that > is respected), three branches of government to divide up the power and > reduce the chance of tyranny, an empowered judicial system, multiple > political parties (rather than a totally stacked deck), a citizenry who have > not been cowed by the leadership and secret police, relatively honest > politicians and judges, government enforcement organizations empowered (at > least sometimes) to successfully prosecute those in power who break the law > and exploit their status, journalists who have not been deeply intimidated > and muzzled by the state, a military that respects civilian rule, and > basically clean elections. I am not going to object to all that, but what you are really doing here is simply to reiterate the rationale and justifications of some feature of the US legal and social system, or rather of how it should ideally work. Different, but analogous in purpose, arguments are hower brought in defence of the status quo in other parts of the world. Moreover, it is debatable that the degree of popular consensus for the government in place is actually higher in the US than in some of countries that you consider as "tyrannical". Sure, it might be argued that public opinions are brain-washed there, but then one should show that educational institutions, the media and the cultural industry, not to mention the governmental propaganda itself, would have no influence whatsoever on the ethical and political views of US citizens or on their perception of the "American way of life". Please understand me well. I am not blaming in the least the US government or other power-that-be for thinking that they may be "right" on this or that, or to do what they can to advance their views in the world. Only, I find it funny that they regularly pretend to be surprised by the fact that other people may do just the same. Stefano Vaj From fauxever at sprynet.com Sun Oct 19 03:18:46 2008 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:18:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... Message-ID: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> ... as they decide capitalism has let them down ... Japan has long been regarded as the land of the rising capitalist.: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/3218944/Japans-young-turn-to-Communist-Party-as-they-decide-capitalism-has-let-them-down.html Olga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Oct 19 07:05:16 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:05:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Catholic critique of Transhumanism Message-ID: <2d6187670810190005l60df92f6le3b1a0eba1ca7792@mail.gmail.com> I'm not sure if this critique of Transhumanism from a Roman Catholic perspective was ever mentioned on the list. Please tell me what you think... an excerpt: "Lines of communication need to be opened between Christian bioethicists and transhumanists. Cameron, for example, calls Kurzweil "a man of genius" and "no mere academic theorist." while Kurzweil makes the surprising statement that through human-driven evolution, people "grow exponentially in intelligence, knowledge, creativity, beauty, and love, all of the qualities people ascribe to God without limit," implying that "we can view evolution as a spiritual process, moving ever closer to this ideal." Men of this intellectual stature need forums in which they can communicate with each other. (To be fair, Cameron is already in contact with WTA president Nick Bostrom and others, but he's one of the only pro-life leaders doing so). >> http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/ericpavlat/superhuman.asp John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eschatoon at gmail.com Sun Oct 19 09:12:41 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:12:41 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Catholic critique of Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810190005l60df92f6le3b1a0eba1ca7792@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d6187670810190005l60df92f6le3b1a0eba1ca7792@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810190212j54d47ef9sd462c63e27cc1a49@mail.gmail.com> I most certainly agree that there should be much more dialogue between transhumanism and religion. Religion at its best is characterized by cosmic visions and search for transcendence, meaning and purpose. This is something good and worth encouraging, and I am persuaded that honest truth and meaning seekers can appreciate the value of the transhumanist message if it is presented in a simple, clear and understandable way. I disagree with "we must work toward finding ethical answers - answers consistent with the Catholic moral tradition - before the future arrives". While I appreciate the visions of some Catholic thinkers (Teilhard for one), I despise the "Catholic moral tradition" that has led to burning many people and making many more unhappy. A moral that consider the right of an embryo more important than the right of a thinking and feeling human being, and an abstract concept of "will of god" more important than our own happiness, is a moral that I want nothing to do with. We must work together, but on OUR terms. G. On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:05 AM, John Grigg wrote: > I'm not sure if this critique of Transhumanism from a Roman Catholic > perspective was ever mentioned on the list. Please tell me what you > think... > > an excerpt: > "Lines of communication need to be opened between Christian bioethicists and > transhumanists. Cameron, for example, calls Kurzweil "a man of genius" and > "no mere academic theorist." while Kurzweil makes the surprising statement > that through human-driven evolution, people "grow exponentially in > intelligence, knowledge, creativity, beauty, and love, all of the qualities > people ascribe to God without limit," implying that "we can view evolution > as a spiritual process, moving ever closer to this ideal." Men of this > intellectual stature need forums in which they can communicate with each > other. (To be fair, Cameron is already in contact with WTA president Nick > Bostrom and others, but he's one of the only pro-life leaders doing so). > >>> > > http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/ericpavlat/superhuman.asp > > John Grigg > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From eschatoon at gmail.com Sun Oct 19 10:30:23 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:30:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Catholic critique of Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810190212j54d47ef9sd462c63e27cc1a49@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d6187670810190005l60df92f6le3b1a0eba1ca7792@mail.gmail.com> <1fa8c3b90810190212j54d47ef9sd462c63e27cc1a49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810190330o6093dcb1y1d9c10bd4fb78ad1@mail.gmail.com> Some more comments on transhumanism and religion - spirituality: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/transhumanist_spirituality_again/ In summary, while I am not interested in opening a dialogue with religions on their terms, I am very interested in opening a dialogue with those religious groups that are ready to discuss on our terms, like Mormon transhumanists. G. On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Eschatoon Magic wrote: > I most certainly agree that there should be much more dialogue between > transhumanism and religion. Religion at its best is characterized by > cosmic visions and search for transcendence, meaning and purpose. This > is something good and worth encouraging, and I am persuaded that > honest truth and meaning seekers can appreciate the value of the > transhumanist message if it is presented in a simple, clear and > understandable way. > > I disagree with "we must work toward finding ethical answers - answers > consistent with the Catholic moral tradition - before the future > arrives". While I appreciate the visions of some Catholic thinkers > (Teilhard for one), I despise the "Catholic moral tradition" that has > led to burning many people and making many more unhappy. A moral that > consider the right of an embryo more important than the right of a > thinking and feeling human being, and an abstract concept of "will of > god" more important than our own happiness, is a moral that I want > nothing to do with. We must work together, but on OUR terms. > > G. > -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Oct 19 13:44:21 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:44:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Catholic critique of Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810190212j54d47ef9sd462c63e27cc1a49@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2d6187670810190005l60df92f6le3b1a0eba1ca7792@mail.gmail.com> <1fa8c3b90810190212j54d47ef9sd462c63e27cc1a49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1224424153_56576@s2.cableone.net> At 02:12 AM 10/19/2008, Eschatoon Magic wrote: >I most certainly agree that there should be much more dialogue between >transhumanism and religion. Religion at its best is characterized by >cosmic visions and search for transcendence, snip That's true. Unlike transhumanists they don't actually expect to achieve transcendence--at least not in the hardware sense. Keith From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Oct 19 19:59:57 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:59:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Olga Bourlin wrote: > ... as they decide capitalism has let them down ... Japan has long been > regarded as the land of the rising capitalist.: > I had no idea life was so rough for many of the younger generation in the Land of the Rising Sun. Corporate Japan definitely took hold of American ideas about creating armies of temp workers in the cause of cutting pay & benefits and easily being able to get rid of employees. I will have to keep on eye on Japanese politics as these disaffected young people start pushing hard against the current powerful status quo. I had read Japan's economy has bounced back and so I hope these men and women can get what they need without doing serious damage to the now healthy economy. I will know things have changed in Japan when I turn on the television to watch anime and the program is titled, "The Struggles of Takiji Kobayashi, Communist Martyr!" And there will not be a single giant battle mecha, demonic monster, noble samarai, or playing card wielding wizard in it... John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Oct 19 22:01:42 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:01:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] MySpace China not doing well Message-ID: <2d6187670810191501y637e0b20lf0219a4436e4a92f@mail.gmail.com> China is the world's biggest market but that does not mean foreign investors (like Americans) will have an easy time of it. Between language/culture barriers and MySpace making it onto the scene relatively late into a niche already saturated by local heavyweights, I tend to doubt they can become a 500 lb. gorilla in the Middle Kingdom anytime soon. I wonder how World of Warcraft does there? http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2008/gb20081017_167502.htm It dawned on me to google "World of Warcraft in China": http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/community/chinaicoke.html John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dagonweb at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 00:22:13 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:22:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: You sure have a prejudice problem. Communism is still a valid political choice, and your attitude is impolite to people who are entitled to make a free choice in a free society. At some point this delusional system the US calls economy was bound to collapse. The world is now contemplating getting rid of a what looks like a scam, and just as we dumped historical stalinism in the garbage bin, we might now dump rightwing the friedman pyramid scheme in the trash. I hope the communists there will stay true to the original ideals and become the biggest party. The world seriously need a shift towards more humane politics and we need to finish off the perverse ideas that govern right now. All in all hope for the future ! > I had no idea life was so rough for many of the younger generation in the > Land of the Rising Sun. Corporate Japan definitely took hold of American > ideas about creating armies of temp workers in the cause of cutting pay & > benefits and easily being able to get rid of employees. I will have to keep > on eye on Japanese politics as these disaffected young people start pushing > hard against the current powerful status quo. I had read Japan's economy > has bounced back and so I hope these men and women can get what they need > without doing serious damage to the now healthy economy. > > I will know things have changed in Japan when I turn on the television to > watch anime and the program is titled, "The Struggles of Takiji Kobayashi, > Communist Martyr!" And there will not be a single giant battle mecha, > demonic monster, noble samarai, or playing card wielding wizard in it... > > John Grigg > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 02:28:05 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:28:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> What the heck is your problem? lol We said nothing to warrant your reaction. I realize the *practice* of Russian and Chinese-style communism was/is a far cry from the theory. I fully respect the right of Japanese young people to politically agitate for change, even under a communist banner. And their brand of communism will be within a democratic society and not a tyranny. I agree the world needs a shift