From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 05:23:35 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:23:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] VP for Creationism
In-Reply-To: <200808301819.m7UIJ9f9002186@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <580930c20808300846n21ff257fpf645f177aae6e2f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<200808301819.m7UIJ9f9002186@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670808312223x740d461dr149db1193428cd9f@mail.gmail.com>

Spike wrote:
> Alaska the ideal situation in which to introduce the philosophical absurdity
> of choosing a particular creation myth to teach alongside evolution.  Shall
> we attempt to identify and catalog *all* known creation myths, and teach
> them all on an equal basis?

I went to public schools in Alaska and a science teacher I had there actually put aside an entire class period to teach/learn about the creation stories of other cultures.  He was the "Carl Sagan" of my highschool and he taught a terrific course in astronomy.  I think in today's legal climate he would have to tread very lightly compared to how he did things back then.  He was a tad arrogant about discussing evolution.  

We watched the films 2001 and 2010 in his class.  Oh, and Spike, he could easily have passed for your cousin or older brother. lol

Regarding BillK's comment about beginning to teach evolution in Alaskan public schools, well, this has already been going on for years. lol  And as for Stefano's psychiatry jibe, a sad fact of life is that my alma mater (despite having several large hospitals close to it) lacks a medical school.  The Alaskan state government has a tradition of shortchanging higher education, despite our massive oil revenues.  And so young Alaskans tend to leave the state for their educations and then never return to live and work.    

John    


From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 15:29:18 2008
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI))
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:29:18 -0300
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <0a8401c90c47$81a67170$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>  August 30, 2008 5:26 PM

> normally be, it seems to me that there are exactly three kinds
> of people:
> 1. Genuine Altruists
> 2. Sociopaths
> 3. the Confused or Moody

You can put a checkmark for me in the third kind. But I like to consider 
myself more a moody type than a confused one.

And correct me if I'm wrong but I think most of the people are 3's too. 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Sep  1 17:24:19 2008
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:24:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Safety from Gustav
Message-ID: <007101c90c57$91466e90$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni>

Friends,

 

If you are in need of a safe place to stay during Gustav, please email me
off list.

 

 

Natasha Vita-More <http://www.natasha.cc> 

BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium

Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics

University of Plymouth, UK

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080901/f6c64411/attachment.html>

From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 22:33:50 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 17:33:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Mostly automatic patient-by-patient cancer cure engineering
Message-ID: <200809011733.51064.kanzure@gmail.com>

I came across a video today that I've been meaning to find for a while 
now. It's a good one, about the uses of synthetic biology, open source 
software, the internet and biotech to enhance our ability to save 
lives, particularly tapping into the breast cancer support communities.

http://richardjschueler.com/wp-gallery2.php?g2_itemId=57070

Andrew Hessel gave a talk in Palo Alto on August 8th for BioBarCamp and 
it was recorded, but unfortunately nobody I've spoken with has been 
able to find the video. His presentation had improved significantly 
from the SENS 3 presentation given in the video linked to above. 

http://pinkarmy.org/

The final question in the video is funny because in his Palo Alto talk, 
he responded to the very same question with the simple fact that many 
other countries would love to have a state of the art biofab facility 
knocking on their door.

Also, I've been working on a corny "mind uploading CD" that I should be 
releasing later today once a few more things compile and finalize, so 
if you don't see an email about that, yell at me or something. ;-)

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep  2 03:27:32 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:27:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell? (indeed)
References: <26707.59445.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><01e601c90986$3ccac880$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><ee50357e0808290116w1af11571k27eacc4dee5fe76b@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080829033229.0246f700@satx.rr.com><026601c90a61$40c6ddd0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<1220106602_729@S3.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <007901c90cac$612235f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Keith writes

> At 10:24 PM 8/29/2008, Lee wrote:
> 
>> Here is what George Bush should have said the day after 9-11:
>> "By Executive Order I command that *all* airline travel proceed
>> exactly as scheduled and with no interruption in consequence of
>> this attack. Henceforth, all passengers are ordered
> 
> Bad wording.  "Expected" or encouraged would be more in American 
> tradition.  "Ordered" tends to upset Americans.

Perhaps, but I hardly expect that any harm would come from
"ordered", and it might console some folks (e.g. me) that
serious measures were afoot.

I cannot imagine those "upset Americans" you refer
to simply idly standing by as the rest of us did
the work of terrorist subdue.

In fact, it is precisely those types who'd have to be talked
out of bringing their cudgels, blackjacks, and brass knuckles.

And it would not be Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Metcalf, and Mr. Hathaway
that would have to be talked out of *really* taking it out on the
hijackers, the bastards who would dare inconvenience them, endanger
their lives, and be intending to commit a vast crime to boot.
It would be Mr. Fogarty, Mr. Beauregard, and Mr. Camponelli who'd
need to be held back to canes, books, and weighted handbags.
I'll bring my hardbound "Java Class Libraries", which if thrown 
hard from a distance of ten feet would probably bring down a horse.

> A better approach would have been to insist that every plane have a 
> minimum number of passengers who were trained and carried 
> guns. Issue guns at the gate if need be.

The next day? Infeasible. I was talking about what President Bush
should have said on 9/12. And really, no need for guns (although
pilots should certainly be permitted them if they so chose---in fact,
an airline should be able to advertise "armed pilot" on some of
its flights to attract customers).

> But with respect to the rest of Lee's thoughts on this subject, take 
> a look here:
> 
> http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/10/15/story645704087.asp
> 
> Who is less likely to be a terrorist than an obviously pregnant white 
> woman?  She wasn't of course,  and yet . . . .

Well, there are no hard and fast categories outside of mathematics,
and there will always be exceptions. No matter what, there will 
always be people whose civil rights were infringed, who were
denied due process, or who were victimized one way or another
by even the most benign government. We always gotta go with
what is statistically significant.

George Bush---had he been addressing a nation of educated people,
---could have added, "Relax. There are four thousand flights during
the day taking place at any time. The odds that *you'll* be on the one
or two that get hijacked aren't to be worried about. No, it's the insult
to our economy and the insult to our nation that has to be dealt with here."
But of course, George Bush could not be addressing a nation of 
educated people unless he went to Switzerland or somewhere.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep  2 04:16:24 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:16:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com><021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com><002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede><001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Clark writes (and by the way, I would never speak so
forcefully to anyone who had not proved on innumerable
occasions that he had a skin so thick that any rhinoceros
would melt with envy)

> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
> 
>> Someone  is misinterpreting this result when claiming that there
>> was a cause in one place and an effect somewhere else, and this
>> effect followed just as if it had traveled at least at a speed of 4
>> orders of magnitude  faster than light.
> 
> Lee, apparently not only do you know more science than me you 
> also know more than the scientists at the Group of Applied Physics 
> at the University of Geneva which performed the experiment. You
> also know more science than the editors of Nature that published
> their results; not Spoon Bending Digest, Nature.

These very well educated folks did use "hypothetical influence",
almost as if they could be dissing the Copenhagen Interpretation.

> I quote from the August 14 2008 issue of Nature, page 861-864:
> 
> "Many Bell tests have been performed, and loopholes related to 
> locality and detection have been closed in several independent 
> experiments. It is still possible that a first event could influence a
> second, but the speed of this hypothetical influence (Einstein's
> 'spooky action at a distance') would need to be defined in some 
> universal privileged reference frame and be greater than the 
> speed of light."

I like their second sentence better than their first. By saying
that they've "closed loopholes" related to locality, they're
clearly indicating that they are among the shrinking number
of physicists who don't ally themselves with the MWI.

> "Here we put stringent experimental bounds on the speed of all 
> such hypothetical influences. [.] a lower bound for the speed of
> the influence [has been found]. The speed of the influence would
> have to exceed that of light by at least four orders of magnitude."
> 
> So the possibility that the Universe is local has not been
> excluded experimentally, influences would have to move at 
> infinite speed to prove that it's non local and all we know is it's 
> better than four orders of magnitude faster than light.
> But I'd put my money on non local.

If I read that right, then you put your money on influences
traveling faster than light, in complete defiance of the Special
Theory of Relativity. But maybe you don't really understand
exactly how absolutely Special Relativity rules out such things.
Can something be going slower than completely stopped?
Well, that's how Special Relativity sees things moving "faster
than light", as conceptually incoherent. 

Remember that on a spacetime diagram relative velocity 
causes the angle between the space and time axes to 
diminish. Well, you can diminish that angle to less than zero!
Nobody believes in "ict" anymore (see Wheeler, Misner,
and Thorn "Farewell to ict" in their "Gravitation" tome).

> You say that "every elementary textbook on Relativity Theory 
> dismantles the notion of simultaneity or "instant changes" over 
> space and time" and I am certain you are correct. But the thing
> is, Nature is not elementary.

You don't know exactly what is replacing or repudiating Special
Relativity, but you figure it's got to be something, eh? To me,
their results simply make rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation
even more vital to sanity, and confirm someone's use of MWI.

> Me a few posts ago:
> 
>>> You really can instantly change something on the other 
>>>side of the  universe, or at least do so better than 4 orders
>>> of magnitude faster than  light.
> 
> You:
> 
>> do you or do you not retract having used the word "instantly"
> 
> I do not retract it, and I admitted it has never been proven 
> experimentally, all we know for sure is something happened
> better than 4 orders of magnitude faster than light.

That assumes that there were no branching of universes (a process
which, BTW, doesn't proceed faster than light anyway). 

> And if you want to reserve the word "change" for things you do
> to matter or energy or information then feel free to use "influence"
> or "correlation" or invent your own word.
> 
> The point is that something is moving in a very odd way and it
> is fast as hell.

Oh, really?  Then tell me exactly where in this chain of
reasoning you demur:

1. Something we do *here* causes an effect *there*.
2. Which would imply that a cause here produces
    an effect there "as fast as hell".
3. But there is an equally valid frame of reference
    (namely that of someone moving away from "there"
    towards "here" at a high fraction of the speed of
    light in which your so-called even *precedes*
    your so-called "cause".
4. Hence (1.) is incoherent.

> Me:
> 
>> Nor can it explain why charged particles effect [Lee insists
>> "affect"] each other's motion at a distance, more 
>>"action at a distance".

"Effect", my dear fellow, means to cause to come into 
existence in a sort of way, e.g., "the President effected
great changes in the Transportation Board",

You clearly mean it as a verb, and the meaning I just
illustrated is the only one there is:

Go to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary and
type in "effect". Then eschew the choice "noun" and select
"transitive verb" (the only other choice). There you will see:

    Main Entry:
        effect(2) 
    Function:
        transitive verb 
    Date:
        1533

    1: 
        to cause to come into being
    2:
        a: to bring about often by surmounting
        obstacles: accomplish <effect a settlement
        of a dispute>
        b: to put into operation <the duty of the
        legislature to effect the will of the citizens>

    synonyms: see perform

    usage: Effect and affect are often confused because
    of their similar spelling and pronunciation. The verb
    "affect" usually has to do with pretense <she affected
    a cheery disposition despite feeling down>. The more
    common "affect" denotes having an effect or influence
    <the weather affected everyone's mood>. The verb effect
    goes beyond mere influence; it refers to actual
    achievement of a final result <the new administration
    hopes to effect a peace settlement>. The uncommon noun
    affect, which has a meaning relating to psychology,
    is also sometimes mistakenly used for the very common
    effect. In ordinary use, the noun you will want
    is effect <waiting for the new law to take effect>
    <the weather had an effect on everyone's mood>.

Of course, you will not admit you were wrong. You, sir, never
do. I remember the huge blowout on SL4 where everyone but
Heartland was agreeing with you. Nonetheless, you did commit
the solecism of misstating his position. It would have been easy
for you simply acknowledge the mistake and move on. But, 
oh, no!  Finally, when *everybody* really piled on, you just
left the list for awhile (apparently sulking).

> You:
> 
>> Fields supply the counter to that, as was well-understood 
>> in the 19th  century.
> 
> An electric charge creates an electric field AT A DISTANCE.

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics).
There you will see

    "If an electrical charge is moved the effects on another
    charge do not appear instantaneously. The first charge
    feels a reaction force, picking up momentum, but the
    second charge feels nothing until the influence, traveling
    at the speed of light, reaches it and gives it the momentum."

Your "AT A DISTANCE" is referred to in the same article:

    "Newton's pre-field concept of action at a distance"

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance which
disambiguates

    * Action at a distance (physics), the instantaneous interaction
       of two objects which are separated in space
    * Action at a distance (computer science), an anti-pattern

and I hope that you're not still clinging to "instantaneous"!

> Besides, a field is just a word, a word that describes what a
> charged particle will do when it is at a particular distance from 
> another electrical charge. Action at a distance, it's life, get over it.

The phrase, to repeat, "Action at a distance" connotes as the
wikipedia article asserts, 

    In physics, action at a distance is the interaction of
    two objects which are separated in space with no
    known mediator of the interaction. 

We have no need any longer for such ideas, which even Newton
ruefully claimed were abhorrent to anyone with common sense.
("Newton was not at all happy with the idea that gravitation is
action at a distance,. because he could not reconcile that with
physical common sense.")

Lee



From pgptag at gmail.com  Tue Sep  2 06:08:50 2008
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:08:50 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The Cosmic Engineers mailing list is now open
Message-ID: <470a3c520809012308o72b1284dp5f3d9ee36b14240a@mail.gmail.com>

The Cosmic Engineers mailing list of the Order of Cosmic Engineers is
now open. Unmoderated posting by list subscribers is now enabled, with
the objective to make this the best and most useful information source
and discussion space for all things related to Transhumanism and
Cosmic Engineering. Please request to join the Cosmic Engineers
mailing list if you wish to participate. If appropriate, please
request to join also the Cosmic Engineers Facebook Group, the Cosmic
Engineers SL Group in Second Life, and the Cosmic Engineers Guild in
World of Warcraft. Most requests will be approved. See:
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Cosmic_Engineers_mailing_list
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Order_of_Cosmic_Engineers:Membership


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 02:13:18 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:43:18 +1030
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>

Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to be
a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster than
IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool new
geek tools hiding away in there.

Read about it in a googly comic:
http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/ (heaps of technical detail
here, surprisingly)

Get it: http://www.google.com/chrome

-- 
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 Sep  3 02:35:22 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:35:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Ping was VP for Creationism
In-Reply-To: <62c14240808302130wd12a916x75547f44d28e23f4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <62c14240808301853l69078927sbc7cebc77173b788@mail.gmail.com>
	<717157.12355.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<62c14240808302130wd12a916x75547f44d28e23f4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1220409574_12407@S3.cableone.net>

List seems to have gone dead.  Everyone just busy with school or something?

Keith



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 04:16:16 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:46:16 +1030
Subject: [ExI] how to swat one of god's little creatures
In-Reply-To: <200808291443.m7TEh1oi012254@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080829014611.0272f658@satx.rr.com>
	<200808291443.m7TEh1oi012254@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809022116n65526bd2yf68779a743516cde@mail.gmail.com>

2008/8/30 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>
>
>> ... On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
>> Subject: [ExI] how to swat one of god's little creatures
>>
>>
>> Scientists find the secret to swatting flies
> ...
>>
>> "It is best not to swat at the fly's starting position, but
>> rather to aim a bit forward of that to anticipate where the
>> fly is going to jump when it first sees your swatter,"
>> suggested Dickinson.
>
> This is so cool, for I discovered years ago that with this anticipation
> method one can actually swat flies with one's hands, assuming one is fast.
> Try it!  But I have also discovered an even better way to rid oneself of
> Luke Turdwalker.  There is a common household product that isn't advertised
> as a fly killer, but that works better than any pesticide I have tried.  It
> doesn't leave stains on surfaces, in fact it is used for cleaning, even
> countertops upon which one might place food, being non-toxic to humans (an
> irritant only).  This marvelous product is called windex, just
> ammonia-water.  One can take out a fly while in flight by spraying a cloud
> through which Turdwalker flies.  It will slay the beast.  Do try this and
> report back.
>
> spike

Yes I've done that, it works, is cool.

We have a lot of practice with flies in Oz. The method I always use is
to clap my hands together about 5cm above the fly (use the line normal
to the surface the fly is standing on), coming in from either side of
the fly (hands moving parallel to the surface / tangent to the
surface). They fly straight up. Bad idea :-)

-- 
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 nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Wed Sep  3 20:54:17 2008
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:54:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Bio/Tech: Embodying cultured Living Neurson via robotics
Message-ID: <380-22008933205417748@M2W005.mail2web.com>

Has anyone read "Removing some 'A' from AI: Embodied Cultured Networks"?  

Link: 
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/groups/potter/papers/DagstuhlAIBakkumpreprint.pd
f

If neurons are taken out of a brain and continue to create signals that
instruct the robot to perform tasks; what is driving the neurons to give
off signals?  Are these signals of any value?  If so, what?  

Other links that might be helpful:
http://dev.nique.gatech.edu/issues/2006-03-03/focus/1
http://www.fishandchips.uwa.edu.au/project.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft? Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE




From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 07:35:23 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:05:23 +1030
Subject: [ExI] subject line discipline is being bugger obseved
In-Reply-To: <200808302040.m7UKe5pR007211@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080828025228.02300120@satx.rr.com>
	<200808302040.m7UKe5pR007211@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809040035gc4a2f7bi4dbb524ebbb2623e@mail.gmail.com>

> If a nuclear bomb exploded above some Australian city, then
> the point on the surface directly below the explosion would then be called
> "ground bugger-all."
>
> spike

Oddly appropriate.

-- 
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 jefallbright at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 17:10:41 2008
From: jefallbright at gmail.com (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:10:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Thinking causes weight gain
Message-ID: <22360fa10809041010i7bdb477dk2175cc7f1cd82159@mail.gmail.com>

Aha!  ;-)

- Jef


This just in: Thinking causes weight gain | Machines Like
Us<http://machineslikeus.com/news/thinking-causes-weight-gain>

A Universit? Laval research team has demonstrated that intellectual work
induces a substantial increase in calorie intake. The details of this
discovery, which could go some way to explaining the current obesity
epidemic, are published in the most recent issue of *Psychosomatic Medicine*
.

The research team, supervised by Dr. Angelo Tremblay, measured the
spontaneous food intake of 14 students after each of three tasks: relaxing
in a sitting position, reading and summarizing a text, and completing a
series of memory, attention, and vigilance tests on the computer. After 45
minutes at each activity, participants were invited to eat as much as they
wanted from a buffet.

The researchers had already shown that each session of intellectual work
requires only three calories more than the rest period. However, despite the
low energy cost of mental work, the students spontaneously consumed 203 more
calories after summarizing a text and 253 more calories after the computer
tests. This represents a 23.6% and 29.4 % increase, respectively, compared
with the rest period.

Blood samples taken before, during, and after each session revealed that
intellectual work causes much bigger fluctuations in glucose and insulin
levels than rest periods. "These fluctuations may be caused by the stress of
intellectual work, or also reflect a biological adaptation during glucose
combustion," hypothesized Jean-Philippe Chaput, the study's main author. The
body could be reacting to these fluctuations by spurring food intake in
order to restore its glucose balance, the only fuel used by the brain.

"Caloric overcompensation following intellectual work, combined with the
fact that we are less physically active when doing intellectual tasks, could
contribute to the obesity epidemic currently observed in industrialized
countries," said Mr. Chaput. "This is a factor that should not be ignored,
considering that more and more people hold jobs of an intellectual nature,"
the researcher concluded.

Universit? Laval <http://www.ulaval.ca/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080904/f940eb13/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep  1 05:27:49 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:27:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Harvey writes

>>       (1) do you leave tips in a restaurant that you are certain
>>             you will never visit again (and you do not believe that
>>             in some hidden way "what goes around comes around"
>>             (in this case) and that you'll eventually benefit, nor is your
>>             belief that such actions simply make the world a better
>>             place for you (and those you love) the ultimate cause of
>>             your action)?
> 
> I don't see this as altruistic.  It's just part of the bill.  There is a 
> minimal payment for the food and minimal service.  Then there is a quality 
> rating with a payment for good service.  It seems dishonest to me to not tip 
> good service.  The server's salary is deliberately lower than minimum wage (in 
> some cased) because of this expected tipping component.  To cheat them out of 
> their tip just because I won't return and they can't force me to pay does not 
> seem fair.  Thus, it is not altruism, but fairness that causes me to tip good 
> service.

Why would one *ever* be fair? Or adopt "fairness" as a standard behavior?
I see no necessary self-interest component to being fair to others, even
though in most situations indeed there is. Surely the answer is at least
in part genuine altruism.

And I do not buy the argument I've heard that it's "simpler" to just
adopt one practice (e.g. tipping, or being fair) and apply it routinely,
because we humans are *so* good at contextual dependencies. And while
you're waiting for the check ("Check please", or whatever the phrase is),
you may be contemplating the size of your tip while the sociopath
(as I've wished to use it (so far without having yet read Stathis'
post which may contain a demur)) will be noticing if this is
one of those situations he should not tip.

>>        (2) if it was revealed to you that you were living in a simulation
>>             wherein you were the only conscious person, and everyone
>>             else merely a puppet under the manipulation of a cold,
>>             distant, infinitely calculating entity who had no emotions
>>             whatsoever, and was merely clinically performing an
>>             experiment, would your behavior towards others change
>>             at all? (That is, would you knowingly waste time being kind
>>             to others when there was and could be no eventual payoff
>>             to you, such as in the final restaurant case of
> 
> I don't see this as altruistic either.  I am not kind to others because I 
> expect a payback.  But I also don't want to be cruel to others for no reason.  
> I am not cruel to animals, who are less than people.  So why would I be cruel 
> to these simulations?

Because they do not genuinely have any feelings or emotions or
any personal thoughts whatsoever, as I said. This cold distant
entity is going to be vastly *less* affected by your responses
than you will be by whether the ants in your driveway appear to
be going rapidly or slowly for the garbage you put out last night,
and this is the only other even .0001 thinking entity in your world.

> They simulate pain or hurt feelings if I am unkind.  
> Even if this is less pain or different than a real person, I don't see any 
> basis for ignoring their "pain" any more than a "real" person's pain.

This makes no sense to me, on any level. Even if a human is shamming
pain, I'm very likely going not only to fail to take that pain into
consideration (politics allowing), but will probably be also repelled.
So just how much *would* you inconvenience yourself for the sake of
robots or these awful simulations? Are you courteous to traffic lights?

>> 3. Those not falling in the first two categories, I conclude, are either
>> confused or moody. The confused are those who act almost entirely by
>> impulse and show no pattern sufficiently strong to place them in categories
>> 1 or 2.
> 
> That's really your theory?  That people are altruistic or selfish or confused?  
> That limits people down to a single continuum between altruistic and selfish, 
> with the confused randomly jumping around in the middle.

Being altruistic is not the same as being genuinely altruistic, (though this is
a mere terminological point), because altruism is very often explained in
the literature as most often springing from self-interest.

> What about people who just follow the rules of society to smooth out social 
> interactions?  They're not just being nice to others for no personal gain.  
> But they're not just selfishly doing what they want either.

That is self-interested behavior, or at least partly motivated by self-interest,
since your clarifying statement says that it's not just to be nice (without
personal gain). Does it or does it not have a genuinely altruistic component?
That is the question pursued here by me, and in some cases the answer
will be yes and in some cases no.

> Nor are they 
> random and unpredictable.  Societal expectations probably explain most 
> people's behavior, with altruistic and selfish behaviors being rare exceptions 
> on the fringe.  And the confused would be a rare exception of unpredictability 
> for no reason, whereas those who follow society's rules are predictable.  So I 
> think most people would fall outside of your three categories.

I submit that these do lie on a continuum, but a three-cornered one. E.g., 
someone may be steadfastly genuinely altruistic in one entire kind of 
situation and steadfastly be self-interested, selfish, or "sociopathic" in
another entire kind, and quite consistently so.

The "moody" and "confused" categories arise from literally being in
different moods in the first case and from being unreflective
or illogical in the second.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep  1 05:55:13 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:55:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] VP for Creationism
References: <62c14240808301853l69078927sbc7cebc77173b788@mail.gmail.com><717157.12355.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<62c14240808302130wd12a916x75547f44d28e23f4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002001c90bf7$87db1780$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Mike writes

> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:14 PM, giovanni santost
> <santostasigio at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Do you think that as the cognitive capability of human beings will increase,
>> in particular as and if we will merge with super intelligent machines, the
>> childish belief in soothing tales like christianity will still exist? In
>> other words, after 2000 years of lies and fraud, the days of christianity
>> are counted?
> 
> Yes... and no.
> 
> If we are able to think 1e3 times faster and 1e3 times as grand, I
> expect there will be people 1e6 times as gullible or willing to be
> relinquish their right to think for themselves.  I'm not saying I like
> this, but I have no reason to believe it won't be true.

Nowadays, I think that most religions, and all that set up any sort
of new extensions of reality (e.g. heaven or hell, or specify the
existence of personalities or persons not in principle capable of
ever being located in ordinary 3-space), would die on the vine
if no one were ever indoctrinated before age 25 or so.

Lee



From kanzure at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 19:06:28 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:06:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809041406.29699.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Tuesday 02 September 2008, Emlyn wrote:
> Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
> browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to
> be a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster
> than IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool
> new geek tools hiding away in there.

I find browsers to be totally on-topic actually. :-) More so than other 
things that are typically discussed. One of the issues in browsing the 
web is that I hit this upper limit of about 400 tabs at once in Opera. 
In Firefox I hit an upper limit of maybe 50 before things start to go 
up in flames. Google Chrome might be smart enough to make the cut with 
multithreaded tabs, but we'll see. I have to go scrunge up a Windows 
box or something.

Here are some of my thoughts on doing some intense extropic browsing:
http://heybryan.org/projects/browsehack/tabtabtab.html
http://heybryan.org/projects/autoscholar/
http://heybryan.org/~bbishop/docs/2008-07-31/ for "focused web crawling"
also my "on hold" (but not?) implementation of 'search facilitator'.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From kanzure at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 19:14:27 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:14:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Bio/Tech: Embodying cultured Living Neurson via robotics
In-Reply-To: <380-22008933205417748@M2W005.mail2web.com>
References: <380-22008933205417748@M2W005.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <200809041414.27413.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Wednesday 03 September 2008, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:
> Has anyone read "Removing some 'A' from AI: Embodied Cultured
> Networks"? ?

No, but I do remember an SL4 post by a fellow realizing that he was 
already an 'artificial intelligence' and then vanishing or something. I 
can't cite the email any more -- it was long before I rabidly 
bookmarked things of interest, sadly.

> Link:
> http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/groups/potter/papers/DagstuhlAIBakkumprep
>rint.pdf

Yummy. Thank you.

> If neurons are taken out of a brain and continue to create signals
> that instruct the robot to perform tasks; what is driving the neurons
> to give off signals? ?Are these signals of any value? ?If so, what?

These neurons are operating on biophysics like at any other time. This 
is what 'drives' them to give off signals. The same action potentials 
and electrical discharges accumulate in roughly the same fashion 
outside of a brain as within a brain. 

As for any implicit value of a single neuron's activity or silence, 
that's a little bit of a harder question to talk about. An interesting 
thing to note is that the Wikipedia article about artificial neural 
networks says that these ANNs are for "learing" quote "in an opitmal 
sense". But what exactly is the mathematical background of that search 
for optimality? That sounds intriguing since optimality is something we 
can generally try to prove in computer science. Anyway, from this 
perspective, what's this optimization about in relation to value?

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep  4 19:16:08 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:16:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Hugo Danner the Transhuman
In-Reply-To: <594459.98606.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <594459.98606.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080904141454.023e85b8@satx.rr.com>

At 04:35 PM 8/31/2008 -0700, Stuart LaForge wrote:

>This essay makes a really good case that the uncredited inspiration for
>Superman, and much of the superhero genre, was a character named Hugo Danner
>from a 1930 science fiction novel entitled "Gladiator" by Phillip Wylie

Uncredited? This connection is well known in sf scholarship.

Damien Broderick




From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Sep  4 19:30:53 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:30:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <200809041406.29699.kanzure@gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809041406.29699.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <795B1E21-59BC-4433-9783-104A0C16150A@mac.com>


On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:

> On Tuesday 02 September 2008, Emlyn wrote:
>> Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
>> browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to
>> be a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster
>> than IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool
>> new geek tools hiding away in there.
>
> I find browsers to be totally on-topic actually. :-) More so than  
> other
> things that are typically discussed. One of the issues in browsing the
> web is that I hit this upper limit of about 400 tabs at once in Opera.

400??  You are truly one sick puppy.  :-)

Seriously, what is the use for so many tabs?   Is it just a matter of  
poor housekeeping on the part of the browser/user combo in not closing  
tabs auto-generated by following links?   I would think it would be a  
fair idea to have some upper limit and a LRU cache.

- samantha



From kanzure at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 20:53:25 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:53:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <795B1E21-59BC-4433-9783-104A0C16150A@mac.com>
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809041406.29699.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<795B1E21-59BC-4433-9783-104A0C16150A@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200809041553.25901.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Thursday 04 September 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> 400?? ?You are truly one sick puppy. ?:-)

Wait till I start yapping about how many monitors I'm using to do this.

> Seriously, what is the use for so many tabs? ? Is it just a matter of
> ? poor housekeeping on the part of the browser/user combo in not
> closing tabs auto-generated by following links? ? I would think it
> would be a fair idea to have some upper limit and a LRU cache.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it poor house keeping. I simply come 
across a lot of links that I sometimes don't immediately read. Rest 
assured, I make very certain that I do, eventually, read something that 
comes my way. It just might be lost at the bottom of the stacks for a 
while that I spend off on something spontaneously more interesting that 
has hit me at the top of the queue.

I was going to hack konqueror last summer to save it to disk so that I 
could have the kernel "sift" through the open browser windows. This 
way, I could dynamically open up 400 tabs and still go back to 
something I opened up in the morning, etc. I didn't get around to 
this .. but the openmosix people are doing some related things (not 
with browsers, though).

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From mlatorra at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 21:44:37 2008
From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:44:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <9ff585550809041444i39a61130ocbec81360272c83@mail.gmail.com>

Perhaps the journalist meant to imply that Duchovny did not enter rehab as
part of one of those "court-ordered" resolutions of a lawsuit or criminal
indictment, which often happens to celebrities facing jail time on a drug
charge. But this particular case would be especially interesting if Duchovny
had been under legal threat for being, shall we say, too interested in doing
what comes naturally.

Regards,
Mike LaTorra

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>wrote:

> NYT:
> < David Duchovny has entered a rehabilitation center for sex addiction, The
> Associated Press reported. Mr. Duchovny, who plays a sex-obsessed character
> on the Showtime show "Californication," did so voluntarily, according to a
> statement on Thursday from ... >
>
> What?! Does this imply that in the US one can be *forcibly* committed to
> rehab *involuntarily* for *fucking around too much*???
>
> Or is "did so voluntarily" just some journalist's ignorance (conflating sex
> outside marriage with being a drug or booze abuser subject to such a legal
> order), or yellow press mischief making?
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080904/af1a33e7/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep  4 22:00:08 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:00:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <9ff585550809041444i39a61130ocbec81360272c83@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
	<9ff585550809041444i39a61130ocbec81360272c83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080904165547.024f0d70@satx.rr.com>

At 03:44 PM 9/4/2008 -0600, Mike LaTorra wrote:

>this particular case would be especially interesting if Duchovny had 
>been under legal threat for being, shall we say, too interested in 
>doing what comes naturally.

All the rumors on the web assert that his wicked sin was pr0n-based, 
not infidelity. Difficult to see how that could be construed as 
subject to any court order--unless he was viewing *illegal* material, 
in which case "going into rehab" seems too lenient for the current 
Zeitgeist even for celebs.

Sorry to bring up what is surely a private and embarrassing matter 
for the poor feller; I was just struck by the strange terminology and 
its apparent legal implications.

Damien Broderick




From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Thu Sep  4 18:53:37 2008
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:53:37 -0400
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
Message-ID: <380-22008944185337471@M2W012.mail2web.com>

From: Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com

<NYT:
<< David Duchovny has entered a rehabilitation center for sex 
addiction, The Associated Press reported. Mr. Duchovny, who plays a 
sex-obsessed character on the Showtime show "Californication," did so 
voluntarily, according to a statement on Thursday from ... >>

<What?! Does this imply that in the US one can be *forcibly* committed 
<to rehab *involuntarily* for *fucking around too much*???

<Or is "did so voluntarily" just some journalist's ignorance 
<(conflating sex outside marriage with being a drug or booze abuser 
<subject to such a legal order), or yellow press mischief making? 