toward more humane politics, but I am concerned that Japan might down the road make too severe a shift toward socialism and hurt their economy. Sometimes nations veer from one extreme to another. But I stand with you that people and the social contract should come first and not corporate and shareholder greed. John Grigg On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Dagon Gmail wrote: > You sure have a prejudice problem. Communism is still a valid political > choice, and > your attitude is impolite to people who are entitled to make a free choice > in a free > society. At some point this delusional system the US calls economy was > bound to > collapse. The world is now contemplating getting rid of a what looks like a > scam, and > just as we dumped historical stalinism in the garbage bin, we might now > dump > rightwing the friedman pyramid scheme in the trash. I hope the communists > there will > stay true to the original ideals and become the biggest party. The world > seriously need > a shift towards more humane politics and we need to finish off the perverse > ideas that > govern right now. All in all hope for the future ! > > > >> I had no idea life was so rough for many of the younger generation in the >> Land of the Rising Sun. Corporate Japan definitely took hold of American >> ideas about creating armies of temp workers in the cause of cutting pay & >> benefits and easily being able to get rid of employees. I will have to keep >> on eye on Japanese politics as these disaffected young people start pushing >> hard against the current powerful status quo. I had read Japan's economy >> has bounced back and so I hope these men and women can get what they need >> without doing serious damage to the now healthy economy. >> >> I will know things have changed in Japan when I turn on the television to >> watch anime and the program is titled, "The Struggles of Takiji Kobayashi, >> Communist Martyr!" And there will not be a single giant battle mecha, >> demonic monster, noble samarai, or playing card wielding wizard in it... >> >> John Grigg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 aleksei at iki.fi Mon Oct 20 03:35:36 2008 From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:35:36 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> Message-ID: <1db0b2da0810192035r26dae583o2ee842b4abb1a7e9@mail.gmail.com> It would be interesting to know what the Japanese communists think of China; whether a rise of communism in Japan (which may or may not happen) would mean an equal increase in support for a geopolitical alignment with China instead of the U.S. And whether the current communist organizers in Japan are significantly supported in their efforts by the Chinese regime (or will be in the future). -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 04:14:39 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:14:39 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/20 John Grigg : > What the heck is your problem? lol We said nothing to warrant your > reaction. I realize the *practice* of Russian and Chinese-style communism > was/is a far cry from the theory. I fully respect the right of Japanese > young people to politically agitate for change, even under a communist > banner. And their brand of communism will be within a democratic society > and not a tyranny. > > I agree the world needs a shift toward more humane politics, but I am > concerned that Japan might down the road make too severe a shift toward > socialism and hurt their economy. Sometimes nations veer from one extreme > to another. Why do you assume a shift towards socialism will hurt their economy? They've been in recession or near-recession for 20 years while, if anything, becoming more right wing economically. What does that tell you about laissez-faire capitalism? -- Stathis Papaioannou From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 20 04:30:31 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:30:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FC0967.6020105@mac.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2008/10/20 John Grigg : > >> What the heck is your problem? lol We said nothing to warrant your >> reaction. I realize the *practice* of Russian and Chinese-style communism >> was/is a far cry from the theory. I fully respect the right of Japanese >> young people to politically agitate for change, even under a communist >> banner. And their brand of communism will be within a democratic society >> and not a tyranny. >> >> I agree the world needs a shift toward more humane politics, but I am >> concerned that Japan might down the road make too severe a shift toward >> socialism and hurt their economy. Sometimes nations veer from one extreme >> to another. >> > > Why do you assume a shift towards socialism will hurt their economy? > They've been in recession or near-recession for 20 years while, if > anything, becoming more right wing economically. What does that tell > you about laissez-faire capitalism? > > > Go read "Economics in One Lesson" then you, being very intelligent, can tell us. You will also know that what we have enjoyed in the US and what Japan has been running is not remotely "laissez-faire capitalism". Being intelligent I am surprised you would even insinuate that it was. Japan tried to finagle the market by government to get out of the results of its strong government involvement in the economic previous to its crash in the late 80s. - samantha From eschatoon at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 05:02:13 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:02:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: <48FC0967.6020105@mac.com> References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> <48FC0967.6020105@mac.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810192202m3f7b21c0i498f5155136adc10@mail.gmail.com> I think the differences between _good_, theoretical communism and _good_, theoretical liberalism are not as big as we usually think. In the sense that in a good society everyone is free, and everyone has enough to eat. So a good society integrates the best of liberalism, and the best of communism. But in a real liberal system, people will take advantage of the system for personal gain, and in a real communist system, people will take advantage of the system for personal gain. I used to know quite well Eastern Europe before the collapse, and I can tell you that well connected people have a BMW and a Rolex. Just like here. G. On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:30 AM, samantha wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> 2008/10/20 John Grigg : >> >>> >>> What the heck is your problem? lol We said nothing to warrant your >>> reaction. I realize the *practice* of Russian and Chinese-style >>> communism >>> was/is a far cry from the theory. I fully respect the right of Japanese >>> young people to politically agitate for change, even under a communist >>> banner. And their brand of communism will be within a democratic society >>> and not a tyranny. >>> >>> I agree the world needs a shift toward more humane politics, but I am >>> concerned that Japan might down the road make too severe a shift toward >>> socialism and hurt their economy. Sometimes nations veer from one >>> extreme >>> to another. >>> >> >> Why do you assume a shift towards socialism will hurt their economy? >> They've been in recession or near-recession for 20 years while, if >> anything, becoming more right wing economically. What does that tell >> you about laissez-faire capitalism? >> >> >> > > Go read "Economics in One Lesson" then you, being very intelligent, can tell > us. You will also know that what we have enjoyed in the US and what Japan > has been running is not remotely "laissez-faire capitalism". Being > intelligent I am surprised you would even insinuate that it was. Japan > tried to finagle the market by government to get out of the results of its > strong government involvement in the economic previous to its crash in the > late 80s. > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 05:03:26 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:03:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d6187670810192203gc686530g396064a3c004c43@mail.gmail.com> I said a *severe* move toward socialism. Historically, that does royally mess up economies, and a European especially should know that. : ) I think both Japan and the U.S. are moving toward a more protectionist form of economic policy, at least in terms of money injections/bail outs and maintaining/enforcing checks and balances to avoid meltdowns. The old Japanese model was very Darwinian when it came to failing banks. Though as with many governments, they did make tries at manipulating/stimulating their economy with tax hikes, raising interest rates, etc.,. Yet still quite a number of bad decisions were made (yes, including not being interventionist enough when the time was ripe for it). But a national government with a "firm hand" on the economy will not necessarily be a good thing. The right choices must be made and *that* is the tricky part. I look forward to A.I. managing the global economy. I can only hope they do a better job than we humans do (though they would do such work in partnership with us). John Grigg On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2008/10/20 John Grigg : > > What the heck is your problem? lol We said nothing to warrant your > > reaction. I realize the *practice* of Russian and Chinese-style > communism > > was/is a far cry from the theory. I fully respect the right of Japanese > > young people to politically agitate for change, even under a communist > > banner. And their brand of communism will be within a democratic society > > and not a tyranny. > > > > I agree the world needs a shift toward more humane politics, but I am > > concerned that Japan might down the road make too severe a shift toward > > socialism and hurt their economy. Sometimes nations veer from one > extreme > > to another. > > Why do you assume a shift towards socialism will hurt their economy? > They've been in recession or near-recession for 20 years while, if > anything, becoming more right wing economically. What does that tell > you about laissez-faire capitalism? > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > 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 Frankmac at ripco.com Mon Oct 20 05:12:00 2008 From: Frankmac at ripco.com (Frank McElligott) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:12:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] RUSSIA Message-ID: <002f01c93272$6287fe70$de68c147@grand> Please look into how Putin came to power before you think Russia is again becoming a land grabbing dictatorship. It is not true period. They are becoming a superpower in oil and gas. But the army budget gets less than 30 billion dollars annually. Please all the stuff used in the war in Georgia were very old and from the it's cold war days. Not like America where we have a volunteer army, RUSSIA has a draft and it's soldiers (all male by the by) earn almost nothing. Does that say something about American training and American equipment. Georgia has the building in Washington DC re-thinking about both our training methods and our equipment/ 1. When you had a problem with your local government like Burger King did in St. Petersburg you went to the West's government man to fix it, and it got fixed. The west's man in ST. Petersburg V. Putin. 2. Everyone in Russia knew that Yelestin was a drunk and in the West's pocket, and when he picked Putin to succeed him it was at the West bidding. They even made a movie of how he (Yelesin) won the his last election using Western political methods. 3. When Putin came to Power he spent time in Crawford Texas discussing with George Bush what the WEST(meaning the US) was expecting of him now that he was our man , Yes he was told what to do and what we would do when he did it. 4. And for the last eight years Russia has used it's oil revenues to gain not one foot of land from the former USSR. 5. Russia has democratic elections, more on the up and up than south America and Africa, just because you don't like there outcome you can't say the are no valid. 6. RUSSIA did not invade Georgia, Georgia moved first and was victims of a fool for a government. Georgia was warned by Rice if you invade S.O Russia will attack you BACK still they invaded anyway thinking that Russia would not do that and they figured wrong. 7. When asked concerning problems with the EU about Georgia, Putin replied they will not be a problem for Russia as Russia supplies 35% of EU's power, and they the EU will look out for number one. And they did. 8. It is rumored in Russia that Putin has Billions in Swiss banks, and wants just to get out, for if he did not they would have rewritten the laws just like New York is doing for Bloomberg if he wanted to stay. 9. which come back to the final point, without a strong Russia and a strong China, we would not need that big building in Washington playing war games. 