Definitely journalist's lack of consideration or tact, but also to clarify
that there was no court order, which is crucial for a celeb when things go
public: 

*If an intervention occurs, the "offender" is given the option of
voluntarily committing him/herself.  But if the offender is in denial and
is a clearly indicated threat to himself or society while under the
influence -- then family/friend can obtain a court order to get the
offender in rehab involuntarily.  

Natasha


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/david-duchovnys-sex-rehab_n_122901.
html


--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft? Windows? and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting




From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 00:15:36 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:15:36 -0400
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com>
	<0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede>
	<001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <62c14240809041715v24d88f03j7c17cec54cbd6aab@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> ("Newton was not at all happy with the idea that gravitation is
> action at a distance,. because he could not reconcile that with
> physical common sense.")

Are gravitational topologies smoothly transformed from one to another?

Is the concept of an electron shell still valid thinking?  Pretend
spacetime were deformed in discrete units such that the new state of
gravitation (for example) we to have effect at distances that would
otherwise exceed the transfer of information at lightspeed.  I
hesitate to offer any more explanation for fear of obscuring the point
with murky examples.


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 00:41:41 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:41:41 +1000
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809041741y29a3f62fk8707fc68ea4aefd0@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/1 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> NYT:
> < David Duchovny has entered a rehabilitation center for sex addiction, The
> Associated Press reported. Mr. Duchovny, who plays a sex-obsessed character
> on the Showtime show "Californication," did so voluntarily, according to a
> statement on Thursday from ... >
>
> What?! Does this imply that in the US one can be *forcibly* committed to
> rehab *involuntarily* for *fucking around too much*???
>
> Or is "did so voluntarily" just some journalist's ignorance (conflating sex
> outside marriage with being a drug or booze abuser subject to such a legal
> order), or yellow press mischief making?

It's interesting that the Victorian Mental Health Act specifically
lists "sexual promiscuity" and "immoral conduct" as *not* being valid
reasons for certifying someone for involuntary treatment.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 01:04:41 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:04:41 -0400
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809041804x31b3dc86n95a5586c6f4fd136@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
> browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to be
> a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster than
> IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool new
> geek tools hiding away in there.

I am asking people if they think it'll ever become version 1.  Gmail
is still technically beta for example.

It's a great concept, but I hope it continues to mature because I
already miss mouse gestures and I don't like the fact that chrome (or
gchat) windows do not honor the Nvidia multiple-monitor controls.
(which is unpleasant to remote from a single monitor at home to dual
monitors at work)

I think most of my early-adopter criticism will go away if/when enough
people enhance the chrome framework with the tools that are currently
missing.

Did you catch the piece of the comic that discusses
javascript-compiled-to-bytecode?  That sounds to me like Java's "write
once, run anywhere" model actually being feasibly implemented.
Javascript that runs interpreted in older browsers or compiled &
cached in capable browsers is a nice example of progressive
enhancement that leads to a graceful degradation.


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep  5 00:49:17 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:49:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200809050118.m851I3NE010599@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Damien Broderick
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 2:00 PM
> To: 'ExI chat list'
> Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
> 
> NYT:
> < David Duchovny has entered a rehabilitation center for sex 
> addiction...
> 
> What?! Does this imply that in the US one can be *forcibly* 
> committed to rehab *involuntarily* for *fucking around too much*???
...


Come now, Doctor Broderick, can you not see the transparency of this sham?
Suppose one is a total sex addict.  What better plan than to feign remorse,
check oneself into a facility for recovering sex addicts?  Group therapy
anyone?  {8-]  

After this sex addiction rehab, one might find its counterpart, its
bugger-rehab, or sex addiction dehab.  Then one is free to go back to rehab,
repeating the exhausting cycle indefinitely.

Duchovney isn't fooling me for a minute.

spike




     



From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep  5 00:58:50 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:58:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Casimir project update & vacuum balloons
In-Reply-To: <153160.90496.qm@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200809050127.m851RaNC004720@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Adrian Tymes
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 9:17 AM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: [ExI] Casimir project update & vacuum balloons
> 
> Been a while, figured I'd give an update on where I'm at. 

Adrian Tymes!  We wondered what the heck had happened to you man!  Welcome
back.
 
>...  I don't suppose 
> anyone knows someone at Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, 
> or the like - or maybe some smaller party (or maybe even a 
> sea ship manufacturer:
> these could make a cargo ship hyrdroplane, increasing fuel 
> efficiency) - who'd be interested in licensing it?

Adrian, we met as you recall at Extro4 in 1999 and I think the world of you
pal, but I just can't convince myself that a vacuum balloon will really
work, regardless of how hard I try.  I hope you can prove me wrong.  {8-]

spike







From wingcat at pacbell.net  Fri Sep  5 01:16:04 2008
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Casimir project update & vacuum balloons
In-Reply-To: <200809050100.m8510pfT025407@nlpi080.prodigy.net>
Message-ID: <307449.6341.qm@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Thu, 9/4/08, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> We wondered what the heck had happened to you man!  Welcome
> back.

I've been around, working on various projects.

> Adrian, we met as you recall at Extro4 in 1999 and I think the world of you
> pal, but I just can't convince myself that a vacuum balloon will really
> work, regardless of how hard I try.  I hope you can prove me wrong.  {8-]

As it happens, I have a writeup of the stresses, component masses, et al
that should be able to do just that, while keeping enough of the composition
secret enough that I can release it without NDA (though, the patent in the
works helps with this).  I'll send it to you offlist.


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep  5 01:14:12 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:14:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <200808311437.18969.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <200809050143.m851gwkm006126@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom
...
> "Muslims are the most racially diverse group in America. 
> Approximately one in three Muslims are white, roughly one in 
> four are black, and one in five are Asian."   Harvey Newstrom 

Harvey the most ironic part of this is that if anyone criticizes this
religion, not far behind is a quick accusation of racism.  So altho the
muslim religion has people of every race, it has somehow managed to have
itself considered a race.  Quite a trick, considering that racist is perhaps
the most serious insult that can be leveled in America today. 

One of its counterpart religions, Presybyterianism, *really is* nearly all
comprised of a single race, and if you do not believe, do visit one please.
You will look out over a sea of uniformly lily white people, most of whom
will also have white hair.  I am not kidding for a change.  Yet criticism of
this group *never* draws accusations of racism.  

It is all so Orwell.

It does however suggest a strategy for meeting critics of transhumanism.
Let us work to have ourselves declared a race, thereby raising us above
criticism.

spike




 



From shannonvyff at yahoo.com  Fri Sep  5 02:13:27 2008
From: shannonvyff at yahoo.com (Shannon)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 60, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <mailman.65.1220555796.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <701128.73315.qm@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Wow John, thank you for your insight. 

Also, I'd not thought to offer till Natasha did, but we are in Austin and have a guest bedroom if anyone needs it. 

But at anytime, we love to have guests-- guests with kids are just a bonus ;-), but if you travel to any town, it is worth asking that area if someone has a spare bedroom (and donate the money saved to the transhumanist, or life extension group of your choice ;-) ).  

Shannon Vyff


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 04:38:09 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:08:09 +1030
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <200809050118.m851I3NE010599@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
	<200809050118.m851I3NE010599@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809042138i15dee125p4cf3ccb6759ed618@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/5 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
>> Damien Broderick
>> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 2:00 PM
>> To: 'ExI chat list'
>> Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
>>
>> NYT:
>> < David Duchovny has entered a rehabilitation center for sex
>> addiction...
>>
>> What?! Does this imply that in the US one can be *forcibly*
>> committed to rehab *involuntarily* for *fucking around too much*???
> ...
>
>
> Come now, Doctor Broderick, can you not see the transparency of this sham?
> Suppose one is a total sex addict.  What better plan than to feign remorse,
> check oneself into a facility for recovering sex addicts?  Group therapy
> anyone?  {8-]
>
> After this sex addiction rehab, one might find its counterpart, its
> bugger-rehab, or sex addiction dehab.  Then one is free to go back to rehab,
> repeating the exhausting cycle indefinitely.
>
> Duchovney isn't fooling me for a minute.
>
> spike

Be a little careful with the word "bugger", especially in this
context. Also be aware that *all* of its derivations come ultimately
from its "technical" meaning.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bugger

-- 
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 dagonweb at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 05:05:54 2008
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 07:05:54 +0200
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809042138i15dee125p4cf3ccb6759ed618@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
	<200809050118.m851I3NE010599@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809042138i15dee125p4cf3ccb6759ed618@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0809042205v329e2d58h433755ae66e785b7@mail.gmail.com>

Numerous desperate housewives got the happychills from that news, The David
Duchovny fanclub
doubled. But his wife TIA. threatened to sue for big cash in a divorce if he
didnt take public
atonement steps to distance himself from his wandering wiener.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080905/3ab507ef/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Sep  5 07:57:12 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 00:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Hugo Danner the Transhuman
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080904141454.023e85b8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <817378.61801.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> At 04:35 PM 8/31/2008 -0700, Stuart LaForge wrote:
> 
> >This essay makes a really good case that the uncredited inspiration for
> >Superman, and much of the superhero genre, was a character named Hugo Danner
> >from a 1930 science fiction novel entitled "Gladiator" by Phillip Wylie
> 
> Uncredited? This connection is well known in sf scholarship.

Well I was unaware of such. As far as the story goes, I thought "Gladiator" was
pretty well written for pulp fiction. Up to the end that is. What a
disappointing ending for such a good story. It strikes me that Wylie sold out
to bioconservatives and the Christian right in the last few pages of his novel.

I mean if Wylie wanted his tragic hero to commit suicide or something by
climbing a mountain in a thunderstorm, that would still have been sad but
preferable. But why go so far as invoke divine intervention in Hugo's death
just as he was on the verge of an epiphany of purpose? Why turn such a
visionary work into a cautionary tale against playing God? It's all the more
surprising considering Wylie's unflattering descriptions of Hugo's naive
provincial church-going mother. 

It's like SF in general can't get past Shelly's "Frankenstein" as the
definitive moral guide to biotechnology. I mean it's acceptable in science
fiction for the protagonist to kill any number of people by all manner of
futuristic weaponry with the thinnest of justifications. But let one scientist
create a new life-form and suddenly it's a crime against Nature that can only
be amended by the death of the scientist or his creation.

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in that? When man plays an angry
God and wages hi-tech war with great vengeance and furious anger, well that's
ok . . . but let man play a loving God that brings a new lifeform into the
world and he is committing blasphemy. At least Wylie could be said to have
lived in a more innocent and ignorant time but what's Crichton's excuse?

Maybe if scientists figured out a way to weaponize human embryos and kill
millions of adults with them, the Christians would reverse their position on
stem cell research. After all you don't see Christians complaining about
nuclear weapons research do you? Death apparently holds no fear for Christians,
it's only life they have seem to have a problem with.


Stuart LaForge

"A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace


      


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Sep  5 08:30:00 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 01:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] who should white shoot?
In-Reply-To: <200808310315.m7V3Fato024587@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <864665.89673.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


The answer to the Russian roulette puzzle is below. I made it so you have to
scroll down to see it, just in case you're still working on it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*SPOILER ALERT*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

One can use the same Bayesian method I used before to figure out the
probability of winning Russian roulette. If there are only two people, the
probability of survival is 5/11 for the person who goes first and 6/11 for the
person who goes second no matter how many rounds end in a draw. Of course this
is assuming that the cylinder is spun before each person takes his turn. If the
cylinder is simply allowed to advance one chamber per go, then obviously the
game can only go for a maximum of three rounds. But the overall probability of
winning should remain the same.

Generally, if one must play Russian roulette, it's advantageous to go last. So
the answer to the puzzle is that Mr. White should pay Mr. Pink the $3 million.
That's a lot of money for a mere 1/11 of an advantage but if Mr. White
survives, he will get it back and Mr. Pink's share of the loot too. If Mr.
White doesn't, Mr. Pink would have gotten the $3 million anyway since Mr. White
wouldn't have much use for it. 


Stuart LaForge

"A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace


      


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 09:22:00 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:22:00 +0200
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809050222u7036fcf1oc2a83ccf58b0fdb1@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
> browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to be
> a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster than
> IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool new
> geek tools hiding away in there.

Haven't tried it yet (a Linux version is not available yet), but in
fact the "vision" espounded in the comic sounds way cool indeed.

And... is it *totally* off-topic? After a fashion, it suggests that
one's "connectedness" experience can actually evolve even without
major breakthroughs,

Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 09:29:49 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:29:49 +0200
Subject: [ExI] VP for Creationism
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30808310109r5afd86a4hf7a755c413c0301a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200808301652.02852.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<200808302211.m7UMAgCt006061@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<f21c22e30808310109r5afd86a4hf7a755c413c0301a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809050229n4751cf0bo781cae7a775a1824@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
<stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, those creation myths are ridiculous; no rational person
> would even consider them worthy of scientific refutation.

Mmhhh, I beg to differ. Those are "cosmogonies", but not "creationist
cosmogonies" in the monotheist style.

As such, they are beautiful, innocuous and poetic metaphores that
describes mythically the concept of an evolving universe, and knows
nothing of a deus ex machina pulling everything out of nothing, and
legiferating on the natural and human history. In particular, little
in non-biblical cosmogonies seems to suggest that dogmatic
anti-darwinism or specieism is a moral duty of the true believer.

Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 09:44:53 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:44:53 +0200
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809041741y29a3f62fk8707fc68ea4aefd0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809041741y29a3f62fk8707fc68ea4aefd0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809050244m3af407fbr2cb6a76f0b782c06@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's interesting that the Victorian Mental Health Act specifically
> lists "sexual promiscuity" and "immoral conduct" as *not* being valid
> reasons for certifying someone for involuntary treatment.

Why, it appears that common law has progressed a lot since... :-)

Stefano Vaj


From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 11:28:24 2008
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI))
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 08:28:24 -0300
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008701c90f4a$84047150$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>


>From: "Emlyn" <emlynoregan at gmail.com>  September 02, 2008 11:13 PM
> Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
> browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to be
> a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster than
> IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool new
> geek tools hiding away in there.

Haven't tried it yet but did you see the controversy about it's EULA? 
They're totally busted...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html



From xuenay at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 11:46:22 2008
From: xuenay at gmail.com (Kaj Sotala)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:46:22 +0300
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <6a13bb8f0809050446l405d563bw4317b00ca50c24b7@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> NYT:
> < David Duchovny has entered a rehabilitation center for sex addiction, The
> Associated Press reported. Mr. Duchovny, who plays a sex-obsessed character
> on the Showtime show "Californication," did so voluntarily, according to a
> statement on Thursday from ... >
>
> What?! Does this imply that in the US one can be *forcibly* committed to
> rehab *involuntarily* for *fucking around too much*???

Simple force of habit, I'd assume. If it was related to alcohol or
such, the reporter would need to mention whether or not it was
voluntarily, and he just didn't happen to think about not mentioning
it this time around.


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 12:32:34 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 22:32:34 +1000
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809050244m3af407fbr2cb6a76f0b782c06@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809041741y29a3f62fk8707fc68ea4aefd0@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809050244m3af407fbr2cb6a76f0b782c06@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809050532w58f8a3cib88939817d1f6d7a@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/5 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's interesting that the Victorian Mental Health Act specifically
>> lists "sexual promiscuity" and "immoral conduct" as *not* being valid
>> reasons for certifying someone for involuntary treatment.
>
> Why, it appears that common law has progressed a lot since... :-)

I meant Victorian as in Victoria, Australia, not Victorian era
Britain. I sometimes forget that not everyone in the world would
immediately get that...



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 14:01:26 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:01:26 +0200
Subject: [ExI] wtf? (literally)
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809050532w58f8a3cib88939817d1f6d7a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080831155544.025ae428@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809041741y29a3f62fk8707fc68ea4aefd0@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809050244m3af407fbr2cb6a76f0b782c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809050532w58f8a3cib88939817d1f6d7a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809050701qbc67cb7t627125a186abf4e0@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/5 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It's interesting that the Victorian Mental Health Act specifically
>>> lists "sexual promiscuity" and "immoral conduct" as *not* being valid
>>> reasons for certifying someone for involuntary treatment.
>>
>> Why, it appears that common law has progressed a lot since... :-)
>
> I meant Victorian as in Victoria, Australia, not Victorian era
> Britain.

I see. Well, that's conforting, "sex addicts" may seek asylum in
Victoria if things turn sour in the rest of the Western (and Islamic?)
world.

In fact, now that I think of it, Wilde's sentence may not be
considered as "involuntary treatment", but indicates a somewhat
negative attitude by Queen Victoria's legal system towards "immoral
conducts"... :-)

Stefano Vaj


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep  5 14:39:14 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 07:39:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809050222u7036fcf1oc2a83ccf58b0fdb1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809051441.m85EfJoY006380@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Stefano Vaj
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:22 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
> 
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source 
> > browser, Chrome, is awesome...
> 
> And... is it *totally* off-topic? After a fashion, it 
> suggests that one's "connectedness" experience can actually 
> evolve even without major breakthroughs,
> 
> Stefano Vaj

Computer stuff and new operating system commentary is considered fair game,
on topic for this list.  Check the archives from the robust 90s.  We used to
talk about that kind of stuff all the time, and we loved it.

spike



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 14:58:04 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:58:04 +0200
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <200809051441.m85EfJoY006380@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <580930c20809050222u7036fcf1oc2a83ccf58b0fdb1@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809051441.m85EfJoY006380@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809050758n397d6bf3g3db98cf979ea9633@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:39 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Computer stuff and new operating system commentary is considered fair game,
> on topic for this list.  Check the archives from the robust 90s.  We used to
> talk about that kind of stuff all the time, and we loved it.

Well, ExI is not only AFAIK the oldest H+ ml in existence, but also
one of tthe richest in the range of subjects that are considered as
pertinent... :-)

Stefano Vaj


From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Sep  5 16:32:52 2008
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:32:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Book: Vita-More in The Gaming Trilogy
Message-ID: <00b101c90f75$0b6aaae0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni>

This book is amazing - it covers a world of gaming and interactive media.
It is the 3rd volume of The Gaming Trilogy, Homo Ludens Ludens,  546 pages,
full of amazing gaming images.

 

The focus of my work for this book is "Morphological Freedom" and responds
to the talk Anders Sandberg and I gave in SL-Transhumanists.  I designed two
images, each appears as full-page renditions, along with written text which
correspond to the concept. 

 

Natasha

 

 

Natasha Vita-More <http://www.natasha.cc> 

BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium

Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics

University of Plymouth, UK

 

Arts and Design - <http://www.transhumanist.biz>  NBIC+ Convergence

H+ Europe <http://www.transhumanism.eu> 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080905/7886aae3/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Sep  5 17:43:00 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:43:00 -0400
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com><021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com><002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede><001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

On Tuesday, September 02, 2008 Lee Corbin sent me this although I did not
get it until today. Lee might as well have sent it by snail mail.

> Can something be going slower than completely stopped?

No.

> that's how Special Relativity sees things moving "faster than light", as
> conceptually incoherent.

Absolutely true, but remember "things" are made of matter or energy or
information and the correlations (and feel free to invent your own word) I'm
talking about are made of none of these things.

> Remember that on a spacetime diagram relative velocity causes the angle
> between the space and time axes to diminish. Well, you can diminish that
> angle to less than zero!

I don't give a hoot in hell. If a space-time diagram says one thing and
experimental results say something else then you can take your space-time
diagram and stick it where the sun don't shine. And I have never in my life
seen a space-time diagram of a correlation.

You sound like a medieval theologian who refuses to even consider anything
that challenged Aristotle; no you're worse because this doesn't even
challenge Einstein.

> tell me exactly where in this chain of reasoning you demur:
> 1. Something we do *here* causes an effect *there*.

I demur at step 1. If it were a cause you could have instantaneous
communication and I specifically said more than once and for at least a
decade that is not possible. Perhaps you could call it instantaneous
correlation. Sometimes I like to think that you can send a message faster
than light but it's encoded and the key to decode it can only be sent at
light speed or less.

> If I read that right, then you put your money on influences traveling
> faster than light

Yes.

> in complete defiance of the Special Theory of Relativity.

No.

> Oh, really?

Yes really.

> "Effect", my dear fellow, means to cause to come into
> existence in a sort  of way

As in "cause and effect", which I was under the impression was key to what
you were talking about, I know it's what I was talking about.

> Of course, you will not admit you were wrong.

Go to Google and type in define:affect.

The first definition you will get is "have an effect upon", doesn't seem
like a word worth having to me. The second definition is "act physically
on",
in other words effect. Then we get "connect closely and often
incriminatingly" but that wasn't really the idea I was trying to get across.
And then "the conscious subjective aspect of feeling or emotion" and that
sure as hell wasn't what I wanted to say!  The word I wanted was not
"generally, a synonym for feelings, moods, emotions", the word I wanted
was not affect, it was effect.

> I remember the huge blowout on SL4 where everyone but Heartland was
> agreeing with you.

BULLSHIT! There was never a time when only Heartland disagreed with me.
NEVER. For all its shock levels SL4 is remarkably conservative and
pedestrian.

> you did commit the solecism of misstating his position.

Heartland changed his position so many times you will need to be much more
specific for me to know what on Earth you are talking about. The only point
he was consistent on was that Anesthesia is equivalent to death.

> I would never speak so forcefully to anyone who had not proved on
> innumerable occasions that he had a skin so thick that any rhinoceros
> would melt with envy

I don't know where you got that idea, I'm a very sensitive guy and your
words were so mean I'll probably cry myself to sleep tonight.

  John K Clark








From mail at harveynewstrom.com  Fri Sep  5 16:14:56 2008
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:14:56 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <200809050143.m851gwkm006126@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809050143.m851gwkm006126@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>

On Thursday 04 September 2008 21:14:12 spike wrote:
> Harvey the most ironic part of this is that if anyone criticizes this
> religion, not far behind is a quick accusation of racism.  So altho the
> muslim religion has people of every race, it has somehow managed to have
> itself considered a race.  Quite a trick, considering that racist is
> perhaps the most serious insult that can be leveled in America today.

Do you have an references to muslims claiming to be a race?  I have often 
heard this, but only from people who don't know much about muslims.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Fri Sep  5 23:43:03 2008
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:43:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Book: Vita-More in The Gaming Trilogy
In-Reply-To: <00b101c90f75$0b6aaae0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni>
References: <00b101c90f75$0b6aaae0$0301a8c0@natasha39y28ni>
Message-ID: <02EA01A8AF9141B2A06C243DB6B57DA5@GinaSony>

Very cool Natasha!! 

Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
http://www.nanoindustries.com
Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com
Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/
Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/
Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org
Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute  http://www.extropy.org
Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com
"Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future."
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Natasha Vita-More 
  To: 'ExI chat list' ; wta-talk at transhumanism.org ; ART-tac at yahoogroups.com ; extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:32 AM
  Subject: [ExI] Book: Vita-More in The Gaming Trilogy


  This book is amazing - it covers a world of gaming and interactive media.  It is the 3rd volume of The Gaming Trilogy, Homo Ludens Ludens,  546 pages, full of amazing gaming images.

   

  The focus of my work for this book is "Morphological Freedom" and responds to the talk Anders Sandberg and I gave in SL-Transhumanists.  I designed two images, each appears as full-page renditions, along with written text which correspond to the concept. 

   

  Natasha

   

   

  Natasha Vita-More

  BFA, MS, MPhil/PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium

  Faculty of Technology, School of Computers, Communication and Electronics

  University of Plymouth, UK

   

  Arts and Design - NBIC+ Convergence

  H+ Europe

   

   



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080905/00cbf9e2/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Sep  6 01:59:39 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 11:29:39 +0930
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <008701c90f4a$84047150$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
	<008701c90f4a$84047150$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809051859l95da49fte1e0015e3ecb7948@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/5 Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) <cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com>:
>
>> From: "Emlyn" <emlynoregan at gmail.com>  September 02, 2008 11:13 PM
>> Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
>> browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to be
>> a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster than
>> IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool new
>> geek tools hiding away in there.
>
> Haven't tried it yet but did you see the controversy about it's EULA?
> They're totally busted...
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html
>

Not a real problem, just something for people to complain about.
Anyone really worried about it can just download the source and build
their own version.

-- 
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  Sat Sep  6 02:11:26 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 11:41:26 +0930
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809050222u7036fcf1oc2a83ccf58b0fdb1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809050222u7036fcf1oc2a83ccf58b0fdb1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809051911t66d5fb9ai82d1de8aeb5518a0@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/5 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
>> browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to be
>> a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster than
>> IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool new
>> geek tools hiding away in there.
>
> Haven't tried it yet (a Linux version is not available yet), but in
> fact the "vision" espounded in the comic sounds way cool indeed.
>
> And... is it *totally* off-topic? After a fashion, it suggests that
> one's "connectedness" experience can actually evolve even without
> major breakthroughs,
>
> Stefano Vaj

Yeah it's really on topic, as is anything on extros :-)

It'll be interesting to see if this accelerates innovation in the open
source browser community (ie: mozilla + chrome). The V8 javascript
engine is an interesting innovation, you'd think Mozilla could pretty
much slap it in and go.

I can see the point of the GPL vs BSD arguments here. I tend to veer
toward the BSD licensing world (in fact I like public domain even
better), but Chrome would have been a great chance to release a bunch
of really great, innovative new stuff under the GPL, and give the open
source camp an edge. As it stands, the BSD licensed Chrome can be used
by the closed source people, primarily I'm thinking Microsoft with
Internet Explorer.

Perhaps this is a subtle indicator of focus at Google? Google is happy
to open source stuff, but they don't really seem to be about free
software per se. Rather, they seem to want to accelerate things; I
think they'd like to see V8 go into every browser out there, so they'd
know their javascript based apps would work dependably and quickly
everywhere.

There are a lot of different motivations out there in the land of
making the big stuff, it's interesting to see the chaotic dynamics in
their interplay.

-- 
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 mail at harveynewstrom.com  Sat Sep  6 01:14:07 2008
From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 21:14:07 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com>

On Monday 01 September 2008 01:27:49 Lee Corbin wrote:
> Why would one *ever* be fair? Or adopt "fairness" as a standard behavior?

Because that is the whole basis of the free market and the exchange of money 
for services.  I want to participate in this type of transaction.  To not play 
fair would be to reject the whole concept of a free-market system, and revert 
to a dog-eat-dog world where the strongest take things from the weak.  I don't 
believe that kind of environment would produce the goods and services I want 
to purchase.  Even if I thought I could steal them more efficiently than buying 
them, there would be less opportunities to do so in an environment where 
merchants regularly got shortchanged.  They would go out of business and I 
would not be able to shop there anymore.  So I want to support them with a 
fair price to keep the flow of goods and services coming my way.

> I see no necessary self-interest component to being fair to others, even
> though in most situations indeed there is. Surely the answer is at least
> in part genuine altruism.

It sounds like you understand my answer, but you don't believe it.  Trust me, 
I don't care to give away my money for free to strangers I will never see 
again.  But I am a good tipper at my local establishments that I frequent, and 
they treat me like an extra special guest whenever they see me.  I am buying 
that kind of service and think my money is well spent.  I am not giving them 
charity.

> Because they do not genuinely have any feelings or emotions or
> any personal thoughts whatsoever, as I said. This cold distant
> entity is going to be vastly *less* affected by your responses
> than you will be by whether the ants in your driveway appear to
> be going rapidly or slowly for the garbage you put out last night,
> and this is the only other even .0001 thinking entity in your world.

Let me change my response to this one.  I thought you were talking about AIs 
with "simulated" feelings versus "real" feelings.  Since your question 
involved discovering that the real world was full of simulated people, I was 
assuming very advanced AIs with human-equivalent complexities.
If you are literally talking about a video game character with no feelings, I 
would not exert any effort toward their happiness.

> Being altruistic is not the same as being genuinely altruistic, (though
> this is a mere terminological point), because altruism is very often
> explained in the literature as most often springing from self-interest.

You've lost me now.   I am not sure the term "altruisim" is being used in a 
consistent way, now that "being altruistic is not the same as being genuinely 
altruistic" and "altruism... springing from self-interest".  The terms seemed 
to have changed mid-stream and/or I am confused about what they mean now.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep  6 05:18:54 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:18:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Rosetta zips past stone
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906001506.0228db30@satx.rr.com>

Isn't this one of your toys, Amara?

from Melbourne AGE:

In a minutely choreographed operation, the $US1 billion ($1.23 
billion) unmanned probe Rosetta - launched in 2004 by the European 
Space Agency - came within about 800 kilometres of an unusual 
asteroid called 2867 Steins, a distance that is a hair's breadth in 
space terms.

Its goal was to get rare, close-up photographs and surface scanning 
of an asteroid, part of the intriguing debris left over from the 
building of the Solar System.

The Rosetta data is being streamed to antenna stations in New Norcia, 
Western Australia, and a NASA laboratory in Goldstone, California.

The first pictures of the flyby were expected to arrived at mission 
control in Darmstadt, Germany, around noon local time on Saturday, 
followed by data from other instruments.

"It will take approximately four weeks for all of the acquired data 
from all instruments to be down-linked," ESA said.

The encounter between Rosetta and the asteroid took place 360 million 
km from home as Rosetta zipped through the asteroid belt between Mars 
and Jupiter, on its way to a rendezvous with Comet 
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in 2014.

Rosetta switched on 11 instruments to scan the rock as it flashed by 
at 8.6 kilometres a second, or 30,720 km/h, using an optical 
navigation system to keep automatically on course, ESA said in a live 
blog of the operation.

The spacecraft had been instructed to make a flip so it can get the 
best view of the asteroid and this caused a planned break in radio 
contact of around 80 minutes.

At about 2014 GMT (0614 AEST Saturday) the craft resumed signal 
transmission to the cheers of ESA engineers and technicians.

"We're extremely happy that it worked," said the mission's manager 
Gerhard Schwehm, sipping a glass of champagne after the announcement 
from the control room.

"It's a big relief. People can relax a bit now and everything seems fine."

The images and data from the deep space craft - which was launched in 
March 2004 from French Guyana, and is 402 million kilometres from 
Earth - have begun beaming back to earth.

Schwehm said the data must first be sent to antenna stations far away 
from Europe because of signal issues created by the present position 
of the satellite and the curvature of the earth.

The timing of the flyby ensured the asteroid would be illuminated by 
the sun, making it likely the transmitted images will be clear and sharp.

Experts will parse the data from the 4.6 kilometre-diameter 
irregularly shaped asteroid for keys that could help unlock some of 
the mysteries of the creation of the solar system.

"Dead rocks can say a lot," Schwehm said.

Rosetta is due to make a second asteroid flyby in July 2010, skimming 
past a 100 kilometre rock called 21 Lutetia.

The comet-chasing project was approved in 1993 and launched in 2004.

If all goes well, Rosetta will meet up with Churyumov-Gerasimenko in 
May 2014 and then send down a small lander, Philae, that will hook 
onto the comet's crusty surface and carry out nine experiments.

The European Space Agency is supported by 17 countries, including 
Germany, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. It cooperates with the 
NASA, the European Union, European national space agencies and 
international partners. It's expected that the ESA will become the 
space agency of the EU in the near future.

AP/AFP



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Sep  6 11:31:18 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 04:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > 1. Something we do *here* causes an effect *there*.
> 
> I demur at step 1. If it were a cause you could have instantaneous
> communication and I specifically said more than once and for at least a
> decade that is not possible. Perhaps you could call it instantaneous
> correlation. Sometimes I like to think that you can send a message faster
> than light but it's encoded and the key to decode it can only be sent at
> light speed or less.

Suppose you sent two space probes into diametrically opposed circumpolar orbits
at 1 AU around a magnetar. At some predetermined signal, the two probes are to
measure the polarity of the magnetic field and transmit its data to the other
probe. Wouldn't the fact that one probe measures that it is at the north pole
of the magnetic field, instantaneously tell it that the other probe was at the
south pole, 16 minutes before the signal from the other probe arrived? Would
this be information travelling faster than the speed of light or would this
simply be a correlation? Could the correlation be said to move or travel at any
speed at all?



Stuart LaForge

"A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace


      


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep  6 15:30:46 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 08:30:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com>
	<0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede>
	<001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<62c14240809041715v24d88f03j7c17cec54cbd6aab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b401c91035$e2275770$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Mike writes

> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>> ("Newton was not at all happy with the idea that gravitation is
>> action at a distance,. because he could not reconcile that with
>> physical common sense.")   [a nice quote I found on line, although
>> I wasn't able to find his exact words on the subject, which are
>> priceless, or nearly so]
> 
> Are gravitational topologies smoothly transformed from one to another?

I would say yes, but I'm not sure of your meaning.  For instance,
if we try to measure the speed of gravitational waves, it can only
be done by continuous process, e.g., two black holes continuously
moving towards or around each other.  Now if we could just cause
a lot of matter to pop into existence some way, (the way we turn
on a beam of particles) then grav measurements would go further
easier.

> Is the concept of an electron shell still valid thinking?

:-)   Actually, I think that people have come to avoid that 
kind of phrase. Me still being pretty literal this morning, it's
not the thinking that's valid or invalid, it's how much criticism
theories have sustained, and how much stuck. The theory
of the electron shell is very much still a part of physics so
far as I know (or modern chemistry, etc.). We believe to
be so that which has successfully stood up to a lot of criticism
over time. So the answer is, "yes, electron shells turn out to
be real", keeping in mind Eternal Truth #2 ("Every statement
needs to be further modified") and that all conclusions are
tentative.

> Pretend spacetime were deformed in discrete units such that the
> new states of gravitation (for example) have effects at distances
> that would otherwise exceed the transfer of information at lightspeed.

Blasphemy. If you believe in SR, nothing can exceed the speed
of light. Ever.  Any way. Inconceivable. 

Lee

> I hesitate to offer any more explanation for fear of obscuring the point
> with murky examples.


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep  6 15:19:59 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 08:19:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
References: <26707.59445.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><ee50357e0808300112h7c2c93f0qb4c9043d2f036ddc@mail.gmail.com><02d501c90ae6$5ba007a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200808311437.18969.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <00ad01c91034$7aa9c520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Harvey writes

> On Saturday 30 August 2008 17:19:23 Lee Corbin wrote:
>> On the literal reading of my question above, which was my intention
>> and which has no necessary direct bearing on profiling, does a six
>> member *group* of known members of Al-Qaeda differ significantly
>> in appearance from a random sample of six age-appropriate men
>> chosen at random from London? Sorry, but I still don't understand
>> how you and Damien can persist in saying that the answer is "no".
>> For one thing, aren't the odds of anyone who is Asian or black
>> being in the UK component of Al Qaeda quite small?
> 
> Not at all.  There may be fewer asian Al Qaeda in Bagdad, but they are the 
> majority of Al Qaeda in Indonesia.  (Remember the Bali bombing?)  Likewise, 
> blacks would be the majority of muslims in Africa.  (A judge  ruled last year 
> that the Sudanese government was liable for the U.S.S. Cole suicide bombing.)  

Once again we see what is from my perspective an almost
genetic predisposition to ever concede anything---e.g., why
not say, "Well, yes, in your stupid hypothetical totally useless
thought experiement, OF COURSE in London six Al Qaeda
members would not look like six people picked at random:
too few whites, too few blacks, etc. And I know that you know
that this would, of course, not be 100% reliable, but if you deal
with groups of people picked at random, then NATURALLY
what you are saying is correct, so?"

But wringing such confessions (it's too hard for them to be merely
admissions) is like pulling teeth.

Okay, so why my question?  At the time I was asking,  I was
too ignorant of the demographic makeup of London (which
has been corrected mostly by BillK). So one naturally sets
bounds upon what the interlocutor thinks.  <sigh> why should
I bother? Even thinking of extreme situations is not likely to
result in any kind of admission or boundary on the possibilities.

Or it could be partly what I call the Andy J. phenomenon. My good
friend Andy in high school would always answer like this if
I began to ask a Socratic like string of questions:  "Just where
is this going, Lee?  I refuse to answer any longer until I know
what your eventual conclusion is supposed to be."   Nothing
but sheer intellectual cowardice on his part. Thank goodness
I've never seen (here or anywhere) anything quite the magnitude
of that!

> I tried to perform your experiment with Google, although I admit that this is 
> a very small unscientific sample.  But I Googled "terrorist conviction london 
> 2008" to see what the first six convicted terrorists in london looked like.  
> What I found were:
>   - A 16-year-old boy 
> <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20080819/ai_n28020975>.
>   - A woman <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/17/uksecurity.ukcrime>.
>   - A Ugandan african <http://www.euro-
> islam.info/spip/article.php3?id_article=2180>.
>   - Five muslim men (declared innocent, their convictions overturned) 
> <http://mek1980.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/students-win-appeal-against-
> terrorism-conviction/>.
>   - A 50-year-old muslim man <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7256859.stm>.
>   - Four younger muslim men 
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3437865.ece>.
> 
> So in trying your experiment, I did not get any sterotypical muslim men in the 
> first six.  The only muslim men in the first eight were later declared innocent 
> and had their convictions overturned.  The ninth person I found was a 50-year-
> old muslim man.  I had to go to the tenth through thirteens persons to get 
> what I think you are describing as the stereotypical younger muslim man.
> 
> So by way of a single example, I would submit that your experiment wouldn't 
> always work as you expected.

Blast it!   #!%^!@@$!!.  Double blast it.  I *never* said that it
would *always* work.   I carefully placed probability bounds on
it. Okay, okay, I get it.  You're simply not going to admit any more
than you already I (I'm speaking of a collective you, here). My
experiement would indeed succeed (oh, say, 80% of the time
with six people, 98% of the time with one hundred people, etc.)
but DO NOT WORRY.  I am going nowhere with this line of
questioning.  I wanted to know the limits.  Okay, now I do.
Thanks for the concrete info, though.

>>   > > In short, you are claiming that the relative homogeneity of my
>>   > > group A (or at least I thought so), would be insufficient to allow
>>   > > for a 19 in 20 test.
> 
> I don't understand what good it does to be able to distinguish a homogenous 
> group from a random group.  We could do this test with any ethnic, racial, 
> religious, socio-economic, gender, sexual-orientation, or other grouping with 
> similar results as you predict.  All it proves is that people can distinguish 
> between diverse groups and homogenous groups.  I'm not sure what the point of 
> that is, or how it helps anything.

Yup.  Explained above.  You're right.  It doesn't help in profiling
(in this case).  Profiling does work sometimes, as perhaps (or
perhaps not) you will admit. If the Siamese authorities are looking
for a white man in small almost entirely Thai village miles and 
miles outside Bangkok, then profiling works. 

>> Can you guess what fraction this might be? If it's at all high,
>> then this is the source of my confusion.
> 
> I think this is indeed your source of confusion.  I don't have statistics on 
> al qaeda converts, but here are some statistics on muslims in the united 
> states from <http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=15040>:
> 
> "Muslims are the most racially diverse group in America. Approximately one in 
> three Muslims are white, roughly one in four are black, and one in five are 
> Asian."  

Er, we were talking about *terrorists* or *terrorist bombers* or
Al Qaeda. I never spoke of the racial composition of entire
religions, and I was specifically not speaking about anywhere
except London (except in my wild counterexample about Thailand).

The rest of your remarks here are quite well known to me,
whether or not I travel any  :-)

Lee

(P.S.   My spell-checker had to change about 15 uncapitalized
uses of muslim to Muslim.)

> I think you are forgetting how old the muslim religion is, and how far it has 
> spread into asia, africa, and elsewhere.  Most muslims in the U.S. are NOT 
> middle-eastern.  Racial profiling would not help, unless you believe that there 
> is a racial component to violence and that the white, black, and asian muslims 
> are less likely to be violent than arab muslims.
> 
> The other thing to remember is that most muslims are non-violent, with only a 
> small percentage of them being so radical.  We also have violence from other 
> religions, as history shows with the Irish Liberation Army in London, 
> Christian abortion clinic bombers in the U.S., militia types in the U.S. 
> (Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, etc.).  So one religion does not have more 
> violence than another.  If there were a good statistical lead of one race or 
> religion over another in terms of violence, I assure you that security experts 
> would be all over it.  But the numbers just don't work out.  There simply is 
> not statistical advantage for profiling one such group over another.  Like 
> torture, it sounds like it should work in theory, but it really doesn't pan 
> out in practice.



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Sep  6 16:00:16 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 12:00:16 -0400
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <002701c91039$ae01e5b0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>

> Suppose you sent two space probes into diametrically 
> opposed circumpolar orbits at 1 AU around a magnetar.

For this sort of thought experiment the massive magnetic
field around a neutron star is not very good, from day one 
everybody will agree on the poles, best to stick to entangled 
photons or spinning electrons.

> Wouldn't the fact that one probe measures that it is at 
> the north pole of the magnetic field, instantaneously tell
> it that the other probe was at the south pole, 16 minutes
> before the signal from the other probe arrived?

One probe would have no way of knowing what the other 
probe was doing unless they communicated, and that can 
only be done at light speed or less.

> Could the correlation be said to move or travel at any
> speed at all? 

Experiments have confirmed beyond any doubt that 
correlations can move much faster than light, probably at
infinite speed, but unfortunately you need more than that
to transmit information. To communicate you not only need to 
make a change at a distance you also need a standard to 
measure that change against; Quantum Mechanics can 
provide the one but not the other. 

 John K Clark











From scerir at libero.it  Sat Sep  6 17:35:39 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 19:35:39 +0200
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede>

Stuart: 
> Could the correlation be said to move or travel 
> at any speed at all?

David Mermin wrote a very beautiful paper trying to
explain the difference between (quantum) correlations
and the difficult existence of physical "correlata". 
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801057

The peculiar problem here, in orthodox QM, seems to be 
that correlations have physical reality but that which 
they correlate does not. 

It seems interesting to point out that, viceversa, in MWI 
"correlata" have physical reality, but correlations do not!

It is evident that correlations do not move at any speed
at all. 

It is less evident whether or not physical "influences" 
can move at superluminal speed (or in a reversed time) 
between two space-like separated wings of an EPR set-up, 
when Alice's or Bob's measurement causes the so called 
"collapse" (or whatever) of the singlet state.

These FTL "influences" cannot be true informations (not 
because this is forbidden by SR postulates, not because it 
is impossible to know if Alice performed her measurement 
before Bob, or viceversa, when they are space-like separated) 
because the process of quantum measurement is indeterministic. 
Alice cannot "force" a specific measurement outcome, thus 
cannot she send a definite message to Bob, and viceversa. 
Shimony called it the "peaceful coexistence" between QM and SR.

It is - in principle - possible that "some" information is
transferred superluminally in the EPR experiments. Namely
an information about the spin correlation, which is
greater than expected from the local-realistic models.
But even this kind of superluminal information does not 
allow one observer to send a message to the other distant 
or space-like separated observer.









 




From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Sep  6 18:18:54 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 14:18:54 -0400
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <00b401c91035$e2275770$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede>
	<001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<62c14240809041715v24d88f03j7c17cec54cbd6aab@mail.gmail.com>
	<00b401c91035$e2275770$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <62c14240809061118s5e2435f8h9ace147b674faaf9@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> :-)   Actually, I think that people have come to avoid that kind of phrase.
> Me still being pretty literal this morning, it's
> not the thinking that's valid or invalid, it's how much criticism
> theories have sustained, and how much stuck. The theory
> of the electron shell is very much still a part of physics so
> far as I know (or modern chemistry, etc.). We believe to
> be so that which has successfully stood up to a lot of criticism
> over time. So the answer is, "yes, electron shells turn out to
> be real", keeping in mind Eternal Truth #2 ("Every statement
> needs to be further modified") and that all conclusions are
> tentative.

I had written:
>> Pretend spacetime were deformed in discrete units such that the
>> new states of gravitation (for example) have effects at distances
>> that would otherwise exceed the transfer of information at lightspeed.

To which Lee replied:
> Blasphemy. If you believe in SR, nothing can exceed the speed
> of light. Ever.  Any way. Inconceivable.

Are these two examples at odds with each other?  Or are you going to
further modify "Ever. Any way. Inconceivable" in light of ongoing
criticism of SR and 'Eternal truth #2'  ?

Continuing my earlier idea of the multiple configurations of space-time:
  Does MWI require that each instance of 'overlapping' (for lack of a
clearer term) worlds must share exactly the same cosmological
constants?  Is it possible that the degree of their overlap is a
function of the similarity of those constants, such that from one
representation of an instant of the universe to another
[representation] there may events that are otherwise inexplicable
because of our old expectation of the instantaneous rules governing
observable phenomenon?  I really wish it were easier to convey complex
ideas, written english is such a narrow bandwidth...  Do you know of
any discussions of this [communication] problem, or proposed
solutions?


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep  6 18:42:20 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:42:20 -0500
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede>
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906132612.023a3b98@satx.rr.com>

At 07:35 PM 9/6/2008 +0200, Serafino wrote:

>These FTL "influences" cannot be true informations (not
>because this is forbidden by SR postulates, not because it
>is impossible to know if Alice performed her measurement
>before Bob, or viceversa, when they are space-like separated)
>because the process of quantum measurement is indeterministic.
>Alice cannot "force" a specific measurement outcome, thus
>cannot she send a definite message to Bob, and viceversa.
>Shimony called it the "peaceful coexistence" between QM and SR.

See, from my point of view, this whole discussion omits key empirical 
data that seem clearly to undermine those standard claims. (John 
Clark should cover his eyes at this point, and spend the next few 
minutes soothingly muttering BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.) I feel like a 
Renaissance telescopist listening to a roomful of Scholastics arguing 
over which set of epicycles deals best with the motion of the Sun 
around the Earth. "Hey, guys, come and look at these moons of 
Jupiter." "Shaddap! Only the Earth can be the center for an orbital system..."

The empirical evidence for extra-chance correlations in psi 
precognition experiments and natural experiments seems to me now 
beyond doubt (and, unlike most doubters, I've actually looked closely 
at a lot of the evidence). If that is so, then we already know that 
carefully prepared states of the world at t-now correlate 
significantly often, although with no apparent inside-the-lightcone 
causal influence, with states at t-future or t-past.

Since we live in a world pretty well described by a mix of relativity 
and QT, this fact has to be consistent with those scholia, but in 
ways that have not yet been accepted as canonical (or perhaps not 
even thought up yet).

So rather than asserting endlessly and pointlessly that X *can't* 
happen because reigning doctrine seems to argue against its 
possibility, even though X *does* occur quite often, physicists might 
be well advised to start looking for loopholes that permit these 
effects. Maybe entanglement is one; or maybe some version of Cramer's 
second time dimension, coupling past and future. Or maybe there's 
leakage in the Simulation.

Damien Broderick 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep  6 19:25:19 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 12:25:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede>
	<001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<62c14240809041715v24d88f03j7c17cec54cbd6aab@mail.gmail.com>
	<00b401c91035$e2275770$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<62c14240809061118s5e2435f8h9ace147b674faaf9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d601c91056$c1fe7340$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Mike writes

>> it's not the thinking that's valid or invalid, it's how much criticism
>> theories have sustained, and how much stuck. The theory
>> of the electron shell is very much still a part of physics so
>> far as I know (or modern chemistry, etc.). We believe to
>> be so that which has successfully stood up to a lot of criticism
>> over time. So the answer is, "yes, electron shells turn out to
>> be real", keeping in mind Eternal Truth #2 ("Every statement
>> needs to be further modified") and that all conclusions are
>> tentative.
> 
> I had written:
> 
>>> Pretend spacetime were deformed in discrete units such that the
>>> new states of gravitation (for example) have effects at distances
>>> that would otherwise exceed the transfer of information at lightspeed.
> 
> To which Lee replied:
>> Blasphemy. If you believe in SR, nothing can exceed the speed
>> of light. Ever.  Any way. Inconceivable.
> 
> Are these two examples at odds with each other?

Yes  :-)   This is a pretty satirical use of the language, I admit.
On the other hand, perhaps the very idea of one of us on this
list using "Blasphemy" would have been ludicrous enough for
you to guess that I wasn't entirely serious here. 

No, the simple truth (in defiance of Eternal Truth #1 "Nothing
is Simple"!) is that our theories never need justification, only
lots of criticism. Those that survive the criticism have sustained
exactly the kind of "criticism" natural selection hands out to
its subjects. This approach is called Evolutionary Epistemology,
and is a fundamental piece of Pan-Critical Rationalism (Popper
and Bartley).

> Continuing my earlier idea of the multiple configurations of space-time:
>  Does MWI require that each instance of 'overlapping' (for lack of a
> clearer term) worlds must share exactly the same cosmological
> constants?

Yes. In fact, looking at Tegmark's synopsis, for each level-two
"bubble" (which corresponds to a physically infinite level one universe
such as ours, which many years ago I named "Bruno", (in honor of
he who first claimed that space was actually infinite and contained
infinitely many worlds) and have so far received at least one congratulation),
there is a whole multiverse, i.e., the David Deutsch term for the entire
superposition of all branches corresponding to that one bubble. (In
Tegmark, the David Deutsch multiverse is "Level Three". See the
April 2003 issue of Scientific American for the best descriptions.)

So our level one universe is constantly splitting and recombining,
though since we're near the Big Bang, the splits vastly outnumber
the merges. A split occurs whenever quantum mechanics gives
amplitudes for more than one outcome for any physical process.
See David Deutsch's extraordinarily clear 1000 paragraphs in
his "Fabric of Reality" not only for the physics of the multiverse,
but for an excellent epistemological discussion of PCR and so on.

Every physical object is constantly interfering with itself, and it's
that alone (all according to MWI) that accounts for the solidity
of physical objects. So a huge number of splittings are occurring
everywhere all the time, and radiate outwards at the speed of
light.

> Is it possible that the degree of their overlap is a
> function of the similarity of those constants, such that from one
> representation of an instant of the universe to another
> [representation] there may events that are otherwise inexplicable
> because of our old expectation of the instantaneous rules governing
> observable phenomenon?

You have to go to a different bubble, according to the physicists
I've read, e.g. Linde, in order to get other physical constants.
The branching we experience (according to MWI) here all takes
place for one bubble, one physically infinite spatial universe.

>  I really wish it were easier to convey complex
> ideas, written English is such a narrow bandwidth...

Ah yes, that would be nice.

> Do you know of any discussions of this [communication]
> problem, or proposed solutions?

Not really. Even Skype or the telephone conferences or
even if we had perfect video conferencing, two problems
remain.  (1) this kind of forum is great because (excuse
me a moment while I go get something to eat) allows for
total freedom of time and opportunity to participate, and
(2) we simply cannot convey our ideas in any possible
way to others I reckon, short of mind-melding. And even
there, I'm skeptical that it would be all it's cracked up to be.

Lee




From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Sep  6 19:32:59 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 19:32:59 +0000
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809061232t2913cc9dt3ca9d26c9a4b21af@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
> browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to be
> a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster than
> IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool new
> geek tools hiding away in there.
>


Well, lots of positive reviews and some carping from FireFox users.

It is a beta release, and Google says improvements are on the way, so
it might be wise to wait a while. It is free to test, of course.  :)

Some reports say it is a bit of a resource hog, effectively opening up
a new windows process for every tab. The advantage is that if one tab
crashes, all the other tabs are unaffected (in theory). As each
process grabs some resources, it seems obvious that it will have a
bigger footprint than FireFox. Some go so far as to say it is designed
for new high-powered pcs with GBs of memory and fast processors.
See:
<http://blog.marcchung.com/2008/09/chromes-process-model-explained.html>

Chrome doesn't do extensions or themes yet. Google says they are under
development.

Personally, I find browsing without Adblock Plus a pretty miserable
web experience.

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep  6 20:23:34 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:23:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <00d601c91056$c1fe7340$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede>
	<001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<62c14240809041715v24d88f03j7c17cec54cbd6aab@mail.gmail.com>
	<00b401c91035$e2275770$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<62c14240809061118s5e2435f8h9ace147b674faaf9@mail.gmail.com>
	<00d601c91056$c1fe7340$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906151613.023be170@satx.rr.com>

At 12:25 PM 9/6/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>>  I really wish it were easier to convey complex
>>ideas, written English is such a narrow bandwidth...
>
>Ah yes, that would be nice.
>
>>Do you know of any discussions of this [communication]
>>problem, or proposed solutions?
>
>Not really. Even Skype or the telephone conferences or
>even if we had perfect video conferencing, two problems
>remain.  (1) this kind of forum is great because (excuse
>me a moment while I go get something to eat) allows for
>total freedom of time and opportunity to participate, and
>(2) we simply cannot convey our ideas in any possible
>way to others I reckon, short of mind-melding.

<cough> One can attempt analogies:
==============================

Toby opened a Schwelle, took us back into clear 
daylight. The trees were gone. I heard chickens 
clucking in the dell below, children's voices, 
saw a group of huts. Not five meters away a goat 
grazed; when it saw me suddenly standing there, 
it leaped straight up with all four hooves in the 
air. I knew there was a word for that, but 
couldn't think of it, because I burst out 
laughing at the silly thing. I could have sworn 
it shook its head in disbelief before it headed 
ambling off downhill, neck bell clanging. 
Stotting, that was it. Some African beast was 
given to the practice. An adult human came out 
from one of the huts. She was naked to the waist, 
tall and scrawny, and when she opened her mouth 
to scream at us I saw that all her teeth were 
filed to points. Half a dozen little angry guys 
rushed out of the other huts and ran straight up the hill at us.
           `Let's not loiter,' Toby said, and we 
went through to a world without huts, but 
something immensely tall and pale blue stood 
kilometers away on red concrete, soaring up 
through light cirrus, bulging out like a turnip. 
Windows caught the morning sun from a dozen 
directions. The turnip, I saw, shading my eyes, 
was slowly turning on its axis. In the low 
purple-leaved bushes around us, large lacy 
butterflies came and went. The place was 
hauntingly beautiful and incredibly strange, like 
a dream of impossible architecture.
           `It's... wonderful,' I said.
           `Yes,' Lune said. She put her hand in 
mine. `These are all cognates of Toby's base 
universe, you understand. Like the cardinal 
numbers. There is a countable infinity of them.'
           `Parallel universes,' I said.
           `No,' Toby told me. `Well, if you 
like. It's a gross simplification. Each of them 
is actually in the same universe you've always 
lived inside, the same multiverse, but rather a long way as the crow flies.'
           `Ten to the 10^29 meters distant from 
each other, on average,' Lune said, seesawing her 
flat hand to show that the average varied a bit 
from place to place, as you'd probably expect if 
you had the faintest idea what she was saying. 
`That's as the light beam flies too. Luckily, we 
can get there faster by redescribing the ontology.'
           `Oh, of course. Don't know why I 
didn't see it immediately.' I shut my eyes, 
calculating. Ten to the thirteen light years, 
roughly. The radius of the whole goddamned 
universe, wasn't it? It numbed the imagination. 
No, wait. There couldn't be that many planets 
like Toby's version of Earth, not in the whole 
universe. `Actually, I still can't see it. Ten to 
the twenty-nine doesn't seem enough--'
           `No, no,' Lune said. `It's true that 
ten to the twenty-ninth power is a truly enormous 
number, there's roughly that many atoms in your 
body. A hundred thousand trillion trillion. But 
see, that's just the exponent. The whole 
multiverse is ever so much bigger, unthinkably 
large. You need to raise 10 to that power...'
           `Not just one followed by twenty-nine 
zeroes, you see, August,' Toby added. `Ten to the 
ten to the twenty nine is so big that if you 
tried to write it down you'd have to follow the 
first one with a hundred thousand trillion 
trillion zeros. I computed that once over a cup 
of hot chocolate, and it stuck in my mind for a curious reason.'
           I felt suitably crushed, and shrugged. `That's plenty of nothing.'
           `It's plenty of plenty, my boy. At ten 
numerals to the inch, the number you need to 
describe how far the distinct universes extend in 
the multiverse would itself stretch some twenty 
seven billion light years.' Toby smiled 
cheerfully and swung his arms wide. `From one 
side of the local cosmos all the way to the other, scribble scribble scribble.'
           `Yeah, and you'd use up a whole 
shitload of ink and paper, right.' I don't think 
they were fooled by my feigned nonchalance. What 
they were saying beggared the imagination 
utterly. My eyes drifted away to the right as I 
tried to picture it. A universe of universes. But 
that was just the first step. Then do it again: a 
universe of universes of universes. And again, 
and again, and again, almost endlessly... It was 
too much to take in. Okay, yeah, I'd accept it. 
You could have as many worlds like Earth as you 
liked in a place that big, each of them 
resembling the Earth we knew as closely as you 
wished?the planet Lune and Toby and I knew, even 
if our worlds were a little dissimilar. I drew in 
a staggering breath, looked back to Lune. She was nodding.
           `I know,' she said. `It hit me hard 
too. All right, my darling,' she added briskly, 
`we're shown you the faintest hint of T level 
one, where we usually live. Now let's move on toward the larger scales.'
           `Whu--?'
           A Schwelle opened as she spoke a 
deixis code. We went into a place horribly bent 
and twisted into absurd directions.
           `A T-prime sample. Tegmark level two,' 
she told me, somehow, and I heard her, somehow. 
Her voice rattled like old rusted iron on a roof. 
`Don't be alarmed. Our senses and our brains are 
not designed for this. Aren't evolved to cope with it.'
           Was there air in my lungs? I felt 
myself choke and gasp. Was there heat enough to 
warm the chilled core of my belly? I clutched my 
arms around myself, then looked to Lune to make 
sure she was okay. She'd turned into an El Greco 
witch, elongated and hood-eyed. No, not like that 
at all, more a deformed stick figure by Dali, or 
Picasso around the time he started deconstructing 
the human figure into oblongs with both eyes on 
the same side of the face. My brother stalked 
beside her, an insect thing with a ruff of indigo 
hair. I glanced down at my own hands, recoiled. 
Wire and corroded, patched leather.
           `God,' I groaned. `Edward Scissorhands.'
           `Your grammar is doing its best,' Toby 
assured me. He sounded like a whale, very like a 
whale. `In this place there are...' He paused, 
cast about like a hunting hound. `...Maybe two 
spatial dimensions and I'd estimate two temporal directions.'
           `Two directions to move in time? You 
mean we can walk backwards to the past while we're here?'
           `Yes, but only while we're here,' Lune 
said. Have you ever heard a peacock's squawk? I 
was outraged at the travesty this evil domain had made of her music.
            `It's lovely to visit,' I rasped, 
`but I don't think I'd want to live here.'
           `Moving on, then,' Toby said, and we 
passed into somewhere far more disconcerting.
           `You're mixing up the sticks,' I said, 
witlessly. But what I meant was... I struggled to 
hold on to something distinct and knowable.
           `These T-prime worlds embody every 
conceivable mix of physical dimensions and 
constants comprising the multiverse,' Lune told 
me. It made me laugh, because that's what I'd just said.
           We went into places where surely 
nothing solid, regular, persistent could exist, 
sustain itself. For one terrifying endless moment 
we crossed a vast space with more directions than 
seemed possible but without the ticking of a 
clock. An odor of incense. Timeless everywhere, 
ground to a halt, seized. My Vorpal implants 
blazed with light. I felt a cramp, a convulsion. 
I was thrown out of that eternal silence, and 
Lune murmured, as if in recognition, `Elliptical 
partial differential equations.'
           Onward we went, ever onward. In a 
crushed place of echoes where nothing stood 
still, where improbable forces built up and tore 
down, Toby told me, `You see? With one dimension 
of space but more than four of time, the worlds 
are unstable.' We stepped away into places where 
time returned to normal but space spread out once 
more in directions I could not fathom with my 
poor limited brain. He said, `With only one or 
two dimensions of either space or time, universes 
are too simple to build or sustain atoms, so we must evade those.'
           In this inconceivable archipelago we 
skittered through cosmos after cosmos in disarray 
and flux. Somehow the Vorpal implants held our 
bodies and brains, or their semblance in some 
safe computational enclosure, from collapse or 
dispersal. Lune told us, `Ultrahyperbolic 
equations, no stability here.' We did all this 
again and again. I will not try to describe those 
places of dimensional confusion, it would be as 
tedious and contrived as recounting a dream next 
morning. The brain can't hold on to it, so it 
concocts a bunch of mysticism about colors beyond 
the visible spectrum, `ulfire' and `jale' in that 
old David Lindsay novel my mother admired, A 
Voyage to Arcturus, but that's not it at all. I 
got the point, though, I really did. It 
frightened me down to the bone, realizing the 
truth of it. These were worlds, probably an 
infinity of them, where the three familiar 
parameters of height, depth and width, and the 
one-way stream of time, were thrown heedlessly 
into the trash. Dimensions and constants were 
remixed and renumbered, the neat domestic floral 
display of spacetime was barbarously pruned, 
re-sorted, juggled. Roses were jammed in next to 
strawberries and stinking weeds, and it made you 
sneeze and then tore your nose off. As an 
experience it was baroque, I'll give it that. It 
was nightmarish in what you might call a bad way. 
At the end of it, we stepped through on to a 
railway platform and I sagged with relief, 
drawing in the sinus-clogging fumes of the steam 
engine smoke (so my nose hadn't been torn off 
after all, which was a comfort), the heavy tang 
of great greased steel locomotive wheels, the 
sweat and dirty clothes of early morning 
passengers in some kind of traditional Japanese 
costume, carrying briefcases and listening to 
Walkmen clamped over their high lacquered 
hairdos. The men nearby gave us sidelong 
scrutiny, but shoved forward with determination 
into the open doors. The women kept their eyes on 
the ground, shuffling sedately but with a turn of speed.
           `Third Tegmark level,' Toby said 
cheerfully. `Hold on to your hat, or not, or all three.'
           Oh. Oh. Oh.
           Was I having a seizure? An epileptic 
fit, maybe, with those auras you hear about from 
people afflicted with migraine, jittery streaks 
of light and the feeling that your eyes are 
jumping wildly between the frames of reality. 
Everything peeled apart while remaining rock 
solid. All the colorful folk on the station got 
on the train and stayed off it, changing their 
minds. They climbed hastily into the carriage in 
front of them, and raced down and up the station 
to force themselves belatedly into a different 
doorway, or in some cases through the open and 
the shut windows, and fell with a cry of dismay 
on to the empty tracks where no train stood, and 
boarded the sleek helicopter that waited on the elevated pad, and--
           --I did all that too, that sort of 
thing, my viewpoint jumping like a maddened 
kangaroo from one part of the station to another, 
with Lune's hand tightly in mine, and torn away 
from her, and Toby lost to view, and, horribly, 
Toby lying bleeding and surely dead, his abdomen 
crushed by the wheels of the departed train, and?
           Voices chattering in overlap, coming 
together into sense, skidding apart into blurred 
cacophony: `The quantum view of the multiverse, 
August. The all-at-once unfolding of the wave 
function. Every possibility realized, all the 
options accepted. Schr?dinger with no collapse. Like in Sag-A star.'
           `Get us the fuck out of here!' I 
screamed, and hands tugged at mine and let mine 
go and stroked my fingers languorously and 
slashed at my skin, and my lurching legs carried me...
           ...across the Schwelle and jerked up 
against my belly in the big bed. The house was 
perfectly silent as I awoke in my darkened, 
smelly bedroom. I lay still with my eyes closed 
for several minutes, percolating upwards, 
breathing night odors through my dry, open mouth. 
My erection slowly ebbed; I knew I must have been 
dreaming of Lune again. I reached behind me 
without turning over, prodded under the covers, 
but her side of the bed was cold and empty. At 
first muzzily, then more sharply, I understood 
that it really was completely quiet downstairs. 
Odd. Where was her soft buzz of classic rock, her 
humming clatter, toaster, muesli bowl, coffee 
maker? The skin of my upper body was cool, and I 
drew the sheet and blanket more tightly about 
myself, hunkering into the pillow, eyes 
determinedly shut. She's gone, I told myself with 
gloomy dread. She's left me, the bitch. A moment 
later, I thought: the Tau Ceti wongles have come 
for her. They'll be here for me, next. I started 
to weep behind my closed lids. Slow tears soaked 
into my pillow. Pull yourself together, man, I 
thought at last. With a weary effort, I pushed 
back the covers and let my bare feet rest on the 
cold floor boards. My bladder was swollen and 
urgent. I took a step toward the door, toward the toilet down the hall...
           ...flipped open the ringing phone and 
said in my deepest chocolaty voice, `"Madame Bovary, c'est moi".'
           After the smallest hesitation, Toby said: `Gustav?'
           How could you not smile? `Monsieur 
Flaubert,' I told him, `is not available. This is the parrot.'

[biiig snip]

           A deep, sickening panic invaded me. My 
pulse jumped almost instantly to twice its 
resting state. I stared in disbelief at the 
screen, wondering if I were about to die.

           Toby, I keyed, trying to control my 
hyperventilation. Is that you hacking my bot?
           At the third Tegmark unitarity level, 
the screen told me, we've jumped up to 10^118 
universes, each maxing at temperatures of 10^8 
Kelvin. Every possible alternative quantum choice 
is realized simultaneously somewhere when

           I jumped out of my chair and kicked 
the flat monitor over. Its lightweight nanotube 
structure fell with dreamy slowness, bounced once 
without breaking, sent me a hot pink blinking 
message that I caught from the corner of my eye.

           The next and final level is the big 
one, August. Take a deep breath, bend over, and kiss your ass goodbye.