10. We always need to have someone to hate, but the Russian's are nice people, I been there and married one, so if you need to hate, pick on China Frank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eschatoon at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 05:18:23 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:18:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] RUSSIA In-Reply-To: <002f01c93272$6287fe70$de68c147@grand> References: <002f01c93272$6287fe70$de68c147@grand> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810192218k6e246a86j4f052f019ccd7645@mail.gmail.com> If you need hate, don't pick on fellow human beings. Pick on human limitations, pick on aging and death, and think of what we can do to overcome them. On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Frank McElligott wrote: if you need to hate, pick on China -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 06:42:23 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:42:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] RUSSIA In-Reply-To: <002f01c93272$6287fe70$de68c147@grand> References: <002f01c93272$6287fe70$de68c147@grand> Message-ID: <2d6187670810192342u4aadf5f3t28234f783de9327@mail.gmail.com> Oh, boy. This is going to be fun. : ) On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Frank McElligott wrote: > Please look into how Putin came to power before you think Russia is again > becoming a land grabbing dictatorship. It is not true period. > Well, when the various mafias & oligarchs were running rife over the nation it was Putin who appealed to the Russian people as the law and order guy during the presidential elections. And generally order was restored by Putin and his administration. Regarding Georgia, Russian forces are going to be spending many years "protecting" the various factions there that side with Russia. I do credit Russia with not going for a long-term occupation of the entire nation. Please remember, Georgia is not Iraq. If only it was! lol > They are becoming a superpower in oil and gas. But the army budget gets > less than 30 billion dollars annually. Please all the stuff used in the war > in Georgia were very old and from the it's cold war days. > > What will enable Russia at least a temporary restoration of superpower status is the *massive* northern offshore oil deposits within the newly extended Russian coastal territorial boundaries. The wealth gained from this will be tremendous and Putin is already drawing up a big shopping list of how to modernize the Russian armed forces with the money that will be rolling in. You need to get your facts right. Russia used a number of new elite army divisions to invade Georgia that were especially trained to fight and defeat western grade military forces. The Russians were horrified when Russian hardware and Russian trained Iraqi troops got their asses handed to them in two gulf wars. They are now very focused on developing a military that can successfully contend against NATO level forces. > Not like America where we have a volunteer army, RUSSIA has a draft and > it's soldiers (all male by the by) earn almost nothing. Does that say > something about American > training and American equipment. Georgia has the building in Washington > DC re-thinking about both our training methods and our equipment/ > > They do *generally* have conscripts who are not very happy to be serving in uniform and are sometimes victims of severe beatings and even rape. But they do have those troops who are there very willingly and are sometimes among their well-funded elite fighting forces. As I said, the Russians are hellbent on improving their military and the standard of living for their troops will have to be one of those things. I did not quite understand the last sentence in your previous paragraph. I am sure Pentagon planners are carefully going over the details of the Georgia conflict. Georgian command and control was reported to be lacking, for one thing. Interestingly, Israel sent people to Georgia to train their forces and the Israeli's know their business when it comes to orchestrating war. But when Russia asked Israel to withdraw their instructors, they actually did so, which I admit to finding surprising. Ultimately, I don't think Georgia really had a chance but I was surprised at how fast Russia took over the small nation. > 1. When you had a problem with your local government like Burger King did > in St. Petersburg you went to the West's government man to fix it, and it > got fixed. > The west's man in ST. Petersburg V. Putin. > Isn't this sort of a mark of dictatorship and a poorly functioning democracy? lol > 2. Everyone in Russia knew that Yelestin was a drunk and in the West's > pocket, and when he picked Putin to succeed him it was at the West > bidding. They even made a movie > of how he (Yelesin) won the his last election using Western political > methods. > > 3. When Putin came to Power he spent time in Crawford Texas > discussing with George Bush what the WEST(meaning the US) was expecting of > him now that he was our man > , Yes he was told what to do and what we would do when he did it. > The problem America has it that we just can't always get other countries to do what we expect of them! dammit! > > 4. And for the last eight years Russia has used it's oil revenues to gain > not one foot of land from the former USSR. > It takes time to modernize a military... And also remember that with Russia's oil reserves they can intimidate nations like the Ukraine without firing a shot. > > 5. Russia has democratic elections, more on the up and up than south > America and Africa, just because you don't like there outcome you can't say > the are no valid. > Russian journalists and the mass media have been intimidated/muzzled by the government and it is very hard for rival candidates and parties to get out their message. Or for serious criticism of the government to even be made. This obviously effects the whole nature of elections... > > 6. RUSSIA did not invade Georgia, Georgia moved first and was victims of a > fool for a government. Georgia was warned by Rice if you invade S.O Russia > will attack you BACK > still they invaded anyway thinking that Russia would not do that and > they figured wrong. > > Mistakes were certainly made on both sides. > 7. When asked concerning problems with the EU about Georgia, Putin replied > they will not be a problem for Russia as Russia supplies 35% of EU's power, > and they > the EU will look out for number one. And they did. > Yes, Putin was certainly right about that! And this is another reason the West must become energy reliant. But even if there were no European reliance on Russian oil, I just don't see them getting involved in Russia's "backyard." > > 8. It is rumored in Russia that Putin has Billions in Swiss banks, and > wants just to get out, for if he did not they would have rewritten the laws > just like New York > is doing for Bloomberg if he wanted to stay. > Interesting. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would want to go on permanent vacation in some foreign nation and turn his back (in the eyes of his people) on his homeland. Putin can have plenty of relaxation and fun in present-day Russia and that I know of he has no major enemies to seriously worry about, unlike certain past oligarchs who fled their nation. > > 9. which come back to the final point, without a strong Russia and a strong > China, we would not need that big building in Washington playing war games. > "We need enemies!" Actually, with the war on terrorism, our superpower rivalries may have to take somewhat of a backseat for awhile. But ultimately, the U.S. needs the Pentagon and the military it oversees due to powerful tyrannical nations with designs on us and others. The future unfortunately, will probably have nations who put ugly scars on history in the way Nazi, Germany and Imperial Japan did. > 10. We always need to have someone to hate, but the Russian's are nice > people, I been there and married one, so if you need to hate, pick on China > The Russians generally *are* nice people. And so are the Chinese of Communist China. But governments and national populations tend to get mired in needs, wants, competitions, goals, plots, hysteria, prejudice, etc., and so mistrust and even cold and hot wars can result. I do feel China is a far greater challenge for America and the West. Some scholars say Russia is ultimately a nation in steep decline (low birth rate, population shrinking, bad public health profile, long-term and diversified economic growth picture not good- oil will not last forever, etc.) and over the next several generations their power will greatly recede and China will culturally and politically absorb the Russian Far East (without a shooting war). But one scenario is that due to the new northern offshore oil reserves and the huge boost to the military that will come from it, Russia will explode in a spasm of war against China before it finally permanently fades into the status of a former superpower. I'm glad you did your part for superpower relations by marrying a Russian. : ) I attended the University of Alaska Anchorage when several hundred Russian students attended there in the cause of getting them business degrees and turning them into good little capitalists. When the American coeds first saw the Russian female students (a lot of them looked like Victoria's Secret models) it was with great alarm and dislike, but they were soon relieved to learn these foreign women would rarely cross "party lines" when it came to dating. John Grigg Frank > > _______________________________________________ > 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 dagonweb at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 07:41:11 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:41:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: <1db0b2da0810192035r26dae583o2ee842b4abb1a7e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <1db0b2da0810192035r26dae583o2ee842b4abb1a7e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: China is as communist as my left shoe. Personally I don't think countries can be effectively communist. Communism doesn't survive a shift *beyond* democratic accountability - all utopian ideals desintegrate in a totalitarian system. But communism is very useful in exerting pressure on a market that is totally out of whack. It isn't generally acknowledged but the current Chicago school economic models are leading us into a giant mess. It would be interesting to know what the Japanese communists think of > China; whether a rise of communism in Japan (which may or may not > happen) would mean an equal increase in support for a geopolitical > alignment with China instead of the U.S. And whether the current > communist organizers in Japan are significantly supported in their > efforts by the Chinese regime (or will be in the future). > > -- > Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Oct 20 08:55:38 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:55:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <1db0b2da0810192035r26dae583o2ee842b4abb1a7e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6A771262-ED6E-4E63-B9AF-4D04F2031F5A@mac.com> On Oct 20, 2008, at 12:41 AM, Dagon Gmail wrote: > China is as communist as my left shoe. Personally I don't think > countries can be > effectively communist. Communism doesn't survive a shift beyond > democratic > accountability - all utopian ideals desintegrate in a totalitarian > system. But communism > is very useful in exerting pressure on a market that is totally out > of whack. It isn't > generally acknowledged but the current Chicago school economic > models are > leading us into a giant mess. Difficult to say since we departed from that type of economics in reality decades ago. It was precisely what that model preaches against that most unambiguously led us into this mess, government interference in the purported free market. And it is precisely massively more government interference and even direct control of the economy that nearly everyone is now clamoring for. Stupid monkeys. I hope we survive this and do not lose at least a generation on the achievement of our H+ dreams. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 10:26:01 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:26:01 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: <48FC0967.6020105@mac.com> References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> <48FC0967.6020105@mac.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/20 samantha : > Go read "Economics in One Lesson" then you, being very intelligent, can tell > us. You will also know that what we have enjoyed in the US and what Japan > has been running is not remotely "laissez-faire capitalism". Being > intelligent I am surprised you would even insinuate that it was. Japan > tried to finagle the market by government to get out of the results of its > strong government involvement in the economic previous to its crash in the > late 80s. Japan did extremely well (by any measure of economic success) between WWII and the late 80's, with, as you point out, quite a lot of government interference in the economy. Since then, Japan hasn't done nearly as well, despite moves further towards laissez-faire capitalism, such as the casualisation of the work force. Another example is Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, most Western European social democracies have had high living standards and slow but consistent growth over decades. So it isn't as simple as more govt. control => poverty and less govt. control => prosperity. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 10:56:42 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:56:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] RUSSIA In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810192218k6e246a86j4f052f019ccd7645@mail.gmail.com> References: <002f01c93272$6287fe70$de68c147@grand> <1fa8c3b90810192218k6e246a86j4f052f019ccd7645@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20810200356y3e0926ebu3f0b4e41c79b62af@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Eschatoon Magic wrote: > If you need hate, don't pick on fellow human beings. Pick on human > limitations, pick on aging and death, and think of what we can do to > overcome them. Well said. By the way, the Russian Federation enjoys the presence of a vibrant transhumanist movement, which I understand is little subject to public anathemas. Well, at least in comparison with other countries... :-) Stefano Vaj From neptune at superlink.net Mon Oct 20 11:23:51 2008 From: neptune at superlink.net (Techno) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:23:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z><2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Monday, October 20, 2008 12:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com wrote: > Why do you assume a shift towards socialism will hurt their economy? Because socialism does not work. It's not that it's never been tried in practice. It's been tried close enough and economic theory points to why it won't work -- in the same way that physical theory points to why perpetual motion doesn't work. > They've been in recession or near-recession for 20 years while, if > anything, becoming more right wing economically. What does that tell > you about laissez-faire capitalism? What, indeed, does it tell us about "laissez-faire capitalism" or free markets? Not much since Japan is a heavily regulated economy -- not a free market. Part of the reason for its 20 year recession is because it has a central bank system and this system has basically kept pumping the money. Another reason is the price system is very rigid theory, especially on the labor side. So, instead of allowing the recession to clean up the economy, the government has interfered to keep unsustainable firms going. Further socializing Japan's economy won't resolve this problem. It'll only shift more of the costs to either direct taxpayers or everyone else in their economy via inflation (which acts as indirect taxation*). Regards, Dan * It's a form of indirect taxation because by lowering the value of money (through increasing the money supply), everyone who holds money or is paid according to fixed prices loses purchases power. It also creates a business cycle, since inflation never instantly flows through the whole economy, but generally goes to the biggest debtors first and raising prices in an uneven fashion, leading to a distortion in investments and the capital structure. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 11:44:01 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:44:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <580930c20810200444t1e367289te59d1f9f57489bbd@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Why do you assume a shift towards socialism will hurt their economy? > They've been in recession or near-recession for 20 years while, if > anything, becoming more right wing economically. What does that tell > you about laissez-faire capitalism? I have always been especially interested in the Japanese history and business model, and my firm is operating an office there since the end of the eighties. Let us say that Japan used to be spectacularly successful at an economic level in its own way since the Meiji Restoration, both before and after the second world war, while maintaining a profoundly *illiberal* economic system, in spite of its thin veneer of juridical "americanisation" after the defeat. It is however debatable whether the real - and very unsuccessful - liberalisation which it underwent after the crisis, and as a reaction thereto, was a "turn to the right", unless of course one thinks that Milton Friedman is on the right to Bismarck. Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 11:47:21 2008 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:47:21 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Techno wrote: > Because socialism does not work. It's not that it's never been tried in > practice. It's been tried close enough and economic theory points to why it > won't work -- in the same way that physical theory points to why perpetual > motion doesn't work. > Because free markets do not work. It's not that it's never been tried in practice. It's been tried close enough. Markets get distorted by gangsters, swindlers, monopolies, etc. and, of course, governments who try to reduce the effects of unemployment, poverty, unaffordable health care, etc. Continual GDP increases will rape the planet, just as monopolies rape their 'free' customers. The point being that both pure free markets and pure socialism are theoretical constructs which don't have any chance of survival in the real messy human environment. All systems are compromises between different evils, and the winners and losers continually change as the economic systems change. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 11:51:59 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:51:59 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/10/20 Techno : > Because socialism does not work. It's not that it's never been tried in > practice. It's been tried close enough and economic theory points to why it > won't work -- in the same way that physical theory points to why perpetual > motion doesn't work. This astonishing statement reminds me of the Marxists' claim that their theory is "scientific" and therefore *must* prevail. If there is any empirical evidence to the contrary, well, that must mean the system has been sabotaged by the capitalists, or you haven't observed it long enough to see the real trend, or something. >> They've been in recession or near-recession for 20 years while, if >> anything, becoming more right wing economically. What does that tell >> you about laissez-faire capitalism? > > What, indeed, does it tell us about "laissez-faire capitalism" or free > markets? Not much since Japan is a heavily regulated economy -- not a free > market. Part of the reason for its 20 year recession is because it has a > central bank system and this system has basically kept pumping the money. > Another reason is the price system is very rigid theory, especially on the > labor side. So, instead of allowing the recession to clean up the economy, > the government has interfered to keep unsustainable firms going. Further > socializing Japan's economy won't resolve this problem. It'll only shift > more of the costs to either direct taxpayers or everyone else in their > economy via inflation (which acts as indirect taxation*). So every success of the Japanese economy was *despite* government action while every failure was *because* of government action. Must be so; the dialectic demands it! -- Stathis Papaioannou From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Oct 20 20:30:57 2008 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:30:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Death AND Second Life Message-ID: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> I was just reading: "When your avatar is in an area that allows damage to occur, a heart is shown at the top of your screen with the percentage of health. When this reached 0%, you will be teleported to your home location. So the "death" isn't a permanent one, you don't loose any inventory and can return to the damage enabled region." Does this mean that in Second Life, the concept of death is unacceptable, that when your avatar is unhealthy, for whatever reason, you are automatically returned home as a locale to regain avatar healthfulness? Natasha From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Oct 20 21:24:40 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:24:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Death AND Second Life In-Reply-To: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:30 PM, wrote: > I was just reading: > > "When your avatar is in an area that allows damage to occur, a heart is > shown at the top of your screen with the percentage of health. When this > reached 0%, you will be teleported to your home location. So the "death" > isn't a permanent one, you don't loose any inventory and can return to the > damage enabled region." > > Does this mean that in Second Life, the concept of death is unacceptable, > that when your avatar is unhealthy, for whatever reason, you are > automatically returned home as a locale to regain avatar healthfulness? Technically, it's not that "death" in Second Life is unacceptable, but that it's a feature for the benefit of playing particular games. Philosophically, "death" in Second Life is simply "ludic death", a perceived termination of a particular trajectory of actions expressing particular values. So, within context, it corresponds with biological death. Difference being, of course, that in Second Life the greater context is clearly and readily accessible. - Jef From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 01:57:19 2008 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:57:19 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Japan's young turn to Communist Party ... In-Reply-To: References: <851467A16A7C44CDAE19806D5E5F3BA6@patrick4ezsk6z> <2d6187670810191259h54f4d5d3oe61553e0caa6b88c@mail.gmail.com> <2d6187670810191928k545328b0lf7aa03692b524f7b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: For another example, see this article about Slovenia (from the Melbourne Age): "But under governments of both sides, the economic record has been impressive. Since 1992, Slovenia's real income per head has doubled. In 1992, the International Monetary Fund estimated its output per head in terms of real buying power was only 60% of Australia's. By last year, that had jumped to 75%. Of all the former communist countries, it is clearly the richest and most advanced, a land where 62% of people surf the net, infant mortality is lower than in Australia, and 70% of its output is exported, mostly to other EU countries in areas from pharmaceuticals to auto parts. How is this possible in a country where the state still controls 40% of the economy, including most of its big companies? Where it is virtually impossible for management to sack a worker, where pensions are so generous you might wonder why anyone works? People I spoke to agreed that Slovenia was born with a good inheritance. "It's more central Europe than eastern Europe," Andrej Vijzak, outgoing Minister for the Economy, says. "We were part of Austria for many years, and that formed our traditions." As one MP puts it, "socialism in Slovenia wasn't so bad". Yugoslavia's longtime dictator Josip Tito encouraged factories to be autonomous. "There was self-management, there was pricing, and there were profits," says outgoing Development Minister Ziga Turk, no fan of the communists. "People could travel to the West, people could leave." Independence, and then EU membership, saw Slovenia successfully shift its exports to the West. But unlike the rest of the ex-communist countries, it chose not to follow the free-market reforms pushed by the International Monetary Fund. With some exceptions, it has not allowed foreign investors to control existing firms, although it encourages them to start new ones. Trade unions, now free of communist control, are more powerful than ever." http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/slovenias-economic-secrets-could-be-well-worth-discovering-20081020-54tt.html -- Stathis Papaioannou From Frankmac at ripco.com Tue Oct 21 03:00:28 2008 From: Frankmac at ripco.com (Frank McElligott) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:00:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] russia Message-ID: <008001c93329$2d4c7170$de68c147@grand> The Northern reserves of oil have been claimed by four countries, of which the U.S. is one. At the moment all that is known is that the issue has not been decided. When the 10 years have past, thats how long it take to develop a oil field, from drilling to delivery, oil should be at 10 dollars a barrel. By the by it now cost 6 dollars to pump it. With the remaining four dollars you can buy a cup of coffee in a Moscow cafe:) but you will have a difficult time building an airplane with four dollars. Concerning the Russian military, it was down hill ever since the withdrawn from Taliban country. Is life dangerous in the Russian army, of course they drink way way to much, but they have only for fought rebels and a fools army. Most reports I have read was they lacked chain of command, and half the troops were drunk or on drugs. Check the military advisors of CNN who was sadden as he once had command ed these troops when times were different. Russia won the war because the knew that the Georgian's were going to attack and how they were going to attack, superior intel, They were already massed just waiting for Custer to come on down to the valley. Superior numbers superior itel and a plan well defined(BEFORE HAND) allow the rout. At present there is concern as you have said that China will take the eastern time zones from Russia, but the Russian government is making plans to defend such an act. As you well know that is the part of Russia where the real wealth is in oil ,coal and other minerials. Concerning Russian women ; they are quite beautiful, but they were the reason Russia survived the meltdown in 1998,and Russian men as you know have a life expect of . only to age 55, because of their heavy drinking which also is caused by these same Russian women:) Facts, John , I don't need facts, I am a writer for Sara Palin, and we both know you can see Russia and China from her back window:) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Oct 21 08:37:54 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:37:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] palindromes References: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <3CEBA540935F4E3BA89A772A8681528D@MyComputer> I've always been a big fan of palindromes, and this is the best demonstration of that art form I have ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nej4xJe4Tdg John K Clark From dagonweb at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 11:28:28 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:28:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Death AND Second Life In-Reply-To: References: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: I faintly recall hearing of a service in SL that offers death, effectively a super-euthanasia - you enter a mausoleum, register your password after a series of safety checks, and then the scripted system destroys your entire inventory, resets your avatar to resembling a cadavar, deletes all facts on your bio and enters a "character permanently deceased" message. You even get a mausoleum entry. Can't find a link. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Oct 21 13:45:24 2008 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:45:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] palindromes In-Reply-To: <3CEBA540935F4E3BA89A772A8681528D@MyComputer> References: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> <3CEBA540935F4E3BA89A772A8681528D@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:37 AM, John K Clark wrote: > I've always been a big fan of palindromes, and this is the best > demonstration of that art form I have ever seen: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nej4xJe4Tdg Heh. Extropian, h+, Transhumanist, futurist, Singularitarian palindromes, anyone? - Jef From nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Oct 22 00:55:12 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:55:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A favor to ask In-Reply-To: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: Hello Extropes, so we are not generating the kind of financial support we need for our movie, but you can help us by voting for an animation I made for a contest that will award the winner $20,000, which we really need for our movie to continue forward. I was chosen as a finalist! But the only way I can win is by having the most votes from you! You'll have to register, it's free by going here: http://www.offzhook.com/register.jsp (save or write down the username and password you made) after you are registered they will send you an email, click the link in the email, then you'll see a login page, go ahead and log in. Now you will see a page that says what you can do now, it says "edit your profile, or add events", but you can just ignore that if you want to and go straight to my video page to watch it and vote (you can vote once a day!). My video is called Inspirations and is here - copy and paste this url into your browser or click this link: http://offzhook.com/contestEntry.jsp?id=30 To play the video, click the little arrow in the center of the video. If the video is broken up that is just because it is loading - let it play all weird like that the first time, then play it again, the second time it will play all the way through for you, without stopping. Make sure your volume is on. Now to vote: right below the video (check the purple "Vote for this clip" click your mouse right into that empty box, so that it is now checked). Hooray, you have voted, thank you! Every vote adds up so please if you have a friend or other that would be willing to help, please spread the word! The voting is up until and including the day of the 27th, this week only. And don't forget, since they do allow you to vote every day this will really increase my odds. So please do, just login here http://offzhook.com/login.jsp?r=profileView.jsp every day to vote, and then go to my video page again, http://offzhook.com/contestEntry.jsp?id=30. This contest is for and about a camera in which they requested "makeover" as the theme. I turned this idea into a "beauty is everywhere" concept in my animated video. I hope you like it and if by some miracle I get enough votes to win, thank you for helping Jim and I make our animated science movie! Love to all, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com The health stuff blog: http://ginamiller.blogspot.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 eschatoon at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 15:56:27 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:56:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism Rising: Interesting discussion on Humanity+ Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810220856r121307dfp3c64d19499726fcd@mail.gmail.com> Transhumanism Rising http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/10/transhumanism-rising.php#links This article triggered by the publication of Humanity+ is basically fair, but more negative than positive. Interesting that some of the comments are in our favor. Please leave comments. -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 22 16:18:41 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:18:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism Rising: Interesting discussion on Humanity+ In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810220856r121307dfp3c64d19499726fcd@mail.gmail.co m> References: <1fa8c3b90810220856r121307dfp3c64d19499726fcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081022111041.022bf960@satx.rr.com> >Transhumanism Rising >http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/10/transhumanism-rising.php#links > >This article triggered by the publication of Humanity+ is basically >fair, but more negative than positive. "In spite of which, transhumanism is a coming thing, a future faith. It's time to burnish your best pro-death arguments." Hey, didn't Auschwitz already make that argument about as convincingly as it can be made? Damien Broderick From eschatoon at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 16:22:28 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:22:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism Rising: Interesting discussion on Humanity+ In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081022111041.022bf960@satx.rr.com> References: <1fa8c3b90810220856r121307dfp3c64d19499726fcd@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081022111041.022bf960@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810220922n228b306bo195b2b85679e18c8@mail.gmail.com> Damien, your comment is GREAT! On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > >> Transhumanism Rising >> http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/10/transhumanism-rising.php#links >> >> This article triggered by the publication of Humanity+ is basically >> fair, but more negative than positive. > > "In spite of which, transhumanism is a coming thing, a future faith. It's > time to burnish your best pro-death arguments." > > Hey, didn't Auschwitz already make that argument about as convincingly as it > can be made? > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From scerir at libero.it Wed Oct 22 19:46:31 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:46:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Everett news References: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc><3CEBA540935F4E3BA89A772A8681528D@MyComputer> Message-ID: <007c01c9347e$e6625f20$2b094797@archimede> A documentary and the famous Everett's thesis seem to be online. More here: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/10/everett-on-nova.html and here: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/search/label/hugh%20everett From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 03:10:48 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:40:48 +1130 Subject: [ExI] "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Message-ID: <710b78fc0810222010v3f534635t4a0e833ccc929c5e@mail.gmail.com> "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." That's an ad going on Buses in the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising Wondering how much public support it's getting? http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus It's still the first day of fundraising according to the website, I just copied this from it: ************* Fundraising target: ?5,500.00 Donations so far: ? 79,227.26 ** This is amazing! We're so grateful for your generosity. If you haven't donated yet and would like to then please do - we're now going to advertise across the UK. Buses, trains, billboards - the sky's the limit! ** We reached the total at 10.06am - thank you so much to everyone who contributed! If you haven't given yet and would like to then please do - we can then get adverts inside the same buses to strengthen the campaign's impact! ** ************* By the time most of you look at the site, I expect the total will be a lot higher. -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Oct 23 05:48:59 2008 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:48:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810222010v3f534635t4a0e833ccc929c5e@mail.gmail.co m> References: <710b78fc0810222010v3f534635t4a0e833ccc929c5e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1224741235_74753@s7.cableone.net> At 08:10 PM 10/22/2008, Emlyn wrote: >"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." > >That's an ad going on Buses in the UK. > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising > >Wondering how much public support it's getting? > >http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus > >It's still the first day of fundraising according to the website, I >just copied this from it: > >************* >Fundraising target: ?5,500.00 >Donations so far: ? 79,227.26 This is really cool. Now a transhumanist approach would be "There's no God and that a shame. Join us and donate to create one." Keith. >** This is amazing! We're so grateful for your generosity. If you >haven't donated yet and would like to then please do - we're now going >to advertise across the UK. Buses, trains, billboards - the sky's the >limit! > >** We reached the total at 10.06am - thank you so much to everyone who >contributed! If you haven't given yet and would like to then please do >- we can then get adverts inside the same buses to strengthen the >campaign's impact! ** >************* > >By the time most of you look at the site, I expect the total will be a >lot higher. > >-- >Emlyn > >http://emlynoregan.com - my home >http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting >http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks >on eCulture >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dagonweb at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 07:51:30 2008 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:51:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." In-Reply-To: <1224741235_74753@s7.cableone.net> References: <710b78fc0810222010v3f534635t4a0e833ccc929c5e@mail.gmail.com> <1224741235_74753@s7.cableone.net> Message-ID: "There's no God. Yet. Invest in the future and become one. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eschatoon at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 15:52:11 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:52:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism Rising: Interesting discussion on Humanity+ In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810220856r121307dfp3c64d19499726fcd@mail.gmail.com> References: <1fa8c3b90810220856r121307dfp3c64d19499726fcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810230852x21bfa248p5225d02aa721999@mail.gmail.com> Flooded by transhumanist-friendly comments to the first blog post, Appleyard has written a second blog post: http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/10/transhumanism-2.php Let's show him that he will not run away from us so easily! My comments - links in http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/transhumanism_rising/ In a very interesting blog post on Transhumanism Rising, author Bryan Appleyard (How to Live Forever or Die Trying) concedes that "What I like about transhumanists is their naked, unapologetic radicalism? they simply ask, what's so great about human life as it now is?? transhumanism is a coming thing, a future faith". But the tone of the article is mostly negative: "their technophilia is oppressive and naive. Much of the magazine [H+] is just gadgetry with attitude.". He also says: "What I don't like about transhumanists is the fact that they simply refuse to understand certain arguments of their opponents". He may have a point here, but I don't "refuse" to understand their arguments - I just don't understand them. I don't understand why disease should be better than health, and death should be better than life. I simply don't understand it. I have seen loved ones dying, and I can tell you that death is ugly. You know that too. It is understandable that previous generations, unable to imagine life extension and immortality technologies, forced themselves to accept death (if you cannot escape something, you'd better like it). But we are beginning to see that aging and death are engineering problems waiting for engineering solutions. In reply Appleyard quotes Leon Kass, Francis Fukuyama and Bill McKibben, who "have attacked this idea, arguing, in essence, that death is an essential aspect of our humanity". This is, to say it in good Latin, BULLSHIT. I consider curiosity, kindness and love for others, and appreciation of beauty and art, as essential aspects of our humanity. NOT DEATH. I have to say that Appleyard makes an effort to be as fair and objective as possible given his bias, and that the comment thread is surprisingly interesting, with a mix of declared transhumanists, rabid anti-transhumanists, and neutral interested observers. I especially liked the comment of the reader who, referring to Appleyard exhortation "It's time to burnish your best pro-death arguments", replied "Hey, didn't Auschwitz already make that argument about as convincingly as it can be made?". In a followup post on Transhumanism 2 Appleyard concedes that "Our accelerating power to transform the world will, inevitably, give us the power to transform ourselves. All sorts of enhancements will occur, not