           Terrified, I ran toward the...
           I thought I heard Toby cry out, `Give 
me Room 101.' A Schwelle opened in front of me. I plunged through.
           Craziness. Disorientation, everything 
falling away into a draining, stuttering echo of 
itself. This was so much worse than the second 
level distortions, or the simultaneous superposed 
overlaps of level three. This was Cartesian doubt 
so bottomless, so corrosive, that nothing 
persisted beyond vertigo and pain. I tried to 
squeeze my eyes shut but I had no eyelids, no 
eyes. My whole visceral body, sense of awareness, 
contracted to two mangled lumps of hieroglyphic 
gold and silver linked by a thin shriek, 
fingernails on a blackboard. I tried to scream, 
and had no voice. Yet somehow I heard Toby 
speaking to us, desperate, clinging to his own 
sanity by a thread. There he was, in the chaos, 
and there was Lune: two infinitely distant, 
gruesomely intimate chains of golden hieroglyphs 
I could not read. Was it his voice, or were the 
hieroglyphs morphing, twisting into meaning? He said:
           A man in many Earths wrote a very great book.
           Some fragment of memory tore through me, gave utterance:
           `Eric Linkollew.'
           Echoing mad laughter? Yes, he is a 
great Eric as well. I was thinking of Eric Blair.
           `Never heard of the bastard.' Nothing 
stayed in place. We were plunging like soap 
bubbles in a gale through one Schwelle after 
another, like mice gnawing their way through an 
infinite stack of Stockhausen scores.
           Never never never never heard of Nineteen Eighty-Four?
           `You mean George Orwell.'
           He took that name in some worlds. Do you remember Winston Smith?
           `He hated rats. Shit, are rats waiting to claw my face?'
           Not rats, August. Dragons, perhaps, 
off the edges of all the maps you know. Winston 
was shown four fingers and told to see five, do you remember?
           I did. I held out four and saw five, 
and ten, and one, and none at all. Not fingers. I 
was watching the primal order of the cosmos.
           And he did see five. That was Blair's 
horror story. I always found it absurdly 
abstract. Until I came here, into level four. Or 
do I mean five? Hollow laughter banging and clanging at the edges of dementia.
           `You're saying there are no rules here?'
           No fixed rules, Lune told me. She was 
formed hot metal in shapes that spoke to me. This 
is the manifold. It's so beautiful. I had no idea 
what she meant. She said: I stand in the center 
of a web of mathematical functions, all in 
motion, and I'm part of them, I guess I'm 
creating them as well. They are wavelengths of 
energy, perceived directly rather than through 
eyes and brain, graphs of functions growing, 
intertwining, unfolding. Music, sharply defined 
and immediate, can't you hear it, August? And 
then, cruelly, she was dragged away from me, and 
the music and rainbow beauty with her, and once 
more I was drowning in noise and terror.
           Build it up, something told me. Play 
it again, Mr. Peano man. That seemed wrongly 
twisted, but somehow righter than wrong. I 
scrambled for sensation, sense, sensibility. I could grasp nothing.
           Nothing, said Lune's Vorpal hieroglyph display. The empty set. Zero.
           I clutching at that nothing. I could 
do that much. Emptiness at the heart of the noise 
and terror. Emptiness that was the terror, or part of it.
           Every natural number a has a successor, denoted by a + 1.
           That seemed reasonable, although 
everything in this flickering horror of fourth 
level worlds denied it, mutated that simple 
creed, added and subtracted and transformed in 
dizzying confusion. I held to the axiom by brute force.
           `All right. What next?'
           The set zero is never the successor of any natural number.
           No void hidden in the bowels of the 
rush of numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12... to 
infinity? No swallowing pit at the core of those 
things we can count? I hoped it were true. I 
assented, fearing its denial. No, wait... wait... 
I found another solution lurking in there, 
branching out into a permissible loop: 0 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4...
           I shook my head, started again.
           0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9...
                                        A
                                        B ?Q? ? Y? ...
                                        C
                                        D
The simple numbering of the world is pitted with 
Chaitin pathologies, a voice told me, unexpected 
and random. Yes, all right, I could see that, no 
way around it. But it was the best I could do. Press on, then:
           Each distinct natural number has a 
distinct successor. If a succeeds b, then a + 1 succeeds b + 1.
           I had to think about that, but I 
grabbed with relief at the very difficulty of the 
task with all my two, four, five, billion 
handless hands, and felt reality solidify about 
me, the endless cascade closing down, the 
fecundity extinguishing itself, transfinite 
options closing away, not gone, not lost, 
merely... pinched off. Or rather: our world was 
pinching itself free of that radiant abundance.
           If a property is possessed by zero and 
also by the successor of every natural number it 
is possessed by, then it is possessed by all natural numbers.
           If a-- Well, yes, obviously. An 
instant earlier it had not been obvious. Now it 
seemed both true and self-evident. I hung in a 
blue place, and Lune sang to me. Her notes and 
chords were filaments and jewels of logic. I 
watched, dazzled, as she built an ascending Babel 
city whose towers glistened with fractal 
complexity, each chamber replete, gorged, 
enameled, each linked to others by exquisite 
cables of implication and ever higher 
abstraction. It was beautiful, an orchid that 
opened at the speed of light and made the world in its own image.
           Formal systems, she said.
           The globe of light branched, adding 
axioms in one pathway: Boolean algebra. And, 
launching an alternative road: Models.
           Links multiplied at dizzying speed:
           Lower predicate calculus leaped upward 
in a blizzard of subsets, unions, intersections, 
to Numbers and Semi-groups, commutativity 
operations which spawned Rings, while by another 
linkage came Sets, Relations, Abstract 
geometries, and Space. All of this, in its 
wonderful richness, was rudimentary, I saw, as it 
elaborated and grew a world, a cosmos, of 
mathematical order: on one side Abelian fields 
and Vector spaces, by another path Topological, 
Metrical and Banach spaces. Still the flowering 
stormed upward and outward, through infinite 
hordes of number, relation, ordering, bounds, 
completeness, into Tensor and Hilbert spaces, and 
Real and Complex manifolds. Finally, at its 
sunlit capstone, in a torrent of immense 
generativity, loomed twin rainbowed icy mountain peaks.
           Lune told me: Here linear vector 
mapping births operators that support the panoply 
of Quantum field theory, fields on R^4 act on 
Hilbert n-dimensional fields while... watch 
keenly now, August... by this different but 
intricately related pathway General relativity's 
3+1 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian is warped by tensor fields.
           Somehow I did understand what she was 
telling me. The grammar download from the 
X-caliber device unfolded, unpacked, in my mind. 
I looked in awe, ravished by crystalline 
loveliness. And as if I witnessed the collision 
of two immense glacial ice shelves in the white 
heart of Antarctica, those impossibly abstract 
glories, their vast doubled structures, merged 
into the computational unity of--
           `Too bright!' I screamed. I tasted 
lemon in my mouth, sharp and fragrant.

[GODPLAYERS, 2005]




From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Sep  6 20:57:43 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:57:43 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Communication/analogies (was QT and SR)
Message-ID: <62c14240809061357n11b72ff1n769e05ea8a1cc9f9@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> <cough> One can attempt analogies:
> ==============================
> [GODPLAYERS, 2005]

I was thinking of something like the Glass Bead Game[1] described in
the book of the same name. :)

After reading the Wikipedia page for GBG, I wonder if I have a
completely different view of the book - or if that was itself the
primary point Hesse was making.

I have been thinking a lot lately about how an interface could be
constructed to facilitate the exchange of more context-rich concept
tokens - I've had the basics of the inner workings for a while, but
the interface is ...challenging.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep  6 22:43:58 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 15:43:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com><021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com><002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede><001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John writes

> [Lee wrote]
> 
>> that's how Special Relativity sees things moving "faster than light", as
>> conceptually incoherent.
> 
> Absolutely true, but remember "things" are made of matter or energy or
> information and the correlations (and feel free to invent your own word) I'm
> talking about are made of none of these things.

Things are more general that just matter or energy. It includes
whatever the hell it *is* that you are talking about, whether it
be idiotic "spooky actions at a distance" or any other insane
rambling.

>> Remember that on a spacetime diagram relative velocity causes the angle
>> between the space and time axes to diminish. Well, you can [not] diminish
>> that angle to [magnitude size] less than zero!
> 
> I don't give a hoot in hell. If a space-time diagram says one thing and
> experimental results say something else then you can take your space-time
> diagram and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Or.... hold on.... this may be a radical thought coming up:  Or maybe
just maybe you can re-examine your experimental result and what you 
*think* it is "saying" (your word) and perhaps, just perhaps
reinterpret it according to a very solid theory that has never at all
in any way been disproven. (I speak of SR of course.)

>> tell me exactly where in this chain of reasoning you demur:
>> 1. Something we do *here* causes an effect *there*.
> 
> I demur at step 1. If it were a cause you could have instantaneous
> communication and I specifically said more than once and for at least a
> decade that is not possible. Perhaps you could call it instantaneous
> correlation. Sometimes I like to think that you can send a message faster
> than light but it's encoded and the key to decode it can only be sent at
> light speed or less.

Totally wrong.  "I like to think that you can send [something blah blah]
faster than light but it's encoded".  Purely wrong. Completely wrong!
Nothing got sent in any way anywhere, neither from there to here nor
from here to there.  Read on!  You'll see exactly why this is so!

>> If I read that right, then you put your money on influences traveling
>> faster than light
> 
> Yes.

I expect that you think that because *you* do something here,
something *there* ends up different than it would have been,
and that it ends up being that "different" or that "influenced"
faster than it could have happened if a light signal had gone
between here and there or there and here. Right?

I'm telling you that that is a terrible and wrong way to look at
it. Here is why.  For, as soon as you claim that you did 
something here and what happened there was different
*as a result* then you are forced to concede by SR that
it would make just as much sense for them *there* to
claim that what they did there made it turn out *here*
to be different than would have happened here anyway.

May I pin you down? (1) You claim that you did 
something here and what happened there was 
*different* as a result from what it would have been? (Y/N)

(2) You then say that the situation is not symmetrical, 
i.e., that it is false that what they did there made what
you did here turn out differently than what it would have
been?  (I pray that you agree that this lack of symmetry
would be completely wrong.)  Yes or No: Did what
happened here turn out as a result of what they did there,
and would have or could have turned out differently if they
had not got the result they did?

Look, both events, A and B, are outside each other's light
cone. You know that.  So their claim holds just as strongly
(i.e. not at all) as yours does.

Want to avoid that whole mess?  Want to *never* have to
say that if you hadn't done it here, or got a different result
here,  then they would have had a different outcome there?
It's easy: just adopt MWI.

Under MWI here is what happens: you and your pals here
are thinking about measuring a photon. You debate it long
and hard and either you do it on the night of Jan 22 or you
don't.  "Meanwhile" Andy and his friends in Andromeda have
the photon that is EPR entangled with yours. They too debate
long and hard whether or not to measure it on the night of 
Jan 22.  (All dates approved by the Intergalactic Committee
that lies squarely between the two galaxies, and towards which
the two galaxies are moving at equal and very sub-luminal 
velocities.)

Okay, so youse decide to measure it, and it come up Vertical.
"Ha!", you guys say to yourselves, "We know that when
*they* measure it, it will come up Vertical." Some Judas
among you says, "Well, maybe they measured it early this
evening and according to the IC date and time, beat us to it!
So what we have here would have been different or might
have been different because they went "first"!"    Of course,
all of you shout him down, because indeed he *is* wrong,
quite wrong. Because, as you know, such statements made
outside of light cones have no meaning and are only
idiotic ramblings.

Well, years and years later it turns out that they didn't get
around to measuring it because of some huge internal political
turmoil. It's still over in Andromeda trapped between two
mirrors. "Well," you say (and here is WHERE YOU REALLY
GO WRONG), "we measured it and found that it was Vertical
and so whenever they *do* get around to measuring it, or,
if they did a century or so later, they'll get or did get Vertical.
They *must* get Vertical!"   Which is absolutely wrong.

What really happened was this:  You got Vertical all right, but
you got Horizontal too!   There was a split here!   Whether or
not they measured theirs we won't know for at least 2.5 million
years. But for them ALSO they'll get H and they'll get V, because
the universe splits there too.  The *only* interesting and peculiar
part is that many millions of years from now folks will discover
that the branch of you than measured V will be in the same 
universe as the branch of them that measured V, and that the
branch of you that measured H branches will also end up in
the same world as the branch of them that measured H:
simply imagine a big sheet of plastic that is pulled apart here
due to a weakness half way between one side and the other,
and that it so happens that whenever they pull theirs apart,
your parts are connected so that just two separate sheets
remain---in one sheet everyone got V and in the other sheet
everyone got H.

No spookiness.  No action at a distance. No quantum weirdness.
No bullshit at all. Nothing really to even explain (except why there
are only two universes that come out of the whole shebang and not
four).  What's wrong with avoiding the mumbo-jumbo and adopting
the only coherent and sensible view, that of MWI?

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep  6 23:20:39 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:20:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com>
	<0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede>
	<001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906181141.023b92e0@satx.rr.com>

At 03:43 PM 9/6/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>No spookiness.  No action at a distance. No quantum weirdness.
>No bullshit at all. Nothing really to even explain (except why there
>are only two universes that come out of the whole shebang and not
>four).  What's wrong with avoiding the mumbo-jumbo and adopting
>the only coherent and sensible view, that of MWI?

And why two not four is said to be due to the vanishing cross terms, 
I think. As a physicist friend puts it in a different context: "ALL 
the action in QM systems comes in the cross terms.  From algebra you 
know (x + y)^2 = x^2 + y^2 + 2*x*y.  The squared terms are called 
intensities and the cross terms are the amplitudes times each 
other.  When you have a term for each atom in a bowling ball or 
brain, it turns out that the coefficient for each of the cross terms 
are random relative to each other due to environmental decoherence 
and they cancel out leaving the sum of intensities, which is, by 
definition, classical."

But just for the pure intellectual fun of it, Lee, suppose in the 
spirit of science fiction that you posit the reality of veridical (if 
infrequent and stochastic) precognitive correlations. Could you 
account for those in a MWI way, without any superluminal or 
reversed-time connections? Bear in mind that by hypothesis these 
effects are *larger than can be accounted for just by chance*. I 
don't think it's sufficient to say, "Hey, in a MW metaverse, weird 
shit happens all the time, but different weird shit in different universes."

Damien Broderick



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep  6 23:54:12 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:54:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Provocative Claim Concerning GR
Message-ID: <00f301c9107c$37163080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

I claim that photons falling into a gravitational field do not acquire
energy as is commonly thought, nor are they redshifted even an iota,
and that the idea that they do is based upon a simple misunderstanding.

First, suppose that they did, i.e., that their frequencies did increase.
This leads to absurdity as follows.

Experimental situation: We in space are at rest relative to a planet
that has a strong gravitational field (i.e. a planet whose mass has
significantly curved the space near it). We are suffienciently far
away that the effects of this curvature are hardly measurable by
our instruments. We are, for example, 1 million kilometers from
an Earth sized planet.

We now send towards the surface of the planet a beam of photons
at specific frequency nu. At the surface they encounter a mirror
set at 45 degrees to their line of flight, whereupon the photons
travel for five kilometers approximately parallel to the surface of
the planet.  At this point, they strike another mirror also at 45
degrees relative to their flight and are reflected back up towards
us in space. Naturally we measure the received frequency as nu.

Let us suppose, however, that in the five kilometer trip across
the surface of the planet the photons pass many measuring
devices. Now if the actual frequency [1] of the photons had
been blue shifted as they approached the planet so that the
actual frequency with which they passed any measuring station
was not the same as the frequency nu, then we clearly would
have a "build up". For example, if the frequency were now 
faster, as is often claimed, then the number of wave crests
per second would also be somehow greater, and soon 
there would be a surplus of wave crests "bunched up" waiting
to get back up into space. That is, for example, if n wavecrests
are passing the last planetary measuring apparatus per second,
and we back up in space measure some number less than n,
an incredible buildup must be occuring somewhere that would
only become more pronounced over time. Of course, as the
reader has spotted, it is important to remember who is
doing the measurements, and whether their apparati are 
correct.

The correct resolution is as follows. The number of wave crests
really passing any station at any time is constant, because the
photons' frequency remains constant (at nu). What has happened
is that the planet-bound observers are not taking into account
(unless they qualify their remarks) the fact that their time is more 
retarded because they are deeper in a gravitational field. "Yes,"
they should say to themselves, "we measure green photons, but
only because we and our apparatus are so time-retarded. The
photons are really red."

So just because something gets deeper into a gravitational field
does not necessarily mean that it acquires energy. Unlike
ordinary material particles, photons neither speed up nor gain
energy when falling towards massive bodies.

The same goes for so-called red-shifted photons coming from
stars. The photons never had their frequencies shifted! They
simply were emitted by time-retarded physical processes on
or near the star.

In short: No relative motion, no red shift.

Lee

[1] Of course, some would suggest that "actual frequency" be
placed in quotation marks because in the accelerated reference
frames down on  the planet, incorrect observations (i.e..
uncorrected by GR theory) yields numbers too high.



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Sep  6 23:58:42 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 09:58:42 +1000
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <002701c91039$ae01e5b0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<002701c91039$ae01e5b0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809061658r6cb3696dxacf2716e82ee74e3@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/7 John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:

> Experiments have confirmed beyond any doubt that correlations can move much
> faster than light, probably at
> infinite speed

You still don't believe that MWI explains the correlations without
superluminal speed? Could you describe your objection to Lee's no
spookiness/ no bullshit post?



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Sun Sep  7 00:16:40 2008
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:16:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] My nanotechnology/science movie and you?
Message-ID: <D03D8DCD185B4C80A9EA274366B53418@GinaSony>

I am making an animated movie relevant to nanotechnology, cryonics, artificial intelligence and science in general - but we need your help, if you are interested in finding out how you can help this project, please email me offlist at everythingmovie at gmail.com and I will send you the information. Thank you Extropians! 

Gina Miller and James Lewis Ph.D

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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080906/d1b583e5/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 00:49:10 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:19:10 +1030
Subject: [ExI] New Browser: Google Chrome
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809061232t2913cc9dt3ca9d26c9a4b21af@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809021913y1e9941b8h2198d16bc5207155@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0809061232t2913cc9dt3ca9d26c9a4b21af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809061749g5241e564j76c2670e7ef5a71@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/7 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Really totally off topic for anything, but Google's new open source
>> browser, Chrome, is awesome. I would normally find a new browser to be
>> a very dull thing, but this one is major cool. Noticeably faster than
>> IE and Firefox, very slick, everything seems to work well, cool new
>> geek tools hiding away in there.
>>
>
>
> Well, lots of positive reviews and some carping from FireFox users.
>
> It is a beta release, and Google says improvements are on the way, so
> it might be wise to wait a while. It is free to test, of course.  :)

It's definitely got bugs, and some sites are not ok. Most are fine though.

>
> Some reports say it is a bit of a resource hog, effectively opening up
> a new windows process for every tab. The advantage is that if one tab
> crashes, all the other tabs are unaffected (in theory).

Open a lot of stuff, including pdfs, pages with flash, what have you.
Then open Chrome's task manager and start killing things. It's
graceful degradation is really quite lovely.

> As each
> process grabs some resources, it seems obvious that it will have a
> bigger footprint than FireFox. Some go so far as to say it is designed
> for new high-powered pcs with GBs of memory and fast processors.
> See:
> <http://blog.marcchung.com/2008/09/chromes-process-model-explained.html>
>
> Chrome doesn't do extensions or themes yet. Google says they are under
> development.

I'm a huge fan of firefox plugins, so it's hard living without them.

>
> Personally, I find browsing without Adblock Plus a pretty miserable
> web experience.
>
> BillK

I don't use any ad blocking. I mostly don't go to sites with intrusive
ads anyway.

-- 
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  Sun Sep  7 02:28:53 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 19:28:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com><021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com><002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede><001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer><007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080906181141.023b92e0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <010801c91091$7d3cd1d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien writes

> other.  When you have a term for each atom in a bowling ball or 
> brain, it turns out that the coefficient for each of the cross terms 
> are random relative to each other due to environmental decoherence 
> and they cancel out leaving the sum of intensities, which is, by 
> definition, classical."
> 
> But just for the pure intellectual fun of it,

Eh? Likely story. This makes me wonder if you're trying
to hide something.

> Lee, suppose in the spirit of science fiction that you posit
> the reality of veridical (if infrequent and stochastic) precognitive
> correlations. Could you account for those in a MWI way,
> without any superluminal or reversed-time connections?

Just where are you going with this line of questioning? I suspect
that you have a hidden agenda and are trying to make the
entire possibility of the preposterous notion that ESP-like
phenomena could have a scientific basis more plausible to
innocent readers unaware of your wiles. Enough trickery,
Damien!  Out with it.

What if one of your leading questions were to surreptitiously
get me to look at things differently. I think that that's what 
you're up to, and I for one am not about to be fooled. Enough
of the leading questions, all right?

> Bear in mind that by hypothesis these 
> effects are *larger than can be accounted for just by chance*.

Your subtle allusions to the so-called results of a few of many,
many countless experiments aren't getting past me, fellah.

Lee

> I don't think it's sufficient to say, "Hey, in a MW metaverse, weird 
> shit happens all the time, but different weird shit in different universes."



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep  7 02:42:01 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 19:42:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com><021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com><002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede><001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer><007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080906181141.023b92e0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <010901c91093$52e758e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

I just wrote stuff like "what is your hidden agenda here, you?"
to Damien's post in what I hoped many others (naturally Damien
saw through it), would see as a parody of the suspicion
that is sometimes provoked towards those who "innocently"
(and not so innocently) ask questions.

So, who gives a damn whether they're innocent or not? I don't!
Bring them on, says I, (and most of us).

I was just having some fun with the attitudes that some people
here seem to take, imitating their supposed paranoia or suspicious
turn of mind, and mocking their (apparent) reluctance (sometimes)
to answer questions put to them.

> suppose... that you posit the reality of veridical (if infrequent
> and stochastic) precognitive correlations.

Okay. "Suppose" means something quite similar to "If", and
since I know what they both mean...   :-)

> Could you account for those in a MWI way, without any superluminal
> or reversed-time connections?

Interesting challenge. I'll try to take a concrete example (you didn't
give any, probably because it's too easy). Let's say that a Russian
mother who deeply loves her son has a strange and horrible nightmare
about him at almost the exact same time that an accident occurs
on board his nuclear submarine (so far as I know, this is entirely
apocryphal, I'm making this up based on the Kursk tragedy).
Moreover, we suppose that classical effects (such as her sensing
some unusual uneasiness on his part before he left for his Final
Cruise) were ruled out. Could we have some kind of entanglement
between the events?

I would guess that some people have guessed that there are
entangled particle pairs all over the place, and all these accounts
I used to read about "the holographic universe" or "synchronicity"
---you know, the basically BS books popular in the 80s---try
to suggest that ESP type influences could be explained thereby.
Well, why not.  So, in this particular example we have:

A number of correlations between her son's brain and the
nuclear reactor aboard the submarine have formed over time,
and so have similar bonds between mother and son. When
certain measurements occur, copies of people tend more
often than mere chance to end up in the same universes
as distant events bearing a similar stamp. Then the rest of it
is up to evolution:  slowly over almost geologic time 
measurements occuring in human brains that are correlated
with distant events become symbolicallly or unconsciously
connected with verbally accessible regions. Then for millenia
the "I have a vision!" or "God spoke to me!" accounts are
discredited because far more often than not, these are really
the manifestations of wish fulfillment, unconscious hypotheses,
and other unrelable products of the mind's ceaseless conjecturing.
So such real effects, mainly because they are so rare and 
undependable, are driven into the unconscious, or into dreams,
where revelation of "just a dream" carries with it fewer or no
Darwinian penalties or discrimination.

We could also infer from this certain slightly "lucky" behavior
of many of the large brained higher animals, who really do
conjecture about, say, whether a certain tree or cave is safe
very much the way we do. And just as for them, most often
the true entangled variable effects that cause each copy to end
up in it's own slightly more favorable universe, are swamped
out by bad guesses, ignorance of certain ordinary causal signatures,
illogical thinking, and so on. Only in the case of humans, not only
does illogical thinking tend to overshadow the rarer correlations,
but logical thinking as well, in an age of scientific enlightenment.

> Bear in mind that by hypothesis these 
> effects are *larger than can be accounted for just by chance*.

Surely, because that wouldn't be at all interesting.

> I don't think it's sufficient to say, "Hey, in a MW metaverse, weird 
> shit happens all the time, but different weird shit in different universes."

I hope that my stab above doesn't quite fall into this category.
One even gets time travel rather effortlessly in MWI, but only
at the cost again of positing incredibly improbable events. It
doesn't lead anywhere, though I guess Deutsch's (in "The Fabric
of Reality") and Thorne's (in "Black Holes and Time Warps:
Einstein's Outrageous Legacy") are structurally interesting
and quite entertaining.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep  7 02:58:55 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 19:58:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Hugo Danner the Transhuman
References: <817378.61801.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <012901c91096$0ba2b080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart our Avantguardian writes

> I thought [the SF story] "Gladiator" [by Wylie] was
> pretty well written for pulp fiction. Up to the end that is. What a
> disappointing ending for such a good story. It strikes me that Wylie sold out
> to bioconservatives and the Christian right in the last few pages of his novel.
> 
> I mean if Wylie wanted his tragic hero to commit suicide or something by
> climbing a mountain in a thunderstorm, that would still have been sad but
> preferable. But why go so far as invoke divine intervention in Hugo's death
> just as he was on the verge of an epiphany of purpose? Why turn such a
> visionary work into a cautionary tale against playing God?....
> 
> It's like SF in general can't get past Shelly's "Frankenstein" as the
> definitive moral guide to biotechnology. I mean it's acceptable in science
> fiction for the protagonist to kill any number of people by all manner of
> futuristic weaponry with the thinnest of justifications. But let one scientist
> create a new life-form and suddenly it's a crime against Nature that can only
> be amended by the death of the scientist or his creation.

Yes!  Just so!

> Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in that? When man plays an angry
> God and wages hi-tech war with great vengeance and furious anger, well that's
> ok . . . but let man play a loving God that brings a new lifeform into the
> world and he is committing blasphemy. At least Wylie could be said to have
> lived in a more innocent and ignorant time but what's Crichton's excuse?

My own fear is that they know what sells, what might make it as
a movie and so on.

> Maybe if scientists figured out a way to weaponize human embryos and kill
> millions of adults with them, the Christians would reverse their position on
> stem cell research. After all you don't see Christians complaining about
> nuclear weapons research do you?

Oh, that's far from the truth. You're overstating (and so weakening 
your claims). If scientists did find a way to weaponize embryos
and kill millions of people with them, the Christians (especially the
most devout) would be on all the rooftops shouting

" W E    T O L D    Y O U    S O  !  ! "

and it would be hard to say that they hadn't. "There are things man was
not meant to know!". 

You've definitely got the thing pegged with Frankenstein and Shelley.
I guess there was the Golem in Judaism. Unfortunately, there just 
seems to be something perverse in Western civilization that the
Japanese, say, appear to be quite as free from as were the ancient
Greeks.

> Death apparently holds no fear for Christians,
> it's only life they have seem to have a problem with.

Oh, it depends. On some days they babble endlessly about
the joys of heaven, yet on others cry hideously when some old
man dies of a painful cancer. Why aren't they joyously celebrating
when finally God has in his wisdom taken the poor man off
to heaven, (finally!) to reap his just reward?  The desert Muslims
do (or used to) I hear.

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep  7 03:05:04 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:05:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <010901c91093$52e758e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com>
	<0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede>
	<001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080906181141.023b92e0@satx.rr.com>
	<010901c91093$52e758e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906215913.02316bb8@satx.rr.com>

At 07:42 PM 9/6/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>So, in this particular example we have:
>
>A number of correlations between her son's brain and the
>nuclear reactor aboard the submarine have formed over time,
>and so have similar bonds between mother and son. When
>certain measurements occur, copies of people tend more
>often than mere chance to end up in the same universes
>as distant events bearing a similar stamp.

But I specified a *precognitive* effect--where a state now uncannily 
and inexplicably correlates with a future state in much the way 
memory allows us to recall an event that we have already witnessed. 
How do these copies sort themselves out, unless you're invoking a 
block universe? (And I don't think MWI allows that.)

This is a thought experiment, but one based on results I am familiar 
with. There are no pieces of string or near-luminal starships. Hey, I 
find myself tempted to post an account of what happened when one of 
the scientists involved attempted to get his results published 
recently by SCIENCE. Coming up shortly. Those with powerful psi 
powers can probably foresee what happened.

Damien Broderick




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep  7 03:26:03 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:26:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Beating on the closed door of SCIENCE
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906220522.0231e7b0@satx.rr.com>

My friend Dr. Edwin May, former scientific director of the US 
government anomalies project known as STAR GATE, has continued his 
work since the project was shut down. Recently, at the annual 
Parapsychology Association conference, he detailed an interesting 
experience, and with his kind permission here it is (very slightly edited):

=====

Another problem that relates to respectability is publishing our good 
experimental results and speculative theories in mainstream journals. 
While there are a few exceptions to this rule, mainly by brave 
well-known authors, most mainstream journals have a significant psi 
filter and generally will reject papers a priori by not sending them 
out for review.

Probably this observation needs no examples, but I will provide one 
that may be illuminating.

A few years ago, my colleague, James Spottiswoode, and I conducted a 
complex but highly successful psychophysiology experiment we call 
prestimulus response. We extended and improved the concept of 
presentiment in that by using acoustic startle stimuli as opposed to 
the cognitive affective stimuli, we removed a source of confound 
because of an obvious idiosyncratic response to various photographs. 
In addition, we substantially simplified the type of response we were 
looking for. As a result, we found nearly twice as many 3.5 second 
prestimulus regions that contained the defined skin conductance 
response prior to the acoustic stimuli than during the same length 
region prior to a silent control. Statistically this turned out to be 
a z-score of 5.08 with 100 participants.

We wrote a paper of 2,500 words aimed as a report for Science. We 
passed drafts of it to our colleagues and to a number of world-class 
professionals in the psychophysical research world. As a result, the 
final draft was as flawless as was possible--a natural candidate for 
publication in a mainstream journal.

Knowing that if I sent in the manuscript cold, it would have zero 
chance of even being sent out for formal review, I asked a number of 
mainstream colleagues if they knew anyone on the editorial board at 
Science so that they could put in a strong word to let our paper go 
out for review. To an individual, they all complained that not only 
did they not know anyone there but they, too, had troubles getting 
their own work published in Science. So I had to go it alone.

...My goal in a two page letter was to first establish my own bona 
fides, then in a sense embarrass [the then Editor in Chief] with a 
Type II argument. That is, just because I do not have a recognized 
academic position (i.e., a technically unknown person); just because 
I do not work at a recognized institution; and, just because I work 
in a controversial field does not mean, therefore, that my research 
is wrong. In addition, I sided with him in that I understood his 
problem of little space and far too many worthy things to publish.

However, I offered a solution. He should invite me to give a talk at 
Stanford on this work and if the consensus was that my work was good 
science, only then would he offer to send the manuscript off for 
review and I would happily abide by the reviewers' remarks. I sent 
the letter off via regular post with half an expectation that I would 
never hear back. Much to my pleasant surprise I received the 
following a week or so later:

"Thank you very much for your letter of June 5. Your background is 
obviously deserving of respect, and I'd like to be helpful. But the 
idea of marshalling a critical audience to hear you present your 
experiments seems a difficult and time-consuming way of dealing with 
what amounts to a pre-submission request. So I think that's asking 
too much, but I'll certainly look at something if you want to send it 
to me as an e-mail attachment or in some other way.

"Perhaps I should add that my personal history - dating back to the 
Rhine experiments in the 50s.- I'm pretty skeptical in this area."

I sent him the manuscript, hard copies of the major references with a 
paragraph describing each of them, and a short list of mainstream 
scientists who were recognized authorities in psychophysiology all of 
whom had agreed to be listed as references. For the next nine months 
or so, I had a number of post mail exchanges with [him] with all his 
responses on Stanford University letterhead.

Finally, I received the following on the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science (AAAS) letterhead:

"Dear Dr. May, During your absence, I've had a chance to circulate 
your proposal around. I'm afraid that the view here is that we will 
not send it out for in-depth review. I was glad to be of some 
assistance to you in getting it evaluated, and grateful for your 
interest in Science.

"Sincerely yours,"

It is difficult to understand his response. While it is very tempting 
to invoke some kind of fear of psi argument, I think the true answer 
is much more complex. Assuming [he] actually did pass the manuscript 
around, then the only comments he received back may have been 
ridiculing and/or ad hominem. It is particularly frustrating in that 
our paper was rejected without any explanation whatsoever.

I am pessimistic that the best science we can offer, and this paper 
was certainly among the best, was rejected in a non-scientific 
way--too bad for science (with a lower case s) and for Science the 
journal. It cheapens the processes. I have no... solution to this 
challenge not of our making.

=========================

Note that May is not being treated by the editor in chief as a 
crackpot with no credentials. Note also that he is given no 
explanation at all for why his work is rejected, no opportunity to 
repair any specified defects. Why not? Because his topic is... 
Outside the Gates of Science. In both senses.

Damien Broderick 



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Sep  7 12:45:29 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 05:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Psi trickery- was Re:  QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <010801c91091$7d3cd1d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <414128.53335.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> Just where are you going with this line of questioning? I suspect
> that you have a hidden agenda and are trying to make the
> entire possibility of the preposterous notion that ESP-like
> phenomena could have a scientific basis more plausible to
> innocent readers unaware of your wiles. Enough trickery,
> Damien!  Out with it.

Well I know you are a skeptic, Lee, so I challenge you to see if you fall for
my trickery. Pretend for a moment that I am a gypsy fortune teller. I hereby
offer to make a prediction about you and post it to the list. This prediction
will affect you personally. The catch is that I charge $50.00 USD for my
services.

The twist however is that you and you alone get to decide if my prediction is
accurate and if it indeed pertains to you. You and you alone decide if my
prediction was fufilled or if it was total bullshit. If you decide my
prediction comes true, then you are contractually obligated, with the whole
list as witnesses, to pay me my agreed upon fee and furthermore admit the
possibility of psi. If my prediction does not come true, then you are
contractually and morally obligated to refuse to pay my fee and may freely
proclaim to the world that I am a charlatan and a fraud.

If you agree to my terms, say so and I will make my prediction.


Stuart LaForge

"A portion of mankind take pride in their vices and pursue their purpose; many more waver between doing what is right and complying with what is wrong." - Horace


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Sep  7 20:11:32 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:11:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com><021401c8e5e7$e9365fc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><200807141534.37812.kanzure@gmail.com><002a01c8e648$aa097740$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f4701c8e64b$4ccb0b90$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><012001c8e69a$13529370$0301a8c0@MyComputer><0f8601c8e6cd$01f42200$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080715183235.022ff7b8@satx.rr.com><0f9c01c8e6dc$69a3b870$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><000501c90818$503ef3b0$31e91e97@archimede><001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer><007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> No action at a distance

How does Many Worlds explain how 2 electrons effect each
others movements without resorting to action at a distance?
And please don't give me yet another lecture about the
impossibility of establishing the absolute temporal priority of 2
events, and don't pontificate about how forces can't travel
faster than light; I've known both of those things for most of my
life. Just answer the damn question!

> May I pin you down? (1) You claim that you did something
> here and what  happened there was *different* as a result
> from what it would have been?  (Y/N). (2) You then say that
> the situation is not symmetrical, i.e., that  it is false that what
> they did there made what you did here turn out differently
> than what it would have been?  (I pray that you agree that
> this lack of symmetry would be completely wrong.)

That is just about the most convoluted sentence structure I've
ever read; my best guess is that it means I said something
about the non symmetrical nature of events (when I said nothing
of the sort) then you say I don't agree with it. Huh?

Let me just say A didn't cause B and B didn't cause A; and I
don't clam A happened first and I don't claim B happened first,
and I don't even claim the concept of who is first is well defined.
I DO claim that both A and B were created 8 billion years ago
and are now 16 billion light years apart (they can't see each
other of course because the Universe is only 14 billion years old,
but we know it's true because it will take a spaceship moving at
99.99% of light speed 16 billion years for one to get to the other).
And yet as fantastically distant as they are there is a 100%
correspondence between what I decide to do at the last possible
second to my photon and what you decide to do with your very
very distant photon. Call me childish if you like but I find that weird.

By the way, somehow you've gotten the impression that I am an
antagonist to the Many Worlds theory, but that is untrue, in fact it
is my favorite quantum interpretation because of the elegant way
it handles the observer problem; but it can't solve everything nor
can it get rid of quantum weirdness, nothing can do that,
things are just weird.

> What really happened was this:  You got Vertical all right,
> but you got  Horizontal too! There was a split here!

Here? Why here? The entangled photons were created 8 billion
light years from here! Yes yes I know what you will say, you will
say the split only happened when you measured your photon or
perhaps when I measured mine, not when they were first created.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that you're wrong and the
split happened when they were born, not when they were measured.
In fact lets assume the 2 photon were NEVER measured, they never
even reacted with matter, they just kept going on and on for eternity
into infinite empty space. The universe would NOT split according to
the Manny Worlds model because there must be a detectable 
change for that to happen. Yet things DO split with our photons, 
as if they knew what you and I would be up to in 8 billion years.
That is weird, it certainly doesn't mean it's untrue but it is weird as
hell.

Now let's assume you're right and the split only happens when the
photons are measured. In that case Many Worlds has abandoned its
crown jewel, its one great claim to fame, solving the observer problem.
It also means nothing is real until it is observed, and that's exactly 
what the Copenhagen theory says; I have a hunch you would agree 
with me that is not one of Copenhagen's more endearing qualities.
If the split happens when they are measured it's just Copenhagen 
with a fig leaf.

  John K Clark








From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Sep  7 21:18:03 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:18:03 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Psi (was QT and SR)
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080906132612.023a3b98@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <008a01c9112f$3e91d6d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> rather than asserting endlessly and pointlessly that X *can't* 
>  happen  because reigning doctrine seems to argue against 
> its  possibility, even  though X *does* occur quite often,
> physicists might be well advised to start looking for loopholes
> that permit these effects.

I think it's ridiculous to assert that reputable scientists have been 
rejecting psi (or ESP or spiritualism) for centuries because it 
violates the known laws of physics, because they would LOVE to 
see such a thing! The reason physics is in such a rut is that nobody
has performed an experiment that can't be explained for about 35
years. If the large Hadron Collider, which goes online for the first 
time on Wednesday, doesn't find something absolutely bizarre that 
cannot be explained by the known laws of physics then there are 
going to be some very unhappy physicists.

The second worst thing would be if the machine find the Higgs 
particle but nothing more, better if it finds nothing at all, according
to what we think we know we should find the Higgs, if we don't find
it then then that's new.

The very worst thing would be if the machine destroys the Universe,
but that's all silly media hype, the effect is likely to be much more
localized and just destroy the galaxy.

No, the reason Psi is rejected is that when skilled experimenters,
that is to say people who have been known to perform important 
and even beautiful non Psi experiments turn their attention to Psi 
they see nothing; and yet lousy experimenters, that is to say those
who have done nothing of note except Psi, find it extrodanarly easily.

But this is not a surprise; if a man knew he was endowed with 
experimental genius he would be unlikely to enter a field that has
made absolutely positively no progress in well over a century.
But if I knew I was all thumbs in the lab Psi research is where I'd go,
in that field being crappy is an advantage.

  John K Clark









From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep  7 21:45:45 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:45:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Psi (was QT and SR)
In-Reply-To: <008a01c9112f$3e91d6d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080906132612.023a3b98@satx.rr.com>
	<008a01c9112f$3e91d6d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907163210.0c7ddb38@satx.rr.com>

At 05:18 PM 9/7/2008 -0400, John Clark wrote:

>No, the reason Psi is rejected is that when skilled experimenters,
>that is to say people who have been known to perform important and 
>even beautiful non Psi experiments turn their attention to Psi they 
>see nothing;

This would be a lot more interesting if you could name any five such 
notable experimenters who've followed the published protocols and 
found nothing. Not high school science teachers with a one-paper 
essay in SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, heavy duty dudes of the kind you reference.

The point of my post describing Dr. May's attempts to publish his 
results in SCIENCE is that "skilled experimenters" without any 
background in this field *never get to hear about the results* (such 
as pre-stimulus spikes, which have been found as well in old data 
bases not prepared by true believers), so they are never likely to 
attempt a careful replication.

But in general it's true that the calibre of psi experimenters is 
pretty woeful, by Nobel standards, and May is quick to admit just 
that. Even so, enough convergent weirdness has been coming out of the 
small underfunded labs for at least the last 30 years to provide some 
puzzles for these fine minds to test. It's not as if it's extremely 
difficult to run prestimulus experiments, and it's certainly not the 
case (to my knowledge) that geniuses known to perform important and 
even beautiful non Psi experiments have tried this protocol and got 
null results. Three or four examples would help corroborate your 
claim, John. But I know your likely reply: since this is all 
categorically a priori BULLSHIT, why should you waste your time 
looking for this evidence?--it must be there somewhere, because any 
such claim is BULLSHIT.

Damien Broderick



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Sep  7 22:49:04 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 18:49:04 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Psi (was QT and SR)
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20080906132612.023a3b98@satx.rr.com><008a01c9112f$3e91d6d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907163210.0c7ddb38@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c9113b$f2543f80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> This would be a lot more interesting if you could name any five such
> notable experimenters who've followed the published protocols and found
> nothing

Wow, there are published protocols for this crap?! I had no idea. This 
proves
beyond any  doubt, that somebody knows how to type.

> in general it's true that the calibre of psi experimenters is pretty
> woeful, by Nobel standards

One of the greatest under statements of all time.

> since this is all categorically a priori BULLSHIT, why should you waste
> your time looking for this evidence?

Quite a question, and I freely admit I see no further reason any
intelligent man should waste any time with such nonsense.

John K Clark




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep  7 23:04:02 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:04:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Psi (was QT and SR)
In-Reply-To: <001b01c9113b$f2543f80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080906132612.023a3b98@satx.rr.com>
	<008a01c9112f$3e91d6d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907163210.0c7ddb38@satx.rr.com>
	<001b01c9113b$f2543f80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907175958.023d8398@satx.rr.com>

At 06:49 PM 9/7/2008 -0400, John K Clark wrote:

<blah content-free blah>

John, I see you still haven't quite got the hang of teh intertubes. 
Save yourself typing time in future by sticking to the accepted 
three-word crushing intellectual rebuttal:

"Your an idiot"



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Sep  7 23:22:04 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 19:22:04 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Psi (was QT and SR)
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20080906132612.023a3b98@satx.rr.com><008a01c9112f$3e91d6d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080907163210.0c7ddb38@satx.rr.com><001b01c9113b$f2543f80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907175958.023d8398@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c91140$ae2f3bc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

I see that Damien now thinks I'm an idiot. I think Damien is wrong
but not an idiot, that is an interesting example of the breakdown 
of symmetry.

   John K Clark







From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep  7 23:33:49 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:33:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Psi (was QT and SR)
In-Reply-To: <003e01c91140$ae2f3bc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080906132612.023a3b98@satx.rr.com>
	<008a01c9112f$3e91d6d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907163210.0c7ddb38@satx.rr.com>
	<001b01c9113b$f2543f80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907175958.023d8398@satx.rr.com>
	<003e01c91140$ae2f3bc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907182943.0c7c06f0@satx.rr.com>

At 07:22 PM 9/7/2008 -0400, John Clark wrote:

>I see that Damien now thinks I'm an idiot.

No, I think that you think I'm an idiot. Read again, more carefully, 
what I wrote.

What I think you are, in this particular context, is clueless and 
absurdly condescending/dismissive at the same time.




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep  7 23:58:24 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:58:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Psi (was QT and SR)
In-Reply-To: <003e01c91140$ae2f3bc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080906132612.023a3b98@satx.rr.com>
	<008a01c9112f$3e91d6d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907163210.0c7ddb38@satx.rr.com>
	<001b01c9113b$f2543f80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907175958.023d8398@satx.rr.com>
	<003e01c91140$ae2f3bc0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907185424.0235e5f0@satx.rr.com>

Just to nail this down:

At 07:22 PM 9/7/2008 -0400, JKC wrote:

>I think Damien is wrong but not an idiot

What I was responding to was this blunt statement from John:

"I freely admit I see no further reason any
intelligent man should waste any time with such nonsense."

Given that I've recently published a book on the topic, arguing that 
psi has to be taken seriously, I think John's declaration can be 
fairly paraphrased as "Damien is an idiot."





From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 00:09:29 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:09:29 +1000
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809071709l42c2f21rf7a2dff7249b5dc@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/8 John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:

> How does Many Worlds explain how 2 electrons effect each
> others movements without resorting to action at a distance?
> And please don't give me yet another lecture about the
> impossibility of establishing the absolute temporal priority of 2
> events, and don't pontificate about how forces can't travel
> faster than light; I've known both of those things for most of my
> life. Just answer the damn question!

MWI does not allow you to make an arbitrary measurement decision,
being a deterministic theory. In a single world theory, you have the
choice of measurement A or B at your electron after the two have
separated, and the distal electron will always be found to correlate
as if it knew what you were going to do; which is bizarre, because
even you didn't know what you were going to do until you did it. But
in the MWI, in one world you definitely chose A and in the other you
definitely chose B. It still feels as if you had a "free" choice
because you only experience one world at a time, but that's just an
illusion. The distal electron will always correlate with your
electron, because all along it was in either the universe where you
made the A measurement or in the universe where you made the B
measurement.

To repeat: in the MWI you didn't really make an arbitrary measurement
decision after the electrons had separated; you only thought you did.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep  8 00:54:57 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:54:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] happy birthday robert pirsig
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809061658r6cb3696dxacf2716e82ee74e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809080057.m880v0pr029833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
I was on a weekend camping trip, so I didn't get a chance to post this on
the actual day which was yesterday, Robert Pirsig's 80th birthday.  

A few months ago, I and another fan of Pirsig formed an internet group which
tried to get possession the bike Pirsig rode in the story Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance.  I was hoping to arrange for that bike to reside in
the DeYoung Museum, or some other museum in San Francisco, but Pirsig being
the true Zen master has zero interest in money and did not wish to sell or
even donate the bike.  

After our failure, we thought of various strategies, such as having someone
knock on the front door, and while Pirsig was distracted, we would sneak
around back and steal the bike.  Being as our group had no actual
experienced burglars, we eventually fell back to the next best resort, which
is to inform his daughter Nell that should she inherit the machine (and may
it be many many years hence) the bike is an extremely valuable literary
artifact.  Altho the fair market value of a similar model is a few hundred
dollars, this particular example is likely somewhere in the six digit range,
right up there with Steinbeck's Rocinante (which resides in a local museum
and in front of which I have worshipped humbly.)

Our own literary giant Damien Broderick could create a similar artifact
himself, should he decide to purchase any old creaky Detroit.  Yes I know he
doesn't drive due to eye problems, but any rust bucket would become
extremely valuable simply by having his name on the title.  The sale of such
a machine would more than cover the cost of cryonic suspension methinks.

spike


  

 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep  8 01:15:24 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:15:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] happy birthday robert pirsig
In-Reply-To: <200809080057.m880v0pr029833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <f21c22e30809061658r6cb3696dxacf2716e82ee74e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080057.m880v0pr029833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>

At 05:54 PM 9/7/2008 -0700, Spike wrote:

>Damien Broderick could create a similar artifact
>himself, should he decide to purchase any old creaky Detroit.  Yes I know he
>doesn't drive due to eye problems, but any rust bucket would become
>extremely valuable simply by having his name on the title.

No, my fabled artifact would be a Hieronymus Machine coupled to an 
E-Meter mounted on a Dean Drive papered with Zener cards, built from 
instructions published in John W. Campbell's ASTOUNDING SCIENCE 
FICTION magazine in the 1950s.

(I know you sprightly youngsters couldn't even begin to understand 
the fun we kids had back in the day. Keith, maybe.)

Damien Broderick 



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Sep  8 01:28:40 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 18:28:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The fires of creation - Telegraph
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com><001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer><007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30809071709l42c2f21rf7a2dff7249b5dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E7DB6BD3B7F9443D95A0BDDB29B20F02@patrick4ezsk6z>

On Wednesday, physicists turn on the multibillion-pound machine that will 
recreate the birth of the universe. Martin Rees applauds the greatest 
experiment in history:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/portal/2008/09/08/ftcreation108.xml




From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Sep  8 01:49:03 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:49:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] happy birthday robert pirsig
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
References: <f21c22e30809061658r6cb3696dxacf2716e82ee74e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080057.m880v0pr029833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1220838800_69557@s2.cableone.net>

At 06:15 PM 9/7/2008, you wrote:
>At 05:54 PM 9/7/2008 -0700, Spike wrote:
>
>>Damien Broderick could create a similar artifact
>>himself, should he decide to purchase any old creaky Detroit.  Yes I know he
>>doesn't drive due to eye problems, but any rust bucket would become
>>extremely valuable simply by having his name on the title.
>
>No, my fabled artifact would be a Hieronymus Machine coupled to an 
>E-Meter mounted on a Dean Drive papered with Zener cards, built from 
>instructions published in John W. Campbell's ASTOUNDING SCIENCE 
>FICTION magazine in the 1950s.
>
>(I know you sprightly youngsters couldn't even begin to understand 
>the fun we kids had back in the day. Keith, maybe.)

Ah yes.  I possibly still have a copy of the Dean Drive patent in my 
paper collection.

Re the business of trying to get anything "outside the gates of 
science" published, I wouldn't try.  I would figure out how to use it 
to make a ton of money.

Keith 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep  8 02:36:36 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:36:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] happy birthday robert pirsig
In-Reply-To: <1220838800_69557@s2.cableone.net>
References: <f21c22e30809061658r6cb3696dxacf2716e82ee74e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080057.m880v0pr029833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
	<1220838800_69557@s2.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907213134.024080c0@satx.rr.com>

At 06:49 PM 9/7/2008 -0700, Keith wrote:

>Re the business of trying to get anything "outside the gates of 
>science" published, I wouldn't try.  I would figure out how to use 
>it to make a ton of money.

That's what they told Madame Curie. "Don't just talk about it, lady, 
and forget the scientific papers--build us a nuclear reactor that 
outputs electricity too cheap to meter."

The observed lab effect sizes are small. If the principles underlying 
the anomalies are ever elucidated, I'm sure we'll have 
industrial-strength Psi Machines (whatever that means) within... oh, 40 years?

Damien Broderick




From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 03:12:04 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:12:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] happy birthday robert pirsig
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
References: <f21c22e30809061658r6cb3696dxacf2716e82ee74e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080057.m880v0pr029833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809072012hfade882ga54af2187297b08@mail.gmail.com>

Damien wrote:
> No, my fabled artifact would be a Hieronymus Machine coupled to an
> E-Meter mounted on a Dean Drive papered with Zener cards, built from
> instructions published in John W. Campbell's ASTOUNDING SCIENCE
> FICTION magazine in the 1950s.

I had to wikipedia every item in your Santa's gift list to figure out
what you were talking about! LOL  I get it now, you were pulling my
leg! hee  It was cool to learn about John W. Campbell & Astounding's
involvement with the Dean Drive and the infamous Hieronymus Machine.
In an Arizona New Age periodical an ex-girlfriend of mine gets, they
had a Hieronymus Machine "schematic" that she tried out.  I think the
placebo effect was what gave her a good impression of it.  When she
first showed me the article and diagram I kept on thinking it was a
design for a build it yourself electronic gizmo.

> (I know you sprightly youngsters couldn't even begin to understand
> the fun we kids had back in the day. Keith, maybe.)

I'm just old enough to remember based on what others told me & old
magazines I've read.  The kid's today would drool at having access to
the "take your life into your own hands" home chemistry sets that the
kids in your generation had.  And I have heard many anecdotes about
the very challenging erector sets.  As a kid who had a free
subscription to Boy's Life due to being a Scout, I always had wanted
to build the cool stuff advertised in the back of the magazine, such
as a hovercraft, robot or ray gun.

A cool article about the creator of the erector set:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_1216/is_2_205/ai_63923435

Ray guns!:

http://www.cooltoyreview.com/story/front/Weta_Rayguns_News_105646.asp

I could see Spike and his son one day having fun with a book like this...

http://www.amazon.com/Curious-Boys-Book-Exploration/dp/159514207X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

John Grigg  : )


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep  8 03:26:58 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:26:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] happy birthday robert pirsig
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809072012hfade882ga54af2187297b08@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30809061658r6cb3696dxacf2716e82ee74e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080057.m880v0pr029833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670809072012hfade882ga54af2187297b08@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907222132.02315638@satx.rr.com>

At 08:12 PM 9/7/2008 -0700, John Grigg wrote:

>The kid's today would drool at having access to
>the "take your life into your own hands" home chemistry sets that the
>kids in your generation had.  And I have heard many anecdotes about
>the very challenging erector sets.

I'm sorry to say that the way I was raised, it was more like "take 
your afterlife into your own hands and flush it" with one's own not 
at all challenging erection set. Drooling was feared as a 
consequence, however, in this life.

I fear poor Robert Pirsig has been hijacked off this thread.





From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep  8 03:27:10 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:27:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] happy birthday robert pirsig
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809072012hfade882ga54af2187297b08@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809080356.m883tqkr019754@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 Grigg
> ...The kid's today would drool at 
> having access to the "take your life into your own hands" 
> home chemistry sets that the kids in your generation had...

John I had one of those chemistry sets that had *plenty* of ways to hurt
oneself.  But by around 1970 when I got mine, they had already removed most
of the really cool dangerous stuff.

  
>...As a kid who had a free subscription to Boy's 
> Life due to being a Scout, I always had wanted to build the 
> cool stuff advertised in the back of the magazine, such as a 
> hovercraft, robot or ray gun...

I too was a scout.  It was the geek thing to do before the days of the
internet.  The last page of Boy's Life you may recall was the Gifts&Gimmicks
page, full of geeky mind-expanding toys, few of which worked as advertised
but good for a laugh.

Don't buy the X-ray glasses, they don't work.

> ... 
> I could see Spike and his son one day having fun with a book 
> like this...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Curious-Boys-Book-Exploration/dp/1595142
07X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a
> 
> John Grigg  : )

Cool, thanks for the heads up John!

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep  8 03:32:14 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:32:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] two new ones
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200809080401.m8840uGO007835@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
Math fans, something *wildly* improbable has occurred.  You recall a recent
post that a new Mersenne prime was discovered the last week of August, and
is in the process of verification, which usually takes about three weeks.
Yesterday a *second* new Mersenne prime was discovered, so now there are two
in the process of verification.  If both of these are verified, the wacky
improbability of such twin discoveries will be difficult to explain for
generations to come.  Do stay tuned.  Oh these are exciting times indeed.
Can life get much better?

spike






From brian at posthuman.com  Mon Sep  8 04:10:16 2008
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:10:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] two new ones
In-Reply-To: <200809080401.m8840uGO007835@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809080401.m8840uGO007835@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <48C4A5A8.5050109@posthuman.com>

spike wrote:
>  
> Can life get much better?
> 

Yes, definitely. :-)
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep  8 04:35:53 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:35:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] two new ones
In-Reply-To: <200809080401.m8840uGO007835@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
	<200809080401.m8840uGO007835@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907233343.0c7ed2c0@satx.rr.com>

At 08:32 PM 9/7/2008 -0700, Spike wrote:
>
>Yesterday a *second* new Mersenne prime was discovered, so now there are two
>in the process of verification.  If both of these are verified, the wacky
>improbability of such twin discoveries will be difficult to explain for
>generations to come.
>Can life get much better?

Yes, if they fit your famous prime pattern generating algorithm. Or 
was that long-ago exploded into vapormath?

Damien Broderick 



From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep  8 04:35:42 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 21:35:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> Harvey Newstrom
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
> 
> On Thursday 04 September 2008 21:14:12 spike wrote:
> > Harvey the most ironic part of this is that if anyone 
> criticizes this 
> > religion, not far behind is a quick accusation of racism...

> Do you have an references to muslims claiming to be a race?  
> I have often heard this, but only from people who don't know 
> much about muslims... Harvey Newstrom

I looked up "criticism of Islam" in wikipedia and found this comment by
Deepa Kumar: "The Danish cartoon of the prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his
head is nothing if not the visual depiction of the racist diatribe that
Islam is inherently violent. To those who can't understand why this argument
is racist, let me be clear: when you take the actions of a few people and
generalize it to an entire group -- all Muslims, all Arabs -- that's racism.
When a whole group of people are discriminated against and demonized because
of their religion or regional origin, that's racism."


Kumar's comment is a perfect example of my original point.  The Danish
cartoon had no reference to race that I can tell.  I don't even know what
race the character with the bomb in the turban was supposed to be was, but
it doesn't matter.  The cartoon itself had nothing to do with racism, but
here is that racist accusation from which westerners flee.  The cartoon
doesn't generalize to all Muslims, or all Arabs or all Presbyterians.  It is
a sketch of a man with a bomb in his turban!  For this sketch, riots broke
out all over the globe, perhaps entirely coincidentally in those places with
high concentrations of those passionate Presbyterians, and *many innocent
people were slain* all over a damn cartoon.  

The explanation given by scholars is that no image of John Calvin is
allowed, for you see it might lead the people to idolatry.  Horrors!  Never
do these scholars actually say the Presbyterians might be incited to riot
and murder.  Mere murder would be understandable under this system of
reasoning, but idolatry cannot be tolerated, so horrifying is this
unspeakable sin?

To Kumar, I would ask she let me be perfectly clear.  Cartooning and
lampooning of Calvin is not racist, for the critism is not against a race,
it is against a specific religion.  In Keith's mighty struggle against Co$,
he was never called a racist; why not?  Call that Danish cartoon what it
really is: religionist, for the cartoon is about a *religion* not a race.
Races we treat as equals.  But by my way of thinking all religions are fair
game for criticism.

spike








From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 05:49:05 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:19:05 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>

Like the subject says. I just joined facebook (as quite a few of you
know because friend requests started flying out in all directions).
Yeah I'm not an early adopter on this one, but at least I'm trying it
now. I can't figure out if it's something amazing, or a total time
drain, or some complex combination of the two. I'm utterly weirded.

Who else here is on facebook? Or one of the other mylinkspaceface type
sites? Post an internet, plz thx, tell us what you think about it, k
bai.

-- 
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  Mon Sep  8 05:51:30 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:51:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>

This isn't strictly related to the terrorism and naming thread, so 
I've switched subject lines. I find the following quote from an LJ 
blog quite nicely put, and clarifying, on a widespread misunderstanding:

http://ladislaw.livejournal.com/


When the Ministry of Truth Got Ahold of Orwell

During the dustup surrounding the recent online posting of an ethnic 
(or maybe it was religious) slur, some people objected to the 
imposition of what they viewed as political correctness; they 
referred to Orwell in their defense. (The author himself did so....) 
While it is at the very least ironic to see people who identify 
themselves as coming from the political right holding up a socialist 
saint in their defense, it's not like Orwell is "owned" only by his 
political partisans. If the Eric Blair fits, wear him.

However, what we're really seeing is a misuse of Orwell.

The correlations these folks find between politically correct speech 
and the Newspeak of 1984 simply aren't there. Though PC has become a 
kind of swear word--a marvelous twisting of its intent by 
conservatives, though certainly some on the left are to blame for its 
"mission creep"--the purpose of being politically correct in one's 
speech is to cause as little offense as possible to others. This is 
achieved by using the terminology for self-reference employed by 
those who are not you. Certainly such decisions are going to be 
imperfect, but the knowledge that one should at least try to moderate 
language in order to remove innately offensive terms is the key to 
politically correct thinking. It doesn't mean people don't have 
differences and that you don't call each other on them; it purely has 
to do with politeness. When language becomes loaded in unintentional 
ways, we lose exactitude, hostility increases, and people focus on 
the words rather than the message.

Newspeak is about removing words not because they are offensive, but 
because they are precise. Newspeak is about imprecision. Remove 
words, the logic goes, and one removes the very concepts. Orwell was 
not thinking of, say, ethnic slurs or rude speech; he was thinking of 
humanistic language, exacting language, the language of human virtue 
and inhumane horror. The military term "collateral damage" is 
Orwellian precisely because it removes ethics and humanity and human 
suffering from its reach. Newspeak, like some military speech, blunts 
our understanding, and thus blunts our humanity.

Orwell also had concerns about language being infected from the 
outside. He didn't care for all the Latinate constructions that the 
20th century had allowed to infiltrate English. It may seem 
contradictory that someone who, in 1984, warns about words vanishing 
from our language would want to put a halt to new words coming in, 
but Orwell did not think the Latinate words added to our 
expressiveness. English, he felt, was already well equipped to say 
what needed to be said, if only people would set their minds to 
proper use of their native tongue.

Of course, people can take even the clarity of Orwell and distort his 
meaning for their own purposes.

There is a better parallel to politically correct speech, and it's to 
be found in Fahrenheit 451; however, this parallel too misses the 
mark. In Bradbury's satirical future, books don't exist for various 
reasons, including people's inattention and the ubiquitousness of 
television culture. But Bradbury also blames readers for taking 
offense: Catholics don't like reading negative things about 
Catholics, blacks don't like what someone wrote about blacks . . . 
and so forth. In order to stop all the complaining, the book industry 
shuts down. What Bradbury's addressing here is not, however, 
politically correct speech--which, as I said, is merely about 
establishing norms of politeness when referring to those other than 
yourself. People aren't offended because the language is 
inappropriate; people in Bradbury's world object because they refuse 
to have anyone speak at all about the differences that exist. To 
speak of politics, religion, race and sex is to disturb the facade of 
bland sameness, and people don't want their perfect future disturbed. 
As Montag tells his wife, sometimes we need to be shaken up. Bradbury 
objects to a culture that fears confronting its issues, not one 
that's merely addressing itself to impolite forms of speech.



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 05:52:53 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 22:52:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Hugo Danner the Transhuman
In-Reply-To: <012901c91096$0ba2b080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <817378.61801.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<012901c91096$0ba2b080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809072252k49974446x8fae82488435cb90@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/6/08, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Stuart our Avantguardian writes
>
>> I thought [the SF story] "Gladiator" [by Wylie] was
>> pretty well written for pulp fiction. Up to the end that is. What a
>> disappointing ending for such a good story. It strikes me that Wylie sold
>> out
>> to bioconservatives and the Christian right in the last few pages of his
>> novel.

I am going to have to read this book.  I had come across it while
"book surfing" on Amazon and had put it in my wish-list que.

>> I mean if Wylie wanted his tragic hero to commit suicide or something by
>> climbing a mountain in a thunderstorm, that would still have been sad but
>> preferable. But why go so far as invoke divine intervention in Hugo's
>> death
>> just as he was on the verge of an epiphany of purpose? Why turn such a
>> visionary work into a cautionary tale against playing God?....
>>
>> It's like SF in general can't get past Shelly's "Frankenstein" as the
>> definitive moral guide to biotechnology. I mean it's acceptable in science
>> fiction for the protagonist to kill any number of people by all manner of
>> futuristic weaponry with the thinnest of justifications. But let one
>> scientist
>> create a new life-form and suddenly it's a crime against Nature that can
>> only
>> be amended by the death of the scientist or his creation.

Ahh, but creating a new lifeform and introducing it into an ecosystem
(especially when we are discussing "homo superior") could possibly
cause great havoc.  And do you want to be among the lifeforms that are
on the losing side in a Darwinian struggle? lol

Hey, we could put a biologically engineered superweapon into the hands
of your protagonist.  And so we would be killing lots of people And
doing it with a new life-form..., killing two birds with one stone!
hee

I think the speculative fiction genre has in large part gotten past
Shelly's Frankenstein as the definitive moral compass for biotech.
There are many short stories and novels in SF that show the creation
of new life-forms in a positive light.  The Nancy Kress "Beggars in
Spain" novels I think are a good example of this, despite the depicted
hardships humanity experiences as we learn to deal with our
genetically engineered descendants.  I'm not looking for polyanna
stories and that is not what she wrote.

> Yes!  Just so!
>
>> Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in that? When man plays an
>> angry
>> God and wages hi-tech war with great vengeance and furious anger, well
>> that's
>> ok . . . but let man play a loving God that brings a new lifeform into the
>> world and he is committing blasphemy. At least Wylie could be said to have
>> lived in a more innocent and ignorant time but what's Crichton's excuse?

But even a "well meaning and loving" parent can go wrong or at least
have bad offspring. lol  I do find it ironic that genetic engineering
is often viewed in a bad light and yet I see parenthood as a form of
playing God.  As for Crichton, his nanotech gone wrong novel "Prey" is
being turned into a big budget Hollywood film.  Fear equals
entertainment and big box office tallies.

> My own fear is that they know what sells, what might make it as
> a movie and so on.
>
>> Maybe if scientists figured out a way to weaponize human embryos and kill
>> millions of adults with them, the Christians would reverse their position
>> on
>> stem cell research. After all you don't see Christians complaining about
>> nuclear weapons research do you?