least enormously increased life span. This may not be possible but there are good reasons for thinking it will be.". But then, prehaps surprised by the transhumanist-friendly attidude of many readers of the first post, he repeats easy and dull non-arguments like "this is, in part, a consumerist idea - you buy medical immortality much as you would buy a pair of shoes.". Disgusting, isn't it. Buying life as easily and affordably like buying a pair of shoes. It this an outrageous insult to the holiness of suffering and the tragically beautiful mistery of death? Perhaps, but this is precisely what I want: to give everyone on the planet easy and affordable access to more health, more life and, why not, more happiness. This is what transhumanism is about. On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Eschatoon Magic wrote: > Transhumanism Rising > http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/10/transhumanism-rising.php#links > > This article triggered by the publication of Humanity+ is basically > fair, but more negative than positive. Interesting that some of the > comments are in our favor. Please leave comments. > > -- > Eschatoon Magic > http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon > aka Giulio Prisco > http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco > -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From scerir at libero.it Thu Oct 23 16:09:40 2008 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:09:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Everett news References: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc><3CEBA540935F4E3BA89A772A8681528D@MyComputer> <007c01c9347e$e6625f20$2b094797@archimede> Message-ID: <000401c93529$c71e1ae0$ffe51e97@archimede> > A documentary and the famous Everett's thesis > seem to be online. BTW, at Cern there is a little documentary about John Bell http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1049544 and also http://www.quantumphil.org/johnbell.htm From eschatoon at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 09:29:28 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:29:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] CTRL-ALT-R: Another Life Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810100229v983b208xd9093f743558c61b@mail.gmail.com> Links and quotes in http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/ctrl_alt_r_another_life/ I am reading Extropia DaSilva's CTRL-ALT-R essays and look forward to discussing them with the author at the Next Cosmic Engineers meeting in Second Life: Discussion of CTRL-ALT-R: REBAKE YOUR REALITY. Parts of the essays deal with CA based digital physics and the possibility that we may live in a simulated reality computed by means of digital physics by another level of reality. The short movie below illustrates resurrection in such a scenario. If we live in a simulated reality computed by means of digital physics by another level of reality, which may be the primary reality of our computronium based AI mind children in a future time, then we live in a universe with a conceptually simple, and scientifically sound, practical engineering mechanism for our own resurrection, by copying sentient beings living in the sumulated reality (us) to another simulated reality (or even the primary reality itself). Of course we probably cannot even imagine the motivations of computronium superintelligences, but it seems plausible that they would copy and store interesting patterns to run them again. At least, this is what CA and Alife researchers do today. This is illustrated by the short movie CA Resurrection, which I just made with a Game of Life program. Flash streaming version Quick Time streaming version Downloadable version (right click and save) -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 22:56:09 2008 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:56:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] His Holiness the Dalai Lama is in Hospital, surgury today Message-ID: <9b9887c80810091556o59230740pa11164fa654fb294@mail.gmail.com> The Dalai Lama fled Tibet after a failed uprising in 1959 (c)2008 Google - Map data (c)2008 AND, NFGIS, Europa Technologies - Terms of Use Dalai Lama hospitalised with abdominal pains: doctor 7 hours ago NEW DELHI (AFP) ? The Dalai Lama has been hospitalised due to abdominal pain and could undergo surgery on Friday, a senior doctor told AFP, but his spokesman insisted that he was only undergoing "routine tests." The spiritual leader was admitted to a state-run New Delhi hospital on Thursday following media reports that abdominal pains for which he had spent four days in a Mumbai hospital in August had recurred. A senior doctor at New Delhi's Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, who did not wish to be identified, told AFP that the Dalai Lama, a former Nobel peace Prize winner, had been hospitalised. "He was admitted when he complained of abdominal pain and now chances are that the Dalai Lama will be operated upon, most probably tomorrow (Friday)," the doctor said. Hospital chief Nalini Kaul declined to comment on the Dalai Lama's health or what treatment he would receive but the Press Trust of India, quoting unnamed sources, also said the monk was likely to be operated upon on Friday. However, a spokesman for the Dalai Lama dismissed the report of surgery and said that the spiritual leader was undergoing "routine tests." The Buddhist monk had been scheduled to return to his home-in-exile in northern India on Thursday, but spokesman Tenzin Takhla told AFP that the 73-year-old would now remain in hospital at least until Saturday. "There is nothing to worry about as His Holiness is undergoing routine tests for which he had to be hospitalised," Takhla said, rejecting the reports of surgery. -- Ilsa Bartlett Institute for Rewiring the System 2951 Derby Street #139 Berkeley, CA 94705 www.hotlux.com/angel.htm www.grassroutestravel.com "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 spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 24 00:33:56 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:33:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Whose Holiness the Dalai Lama is in Hospital, surgury a couple weeks ago In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80810091556o59230740pa11164fa654fb294@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200810240100.m9O10atx006451@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Oops apologies on discovering this a couple weeks after the fact. I was on back to back business trips with a weekend to the ranch between and missed it until today. How did Mr. Lama's surgery turn out? spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ilsa Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:56 PM Dalai Lama hospitalised with abdominal pains: doctor 7 hours ago NEW DELHI (AFP) - The Dalai Lama has been hospitalised due to abdominal pain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eschatoon at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 18:10:04 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:10:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanism Rising: Interesting discussion on Humanity+ In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810230852x21bfa248p5225d02aa721999@mail.gmail.com> References: <1fa8c3b90810220856r121307dfp3c64d19499726fcd@mail.gmail.com> <1fa8c3b90810230852x21bfa248p5225d02aa721999@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810241110n10fb866h965d94f8c704ad01@mail.gmail.com> I was VERY happy to see this post in the Transhumanism 2 comment thread. It validates all the time we spend defending our ideas in public fora: "Prior to reading this debate, I assumed, somewhat complacently, that transhumanists were indeed a bunch of technophilic fanatics and utopians. I have to say, however, that most of the posts from the transhumanists in this debate were very impressive and well-reasoned. It was, instead, the counter-posts which appeared to be largely abusive and dismissive. I remain in doubt about the wisdom of transhumanism, but I also wonder about the honesty of those who attack them. As the transhumanists point out, they are advocating meliorism, not utopianism, yet they continue to be mis-represented as utopians. That type of mis-representation sets the alarm bells ringing, and I wonder how many of those who oppose transhumanism do so because they believe that the only type of salvation is religious salvation." On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Eschatoon Magic wrote: > Flooded by transhumanist-friendly comments to the first blog post, > Appleyard has written a second blog post: > http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/10/transhumanism-2.php > > Let's show him that he will not run away from us so easily! > > My comments - links in > http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/transhumanism_rising/ > > In a very interesting blog post on Transhumanism Rising, author Bryan > Appleyard (How to Live Forever or Die Trying) concedes that "What I > like about transhumanists is their naked, unapologetic radicalism? > they simply ask, what's so great about human life as it now is?? > transhumanism is a coming thing, a future faith". But the tone of the > article is mostly negative: "their technophilia is oppressive and > naive. Much of the magazine [H+] is just gadgetry with attitude.". > > He also says: "What I don't like about transhumanists is the fact that > they simply refuse to understand certain arguments of their > opponents". He may have a point here, but I don't "refuse" to > understand their arguments - I just don't understand them. I don't > understand why disease should be better than health, and death should > be better than life. I simply don't understand it. I have seen loved > ones dying, and I can tell you that death is ugly. You know that too. > It is understandable that previous generations, unable to imagine life > extension and immortality technologies, forced themselves to accept > death (if you cannot escape something, you'd better like it). But we > are beginning to see that aging and death are engineering problems > waiting for engineering solutions. In reply Appleyard quotes Leon > Kass, Francis Fukuyama and Bill McKibben, who "have attacked this > idea, arguing, in essence, that death is an essential aspect of our > humanity". This is, to say it in good Latin, BULLSHIT. I consider > curiosity, kindness and love for others, and appreciation of beauty > and art, as essential aspects of our humanity. NOT DEATH. > > I have to say that Appleyard makes an effort to be as fair and > objective as possible given his bias, and that the comment thread is > surprisingly interesting, with a mix of declared transhumanists, rabid > anti-transhumanists, and neutral interested observers. I especially > liked the comment of the reader who, referring to Appleyard > exhortation "It's time to burnish your best pro-death arguments", > replied "Hey, didn't Auschwitz already make that argument about as > convincingly as it can be made?". > > In a followup post on Transhumanism 2 Appleyard concedes that "Our > accelerating power to transform the world will, inevitably, give us > the power to transform ourselves. All sorts of enhancements will > occur, not least enormously increased life span. This may not be > possible but there are good reasons for thinking it will be.". But > then, prehaps surprised by the transhumanist-friendly attidude of many > readers of the first post, he repeats easy and dull non-arguments like > "this is, in part, a consumerist idea - you buy medical immortality > much as you would buy a pair of shoes.". > > Disgusting, isn't it. Buying life as easily and affordably like buying > a pair of shoes. It this an outrageous insult to the holiness of > suffering and the tragically beautiful mistery of death? Perhaps, but > this is precisely what I want: to give everyone on the planet easy and > affordable access to more health, more life and, why not, more > happiness. This is what transhumanism is about. > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Eschatoon Magic wrote: >> Transhumanism Rising >> http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/10/transhumanism-rising.php#links >> >> This article triggered by the publication of Humanity+ is basically >> fair, but more negative than positive. Interesting that some of the >> comments are in our favor. Please leave comments. >> >> -- >> Eschatoon Magic >> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon >> aka Giulio Prisco >> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco >> > > > > -- > Eschatoon Magic > http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon > aka Giulio Prisco > http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco > -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 20:44:00 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:44:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Greenpeace on fusion: Whatever it is, we're against it Message-ID: <580930c20810241344w322c5793h68838afd1682c7e0@mail.gmail.com> Greenpeace on fusion: Whatever it is, we're against it Luddites 2.0 By Andrew Orlowski CERN boffins are confident that fusion, the holy grail of cheap, safe power will be economical and usable within thirty years. It's a finger in the air sort of estimate, based on projects from the Age of Scientific Optimism, such as the Los Alamos and Apollo moon landing projects. The Soviets built the first experimental fusion reactor in the 1950s, and the technique remains the basis of current investment. The (Joint European Torus) JET reactor in Culham, Oxfordshire was completed 25 years ago, and work is underway on ITER in Cadarache, France, a ?10bn facility, backed by six countries (including