Actually, there are Christians who protest nuclear weapons research.

> Oh, that's far from the truth. You're overstating (and so weakening
> your claims). If scientists did find a way to weaponize embryos
> and kill millions of people with them, the Christians (especially the
> most devout) would be on all the rooftops shouting
>
> " W E    T O L D    Y O U    S O  !  ! "
>
> and it would be hard to say that they hadn't. "There are things man was
> not meant to know!".

This reminds me of a quote by a 19th century French scientist (the
name eludes me) who said (I'm paraphrasing), "Christ will return to
the Earth right before mankind discovers all the keys to creation."  I
wish I knew the name.

> You've definitely got the thing pegged with Frankenstein and Shelley.
> I guess there was the Golem in Judaism. Unfortunately, there just
> seems to be something perverse in Western civilization that the
> Japanese, say, appear to be quite as free from as were the ancient
> Greeks.

The story of Adam and Eve being thrown out of Eden for disobedience
and partaking of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
seems a paradigm for this discussion.  But on the other hand Genesis
talks about God giving dominion of the planet to humanity and telling
us to rule over all living things.  We are told to "subdue" our world.

>> Death apparently holds no fear for Christians,
>> it's only life they have seem to have a problem with.

LOL, no believe me, Christians also are generally afraid of death.  It
is part of the human condition.  In Mormon circles there is the belief
that the separation/barrier between this world and the next is the
"veil."  And the joke is, "most people talk about how much they look
forward to the next world, but they treat approaching the veil like
they would touching an electric fence!"

> Oh, it depends. On some days they babble endlessly about
> the joys of heaven, yet on others cry hideously when some old
> man dies of a painful cancer. Why aren't they joyously celebrating
> when finally God has in his wisdom taken the poor man off
> to heaven, (finally!) to reap his just reward?  The desert Muslims
> do (or used to) I hear.
>
> Lee

I have been to very joyful funerals where the focus is on how the
deceased old person lived a good life and has now graduated to a
wonderful afterlife reward.  But the funeral of a child or young adult
is very depressing, due to all the lost years and the grieving family
that had hoped to see them live to their full potential.  Please don't
mock a hurting Christian parent or sibling for feeling like this.

John Grigg


From pgptag at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 05:53:14 2008
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:53:14 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520809072253j5c776140uc8fbe63a053a5536@mail.gmail.com>

I am on Facebook. I find it much more useful than professional social
networking services like LinkedIn, for both social and professional
networking.

G.

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Like the subject says. I just joined facebook (as quite a few of you
> know because friend requests started flying out in all directions).
> Yeah I'm not an early adopter on this one, but at least I'm trying it
> now. I can't figure out if it's something amazing, or a total time
> drain, or some complex combination of the two. I'm utterly weirded.
>
> Who else here is on facebook? Or one of the other mylinkspaceface type
> sites? Post an internet, plz thx, tell us what you think about it, k
> bai.
>
> --
> 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 spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep  8 05:47:01 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 22:47:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] two new ones
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907233343.0c7ed2c0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200809080616.m886FiXJ012392@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
> Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [ExI] two new ones
> 
> At 08:32 PM 9/7/2008 -0700, Spike wrote:
> >
> >Yesterday a *second* new Mersenne prime was discovered, so now there 
> >are two in the process of verification...
> >Can life get much better?
> 
> Yes, if they fit your famous prime pattern generating 
> algorithm. Or was that long-ago exploded into vapormath?
> 
> Damien Broderick 


Well, Damien since you brought up that topic, I will explain as best I can.
In 1999 I did a superposition of probability functions calculation which had
me very excited, for it appeared to have correctly predicted the approximate
timing of the appearance of three primes in a row.  In retrospect I am
forced to conclude that I was just stupid lucky all three times.  

At a math party in Palo Alto in 2002, there were some excellent
mathematicians there for whom I am unworthy to clean their boots with my
wretched tongue, so deficient am I in mathematical skills.  We discussed my
lines of reasoning, accumulated probability, a model of the growth rate of
GIMPS, and several other assumptions that went into that calculation.  As it
turns out from a 2008 vantage point, primes are as weird and unpredictable
as ever, and Mersenne primes are just as weird and unpredictable.  This
confirms that which the royal smart persons were able to convince me in
2002.

For instance, in 1999 I modeled the growth of GIMPS to be exponential, as it
was from 1996 to 1999.  That was wrong; GIMPS went into an S curve as the
planet exhausted its supply of computer-hip math geeks.  The project still
grows, but it isn't exponential.  I modeled the computing power of
microprocessors as continuing to increase as they had since 1960: wrong
again, that wonderful trend slowed somewhat in the 00s.  I modeled the
probability of any particular prime being a Mersenne as uniform, which I
knew wasn't right, but no one knows how to model that, and some assumption
must be made.

With nearly all my assumptions wrong, I still ended up with roughly
compensating errors, so the predictions were sorta correct but misleading.
No one can predict where or when the Mersennes will be found, no one!  Of
course anyone is allowed to get stupid lucky.  Page 86 of The Spike need not
be rewritten; the theory worked well enough.  You could add a footnote if
you wish, explaining that a bunch of wrongs somehow made a right.  {8^D  But
it was sheer luck, of which my life has had an unexplainable superabundance,
both in love and in math.  

Consider the interval that was being searched in the 1999 to 2002 timeframe:
by straight calculation we would expect five Mersennes; that interval
yielded only two.  The interval being searched in the past five years would
be expected to yield two Mersennes already has five confirmed, and now two
more have been announced.  The slot sized for five has two, and the slot for
sized two has seven?  My model would have gone seriously astray had I
maintained its verity after 2003.  Is god screwing with our minds?  I am
utterly without explanation, but I am with these observations: prime numbers
are cool, and nature doesn't do what we expect in this area of study.

spike

 



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 06:35:14 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:05:14 +1030
Subject: [ExI] The fires of creation - Telegraph
In-Reply-To: <E7DB6BD3B7F9443D95A0BDDB29B20F02@patrick4ezsk6z>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30809071709l42c2f21rf7a2dff7249b5dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7DB6BD3B7F9443D95A0BDDB29B20F02@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809072335l68f7e823m888f374eebe596d6@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/8 Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com>:
> On Wednesday, physicists turn on the multibillion-pound machine that will
> recreate the birth of the universe. Martin Rees applauds the greatest
> experiment in history:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/portal/2008/09/08/ftcreation108.xml

We are all fairly sure at this point that this is not the missing link
in the fermi paradox, yes? Guys?

-- 
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 scerir at libero.it  Mon Sep  8 06:26:15 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 08:26:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com><001f01c90854$6a15f9f0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><01cd01c90980$a0167520$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer><007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30809071709l42c2f21rf7a2dff7249b5dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c9117b$cc9164e0$6de71e97@archimede>

Stathis:
> But in the MWI, in one world you definitely chose A 
> and in the other you definitely chose B. It still feels 
> as if you had a "free" choice because you only experience 
> one world at a time, but that's just an illusion. 
> The distal electron will always correlate with your
> electron, because all along it was in either the universe 
> where you made the A measurement or in the universe where 
> you made the B measurement.

In EPR experiments there are two measurements (Alice 
performs her measurement here, Bob performs his
measurement in a spacelike separated region). Can MWI
say which, between Alice and Bob, performed his
measurement first and which then? I do not think so.
So, in the sentence "in a world *you* definitely chose A 
and in the other *you* definitely chose B" those *you*
refer to both Alice and Bob, isn't it?



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep  8 07:14:36 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:14:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The fires of creation - Telegraph
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809072335l68f7e823m888f374eebe596d6@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30809071709l42c2f21rf7a2dff7249b5dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7DB6BD3B7F9443D95A0BDDB29B20F02@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<710b78fc0809072335l68f7e823m888f374eebe596d6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908021219.023f5750@satx.rr.com>

At 05:05 PM 9/8/2008 +1030, Emlyn wrote:

>We are all fairly sure at this point that this is not the missing link
>in the fermi paradox, yes? Guys?

I'm afraid that in fact it *is*--but look on the bright side. Picture 
how totally pissed Sarah Barracuda is going to be when the Apocalypse 
destroys the planet, and Jesus doesn't come back for her.

Damien Broderick 



From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 07:32:52 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 02:32:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809080232.52465.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Monday 08 September 2008, Emlyn wrote:
> Like the subject says. I just joined facebook (as quite a few of you
> know because friend requests started flying out in all directions).
> Yeah I'm not an early adopter on this one, but at least I'm trying it
> now. I can't figure out if it's something amazing, or a total time
> drain, or some complex combination of the two. I'm utterly weirded.

It's a total time drain. That's why I wrote some scripts and programs to 
automate my use of it. When I friend somebody, I have the software 
sniff out their friends and do my dirty work for me. To hell with 
clicking on a website for hours on end. I also have the same type of 
scripts working for my twitter account, which is how I follow and 
friend so many people. Quite interesting stuff starts bubbling up when 
you go a few layers deep into the social network ...

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 07:49:59 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:49:59 +0000
Subject: [ExI] happy birthday robert pirsig
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080907213134.024080c0@satx.rr.com>
References: <f21c22e30809061658r6cb3696dxacf2716e82ee74e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080057.m880v0pr029833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
	<1220838800_69557@s2.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907213134.024080c0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809080049s253b6358x336f011f31d0da8@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:36 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> The observed lab effect sizes are small. If the principles underlying the
> anomalies are ever elucidated, I'm sure we'll have industrial-strength Psi
> Machines (whatever that means) within... oh, 40 years?
>


The effect of compound interest is also small.

But I'm a believer that in, oh, 40 years?, I will have an industrial
strength investment fund.

BillK


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 08:08:27 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:08:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] new Microsoft TV ad
Message-ID: <2d6187670809080108u6ad9f55dy8f3762542803c91d@mail.gmail.com>

I just saw for the first time a Microsoft ad where Jerry Seinfeld is
walking around a mall when he notices Bill Gates shopping in a
discount shoe store.  Jerry helps him decide which type of shoe to buy
and as they walk out into the parking lot Seinfeld uses the words
"Jupiter Brains." lol  I was blown away to hear this Transhumanist
term used and I wondered if any of you had been floored by this ad.
And I am curious to know if Bill Gates is going to go "Dave Thomas"
when it comes to being the star of his own company's television ads.

John Grigg


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep  8 08:24:26 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:24:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] happy birthday robert pirsig
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809080049s253b6358x336f011f31d0da8@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <f21c22e30809061658r6cb3696dxacf2716e82ee74e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080057.m880v0pr029833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907200808.0252e1a0@satx.rr.com>
	<1220838800_69557@s2.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080907213134.024080c0@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0809080049s253b6358x336f011f31d0da8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908031731.0226b5c8@satx.rr.com>

At 07:49 AM 9/8/2008 +0000, BillK wrote:

> > The observed lab effect sizes are small. If the principles underlying the
> > anomalies are ever elucidated, I'm sure we'll have industrial-strength Psi
> > Machines (whatever that means) within... oh, 40 years?
>
>The effect of compound interest is also small.

Uh huh. You set up a system as complicated as an investment bank, pay 
for it, let me use it as a psi system, and come back in 40 years.

Besides, that's not what I said; I'm talking about results one might 
expect from a theorized understanding of what still is currently 
visible but tricky to pin down for a reliable application. Is anyone 
using neutrinos at the moment to make money (aside from throwing away 
antineutrinos from reactors)?

Damien Broderick 



From dagonweb at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 08:51:45 2008
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 10:51:45 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The fires of creation - Telegraph
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908021219.023f5750@satx.rr.com>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30809071709l42c2f21rf7a2dff7249b5dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7DB6BD3B7F9443D95A0BDDB29B20F02@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<710b78fc0809072335l68f7e823m888f374eebe596d6@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908021219.023f5750@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0809080151i7296744bwb78d8a3dd7c354d1@mail.gmail.com>

> I'm afraid that in fact it *is*--but look on the bright side. Picture how
> totally pissed Sarah Barracuda is going to be when the Apocalypse destroys
> the planet, and Jesus doesn't come back for her.
>

I am not buying it. Nobody in power, especially not the obvious CIA-trained
dead eyed meat puppets like
pamela landy and sarah palin, believes what they publicly say. They pay lip
service to this whole g-d
merchandize for demographic engineering reasons. Real faith is for the
plebeian cholesterol-pacified
plebeian stratum.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080908/72d69991/attachment.html>

From sondre-list at bjellas.com  Mon Sep  8 09:33:48 2008
From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:33:48 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <200809080232.52465.kanzure@gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080232.52465.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ce76d8c80809080233ib25bfc7w5b8f0cf775a3e7e2@mail.gmail.com>

Sounds interesting, I've actually been on Facebook for quite a while but my
use pattern has been reduced to checking it a few times a week. It's a nice
tool, but I predict it only to be the beginning of a personal relationship
database that everyone will have eventually. Recently the major social
network sites agreed upon a protocol for exchange of contact details, so you
basically can import/export contacts between the networks. I predict that
we'll soon have a virtual cloud of data stores on the web that is event and
notification driven. Doesn't really matter if the data is exposed through
Facebook, MySpace or other "views" onto your social network data, they are
only representations of YOUR data.

Your social and professional network is probably the most important "data"
you have, it shouldn't be trusted to a single institution and I believe it
to become some sort of cloud based data structure that you can visualize
using any device. It will be the foundation of which you store your
aggregated media: photos, voice messages, videos, e-mails, messenger, SMS'
... all linked with the logical representation of your physical
relationships.

*I've had a vision of such a system for many years, but never had the time
or resources to actually develop it and I'm not in the position where I
could find venture capital to actually develop it.*


- Sondre
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday 08 September 2008, Emlyn wrote:
> > Like the subject says. I just joined facebook (as quite a few of you
> > know because friend requests started flying out in all directions).
> > Yeah I'm not an early adopter on this one, but at least I'm trying it
> > now. I can't figure out if it's something amazing, or a total time
> > drain, or some complex combination of the two. I'm utterly weirded.
>
> It's a total time drain. That's why I wrote some scripts and programs to
> automate my use of it. When I friend somebody, I have the software
> sniff out their friends and do my dirty work for me. To hell with
> clicking on a website for hours on end. I also have the same type of
> scripts working for my twitter account, which is how I follow and
> friend so many people. Quite interesting stuff starts bubbling up when
> you go a few layers deep into the social network ...
>
> - 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080908/ed4963ac/attachment.html>

From sondre-list at bjellas.com  Mon Sep  8 09:36:44 2008
From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:36:44 +0200
Subject: [ExI] new Microsoft TV ad
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809080108u6ad9f55dy8f3762542803c91d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670809080108u6ad9f55dy8f3762542803c91d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ce76d8c80809080236t55c7245cj5904c8ff6383867e@mail.gmail.com>

Actually interesting to hear that people on this list takes notice :-)

It's part of a very expensive and long-running campaign, we will see a story
being unfold in the coming times with Jerry and Bill.

You can view the first advert here in high resolution:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/
- Sondre
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:08 AM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>wrote:

> I just saw for the first time a Microsoft ad where Jerry Seinfeld is
> walking around a mall when he notices Bill Gates shopping in a
> discount shoe store.  Jerry helps him decide which type of shoe to buy
> and as they walk out into the parking lot Seinfeld uses the words
> "Jupiter Brains." lol  I was blown away to hear this Transhumanist
> term used and I wondered if any of you had been floored by this ad.
> And I am curious to know if Bill Gates is going to go "Dave Thomas"
> when it comes to being the star of his own company's television ads.
>
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080908/74467756/attachment.html>

From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 10:14:58 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 05:14:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <ce76d8c80809080233ib25bfc7w5b8f0cf775a3e7e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080232.52465.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<ce76d8c80809080233ib25bfc7w5b8f0cf775a3e7e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809080514.58990.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Monday 08 September 2008, Sondre Bjell?s wrote:
> I've had a vision of such a system for many years, but never had the
> time or resources to actually develop it and I'm not in the position
> where I could find venture capital to actually develop it.

There's no venture capital required to do it .. your only problem is 
getting the snowball effect to occur. The FOAF format, imaging fomats, 
iCAL and ics files, etc., it's all there already, with pingback servers 
and trackers finally becoming popular (again); the trick is just 
convincing people to actually use the damn software.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 10:19:34 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:19:34 +0200
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809080319s2860ded6n411d3569eec48198@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> "http://ladislaw.livejournal.com/
>
> The correlations these folks find between politically correct speech and the
> Newspeak of 1984 simply aren't there. Though PC has become a kind of swear
> word--a marvelous twisting of its intent by conservatives, though certainly
> some on the left are to blame for its "mission creep"--the purpose of being
> politically correct in one's speech is to cause as little offense as
> possible to others. This is achieved by using the terminology for
> self-reference employed by those who are not you.

Why, the least it can be said in this respect is that the adepts of PC
language make curious exceptions exactly regarding those who are in
perceived breach thereof. Has anybody ever labelled its own message,
e.g., as "hate speak"?

I do my best to adopt one's definition of what he is, even though this
may be a moving target, especially for racial, gender/sexual
orientation, and undesirable/undesired personal features, but am also
under the impression that PC is very inconsistent in this respect, and
above all vastly extends beyond that.

Moreover, "labelling" is undeniably also a way to (re-)organise
political concepts along different lines in view of new political
programmes and views. When I use the term of  "neoluddism" to define
altogether the very different brands of anti-transhumanist and
anti-technology preachers one can find around, my purpose is not
really that of "gratuitously insulting" them, but rather to express my
view on the fundamental convergence of their narratives and the bottom
line thereof.

> Certainly such decisions
> are going to be imperfect, but the knowledge that one should at least try to
> moderate language in order to remove innately offensive terms is the key to
> politically correct thinking.

"Innately" offensive terms sound as a quite funny concept... Many
terms who were invented as disparaging have been recuperated as a
badge of honour by individuals and constituencies (e.g., proletarian,
pagan, revolutionary). Other terms that were considered of a purely
descriptive nature have been replaced with other terms, only to see
those being later replaced again, and again, since the social stigma
attaches to what they represent, not to the way they sound.

In fact, one has to suspect that what PC language really aimes at is
the *removal* of the concepts behind the words, or at least a
deliberate change in their emotional perception, an attempt which,
depending on the occasions, may be less than candid (e.g., in
education).

What in fact PC language has in common with Newspeak is to make a
political programme of a self-conscious, deliberate effort to control
in the strictest possible way the language to modify the ideas, for
the better or for the worse, the language expresses, increasing the
repression of "deviant" terminology, rather than letting the language
evolve more or less spontaneously according to its rythms and
mechanisms,

> Newspeak is about removing words not because they are offensive, but because
> they are precise. Newspeak is about imprecision. Remove words, the logic
> goes, and one removes the very concepts.

There again, one may well feel less than attracted by the Orwellian
society, and yet recognise that the purpose of Newspeak is rather the
opposite. Newspeak is about *removing* imprecisions, shades and
metaphores, as long as metaphorical, emotionally charged concepts that
can be instrumentalised or reinterpreted in order to suggest a
possible different state of things. See "free from fleas" and
"politically free".

Now, the concept of "political freedom" has been adopted absolutely by
everybody, including conservatives, liberals, secessionists,
nationalsocialists, communists, anarchists, etc. with vastly different
meanings depending on the circumstances; but invariably it was used as
a way to challenge the order in place or to establish a term of
comparison thereto. This is what Newspeak aims at removing.

Stefano Vaj


From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 11:15:03 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:15:03 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <200809080514.58990.kanzure@gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080232.52465.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<ce76d8c80809080233ib25bfc7w5b8f0cf775a3e7e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080514.58990.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809080415m6748e43x7d7322ae5bff071b@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> There's no venture capital required to do it .. your only problem is
> getting the snowball effect to occur. The FOAF format, imaging fomats,
> iCAL and ics files, etc., it's all there already, with pingback servers
> and trackers finally becoming popular (again); the trick is just
> convincing people to actually use the damn software.
>


Reminds me of the hive of communication inside large organizations
where there are so many emails, messages, meetings, etc. all cc'd to
everyone else, that most of the time is spent in communicating and
they have to hire contractors to get any actual work done.

On the other hand, this social cloud is ideal to find out all the gory
details before you hire someone, rent a flat to them, lend them money,
or even go on a date with them.  ;)


BillK


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 11:19:04 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 21:19:04 +1000
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <000b01c9117b$cc9164e0$6de71e97@archimede>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30809071709l42c2f21rf7a2dff7249b5dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<000b01c9117b$cc9164e0$6de71e97@archimede>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809080419n2b3e9bc8g6786fbc648eb4e05@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/8 scerir <scerir at libero.it>:
> Stathis:
>> But in the MWI, in one world you definitely chose A
>> and in the other you definitely chose B. It still feels
>> as if you had a "free" choice because you only experience
>> one world at a time, but that's just an illusion.
>> The distal electron will always correlate with your
>> electron, because all along it was in either the universe
>> where you made the A measurement or in the universe where
>> you made the B measurement.
>
> In EPR experiments there are two measurements (Alice
> performs her measurement here, Bob performs his
> measurement in a spacelike separated region). Can MWI
> say which, between Alice and Bob, performed his
> measurement first and which then? I do not think so.
> So, in the sentence "in a world *you* definitely chose A
> and in the other *you* definitely chose B" those *you*
> refer to both Alice and Bob, isn't it?

There are many Alices and Bobs all doing their own thing every which
way, but when they actually meet up, we find that their results always
correlate. It's the fact of this correlation when they meet up that
shows they are in the same world. It's tempting to add, as I did
above, that therefore they must have been in the same world all along,
but I can see on reflection that this is not meaningful while they are
spacelike separated.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 11:39:01 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 06:39:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809080415m6748e43x7d7322ae5bff071b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809080514.58990.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0809080415m6748e43x7d7322ae5bff071b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809080639.02027.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Monday 08 September 2008, BillK wrote:
> Reminds me of the hive of communication inside large organizations
> where there are so many emails, messages, meetings, etc. all cc'd to
> everyone else, that most of the time is spent in communicating and
> they have to hire contractors to get any actual work done.

The way to fix this is if there was something implemented called 
pingbacks. Suppose you have my special new calendar optimization 
software installed, and you've kicked my butt enough to get me to 
implement pingbacks to 'events'. When 'events' are set up, you could 
theoretically have plugins for various calendar systems to send a ping 
back to you informing you of either somebody's coming to an event, or 
their conditions upon coming per other constraints of their schedule. 
This way you still get the organicness while also getting the benefits 
of centralized scheduling (without their being some centralized fist 
with a hammer in its hands).

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From estropico at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 13:36:29 2008
From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:36:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Nine key questions about the coming Technological Singularity
Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90809080636y56ff43e7pea9cc9edd43b0882@mail.gmail.com>

Nine key questions about the coming Technological Singularity

The next ExtroBritannia event is scheduled for Saturday September the
20th 2008; 2:00pm - 4:00pm. Venue: Room 539, 5th floor (via main
lift), Birkbeck College, Torrington Square, London WC1E 7HX. The event
is free and everyone's welcome.

Vernor Vinge wrote the following words in 1993, introducing the
concept of the Singularity:

"Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create
superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended".

This UKTA meeting will be a group discussion, led by David Wood, on
the following nine key questions:

1. Defining what we're talking about: What's the relation between the
various different notions of the Singularity?

2. Are there arguments in principle against the Singularity?

3. What are the lessons we should learn from what's been called "the
embarrassing history of AI"?

4. Is the Singularity a plausible occurrence within (say) the next 50 years?

5. What are the critical bottleneck determinants of development
towards the Singularity?

6. What's the likeliest timescale for the Singularity?

7. Should we be doing everything in our power to prevent the
Singularity from happening?

8. Can we influence the Singularity to make its outcome more likely to
be good for humanity rather than disastrous?

9. What are the biggest uncertainties with the Singularity?

There is no charge to attend and everyone is welcome. Join the debate!

Venue:

Room 539, 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 at "The Friend at
Hand", nearby. There's also the option of joining some of the UKTA
regulars for drinks/lunch beforehand, starting c. 12.30, in "The
Friend At Hand" pub which is situated behind Russell Square tube
station on Herbrand Street. There's also the option of joining some of
the UKTA regulars for drinks/lunch beforehand, starting c. 12.30, in
the same pub. To find us, look out for a table where there's a copy of
Aubrey de Grey's book "Ending Aging" displayed.

---

Our site, blog and mailing list:

http://www.uktranshumanistassociation.org/
www.extrobritannia.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia/


From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep  8 14:13:01 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:13:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The fires of creation - Telegraph
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908021219.023f5750@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200809081415.m88EF358022582@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...
> Damien Broderick
> ...
> 
> I'm afraid that in fact it *is*--but look on the bright side. 
> Picture how totally pissed Sarah Barracuda is going to be 
> when the Apocalypse destroys the planet, and Jesus doesn't 
> come back for her.
> 
> Damien Broderick 

I don't even need to change the subject line for this comment.  We finally
get what looks like a libertarian on a major party ticket, and she turns out
to be a creationist.

}8-[

Damn.  {8-[

spike






From sondre-list at bjellas.com  Sun Sep  7 18:49:48 2008
From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (Sondre Bjellas)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:49:48 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Beating on the closed door of SCIENCE
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906220522.0231e7b0@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906220522.0231e7b0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001301c9111a$838a7180$8a9f5480$@com>

I'm having trouble keeping up-to-date on technology and I'm way behind on
science... but I'm still a skeptic in regards to this.

My main reason for skepticism is that there is actually no consensus in the
research and science "world" on this (as far as I know). We've come pretty
far in understanding the world (the more we learn, the less we actually
know), but why is there no more concrete evidence or actually why isn't the
actual evidences accepted?

I'm having a hard time believing it's an institutional problem (as described
in the letter below). Especially now with the birth of collaboration as the
primary force of group organizations. As exemplified through Wikipedia,
Flickr and other online community services.


Here is a quick (non-serious) thought: if they actually change the randomly
generated photo after the fact that they had received the signal, what would
happen? Would the human brain allow itself to be "tricked" like that, or
would you actually not receive a response at all because the human would
realize that the photo was altered? I'm just wondering... (have heard about
this paper before, but read through real quickly before I sent this mail).
Either way, I'm not educated or skilled enough to understand the actual
experiment or the actual findings.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.4_spottiswoode_may.
pdf


- Sondre

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien
Broderick
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 5:26 AM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: [ExI] Beating on the closed door of SCIENCE

My friend Dr. Edwin May, former scientific director of the US 
government anomalies project known as STAR GATE, has continued his 
work since the project was shut down. Recently, at the annual 
Parapsychology Association conference, he detailed an interesting 
experience, and with his kind permission here it is (very slightly edited):

=====

Another problem that relates to respectability is publishing our good 
experimental results and speculative theories in mainstream journals. 
While there are a few exceptions to this rule, mainly by brave 
well-known authors, most mainstream journals have a significant psi 
filter and generally will reject papers a priori by not sending them 
out for review.

Probably this observation needs no examples, but I will provide one 
that may be illuminating.

A few years ago, my colleague, James Spottiswoode, and I conducted a 
complex but highly successful psychophysiology experiment we call 
prestimulus response. We extended and improved the concept of 
presentiment in that by using acoustic startle stimuli as opposed to 
the cognitive affective stimuli, we removed a source of confound 
because of an obvious idiosyncratic response to various photographs. 
In addition, we substantially simplified the type of response we were 
looking for. As a result, we found nearly twice as many 3.5 second 
prestimulus regions that contained the defined skin conductance 
response prior to the acoustic stimuli than during the same length 
region prior to a silent control. Statistically this turned out to be 
a z-score of 5.08 with 100 participants.

We wrote a paper of 2,500 words aimed as a report for Science. We 
passed drafts of it to our colleagues and to a number of world-class 
professionals in the psychophysical research world. As a result, the 
final draft was as flawless as was possible--a natural candidate for 
publication in a mainstream journal.

Knowing that if I sent in the manuscript cold, it would have zero 
chance of even being sent out for formal review, I asked a number of 
mainstream colleagues if they knew anyone on the editorial board at 
Science so that they could put in a strong word to let our paper go 
out for review. To an individual, they all complained that not only 
did they not know anyone there but they, too, had troubles getting 
their own work published in Science. So I had to go it alone.

...My goal in a two page letter was to first establish my own bona 
fides, then in a sense embarrass [the then Editor in Chief] with a 
Type II argument. That is, just because I do not have a recognized 
academic position (i.e., a technically unknown person); just because 
I do not work at a recognized institution; and, just because I work 
in a controversial field does not mean, therefore, that my research 
is wrong. In addition, I sided with him in that I understood his 
problem of little space and far too many worthy things to publish.

However, I offered a solution. He should invite me to give a talk at 
Stanford on this work and if the consensus was that my work was good 
science, only then would he offer to send the manuscript off for 
review and I would happily abide by the reviewers' remarks. I sent 
the letter off via regular post with half an expectation that I would 
never hear back. Much to my pleasant surprise I received the 
following a week or so later:

"Thank you very much for your letter of June 5. Your background is 
obviously deserving of respect, and I'd like to be helpful. But the 
idea of marshalling a critical audience to hear you present your 
experiments seems a difficult and time-consuming way of dealing with 
what amounts to a pre-submission request. So I think that's asking 
too much, but I'll certainly look at something if you want to send it 
to me as an e-mail attachment or in some other way.

"Perhaps I should add that my personal history - dating back to the 
Rhine experiments in the 50s.- I'm pretty skeptical in this area."

I sent him the manuscript, hard copies of the major references with a 
paragraph describing each of them, and a short list of mainstream 
scientists who were recognized authorities in psychophysiology all of 
whom had agreed to be listed as references. For the next nine months 
or so, I had a number of post mail exchanges with [him] with all his 
responses on Stanford University letterhead.

Finally, I received the following on the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science (AAAS) letterhead:

"Dear Dr. May, During your absence, I've had a chance to circulate 
your proposal around. I'm afraid that the view here is that we will 
not send it out for in-depth review. I was glad to be of some 
assistance to you in getting it evaluated, and grateful for your 
interest in Science.

"Sincerely yours,"

It is difficult to understand his response. While it is very tempting 
to invoke some kind of fear of psi argument, I think the true answer 
is much more complex. Assuming [he] actually did pass the manuscript 
around, then the only comments he received back may have been 
ridiculing and/or ad hominem. It is particularly frustrating in that 
our paper was rejected without any explanation whatsoever.

I am pessimistic that the best science we can offer, and this paper 
was certainly among the best, was rejected in a non-scientific 
way--too bad for science (with a lower case s) and for Science the 
journal. It cheapens the processes. I have no... solution to this 
challenge not of our making.

=========================

Note that May is not being treated by the editor in chief as a 
crackpot with no credentials. Note also that he is given no 
explanation at all for why his work is rejected, no opportunity to 
repair any specified defects. Why not? Because his topic is... 
Outside the Gates of Science. In both senses.

Damien Broderick 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep  8 17:00:10 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:00:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Beating on the closed door of SCIENCE
In-Reply-To: <001301c9111a$838a7180$8a9f5480$@com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906220522.0231e7b0@satx.rr.com>
	<001301c9111a$838a7180$8a9f5480$@com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908115533.0239b6f8@satx.rr.com>

At 08:49 PM 9/7/2008 +0200, Sondre wrote:

>Here is a quick (non-serious) thought: if they actually change the randomly
>generated photo after the fact that they had received the signal, what would
>happen?

How can you *change* a randomly-generated stimulus? Whatever turns 
out to be the stimulus is the target. You could terminate the 
experiment (improperly) after seeing a spike, but that unexpected 
termination might itself be the cause of the spike. Seems to me.




From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 17:10:35 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:10:35 +0200
Subject: [ExI] NASA chief blasts US space policy in leaked email
Message-ID: <580930c20809081010n269061d6va94088c7ad0335c4@mail.gmail.com>

NASA chief blasts US space policy in leaked emailWhite House advisers waged
'jihad' on Shuttle, ISSBy Lewis
Page<http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2008/09/08/griffin_leaked_email/>

An internal email from NASA chief Mike Griffin has been leaked to the media.
It expresses Griffin's frustration with recent US space policy, says that
White House oversight offices have waged a "jihad" against the space
shuttle, and offers a gloomy view of the future.

The email was obtained at the weekend by the *Orlando Sentinel*, and lays
out Griffin's view of how America should have acted in recent years.

"In a rational world," writes Griffin to a senior US advisor, "we would have
been allowed to pick a shuttle retirement date to be consistent with
Ares/Orion availability, we would have been asked to deploy Ares/Orion as
early as possible (rather than 'not later than 2014') and we would have been
provided the necessary budget to make it so."

The Ares rockets and Orion capsule will be NASA's next manned spacecraft,
but they will not be in service until 2014 or later. Meanwhile the shuttle
is currently marked for retirement in 2010, leaving the US dependent on
Russian Soyuz ships for access to the International Space Station (ISS).

Given the recent chill in US/Russian relations following events in Georgia,
Griffin is far from alone in seeing this as a problem. He's quite clear
where he thinks the blame lies: with the White House Offices of Management
and Budget and of Science and Technology Policy (OMB and OSTP), which set
funding and brief the president on tech matters.

"The rational approach didn't happen, primarily because for OSTP and OMB
retiring the Shuttle is a jihad rather than an engineering and management
decision. Further, they actively do not want the ISS to be sustained, and
they have done everything possible to ensure that it would not be."

Griffin believes that Russia will refuse to withdraw its forces from
Georgia, and as a result Washington politicians will not approve NASA
purchase of any further seats on Soyuz launches beyond those already
approved.

"My guess is that there is going to be a lengthy period with no US crew on
ISS after 2011. No additional money is going to be provided to accelerate
Orion/Ares, and even if it were, at this point we can't get there earlier
than 2014... Commercial solutions will ultimately emerge, but not
substantially before Orion/Ares are ready, if then.

"The alternatives are to continue flying shuttle, or abandon US presence on
ISS."

Griffin believes that this will be unacceptable to the next US president,
whether John McCain or Barack Obama. So, he believes, NASA will be ordered
to keep flying the shuttle once George Bush has departed.

"They will tell us to extend Shuttle," he writes. "There is no other
politically tenable course... Extending Shuttle creates no damage that they
will care about, other than to delay the lunar program. They will not count
that as a cost. They will not see what that does for US leadership in space
in the long term."

Thus, says Griffin, NASA should now begin planning to extend the shuttle
fleet's operations - "Plan B", as he calls it, "while doing the least damage
possible to Ares/Orion".

As to the argument that the US could retain meaningful control of an
entirely Russian-manned ISS - the station being remotely managed largely
from NASA ground stations - he says this is unrealistic "short of war".

"There are actions we could take to to hold ISS hostage, or even to prevent
them using it - power management stuff, for example. We will not take those
actions... the Russians can sustain ISS without US crew as long as we don't
actively sabotage them... we need them. They don't 'need' us. We're a 'nice
to have'."

Griffin goes on to say that if sufficient funds were available, NASA would
have no difficulty in keeping the Shuttle flying while at the same time
building Ares/Orion. Some have suggested that there would be conflicts
between the two programmes for use of NASA's mighty spaceship drydock, the
Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), for instance.

"if we're given extra money, then the VAB conflicts are solvable... It's
only a matter of money."

The beleaguered NASA chief signs off on an unhappy note.

"My own view is about as pessimistic as it is possible to be," he writes.
This, one may take it, means that he believes NASA will be ordered to keep
flying the Shuttle to the ISS without extra cash. This will in turn delay
Ares/Orion, holding up or even crippling America's bold new push to the Moon
and Mars. Meanwhile, rivals like Russia and China will press ahead.

In a statement released yesterday, Griffin said:

The leaked internal email fails to provide the contextual framework for my
remarks, and my support for the administration's policies. Administration
policy is to retire the shuttle in 2010 and purchase crew transport from
Russia until Ares and Orion are available. The administration continues to
support our request for [approval from Capitol Hill]. Administration policy
continues to be that we will take no action to preclude continued operation
of the International Space Station past 2016. I strongly support these
administration policies, as do OSTP and OMB.

The *Sentinel* writeup can be read
here<http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa0708sep07,0,4759952.story>,
and an image of the email itself viewed
here<http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/files/GriffinEmail.jpg>.
(R)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/08/griffin_leaked_email/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080908/a02428f8/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Mon Sep  8 15:37:48 2008
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:37:48 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080908153750.VGKM24964.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>

Emlyn--one thing I would suggest is, right away, decide whether you 
want to restrict your "friends" to *actual* friends, or whether you 
want to add hundreds of people you don't really know but have some 
vague connection with. If you don't decide now, you may end up doing 
the latter by default while wishing for the former. I think both 
approaches make sense, but FaceBook will run away out of control 
unless you decide between them right away.

Max


At 12:49 AM 9/8/2008, Emlyn wrote:
>Like the subject says. I just joined facebook (as quite a few of you
>know because friend requests started flying out in all directions).
>Yeah I'm not an early adopter on this one, but at least I'm trying it
>now. I can't figure out if it's something amazing, or a total time
>drain, or some complex combination of the two. I'm utterly weirded.
>
>Who else here is on facebook? Or one of the other mylinkspaceface type
>sites? Post an internet, plz thx, tell us what you think about it, k
>bai.


Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com 



From moulton at moulton.com  Mon Sep  8 18:20:42 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:20:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The fires of creation - Telegraph
In-Reply-To: <200809081415.m88EF358022582@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809081415.m88EF358022582@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <1220898042.7201.7972.camel@hayek>


On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 07:13 -0700, spike wrote:
> I don't even need to change the subject line for this comment.  We finally
> get what looks like a libertarian on a major party ticket, and she turns out
> to be a creationist.

Palin is not a libertarian.  Absolutely not a libertarian; not even
close.  She is a conservative right wing religious Christian Republican
politician.

Anyone who says Palin is libertarian does not understand what
libertarian means.

Fred




From sondre-list at bjellas.com  Mon Sep  8 17:16:55 2008
From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (Sondre Bjellas)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:16:55 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Beating on the closed door of SCIENCE
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908115533.0239b6f8@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906220522.0231e7b0@satx.rr.com>
	<001301c9111a$838a7180$8a9f5480$@com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908115533.0239b6f8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c911d6$b2d66b80$18834280$@com>

If the response from the user occurs ahead of time at which the photo is
displayed, you could potentially replace the randomly generated photo (at
the split second it's about to be rendered) within the timeframe of the user
response and record if that actually has some effect, compared to a
completely random display of photos. If you then record the same stimuli
with the wrong photo, then the test results would be invalidated? Wouldn't
they?

- Sondre

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien
Broderick
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:00 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Beating on the closed door of SCIENCE

At 08:49 PM 9/7/2008 +0200, Sondre wrote:

>Here is a quick (non-serious) thought: if they actually change the randomly
>generated photo after the fact that they had received the signal, what
would
>happen?

How can you *change* a randomly-generated stimulus? Whatever turns 
out to be the stimulus is the target. You could terminate the 
experiment (improperly) after seeing a spike, but that unexpected 
termination might itself be the cause of the spike. Seems to me.


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep  8 19:54:22 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:54:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Beating on the closed door of SCIENCE
In-Reply-To: <001d01c911d6$b2d66b80$18834280$@com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080906220522.0231e7b0@satx.rr.com>
	<001301c9111a$838a7180$8a9f5480$@com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908115533.0239b6f8@satx.rr.com>
	<001d01c911d6$b2d66b80$18834280$@com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908142437.0cf18ec0@satx.rr.com>

At 07:16 PM 9/8/2008 +0200, Sondre wrote:

>If the response from the user occurs ahead of time at which the photo is
>displayed, you could potentially replace the randomly generated photo (at
>the split second it's about to be rendered) within the timeframe of the user
>response and record if that actually has some effect, compared to a
>completely random display of photos.

So you're not replacing one unknowable random stimulus with another 
random stimulus but with a known determinate stimulus? If you did 
this occasionally, I suspect it would just reduce the statistics, 
eventually to noise. The point is that variations in physiological 
state are always somewhat volatile; you're unlikely to look at a 
single instance and say "Woah!"

I once had to wear a Holter monitor for 24 hours, which recorded 
cardiac variations; a complex analysis later would decide later that 
the fluctuations in my heart signals were within the normal range. 
Much the same here. If the Holter mechanism had thrown in a bunch of 
extraneous noise, this might have masked the underlying effect, but 
wouldn't have proved that my heart was normal or wasn't beating (or whatever).

>If you then record the same stimuli
>with the wrong photo, then the test results would be invalidated? Wouldn't
>they?

A much more interesting investigation might consider "remote 
viewing," where a complex interpretative process takes place inside 
the mind of the "viewer" who attempts to respond to one of, say, four 
possible future images/locations that are as orthogonal to each other 
as feasible. My model of this process is that s/he goes into a state 
where images and affects swirl through the preconscious, and are 
sorted, discarded, or retained by whatever this strange process is, a 
bit like what happens when we gaze dreamily at patterns in clouds or 
on the ceiling. But suppose the allegedly random selection is biased 
deliberately (but double-blinded, obviously, so neither experimenter 
nor "viewer" knows at the time the weighting of the biases), so that 
Option 3 is liable to be chosen as target 90% rather than 25% of the 
time. In repeated runs of this test (using different options each 
time, of course), will viewers respond to the *more probable* target 
most of the time, or to the actual option that will really be chosen? 
IIRC, results show a heightened correlation with the actual target, 
not the more probable one.

You can all stop rolling your eyes now.

Damien Broderick 



From scerir at libero.it  Mon Sep  8 19:44:21 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 21:44:21 +0200
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <586181.61513.qm@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><011201c91046$fb3d3f20$5ce81e97@archimede>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080906132612.023a3b98@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00c001c911eb$4b040070$37084797@archimede>

Damien writes:
> See, from my point of view, this whole discussion omits key empirical
> data that seem clearly to undermine those standard claims. [...]
> The empirical evidence for extra-chance correlations in psi
> precognition experiments and natural experiments seems to me now
> beyond doubt (and, unlike most doubters, I've actually looked closely
> at a lot of the evidence). [...]
> So rather than asserting endlessly and pointlessly that X *can't*
> happen because reigning doctrine seems to argue against its
> possibility, even though X *does* occur quite often, physicists might
> be well advised to start looking for loopholes that permit these
> effects. Maybe entanglement is one; or maybe some version of Cramer's
> second time dimension, coupling past and future. Or maybe there's
> leakage in the Simulation.

John Bell wrote that quantum "correlations cry out for explanation".
Extra-chance correlations in psi experiments also cry out for 
explanation. To my knowledge, there are no explanations, 
for both kinds of correlations.

But, regarding quantum correlations, there is more than 
the reigning mantra of the "no-go" theorems. There are many 
different approaches. I do not know whether these approaches 
may have some value, or some meaning, regarding the extra-chance 
correlations in psi precognition or other psi phenomena. 
In any case here is a very  small sample of those non-standard 
- but perhaps interesting - approaches.

1) According to Asher Peres any attempt to inject realistic 
explanations in quantum theory (if not in physics tout court) 
is bound to lead to inconsistencies. There are questions which 
can be formulated in the ordinary language of experimental
physics, but cannot be represented in the mathematical framework 
of quantum theory. It is often impossible to ascribe objective
existence to physical quantities. Something vaguely reminiscent
of Godel.

2) Arthur Fine (author of 'The Shaky Game') suggests that, in a 
truly indeterministic world, those weird correlations stand in 
no more need of explanation than does a random string of outcomes
of measurements made at a single location. Why should the fact
that there is a pattern between random sequences require any more
explaining than the fact that there is a pattern internal to the
sequences thenselves? Quantum theory takes for granted those
weird patterns, those weird correlations. This rather radical
position seems to be close to David Mermin's position (correlations
are primitive concepts, there is nothing beyond, there are no
'correlata'). Following a famous dictum. 'It is easy to think
that when we find a linear regression of y on x we have evidence
that increasing x causes y to increase. Much less is true.'

3) There are people (Cramer, Price, Costa de Beauregard, Klyshko,
etc.) who think that quantum correlations can be explained
by a sort of two-time effect: actions (in positive time) from 
the source of entangled states to the space-like separated wings 
where measurements occur, reactions (in negative time) from each 
wing to the source and then to the other wing, via Fourier 
transforms. There are troubles to implement this picture if 
dimensions are more than one or perhaps two. Similar pictures 
you get when, instead of using two-time dynamics, you use negative 
probabilities. or negative entropies (entropy of two entangled 
subsystems is less -sometimes is even negative- than the entropy 
of the two separated subsystems, after the so called 'tracing out').

4) There are people (Nicolas Gisin, A. Suarez) who think that
quantum correlations occur outside space-time. The algebraic
nonfactorizable expression of an 'operating system' entails 
the geometric nonlocality.

5) There are people (Shimony, Jarrett) who think that the 
source of this 'uncontrollable nonlocality' (as opposed to 
FTL signals) is quantum indeterminism. The concepts of
localized events and causality need to be broadened. Maybe
the new physics will be able to modify the topology of
space-time in the small? And that will yield a new 
interpretation of nonlocality? Interestingly (for Damien) 
Shimony also thinks that features of QM like objective indefiniteness,
objective chance, entanglements, have obvious analogies
to some features of mentality. (See Shimony's review of
the book by R.Faber, 1986, 'Clockwork Garden', in 'Foundations
of Physics', vol. 17, year 1987).

6) Since in EPR effects there is no before and no after 
and no time (because correlations seem to occur outside
space-time, in any case outside time) there are people who 
think that the 'block universe' may play a role here. 
In the sense that a correlation may connect events from 
the future and from the past. Especially when we introduce 
a sort of quantum indeterminism in the 'block universe'.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605049


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 23:28:18 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:58:18 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <20080908153750.VGKM24964.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080908153750.VGKM24964.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809081628y5c593te2292ea06da71055@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/9 Max More <max at maxmore.com>:
> Emlyn--one thing I would suggest is, right away, decide whether you want to
> restrict your "friends" to *actual* friends, or whether you want to add
> hundreds of people you don't really know but have some vague connection
> with. If you don't decide now, you may end up doing the latter by default
> while wishing for the former. I think both approaches make sense, but
> FaceBook will run away out of control unless you decide between them right
> away.
>
> Max
>

Thanks for the heads-up Max. I'm not sure that I'm actually popular
enough for this to matter. I'm kind of liking the proliferation of
weak ties, but it might eventually be nice to differentiate a bit. Can
you do that on Facebook? I guess it's a faux pas to mark someone up
with public information on how close a friend they are, rating out of
10 or some such. I don't know, I'm such a nub.

I can feel a rambling rant coming on...

I'm really enjoying this whole web 2.0, social network thing, it's so,
well, shiny! New toys to play with, more than you can keep track of,
fun! And, there does seem to be some core to it that will last beyond
the inevitable correction, something real has been invented here.

I love the "cloud", I've been a fanboi since before it was cool. I've
always hated running my own servers, and am under no illusions that I
can run anything in production at anywhere close to the quality of the
big guys. I must confess though that I find the current state of the
"cloud" is a bit early railroad for my tastes. Lots of closed
commercial stuff, not much thought for interoperability, for the
ability to move data from one server to another. That's been fine
because the concepts behind a lot of services have still been fuzzy,
but I think things are bedding down enough that we need to begin to be
a bit more demanding about these things.

What really makes me uneasy is the dominance of closed source. So,
where I can, I'm trying to choose free software based solutions over
closed commercial stuff. eg: for blogs, I favour Wordpress. One of the
most important feature sets, to me, are the import/export options,
combined with the fact that anyone can host it, many do, and I could
if I absolutely had to (which I really don't want to, but I could, in
theory).

I'm sure I was coming to a point, but someone wants me to sign up to
twitter. Ooh, shiny!

-- 
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 mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Sep  8 23:11:19 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:11:19 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote,
> I looked up "criticism of Islam" in wikipedia and found this comment by
> Deepa Kumar: "The Danish cartoon of the prophet Mohammed with a bomb on 
> his
> head is nothing if not the visual depiction of the racist diatribe that
> Islam is inherently violent."

OK, I admit that the lines between racism, religionism, and countryism 
become blurred.  I can see where people use the word "racism" to include 
fear of foreigners.  What I really meant is that I don't see Muslims 
claiming to be a separate race.  However, I do see Muslims claiming racism 
against them.

I can't say this is an invalid claim.  I suspect that most racists are 
simply against them foreigners, and don't distinguish if they hate them for 
being a different religion, a different race, or both.  They assume they are 
all inferior or all terrorists or all something.  Its a very fine 
technicality to try to distinguish this from racism.

> The cartoon
> doesn't generalize to all Muslims, or all Arabs or all Presbyterians.

I also find this claim to be disingenuous.  Everybody agrees that the 
character depicted is Mohammed.  So how can you then claim not to know what 
race he is or what religion he represents?  It seems clear that he 
represents Muslims and/or Arabs and/or Arabic Muslims.  The symbol clearly 
implies that the leader himself was a terrorist, and by extension all his 
followers are too.  I don't see what other interpretation can be made from 
this cartoon.  If that's not the message, then what is?

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep  9 01:42:10 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:42:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
Message-ID: <01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Harvey wrote
(Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 6:14 PM)


> On Monday 01 September 2008 01:27:49 Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Why would one *ever* be fair? Or adopt "fairness" as a standard behavior?
> 
> Because that is the whole basis of the free market and the exchange of money 
> for services.  I want to participate in this type of transaction.  To not play 
> fair would be to reject the whole concept of a free-market system, and revert 
> to a dog-eat-dog world where the strongest take things from the weak.

This is extremely principled of you. I not only admire that, but I emulate it.
However, you beg the question I'm asking: to wit, why should one even
be principled? I am afraid that you also either consciously or unconsciously
mixing in a Kantian imperative "do as you would have everyone else do".
But the fact of the matter is that you could change your behavior, become
utterly unprincipled (in cases only where you aren't caught, of course), 
and it would change no one else's behavior!  (In reality, I don't think 
that this is exactly the case, but let's say that the behavior of fewer than
a hundred people in the world would change as a result, but I want to
steer clear of an identity argument right now.)

There can be many people, Harvey, who would also believe as you do
of the necessity of the free market and exchange of money to progress
and prosperity, and they would never "reject the whole concept of a
free-market system" either---it's just that such an individual would leave
it to the rest of us "suckers" to carry on, while he or she violates every
principle that can be gotten away with.

> Even if I thought I could steal them more efficiently than buying 
> them, there would be less opportunities to do so in an environment
> where merchants regularly got shortchanged.

Yes, but I'm saying that you could steal without causing everyone
else to do so, and so hurt our progress and prosperity only
infinitesimally and maximizing your own personal gain.

>> I see no necessary self-interest component to being fair to others, even
>> though in most situations indeed there is. Surely the answer is at least
>> in part genuine altruism.
> 
> It sounds like you understand my answer, but you don't believe it.  Trust me, 
> I don't care to give away my money for free to strangers I will never see again.

Actually so? You wouldn't leave a tip in a restaurant you were
certain never to visit again? I had inferred from the preceding
that you would.

> But I am a good tipper at my local establishments that I frequent, and 
> they treat me like an extra special guest whenever they see me.  I am buying 
> that kind of service and think my money is well spent.  I am not giving them 
> charity.
> 
> ...
>> Because they do not genuinely have any feelings or emotions or
>> any personal thoughts whatsoever, as I said. This cold distant
>> entity is going to be [not at all] affected by your responses...
> 
> Let me change my response to this one.  I thought you were talking about AIs 
> with "simulated" feelings versus "real" feelings.  Since your question 
> involved discovering that the real world was full of simulated people, I was 
> assuming very advanced AIs with human-equivalent complexities.
> If you are literally talking about a video game character with no feelings, I 
> would not exert any effort toward their happiness.

Agreement here has been reached  :-)

>> Being altruistic is not the same as being genuinely altruistic, (though
>> this is a mere terminological point), because altruism is very often
>> explained in the literature as most often springing from self-interest.
> 
> You've lost me now.   I am not sure the term "altruism" is being used in a 
> consistent way, now that "being altruistic is not the same as being genuinely 
> altruistic" and "altruism... springing from self-interest".  The terms seemed 
> to have changed mid-stream and/or I am confused about what they mean now.

I'll refrain in this thread from now on from using the terms, since I
know far too well the futility of definitions. But I believe that I did
use "genuine altruism" throughout in a consistent manner. So what
we are talking about is *behavior that in no way ever conveys
a material reward to one*.

This "nice" behavior comes up rather infrequently in the course of
a day;  for example, although I've written a number of emails today
both here and at work, I don't think that even one of them was
not purely in my self-interest---whereas I may indeed before the
day is done actually do that (arrange something that may help
someone else even though it does me no particular good).

I observe that I would treat my friends almost exactly the same
way as I would in a completely simulated world orchestrated
by a feelingless puppet master, with me as the only experiencing
entity. (I would be just as nice to them as always, so that I
continued to receive the same benefits from them as I do).

Lee



From kat at mindspillage.org  Tue Sep  9 02:24:08 2008
From: kat at mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:24:08 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809081628y5c593te2292ea06da71055@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080908153750.VGKM24964.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<710b78fc0809081628y5c593te2292ea06da71055@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8e253f560809081924n54062487i70f7645f07f51de@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I love the "cloud", I've been a fanboi since before it was cool. I've
> always hated running my own servers, and am under no illusions that I
> can run anything in production at anywhere close to the quality of the
> big guys. I must confess though that I find the current state of the
> "cloud" is a bit early railroad for my tastes. Lots of closed
> commercial stuff, not much thought for interoperability, for the
> ability to move data from one server to another. That's been fine
> because the concepts behind a lot of services have still been fuzzy,
> but I think things are bedding down enough that we need to begin to be
> a bit more demanding about these things.
>
> What really makes me uneasy is the dominance of closed source. So,
> where I can, I'm trying to choose free software based solutions over
> closed commercial stuff. eg: for blogs, I favour Wordpress. One of the
> most important feature sets, to me, are the import/export options,
> combined with the fact that anyone can host it, many do, and I could
> if I absolutely had to (which I really don't want to, but I could, in
> theory).
>
> I'm sure I was coming to a point, but someone wants me to sign up to
> twitter. Ooh, shiny!

The above paragraphs lead me to suggest http://identi.ca --  a
microblogging service like twitter but based on open source software
(laconica) and meant to be part of a distributed network of such
services. Of course, convincing the rest of your social network to
join you may be more difficult! (A large part of mine is free
software-ish people and still not everyone has jumped over from
Twitter. Damn network effects.)

You may also be interested in http://autonomo.us , a group of people
creating and promoting open network services -- there is a very small
but growing list maintained there of "open web services". (When so
much of what used to be on the desktop is now on the web, are you
using free software that you control if you every site you visit is a
black box?)

(See also -- the Open Software Service Definition:
<http://opendefinition.org/ossd?action=show&redirect=osd> and Identica
FAQ: <http://identi.ca/doc/faq>.)

Hoping I'm not veering too far off-topic,
Kat
free software supporter and very very occasional delurker

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: kat at wikimedia.org * Personal: kat at mindspillage.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep  9 02:32:38 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:32:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Cramer going backwards
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908212737.0cf39b38@satx.rr.com>


    * <http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/08/1360189.aspx>

Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 8:23 PM by Alan Boyle

<Speaking of time travel, Cramer has been in the midst of a real-life 
experiment in retrocausality - a kind of backward flow of information 
from the future to the past. I first wrote about this experiment 
almost two years ago, and Cramer recently told me that he's still 
trying to get the apparatus to work. Perhaps what Stephen Hawking 
said is true: Nature abhors a time machine.

Cramer, who's also on one of the research teams using the 
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, has often said that he'll write 
either a scientific paper or a novel about backward causality.

"If the experiment works, then I will be on to some very interesting 
roads to success," Cramer said, "but I'll probably end up writing the 
novel rather than making the discovery. In a sense, doing the 
experiment is background for the novel.">



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Sep  9 02:35:28 2008
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:35:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] test
In-Reply-To: <8e253f560809081924n54062487i70f7645f07f51de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com><20080908153750.VGKM24964.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com><710b78fc0809081628y5c593te2292ea06da71055@mail.gmail.com>
	<8e253f560809081924n54062487i70f7645f07f51de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DD79D09C1EB4214837D18EBA37A9B09@GinaSony>

test 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080908/74bc1e4b/attachment.html>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Sep  9 04:12:16 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:12:16 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
> This is extremely principled of you. I not only admire that, but I emulate 
> it.
> However, you beg the question I'm asking: to wit, why should one even
> be principled?

I'm not even sure I understand the label, since you came up with it and not 
me.  But if you are asking why I keep doing the same things over and over as 
if there were a guiding principle, it is because I am older now and more 
experienced.  I have done a lot of things in a lot of different ways.  I 
have learned that some ways work better than others.  After a while, I tend 
to keep trying the ways that work best, and avoiding the ones that don't 
work well.

> I am afraid that you also either consciously or unconsciously
> mixing in a Kantian imperative "do as you would have everyone else do".
> But the fact of the matter is that you could change your behavior, become
> utterly unprincipled (in cases only where you aren't caught, of course), 
> and it would change no one else's behavior!

Nope, I don't believe in this Kantian imperative.  Firstly, I am not 
convinced that the best actions for one person are always the best actions 
for everyone.  Second, as you point out, it won't change the behavior of 
others.  Thirdly, I don't base my own actions on others, but rather on 
myself.

> There can be many people, Harvey, who would also believe as you do
> of the necessity of the free market and exchange of money to progress
> and prosperity, and they would never "reject the whole concept of a
> free-market system" either---it's just that such an individual would leave
> it to the rest of us "suckers" to carry on, while he or she violates every
> principle that can be gotten away with.

This only appears true because both are described by the term "free market". 
My concept of a "free market" is information based, where the consumer makes 
informed choices, and the best products sell the most, become the most 
efficiently produced, and make the most profit for the seller.  The 
cheater's "free market" is merely free from regulations or honesty, where 
they can produce fraudulent products, take money for nothing, and swindle 
people.  Thus, my market consists of real products and goods exchange, 
whereas the cheater's market consists of fraudulent products and outright 
thievery.  These two "free markets" are not the same thing at all, and there 
is very little belief system in common.

In fact, I would argue that the cheater's market exists as a parsital leech 
on the honest market, and could not exist without the honest market around 
it acting differently than the cheaters.actually function without the honest 
market around it.  Thus, the cheaters don't really want the same market that 
I do.  They want to hide their market within my market.  Their market 
doesn't really produce anything, and can only receive value from my market. 
So these two "markets" are not the same "free market" at all.

>> Even if I thought I could steal them more efficiently than buying them, 
>> there would be less opportunities to do so in an environment
>> where merchants regularly got shortchanged.
>
> Yes, but I'm saying that you could steal without causing everyone
> else to do so, and so hurt our progress and prosperity only
> infinitesimally and maximizing your own personal gain.

Let me be really blunt here.  I have already gotten away with stealing money 
from banks undetected.... as part of my security testing.  Then I give it 
back and they pay me big bucks for having done it.  Then they pay me big 
bucks to help them fix it.  Then other banks pay me big bucks for the same 
fix it for them.  And the same work can be reused for money over and over 
with lots of happy clients.

Could I get more money by keeping the money and not working so hard?  Not 
really.  I'd have to hide the money from the IRS and family and friends.  I 
couldn't go back to the bank every year for repeat business.  They'd tell 
their banker friends to increase security to keep me from getting their 
money too, rather than giving me job referals to get their money too.  I'd 
have to keep finding new targets rather than getting repeat business all the 
time.  I'd have to maintain a complete set of secret bank accounts, 
duplicate books, secret dealings to use my money.  Even purchasing property 
and vehicles becomes very complicated when the government can't track where 
the money came from.  I would have to launder money, work with big 
criminals, and they would all want their cut.  All in all, the illegal jobs 
incurr magnatudes more risk and effort than the legal ones.  It really is 
more lucrative to do a few $100K contracts than to steal a million dollars.

There is another problem with this false dichotomy.  One has to build up the 
technical skill to pull it off.  As one builds up these skills, one legally 
earns more and more money.  The more money one earns, the less lucrative the 
illegal options are in comparison.  If a person is enough of a loser to 
admit that they can't come up with a million dollar idea or build a millon 
dollar business, why would they think they could architect a million dollar 
heist?  Or if they really put in the effort to garner the necessary skills 
to achieve this, they probably have already been making six figures for many 
years and can make more in the future.  The ease of crime is overestimated, 
while the impossibility of making a cool legal million are underestimated.

>>> I see no necessary self-interest component to being fair to others, even
>>> though in most situations indeed there is. Surely the answer is at least
>>> in part genuine altruism.
>>
>> It sounds like you understand my answer, but you don't believe it.  Trust 
>> me, I don't care to give away my money for free to strangers I will never 
>> see again.
>
> Actually so? You wouldn't leave a tip in a restaurant you were
> certain never to visit again? I had inferred from the preceding
> that you would.

Yes, but this is not giving my money away for free.  This is a fair purchase 
of services.  I would only pay this tip after I have received good services 
in advance.  I wouldn't stiff a server on a tip any more than I would skip 
out on the bill itself or rob the cash register on my way out.  I really 
don't see this as being the same as throwing away money.  I just don't feel 
tempted to cheat people for a few measly dollars.

> I'll refrain in this thread from now on from using the terms, since I
> know far too well the futility of definitions. But I believe that I did
> use "genuine altruism" throughout in a consistent manner. So what
> we are talking about is *behavior that in no way ever conveys
> a material reward to one*.

I don't mind the terms, but you have to realise that I might now use them in 
the same way.  As I say, I don't consider tipping to be "genuine altruism" 
done just for the benefit of the server.  I do it to purchase services for 
*me*.  So I don't see myself as this altruist you want to argue against.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Sep  9 04:41:49 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 21:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Hugo Danner the Transhuman
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809072252k49974446x8fae82488435cb90@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <819317.77486.qm@web65402.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/6/08, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> > Stuart our Avantguardian writes
> >
> >> I thought [the SF story] "Gladiator" [by Wylie] was
> >> pretty well written for pulp fiction. Up to the end that is. What a
> >> disappointing ending for such a good story. It strikes me that Wylie sold
> >> out
> >> to bioconservatives and the Christian right in the last few pages of his
> >> novel.
> 
> I am going to have to read this book.  I had come across it while
> "book surfing" on Amazon and had put it in my wish-list que.

Wylie's publisher neglected to copyright the book that he lifted for pennies a
page from Wylie. The publisher's loss is now society's gain. It's in the public
domain so why buy?

http://www.archive.org/details/Gladiator_261

> Ahh, but creating a new lifeform and introducing it into an ecosystem
> (especially when we are discussing "homo superior") could possibly
> cause great havoc.  And do you want to be among the lifeforms that are
> on the losing side in a Darwinian struggle? lol

Which Darwinian struggle is that? The economic one or the biological one? The
rich are winning the economic one obviously, but the poor are winning the
biological one. So which side is truly winning? And what may I ask is
"superior" biologically speaking? Alexander the Great was killed by a mosquito.
Is the mosquito "superior" to Alexander? I assure you that *she* left more
descendants than he did.

You see in the Red Queen's Race there is no finish line, sometimes you're
ahead, sometimes you are behind, and it takes your whole bag of tricks just to
stay in the race.

> But even a "well meaning and loving" parent can go wrong or at least
> have bad offspring. lol  I do find it ironic that genetic engineering
> is often viewed in a bad light and yet I see parenthood as a form of
> playing God.

It most certainly is, and the goal of it is to prepare your offspring to play
God someday. Sheesh, John, you got me talking like a Mormon. ;-)

Lee writes:
> > My own fear is that they know what sells, what might make it as
> > a movie and so on.

That's a valid point. On the other hand, Madison Avenue would not exist if
"what sells" wasn't incredibly malleable.

> The story of Adam and Eve being thrown out of Eden for disobedience
> and partaking of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
> seems a paradigm for this discussion.  But on the other hand Genesis
> talks about God giving dominion of the planet to humanity and telling
> us to rule over all living things.  We are told to "subdue" our world.

Yet all we have accomplished is so far is to subdue one another whilst killing
our world. So we haven't gotten very far in our mission statement have we? Or
do you think condors or grizzlies would vote for us in free elections? And what
pray tell is good or evil? I don't see good or evil in the world. I only see
love, ignorance, and fear giving rise to birth, life, and death. For a world
filled with so many original sinners tainted by the forbidden fruit of
knowledge, I sure do see an aweful lot of ignorance.  

> >> Death apparently holds no fear for Christians,
> >> it's only life they have seem to have a problem with.
> 
> LOL, no believe me, Christians also are generally afraid of death.  It
> is part of the human condition.  In Mormon circles there is the belief
> that the separation/barrier between this world and the next is the
> "veil."  And the joke is, "most people talk about how much they look
> forward to the next world, but they treat approaching the veil like
> they would touching an electric fence!"

There is no veil. There is only Des Carte's Prison. The prison walls separate
you from the world and from one another. Death simply breaks down those walls.
So does enlightenment but in a far less painful fashion. I cannot die but to
become whatever I leave behind. The proud descendant of the worms that will eat
my corpse I am. Hear me roar! 

> I have been to very joyful funerals where the focus is on how the
> deceased old person lived a good life and has now graduated to a
> wonderful afterlife reward.  But the funeral of a child or young adult
> is very depressing, due to all the lost years and the grieving family
> that had hoped to see them live to their full potential.  Please don't
> mock a hurting Christian parent or sibling for feeling like this.