China) plus the EU. The Czech Republic has a smaller-scale reactor, called Compass. All use magnets to force a fusion of two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium, releasing enormous amounts of energy. Eventually, it's hoped, more than goes in. ITER is designed to produce 500MW for 300 to 500 seconds with an input of 50MW. "We'll certainly have it in fifty years," ITER's Neil Calder told the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation last week. But not if Greenpeace has its way. Yes, the fuel for fusion is abundant, and far more productive than fossil fuel - one litre of seawater can produce as much as 30 litres of petrol. It's much safer than nuclear fission. And it doesn't release CO2. So what's the problem? "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy," Jan Van de Putte of Greenpeace International said when ITER was announced in 2005. Van de Putte predicted it will never be efficient - so why bother? Spokesperson Bridget Woodman said: "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." (Which must break the record for the number of false and contradictory assertions you can cram into a 17-word sentence. But that's par for the course these days. When you hear a phrase like "sustainable energy" the opposite is usually intended - the speaker is referring to an energy source that won't sustain anything for very long or very reliably.) Greenpeace began life as a citizens' group devoted to fighting pollution and the whaling industry, but it's now a powerful de-industrialisation lobby. Its hostility to progress snags it well over $200m income a year. If a scientific breakthrough promises a better of quality of life, then the organisation is probably against it. Two of Greenpeace's co-founders, Patrick Moore and Paul Watson long since departed: Watson to run his own anti-whaling group and Moore criticising its anti-human, anti-development agenda. "By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism," Moore lamented. Fusion seems to exemplify what Moore means: an anti-modernity superstition. Greenpeace doesn't understand what fusion is, but whatever it is it will be scary, it will be bad, and it must be stopped. (R) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 24 23:21:17 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:21:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081024181856.0249f970@satx.rr.com> Of possible interest. I haven't read it: Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics, by Peter Rowlands, Univ. of Liverpool You can download the first chapter for free. http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6544.html Promo description: Unique in its field, this book uses a methodology that is entirely new, creating the simplest and most abstract foundations for physics to date. The author proposes a fundamental description of process in a universal computational rewrite system, leading to an irreducible form of relativistic quantum mechanics from a single operator. This is not only simpler, and more fundamental, but also seemingly more powerful than any other quantum mechanics formalism available. The methodology finds immediate applications in particle physics, theoretical physics and theoretical computing. In addition, taking the rewrite structure more generally as a description of process, the book shows how it can be applied to large-scale structures beyond the realm of fundamental physics. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 25 01:22:38 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:22:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081024181856.0249f970@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081024181856.0249f970@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081024202151.0232db38@satx.rr.com> A friend adds: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.0224.pdf By the way, one of his papers was refused by the arXiv around 2004, apparently for being too controversial.> From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 17:23:22 2008 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:23:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Zero to Infinity: The Foundations of Physics In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20081024202151.0232db38@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081024181856.0249f970@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20081024202151.0232db38@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <55ad6af70810251023j2560faeds2a7bfa3aa03cc1d0@mail.gmail.com> Damien, I glanced over the first chapter and found myself liking the concept of the infinite degeneracy of nothingness. But I am a little alarmed at how readily he jumps into 'advanced' systems. In particular I would have expected something along the lines of metamath.org, where you see the construction of the known integers and the laws of arithmetic from a chosen set of 6 or 11 axioms. It is not my intention to claim that these axioms must be addressed in any treatment attempting to do what the author of "Zero to Infinity' is attempting, but rather at least some compensation such as why so many thousands of steps are effortlessly done away with. It is possible that metamath.org and similar axiomatic treatments to basic mathematics are completely wrong, and that there's a much simpler path of steps and proofs, although even this isn't addressed. Perhaps someone else on the list has a few thoughts on this. I am sure that anyone "in bed with" transhuman concepts can nod to the ideal of rewrite rules. When I first read the opening paragraphs I thought that it sounded like the author had submitted one too many bug reports to mod_rewrite, an apache web server module very commonly used to rewrite URLs to make pretty URLs turn into more memorable and pretty strings. Too, the entire struggle known as the regexps in programming circles. My recent introduction to (formal) grammar rules, in the sense of graph rewriting, is a nice connection to explore, but again it has been my understanding that there's more layers behind graph theory, number theory and the theory of categories and algebraic structures than there are to the cisco routing standards. - Bryan 512 203 0507 http://heybryan.org/ From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 00:19:09 2008 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:49:09 +1130 Subject: [ExI] "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810222010v3f534635t4a0e833ccc929c5e@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810222010v3f534635t4a0e833ccc929c5e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0810271719wa8e444fma21a3e04a818f5c8@mail.gmail.com> I've had some faithful types that I know see this, and comment on "probably", like it's a big flaw, and say "isn't that just agnosticism"? I think probably here means the same as it would in "Santa Claus probably doesn't exist"; the probability is really really close to 1. But I do agree with them to some extent. I'm happy to say "God does not exist", when I mean it as a placeholder for "it is extraordinarily unlikely that God exists". When talking about real world things, there is always an implicit "probably", because the universe is messy and reserves the right to surprise us. For instance, I would say "The sun will rise tomorrow", when strictly you could only say "The sun will very probably rise tomorrow". No one would have been worried about "There is no Santa Claus. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.", except that the kiddies might discover the ruse (which we cover up, Santa being a kind of training-god). It's too bad they couldn't have gone with "There is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." -- Emlyn http://emlynoregan.com - my home http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks on eCulture 2008/10/23 Emlyn : > "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." > > That's an ad going on Buses in the UK. > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising > > Wondering how much public support it's getting? > > http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus > > It's still the first day of fundraising according to the website, I > just copied this from it: > > ************* > Fundraising target: ?5,500.00 > Donations so far: ? 79,227.26 > > ** This is amazing! We're so grateful for your generosity. If you > haven't donated yet and would like to then please do - we're now going > to advertise across the UK. Buses, trains, billboards - the sky's the > limit! > > ** We reached the total at 10.06am - thank you so much to everyone who > contributed! If you haven't given yet and would like to then please do > - we can then get adverts inside the same buses to strengthen the > campaign's impact! ** > ************* > > By the time most of you look at the site, I expect the total will be a > lot higher. > > -- > Emlyn > > http://emlynoregan.com - my home > http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting > http://speakingoffreedom.blogspot.com - video link feed of great talks > on eCulture > From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 28 01:41:31 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:41:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810271719wa8e444fma21a3e04a818f5c8@mail.gmail.com > References: <710b78fc0810222010v3f534635t4a0e833ccc929c5e@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0810271719wa8e444fma21a3e04a818f5c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081027203832.023fcdc8@satx.rr.com> At 11:49 AM 10/28/2008 +1130, Emlyn wrote: >I've had some faithful types that I know see this, and comment on >"probably", like it's a big flaw, and say "isn't that just >agnosticism"? I think probably here means the same as it would in >"Santa Claus probably doesn't exist"; the probability is really really >close to 1. On that same general point, Russell Blackford recently commented on his blog: Someone raised the agnostic bid, and RB replied: EGGzackly. Damien Broderick From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 04:08:32 2008 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:08:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Whose Holiness the Dalai Lama is in Hospital, surgury a couple weeks ago In-Reply-To: <200810240100.m9O10atx006451@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <9b9887c80810091556o59230740pa11164fa654fb294@mail.gmail.com> <200810240100.m9O10atx006451@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <9b9887c80810272108i682bab20uf0448e8e007ceb69@mail.gmail.com> hhdl had kidney stones and the who thing is successful. also hhdl is exhausted from al his travels and teaching. best wishes, ilsa On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:33 PM, spike wrote: > Oops apologies on discovering this a couple weeks after the fact. I was > on back to back business trips with a weekend to the ranch between and > missed it until today. How did Mr. Lama's surgery turn out? > > spike > > ------------------------------ > *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto: > extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *ilsa > *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:56 PM > > > > Dalai Lama hospitalised with abdominal pains: doctor > > 7 hours ago > > NEW DELHI (AFP) ? The Dalai Lama has been hospitalised due to abdominal > pain > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 2951 Derby Street #139 Berkeley, CA 94705 www.hotlux.com/angel.htm www.grassroutestravel.com "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 possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 05:07:59 2008 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:07:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] SENS3 Conference video footage Message-ID: <2d6187670810272207g1da98f41jd6a2f294a7ab1ce5@mail.gmail.com> I came upon this very thorough SENS3 video coverage on a website called Gallery. http://richardjschueler.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=56847 John Grigg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Oct 28 05:08:49 2008 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:08:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Greenpeace on fusion: Whatever it is, we're against it References: <580930c20810241344w322c5793h68838afd1682c7e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <099923FE059E44B5897917EAC4E11427@MyComputer> When I was a kid I admired Greenpeace, and with good reason; I mean getting into a little rubber boat and placing yourself between a huge whale and a even larger whaling ship full of angry sailors is a ballsy, downright heroic, thing to do. Unfortunately the organization has degenerated over the years so now it is just a pitiful parody of its former self. Solar takes up too much land, geothermal smells bad, dams flood some animal nobody ever heard of, wind turbines are ugly kill little birdies. As for nuclear, well, fission or fusion nuclear is nuclear and so inherently evil. If it can produce energy, if it can help people out of poverty then Greenpeace is against it. The only moral thing to do is freeze in the dark. John K Clark From estropico at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 19:39:35 2008 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:39:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia: Emulating Brains, with Anders Sandberg Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90810281239h6d0059f8lb038fd92df8012b8@mail.gmail.com> Emulating brains: silicon dreams or the next big thing? The next ExtroBritannia event is scheduled for Saturday November the 22nd 2008; 2:00pm - 4:00pm. Venue: Room 403, 4th floor (via main lift), Main Building, Birkbeck College, Torrington Square, London WC1E 7HX. The event is free and everyone's welcome. The idea of creating a faithful copy of a human brain has been a popular philosophical thought experiment and science fiction plot for decades. How close are we to actually doing it, how could it be done, and what would the consequences be? This talk will trace trends in computing, neuroscience, lab automaton and microscopy to show how whole brain emulation could become feasible in the mid term future. Speaker: Anders Sandberg, Neuroethics researcher at the Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Join the debate! There is no charge to attend and everyone is welcome. Venue: Room 403 is on the fourth floor (via the main lift) in the main Birkbeck College building, in Torrington Square (which is a pedestrian-only square). Torrington Square is about 10 minutes walk from either Russell Square or Goodge St tube stations. MAP Discussion is likely to continue after the event, in a nearby pub (see below), for those who are able to stay. Why not join some of the UKTA regulars for a light lunch beforehand, any time after 12.30pm, in The Marlborough Arms, 36 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HJ. Extrobritannia is the monthly public event of the United Kingdom Transhumanist Association (our *mailing list *, the *ExtroBritannia blog *). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue Oct 28 21:43:15 2008 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:43:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Test In-Reply-To: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> References: <20081020163057.hfr8vtmlw8sc8oow@webmail.natasha.cc> Message-ID: <72EC706C4DF143EA938BDE2B205FBB8A@GinaSony> Testing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 28 22:00:06 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:00:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] SENS3 Conference video footage In-Reply-To: <2d6187670810272207g1da98f41jd6a2f294a7ab1ce5@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2d6187670810272207g1da98f41jd6a2f294a7ab1ce5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081028165901.02352540@satx.rr.com> At 10:07 PM 10/27/2008 -0700, you wrote: >http://richardjschueler.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=56847 > >John Grigg The Michael Rose talk is especially good. And rather encouraging. Chris Phoenix's presentation is certainly to be watched as well. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 14:01:13 2008 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:01:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The New Green Aristocracy Message-ID: <580930c20810290701nd0dab41l40a1c1c57b553315@mail.gmail.com> The New Green Aristocracy They don't work for you By Ben Pile? Get more from this author Posted in Environment , 28th October 2008 11:03 GMT *Comment* An aristocracy is a form of government by an elite that considers itself to possess greater virtues than the hoi polloi, giving it the right to rule in its own interests. Aristocrats were referred to as 'the nobility', or 'nobs'. These days we prefer decisions to be made democratically ? the idea being that we can judge for ourselves which ideas serve our interests, thank you very much, ma'am. But in recent years, politicians have sought legitimacy for their positions from outside of the democratic process. A new aristocracy is emerging from the emptiness of UK politics - and it's considerably more virtuous than thou. Last Thursday, foreign secretary Ed Miliband announced the government was committing to an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 - up from 60 per cent. This was the latest in a game of politics by numbers, in which the major parties outbid each other to commit to the most punishing targets, each party claiming that its own reduction target best represented 'the science'. Embarrassed at being so easily trumped, environment secretary Hilary Benn announced changes to the Climate Change Bill- being debated today - last October. A new Climate Change Committee (CCC) of scientific and economic experts would advise Parliament on what targets best represented the science. Ed Miliband's announcement followed the first advice from the CCC, given to him by the Committee's chair, Lord Adair Turner, in a letter earlier in the week. At first glance, this appears to be a sensible way of formulating policy. If "tackling climate change" is a purely technical challenge, why not leave it to the experts? The problem is that it's not a purely technical challenge, and it makes many political assumptions. Lord Turner is surprisingly candid about this: Climate science cannot predict with absolute certainty how emissions paths will translate into temperature increases and how temperature increases will translate into damage. Deciding what level of temperature increase is harmful is therefore inherently judgemental. Yet public scrutiny of this judgement call is disastrously absent from the climate change debate. For example, according to the conventional wisdom, "climate change will be worse for the poor", and this forms a substantial part of the argument for emissions reduction. But an argument for making people wealthy could have the same basis. After all, the human cost of extreme weather in the developed world is far lower than equivalent phenomena in poorer countries. But arguments for wealth are necessarily *political*. They depend fundamentally on us understanding our own interests. Meanwhile, the argument for drastic carbon reduction and lifestyle change is principally *ethical*: it claims that matters of fact exist, which dictate the terms and limits that society must respond to, or else we will face catastrophe. At the same time, the argument goes, politics can only fail to respond to these matters of fact, because people are too self-interested, and lack the ability to understand the complexities of climate science. In other words, we lack the virtues necessary to make decisions about the future. Moreover, politicians have mirrored the public's cynicism of politicians with their own cynicism of politics. Accordingly, they are ever keener to demonstrate their ethical credentials ? their virtues ? than they are in explaining the potential of their political ideas. They don't have any. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/28/new_eco_aristocracy/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 29 22:50:06 2008 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:50:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Finally, the atheism smear! Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20081029174753.0239a7f8@satx.rr.com> North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole's campaign is refusing to take down an ad that accuses her Democratic rival, Kay Hagan, of accepting money from "godless Americans," after Hagan demanded that the Republican incumbent "cease and desist." The two campaigns are in a nasty dispute over the commercial, which began running statewide in North Carolina Tuesday. Hagan sent Dole a letter Wednesday demanding she take down the ad, and held a press conference in the morning at which, according to prepared remarks, she called it an attack on her "Christian faith." The ad accuses Hagan of attending a "secret fundraiser" hosted by the Godless Americans PAC last month. "Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took godless money," the narrator says. "What did Kay Hagan promise in return?" The ad then plays a clip of a female voice saying, "There is no God." Hagan complained Wednesday that the final clip is not her voice. "This entire ad was a deliberate attempt to mislead, and it speaks volumes about Ms. Dole's character and conviction and how she feels about how she's doing in the polls right now," Hagan spokesman Colleen Flanagan told FOXNews.com. Hagan, a North Carolina state senator, is leading Dole by a few points in several state polls. An Associated Press-GfK poll out Wednesday showed the Democratic challenger leading by 47 to 43 percent. Dole's campaign said the ad never implied that the voice at the end of the ad was Hagan's. Dole spokesman Dan McLagan said the "There is no God" line was actually a recycled quote from a Godless Americans PAC representative played earlier in the commercial. "She bears no resemblance to Hagan. She's blonde, sounds totally different," he said. He told FOXNews.com the ad is 100 percent accurate and the campaign will "absolutely not" take it down. "Every word in the ad is true," he said. "They know it. They don't like it, but it's staying up." From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 31 03:15:05 2008 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:15:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] enceladus photos In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80810272108i682bab20uf0448e8e007ceb69@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200810310341.m9V3fl1p023943@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Is this cool or what? http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/10/enceladus_up_close.html spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eschatoon at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 15:42:22 2008 From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:42:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Awaken the Universe, by Philippe Van Nedervelde Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90810310842n1866f94ei4187c9a2f33dca15@mail.gmail.com> http://www.terasemjournals.org/gn0303/pvn1.html The Terasem Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology has an article on Awaken the Universe -- Introducing the Order of Cosmic Engineers, by Philippe Van Nedervelde. This article was adapted from a lecture given by Philippe Van Nedervelde, MA Comm., FLF, co-founder of the Order of Cosmic Engineers (OCE), during the 4th Annual Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology on July 20, 2008 at the Terasem Island Amphitheatre in Second Life. Philippe discusses the benefits and methods to developing the technologies purported to enhance, thus expand, human health and life spans. -- Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon aka Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Oct 31 16:22:22 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:22:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Awaken the Universe, by Philippe Van Nedervelde In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90810310842n1866f94ei4187c9a2f33dca15@mail.gmail.com> References: <1fa8c3b90810310842n1866f94ei4187c9a2f33dca15@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <490B30BE.1040809@mac.com> Eschatoon Magic wrote: > http://www.terasemjournals.org/gn0303/pvn1.html > > The Terasem Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology has an article on > Awaken the Universe -- Introducing the Order of Cosmic Engineers, by > Philippe Van Nedervelde. This article was adapted from a lecture given > by Philippe Van Nedervelde, MA Comm., FLF, co-founder of the Order of > Cosmic Engineers (OCE), during the 4th Annual Workshop on Geoethical > Nanotechnology on July 20, 2008 at the Terasem Island Amphitheatre in > Second Life. Philippe discusses the benefits and methods to developing > the technologies purported to enhance, thus expand, human health and > life spans. > > At the moment I would be quite delighted if we could awaken one planet. It is pretty dark out there. At the moment I find it extremely hubristic to speak of this species awakening the universe. I will give less than even odds we survive at all. Happy Halloween. From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Oct 31 17:35:32 2008 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:35:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0810271719wa8e444fma21a3e04a818f5c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0810222010v3f534635t4a0e833ccc929c5e@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0810271719wa8e444fma21a3e04a818f5c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <490B41E4.8020009@mac.com> Emlyn wrote: > I've had some faithful types that I know see this, and comment on > "probably", like it's a big flaw, and say "isn't that just > agnosticism"? I think probably here means the same as it would in > "Santa Claus probably doesn't exist"; the probability is really really > close to 1. > > But I do agree with them to some extent. I'm happy to say "God does > not exist", when I mean it as a placeholder for "it is extraordinarily > unlikely that God exists". When talking about real world things, there > is always an implicit "probably", because the universe is messy and > reserves the right to surprise us. For instance, I would say "The sun > will rise tomorrow", when strictly you could only say "The sun will > very probably rise tomorrow". > > No one would have been worried about "There is no Santa Claus. Now > stop worrying and enjoy your life.", except that the kiddies might > discover the ruse (which we cover up, Santa being a kind of > training-god). It's too bad they couldn't have gone with "There is no > God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." > > That there is no God both is and is not a reason to not worry depending on one's model of what such a being might me and its implications for us. That there is no God and thus no afterlife etc. can be quite worrisome as it is the end of the cosmic "re-do" or "another chance". I think that the day when there being no God really sinks in is the day life-extension and other human+ technology gains major support. Those who believe that this human life is not all there is can't be bothered to care too much about extending it or even to fully consider death as much of a tragedy. This has implications across the moral/ethical spectrum. - samantha