The whole point of funerals is to remind us that nothing ever really ends.


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 lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep  9 05:54:27 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:54:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Psi trickery- was Re:  QT and SR
References: <414128.53335.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <01e601c91241$29498cb0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart writes

> Well I know you are a skeptic, Lee, so I challenge you to see if you fall for
> my trickery. Pretend for a moment that I am a gypsy fortune teller. I hereby
> offer to make a prediction about you and post it to the list. This prediction
> will affect you personally. The catch is that I charge $50.00 USD for my
> services.
> 
> The twist however is that you and you alone get to decide if my prediction is
> accurate and if it indeed pertains to you. You and you alone decide if my
> prediction was fufilled or if it was total bullshit. If you decide my
> prediction comes true, then you are contractually obligated, with the whole
> list as witnesses, to pay me my agreed upon fee and furthermore admit the
> possibility of psi. If my prediction does not come true, then you are
> contractually and morally obligated to refuse to pay my fee and may freely
> proclaim to the world that I am a charlatan and a fraud.
> 
> If you agree to my terms, say so and I will make my prediction.

What kind of BS prediction is this? Sounds indeed like a cheap
trick. Use your ESP on something real, like the amount of change
in my pocket as I leave for work tomorrow (I won't touch it)
and you'll have your $50.

If you agree to my terms, make your prediction.

And---being so much nicer than you---there won't even be downside
if you fail. Except to explain the sheer idiocy the turn this thread has taken.

lee



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep  9 06:06:17 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:06:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>
Message-ID: <200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
> On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom
>...
> 
> > The cartoon doesn't generalize to all...
> 
> I also find this claim to be disingenuous.  Everybody agrees 
> that the character depicted is Mohammed.  So how can you then 
> claim not to know what race he is or what religion he 
> represents?  It seems clear that he represents Muslims and/or 
> Arabs and/or Arabic Muslims.  The symbol clearly implies that 
> the leader himself was a terrorist, and by extension all his 
> followers are too.  I don't see what other interpretation can 
> be made from this cartoon.  If that's not the message, then what is?
> --
> Harvey Newstrom


The scriptures contain verses that, if taken literally, suggest violence.  A
couple examples:

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:176]  "You will indeed fight against the Jews and
you will kill them to the point where the rock and the tree will say: 'O
Muslim! O 'Abdullaah (slave of Allaah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me.
Come and kill him.' " 

KORAN [4.89] "They desire that you should disbelieve as they have
disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among
them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn
back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them..."

The overwhelming majority rejects these verses of course, so there is no
generalization to all believers, and exactly nothing to do with racism.  But
a tiny minority misunderstand the verses to say exactly what it looks to me
like they say.  So christianity has its creationists, and this religion has
this tiny but dangerous minority.  Only the dangerous ones are dangerous.

Regarding the Danish cartoons then, is the reaction such a surprise?  The
audacious suggestion that this particular religion may be somehow associated
with violence so enraged the population that they exploded in peaceful
introspection and global conferences to examine why this misconception
exists.  No, actually that isn't exactly how it turned out, unfortunately.
Riots broke out, and the cartoonist lives in hiding under constant guard in
fear for his life because of that tiny minority.  He faces criminal
prosecution for blasphemy should he travel to the middle east, all over a
cartoon.

We treat all races with respect, for one does not choose one's race (yet).
But religion is a choice, and so it is open to criticism, lampoon and
parody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

spike



From scerir at libero.it  Tue Sep  9 06:47:13 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:47:13 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Cramer going backwards
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080908212737.0cf39b38@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <34a601c91247$e50a3840$55e71e97@archimede>

> "If the experiment works, then I will be on to some very interesting
> roads to success," Cramer said, "but I'll probably end up writing the
> novel rather than making the discovery. In a sense, doing the
> experiment is background for the novel."

He is trying a difficult experiment. As far as I know
he is trying to transform a two-photon interference
experiment (the correlation between two position/momentum 
entangled photons) in a one-photon interference "at a distance"
experiment. There are papers showing that this is impossible
(for essential reasons). There are experiments showing that
this is -at least- difficult. 


Another conceptual experiment (to entangle past and future,
and to modify one of the two) would be the following (according 
to Afriat).

The observable used to violate Bell's inequality is a function 
of four quantities (2 dichotomic parameters), two for one side, 
two for the other. These are usually angles or directions, but 
could also be times or quantities concerning the Hamiltonians. 
Provided realism is granted, a violation of Bell's inequality 
indicates the 'non-separability' of entangled systems.
If the quantities are physical directions, a value possessed 
by an entangled system can be modified by the physical rotation 
of a distant apparatus. If the parameters are times, one could 
conclude that the value possessed by an entangled system at time t 
depends on whether a measurement on a distant system is performed 
at time t' or at time t''.



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Sep  9 07:26:12 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:26:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>
	<200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <1220945431_36648@s5.cableone.net>

At 11:06 PM 9/8/2008, spike wrote:

snip

>We treat all races with respect, for one does not choose one's race (yet).
>But religion is a choice,

I am not so sure it is, especially for people who do not understand 
why human evolved the trait to have religions at all.

Roughly religions are xenophobic memes that gain influence in 
populations when they are under stress and perceive a bleak 
future.  In the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, they served 
to synch a tribe's warriors into a frenzy to go out and kill neighbors.

As long as the income per capita is rising this mechanism is turned 
off.  But when it is turned on, we did not evolved to resist it.

>and so it is open to criticism, lampoon and
>parody.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

A good example of a people who have a bleak future.  It does not take 
much to set them on the warpath.

Keith Henson 



From xuenay at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 08:31:28 2008
From: xuenay at gmail.com (Kaj Sotala)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:31:28 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Facebook is freaking me out
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809081628y5c593te2292ea06da71055@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809072249u7cca810di4ab3cc9e06498898@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080908153750.VGKM24964.hrndva-omta01.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<710b78fc0809081628y5c593te2292ea06da71055@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a13bb8f0809090131x7d667756v490843fd3e5548ab@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure I was coming to a point, but someone wants me to sign up to
> twitter. Ooh, shiny!

There was a really interesting article about the mental and social
impact of both Twitter and Facebook in the NYT recently, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html .

Excerpt:

"Each day, Haley logged on to his account, and his friends' updates
would appear as a long page of one- or two-line notes. He would check
and recheck the account several times a day, or even several times an
hour. The updates were indeed pretty banal. One friend would post
about starting to feel sick; one posted random thoughts like "I really
hate it when people clip their nails on the bus"; another Twittered
whenever she made a sandwich - and she made a sandwich every day. Each
so-called tweet was so brief as to be virtually meaningless.

But as the days went by, something changed. Haley discovered that he
was beginning to sense the rhythms of his friends' lives in a way he
never had before. When one friend got sick with a virulent fever, he
could tell by her Twitter updates when she was getting worse and the
instant she finally turned the corner. He could see when friends were
heading into hellish days at work or when they'd scored a big success.
Even the daily catalog of sandwiches became oddly mesmerizing, a sort
of metronomic click that he grew accustomed to seeing pop up in the
middle of each day.

This is the paradox of ambient awareness. Each little update - each
individual bit of social information - is insignificant on its own,
even supremely mundane. But taken together, over time, the little
snippets coalesce into a surprisingly sophisticated portrait of your
friends' and family members' lives, like thousands of dots making a
pointillist painting. This was never before possible, because in the
real world, no friend would bother to call you up and detail the
sandwiches she was eating. The ambient information becomes like "a
type of E.S.P.," as Haley described it to me, an invisible dimension
floating over everyday life."


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 10:28:20 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:28:20 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The fires of creation - Telegraph
In-Reply-To: <1220898042.7201.7972.camel@hayek>
References: <200809081415.m88EF358022582@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<1220898042.7201.7972.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <580930c20809090328gd665bfcwf6530d90c3101e1b@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Fred C. Moulton <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:

>
> Palin is not a libertarian.  Absolutely not a libertarian; not even
> close.  She is a conservative right wing religious Christian Republican
> politician.
>

Wow, not exactly the best conceivable breed of an American politician as
they come, I daresay... :-)

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080909/30465ce5/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 10:48:04 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:48:04 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>
	<200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809090348r4dcd70bk795f5b0ebbfd7f21@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:06 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> The scriptures contain verses that, if taken literally, suggest violence.

Yes, more or less as everything, and probably less than the Bible.

Personally, however, I prefer to err on the side of the freedom of
speech than on that of respect for Mr. Brown's or Mr. Jones's personal
or collective feelings.

Especially as long as transhumanists are an embattled minority... :-)

Stefano Vaj


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 13:44:38 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:44:38 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Uploading people has started.
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809090644o2ec29a3fke468afa75bc80fb9@mail.gmail.com>

See:  <http://www.virsona.com/>

Virsona  makes "virtual personas" for chat. The idea is that you feed
it the written works and online resources of a particular persona, and
then its chatbot will respond with the appropriate facts and
personality.

Quote from website:
Virsonas are "Virtual Personas," created to Reason, Remember and React
in the same way that a living, fictional or historical person would.
You can create the "Virtual You" as a Personal Virsona? or you can
create and / or interact with one of our Community Virsonas.
Interacting with our Community Virsonas opens up a world of
possibility - you can actually talk directly to one of your heroes,
conduct research or simply have FUN! You can also create Virsonas of
departed loved ones, your pet(s), as well as for commonly shared
experiences, for example; "The First Kiss."

Our Virsonas don't know the answers to everything, but they are
capable and willing to learn. As part of the Virsona Community, you
can participate in "educating" them using the "Teach" button. So, if
you chat with a Virsona and it doesn't know the answer, simply create
your free account, and you can begin to "teach" it by simply inputting
the correct answers! That's the beauty of a Community; participation,
sharing and learning.
--------


I can hardly wait for the virtual 'Lee Corbin' !!!   ;)


BillK


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Sep  9 16:56:49 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:56:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
Message-ID: <1220979668_54647@s8.cableone.net>

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

If someone wants to upload some or all of this for comment here, please do.

Keith



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep  9 18:02:49 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:02:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <1220945431_36648@s5.cableone.net>
References: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>
	<200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<1220945431_36648@s5.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909125143.022ae140@satx.rr.com>

At 12:26 AM 9/9/2008 -0700, Keith wrote of:

>people who do not understand why human evolved the trait to have 
>religions at all.
>
>Roughly religions are xenophobic memes that gain influence in 
>populations when they are under stress and perceive a bleak 
>future.  In the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, they 
>served to synch a tribe's warriors into a frenzy to go out and kill neighbors.
>
>As long as the income per capita is rising this mechanism is turned 
>off.  But when it is turned on, we did not evolved to resist it.

This assertion seems to me poorly phrased or maybe conceptualized. 
It's a bit like saying "Music is a xenophobic meme that evolved to 
bind bands of cousins together and arouse their bloodlust when they 
went out to kill other bands." Or "Language is a xenophobic meme that 
evolved to let bands of cousins communicate more efficiently when 
they went out to kill neighbors." That is surely a subset of what 
religion, music and language do, and one of the drivers for their 
retention. But all these behaviors and tropisms also and more 
importantly sustain bonding between unrelated peoples and between 
individuals and their ecological setting that is quite independent of 
warlike uses. To put it mildly.

Damien Broderick 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep  9 19:06:58 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:06:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <1220979668_54647@s8.cableone.net>
References: <1220979668_54647@s8.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909140420.022dd498@satx.rr.com>

At 09:56 AM 9/9/2008 -0700, Keith wrote:

>http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

Excellent paper! Of course I'm saying that because Haidt's reading of 
morality, politics and religion fits more exactly with my own than 
with Keith's earlier extremely narrow reductionist "Roughly religions 
are xenophobic memes"...  :)

Damien Broderick



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Sep  9 19:16:42 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:16:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Origin of Religions was Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909125143.022ae140@satx.rr.com>
References: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>
	<200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<1220945431_36648@s5.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909125143.022ae140@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1220988061_38254@S4.cableone.net>

At 11:02 AM 9/9/2008, Damien wrote:
>At 12:26 AM 9/9/2008 -0700, Keith wrote of:
>
>>people who do not understand why human evolved the trait to have 
>>religions at all.
>>
>>Roughly religions are xenophobic memes that gain influence in 
>>populations when they are under stress and perceive a bleak 
>>future.  In the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, they 
>>served to synch a tribe's warriors into a frenzy to go out and kill neighbors.
>>
>>As long as the income per capita is rising this mechanism is turned 
>>off.  But when it is turned on, we did not evolved to resist it.
>
>This assertion seems to me poorly phrased or maybe conceptualized.

Longer version was printed 
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/summer2006_henson.html I can send you 
a copy of the .pdf if you want.

If you have a better analysis of the selection forces that drove the 
psychological characteristics that result in what we see as religions 
don't keep it a secret.

>It's a bit like saying "Music is a xenophobic meme that evolved

Music is not a meme.  A particular song is a meme.

>to bind bands of cousins together and arouse their bloodlust when 
>they went out to kill other bands."

>Or "Language is a xenophobic meme

Language is not usually considered a meme either.  A meme is an 
element of culture.  It may be expressed in language, but that's not necessary.

>that evolved to let bands of cousins communicate more efficiently 
>when they went out to kill neighbors." That is surely a subset of 
>what religion, music and language do, and one of the drivers for 
>their retention. But all these behaviors and tropisms also and more 
>importantly sustain bonding between unrelated peoples and between 
>individuals and their ecological setting that is quite independent 
>of warlike uses. To put it mildly.

At the time people evolved behaviors about how they treated those 
around them, there wasn't much of a distinction between "people you 
grew up with" and "relative."  Since people don't have built in gene 
analyzers, the best genes could do to make automatic inclusive 
fitness life or death calculations is to assume that a tribe member 
was a relative.

But to get selection for some trait at all, you need the environment 
to have serious survival effects on gene frequencies.  People 
generally have filled the world to beyond capacity for all the time 
they existed.  Fighting between groups who exploited the environment 
was a major source of selection.  See Azar Gat on this subject.  Or 
consider the Old Testament.

I freely admit this topic is not politically correct.

Keith




From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 20:08:39 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:08:39 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Uploading people has started.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809090644o2ec29a3fke468afa75bc80fb9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0809090644o2ec29a3fke468afa75bc80fb9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809091308y47bea609k60a2eadb62989bc9@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:44 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can hardly wait for the virtual 'Lee Corbin' !!!   ;)

Who do you think is responding to every email on this list?  The
_real_ Lee Corbin has been retired 15 years and living like a king in
Patagonia.


From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 20:14:45 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:14:45 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909125143.022ae140@satx.rr.com>
References: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>
	<200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<1220945431_36648@s5.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909125143.022ae140@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809091314w11e767f1g90dce409d169045a@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> This assertion seems to me poorly phrased or maybe conceptualized. It's a
> bit like saying "Music is a xenophobic meme that evolved to bind bands of
> cousins together and arouse their bloodlust when they went out to kill other
> bands." Or "Language is a xenophobic meme that evolved to let bands of
> cousins communicate more efficiently when they went out to kill neighbors."
> That is surely a subset of what religion, music and language do, and one of
> the drivers for their retention. But all these behaviors and tropisms also
> and more importantly sustain bonding between unrelated peoples and between
> individuals and their ecological setting that is quite independent of
> warlike uses. To put it mildly.

xenophobic memes are evolved to let meme-ologists band together when
they go on mailing lists to kill ...uh... neighbor memes?


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep  9 20:16:20 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:16:20 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Origin of Religions
In-Reply-To: <1220988061_38254@S4.cableone.net>
References: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>
	<200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<1220945431_36648@s5.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909125143.022ae140@satx.rr.com>
	<1220988061_38254@S4.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909151104.02341998@satx.rr.com>

At 12:16 PM 9/9/2008 -0700, Keith wrote:

>>It's a bit like saying "Music is a xenophobic meme that evolved
>
>Music is not a meme.  A particular song is a meme.

Religion/piety/belief in supernatural explanations and connections is 
not "a meme" either. A particular religion is a huge bundle of 
sometimes inconsistent memes, as well as innate drivers.

>>to bind bands of cousins together and arouse their bloodlust when 
>>they went out to kill other bands."
>
>>Or "Language is a xenophobic meme
>
>Language is not usually considered a meme either.  A meme is an 
>element of culture.  It may be expressed in language, but that's not necessary.

Quite; same with religion.

But yes, this is an enormous topic, and the margins of this email are 
not wide enough...

Damien Broderick




From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 20:44:58 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 21:44:58 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Origin of Religions was Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <1220988061_38254@S4.cableone.net>
References: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>
	<200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<1220945431_36648@s5.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909125143.022ae140@satx.rr.com>
	<1220988061_38254@S4.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809091344qa7be030v7261bfba94f8e00a@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:16 PM, hkhenson wrote:
> Longer version was printed
> http://www.mankindquarterly.org/summer2006_henson.html I can send you a copy
> of the .pdf if you want.
>
> If you have a better analysis of the selection forces that drove the
> psychological characteristics that result in what we see as religions don't
> keep it a secret.
<snip>
> But to get selection for some trait at all, you need the environment to have
> serious survival effects on gene frequencies.  People generally have filled
> the world to beyond capacity for all the time they existed.  Fighting
> between groups who exploited the environment was a major source of
> selection.  See Azar Gat on this subject.  Or consider the Old Testament.
>


A new paper, here:
<http://www.physorg.com/news140174454.html>

Quote:
Tribal war drove human evolution of aggression
By Lisa Zyga,
Wars are costly in terms of lives and resources ? so why have we
fought them throughout human history? In modern times, states may
fight wars for a number of complex reasons. But in the past, most
tribal wars were fought for the most basic resources: goods,
territory, and women.
These reproduction-enhancing resources prompted our ancestors to fight
in order to pass down their family genes. With war as a driving force
for survival, an interesting pattern occurred, according to a new
study. People with certain warrior-like traits were more likely to
engage in and win wars, and then passed their warrior genes down to
their children, which ? on an evolutionary timescale ? made their
tribe even more warrior-like. In short, humans seem to have become
more aggressive over time due to war's essential benefits.
----------------


Basically saying that human males fight because in pre-history the
males who were worse at fighting didn't pass their genes on.  But they
are at a loss to explain why modern nations go to war.
(Except for obvious economic reasons).


BillK


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Sep  9 21:52:09 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:52:09 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <E60A846C587F43B38662CE5DB8727386@Catbert>

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote,
> The scriptures contain verses that, if taken literally, suggest violence.

So do the Jewish scriptures and the Christian scriptures.  Who cares?

> So christianity has its creationists, and this religion has
> this tiny but dangerous minority.  Only the dangerous ones are dangerous

Look up "Christian Terrorism" in Wikipedia.com to see what Christianity has.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep  9 21:57:11 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:57:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com><005701c909f9$045e37c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><027d01c90a68$4384e830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer><007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer><f21c22e30809071709l42c2f21rf7a2dff7249b5dc@mail.gmail.com><000b01c9117b$cc9164e0$6de71e97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30809080419n2b3e9bc8g6786fbc648eb4e05@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <021901c912c7$147b5a30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> 2008/9/8 scerir <scerir at libero.it>:
>> Stathis:
>>> But in the MWI, in one world you definitely chose A
>>> and in the other you definitely chose B. It still feels
>>> as if you had a "free" choice because you only experience
>>> one world at a time, but that's just an illusion.
>>> The distal electron will always correlate with your
>>> electron, because all along it was in either the universe
>>> where you made the A measurement or in the universe where
>>> you made the B measurement.

(Which wording I don't quite agree with, though I suspect that
Stathis and I are in the same univ..., er, on the same page.)

>> In EPR experiments there are two measurements (Alice
>> performs her measurement here, Bob performs his
>> measurement in a spacelike separated region). Can MWI
>> say which, between Alice and Bob, performed his
>> measurement first and which then? I do not think so.
>> So, in the sentence "in a world *you* definitely chose A
>> and in the other *you* definitely chose B" those *you*
>> refer to both Alice and Bob, isn't it?
> 
> There are many Alices and Bobs all doing their own thing every which
> way, but when they actually meet up, we find that their results always
> correlate. It's the fact of this correlation when they meet up that
> shows they are in the same world.

They're in the same world *now*.

> It's tempting to add, as I did above, that therefore they must have
> been in the same world all along,

My only objection to your phrase is that until a measurement is
conducted here, r'chere there is but one "branch", and we usually
say that it bifurcates here when the measurement is performed,
yielding an Alice-a and an Alice-b right here. Likewise, there,
until a measurement is performed there, only a single branch exists
there. But when (or if, I guess) they go ahead yonder, then a Bob-a
and a Bob-b will develop from Bob too over there.

> but I can see on reflection that this is not meaningful while they are
> spacelike separated.

While they are still spacelike separated is when we assume 
that the measurement(s) take place; that is, in other words,
the splitting occurs *first* neither here nor there, but outside
each other's light cones. So like I was saying before, the
Alices and Bobs---outside the light cones of each other's
respective measurement events--- remain single and then
become dual, all before getting any light signals from each other.

Lee-a



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep  9 22:39:38 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:39:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com><200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <022801c912cd$6375f400$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien quotes from 

> blog quite nicely put, and clarifying, on a widespread misunderstanding:
> 
> http://ladislaw.livejournal.com/
> 
> 
> When the Ministry of Truth Got Ahold of Orwell
> 
> During the dustup surrounding the recent online posting of an ethnic 
> (or maybe it was religious) slur, some people objected to the 
> imposition of what they viewed as political correctness; they 
> referred to Orwell in their defense. (The author himself did so....)....

> The correlations these folks find between politically correct speech 
> and the Newspeak of 1984 simply aren't there. Though PC has become a 
> kind of swear word--a marvelous twisting of its intent by 
> conservatives, though certainly some on the left are to blame for its 
> "mission creep"--the purpose of being politically correct in one's 
> speech is to cause as little offense as possible to others.

What a huge load of misleading crap.

> This is achieved by using the terminology for self-reference employed by 
> those who are not you. Certainly such decisions are going to be 
> imperfect, but the knowledge that one should at least try to moderate 
> language in order to remove innately offensive terms is the key to 

(now get this!)

> politically correct thinking. It doesn't mean people don't have 
> differences and that you don't call each other on them; it purely has 
> to do with politeness. When language becomes loaded in unintentional 
> ways, we lose exactitude, hostility increases, and people focus on 
> the words rather than the message.

"Purely to do with politeness". Oh, sure! I strongly suspect that
if those who first coined the term had meant only politeness, then
they would have used "courtesy" or "politeness" or some phrase
based on them. No, instead we have "political correctness" which
does have a Comintern/Orwellian ring to it, as it *obviously*
rules as "incorrect" (i.e. inadmissible with implied threat of
forbidden) anything that is not the Party Line. And this is *exactly*
how the fellow-travelers and Communists of the 1940s and 1950s
thought (and kept right on thinking in the Worker's Paradise itself
by deeming dissenters as in need of psychiatric confinement), and
how, alas, today almost everyone has learned to think and talk.

I actually love those last five lines. They're a hoot;  unintentionally
quite hilarious. "When language becomes loaded in unintentional ways..."
he says, as he deliberately loads his own favored meaning into a phrase
that never had it.  Or she?  Oh, so sorry!  Alas, I'm afraid I may have
inadvertently given grave offense, not to mention falling down on my PC.

> Newspeak is about removing words not because they are offensive, but 
> because they are precise. Newspeak is about imprecision. Remove 
> words, the logic goes, and one removes the very concepts. Orwell was 
> not thinking of, say, ethnic slurs or rude speech; he was thinking of 
> humanistic language, exacting language, the language of human virtue 
> and inhumane horror.

Yeah, and just where have terms like "virtue", "courtesy", and "politeness"
gone, and (even in the best case) why did they need to be replaced
(according to his own absurd claim) by "political correctness"?  Just
who is it anyway who recoils from concepts like "virtue"? It's the
same damned folks who introduced, sponsored, and sanctioned
being "politically correct" in the first place, and have done every other
thing that they can think of to attack tradition, Victorianism, traditional
standards of conduct and decorum, and tradition in general. 

> The military term "collateral damage" is Orwellian precisely because
> it removes ethics and humanity and human suffering from its reach.
> Newspeak, like some military speech, blunts our understanding,
> and thus blunts our humanity.

Yes!  And notice the cherry-picking of examples so goddam common
in propaganda. He made a feeble attempt at even-handedness in the
second paragraph above, that looks to me little more than subterfuge,
though admittedly in the right direction. Yes it is perfectly true that
efforts towards newspeak, whether it be attempts to replace "AD/BC"
by the more PC terms "BCE/CE", or whether it be "terminate",
"collateral damage", or "pro-life" as other disparate groups and
sentiments pick up on the idea, all still stink to high heaven with
this same horrid odor of propaganda and silly efforts at mind-control.

> Of course, people can take even the clarity of Orwell and distort his 
> meaning for their own purposes.

Yes---and not only is it now common to do so in every field, Lenin's
own personal and ultimate gift to humanity, but we have an example of
this very author doing it too, right here!

> There is a better parallel to politically correct speech, and it's to 
> be found in Fahrenheit 451; however, this parallel too misses the 
> mark.

A remarkably good parallel, indeed that fits the author's own
twisted claims about "political correctness" is the use of 
euphemism that goes far beyond politeness and runs amuck
into vast regions of silliness. You are *not* going to improve
the status of black people in the western world by renaming
them every decade or two. You are not going to make cripples
any less lame by moving from "cripple" to "handicapped" to
"challenged" or "special". But I tell you it's the same mindset
as those who absolutely need to abolish the traditional and
quite harmless use of the default "he" in order to save endless
repetitions of "he and she" (or to constantly be distracting
readers with "she" superposed over the traditional "he" at
every turn).

> inappropriate; people in Bradbury's world object because they refuse 
> to have anyone speak at all about the differences that exist. To 
> speak of politics, religion, race and sex is to disturb the facade of 
> bland sameness, and people don't want their perfect future disturbed. 
> As Montag tells his wife, sometimes we need to be shaken up. Bradbury 
> objects to a culture that fears confronting its issues, not one 
> that's merely addressing itself to impolite forms of speech.

Sometimes language that the author might find to be impolite,
(perhaps a sentence that employed the word "janitor"?), others
might find to be just disturbing "the facade of bland sameness".

I do fear that if I became dictator tomorrow, the author would
find himself suddenly "liberated" from certain "improprieties of
speech" in one of my "re-education" camps, two more terms
there that we owe to modern left-wing totalitarianism.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep  9 23:01:47 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:01:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com><200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809080319s2860ded6n411d3569eec48198@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <022901c912d0$32521ef0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stefano writes

>> "http://ladislaw.livejournal.com/
>>
>> The correlations these folks find between politically correct speech and the
>> Newspeak of 1984 simply aren't there. Though PC has become a kind of swear
>> word--a marvelous twisting of its intent by conservatives, though certainly
>> some on the left are to blame for its "mission creep"--the purpose of being
>> politically correct in one's speech is to cause as little offense as
>> possible to others. This is achieved by using the terminology for
>> self-reference employed by those who are not you.
> 
> Why, the least [that] can be said in this respect is that the adepts of PC
> language make curious exceptions exactly regarding those who are in
> perceived breach thereof. Has anybody ever labelled [his or her] own
> message, e.g., as "hate speak"?

Great point. Note also the precisely lyrically equal tempo and sense
of "hate speech" and "thought crime". We are now also blessed with
"hate crime". Orwell knew these people inside and out, infinitely
better than they can see themselves, even, I'll wager, after they
read Animal Farm or "Nineteen Eighty-Four". But it still amazes
me; how could someone be so idiotic and ignorant as to coin "hate
crime" or "hate speech" in our culture, and not some euphemism
instead? The most probable answer scares me: it's because they
think *so* precisely as did the institutions that Orwell was 
attacking that they just can't help it.

> I do my best to adopt one's definition of what he is, even though this
> may be a moving target, especially for racial, gender/sexual
> orientation, and undesirable/undesired personal features, but am also
> under the impression that PC is very inconsistent in this respect, and
> above all vastly extends beyond that.

Certainly!  Who (in the West) call themselves "Communist" any
more, or "Fascist"?  And the "white supremacists" I've met really
only think of themselves as "white separatists", yet the "black
separatists" never undergo this kind of abuse. There are a lot
of American liberals who don't go by that name anymore, and
I've wondered now just what to call them, having reluctantly had
to reject "progressive" as too loaded and imprecise. Bill O'Reilly
suggests "secular progressive", and that's not a bad idea. 

> Moreover, "labelling" is undeniably also a way to (re-)organise
> political concepts along different lines in view of new political
> programmes and views. When I use the term of  "neoluddism" to define
> altogether the very different brands of anti-transhumanist and
> anti-technology preachers one can find around, my purpose is not
> really that of "gratuitously insulting" them, but rather to express my
> view on the fundamental convergence of their narratives and the bottom
> line thereof.

Quite right. In a similar vein, we do need to refer to some people
as *racists*, because like it or not, this term does connote their
belief and behavior that race supersedes other characteristics that
one may learn about some particular guy or gal.

>> Certainly such decisions are going to be imperfect, but the
>> knowledge that one should at least try to moderate language
>> in order to remove innately offensive terms is the key to
>> politically correct thinking.
> 
> "Innately" offensive terms sound as a quite funny concept...

Thanks for pointing this out. This too had totally escaped me.

> Many terms [which] were invented as disparaging have been
> recuperated as a badge of honour by individuals and constituencies
> (e.g., proletarian, pagan, revolutionary). Other terms that were
> considered of a purely descriptive nature have been replaced with
> other terms, only to see those being later replaced again, and again,
> since the social stigma attaches to what they represent, not to the
> way they sound.

Yeah, I just made that point in another post.

> In fact, one has to suspect that what PC language really aims at is
> the *removal* of the concepts behind the words, or at least a
> deliberate change in their emotional perception, an attempt which,
> depending on the occasions, may be less than candid (e.g., in
> education).
> 
> What in fact PC language has in common with Newspeak is to make a
> political programme of a self-conscious, deliberate effort to control
> in the strictest possible way the language to modify the ideas, for
> the better or for the worse, the language expresses, increasing the
> repression of "deviant" terminology, rather than letting the language
> evolve more or less spontaneously according to its rhythms and
> mechanisms,

Terrific! We should find a way of sending your paragraph to the author
of that article.

>> Newspeak is about removing words not because they are offensive, but because
>> they are precise. Newspeak is about imprecision. Remove words, the logic
>> goes, and one removes the very concepts.
> 
> There again, one may well feel less than attracted by the Orwellian
> society, and yet recognise that the purpose of Newspeak is rather the
> opposite. Newspeak is about *removing* imprecisions, shades and
> metaphors, as long as metaphorical, emotionally charged concepts that
> can be instrumentalised or reinterpreted in order to suggest a
> possible different state of things. See "free from fleas" and
> "politically free".
> 
> Now, the concept of "political freedom" has been adopted absolutely
> by everybody, including conservatives, liberals, secessionists,
> nationalsocialists, communists, anarchists, etc. with vastly different
> meanings depending on the circumstances; but invariably it was used
> as a way to challenge the order in place or to establish a term of
> comparison thereto. This is what Newspeak aims at removing.

Yes, I understand that even the strictest Soviet Communists gave
lip-service to "political freedom" and "democracy"---the "vastly
different meanings" you speak of. And I guess I understand that
when first coined, these terms did serve "as a way to challenge
the order in place". But I don't understand what you mean exactly
by suggesting that Newspeak aims to remove this---this what?

Lee
  
> Stefano Vaj



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep  9 23:03:57 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:03:57 -0500
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <022801c912cd$6375f400$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
	<022801c912cd$6375f400$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909175640.024d2f90@satx.rr.com>

At 03:39 PM 9/9/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>"Purely to do with politeness". Oh, sure! I strongly suspect that
>if those who first coined the term had meant only politeness, then
>they would have used "courtesy" or "politeness" or some phrase
>based on them. No, instead we have "political correctness" which
>does have a Comintern/Orwellian ring to it, as it *obviously*
>rules as "incorrect" (i.e. inadmissible with implied threat of
>forbidden) anything that is not the Party Line.

It's complicated. Wikipedia isn't bad on this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness>

...a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior 
seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, 
disabled, aged or other identity groups. Conversely, the term 
"politically incorrect" is used to refer to language or ideas that 
may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy.

Ruth Perry traces the term back to Mao's Little Red Book. According 
to Perry, the term was later adopted by the radical left in the 
1960s, initially seriously and later ironically, as a self-criticism 
of dogmatic attitudes. In the 1990s, because of the term's 
association with radical politics and communist censorship, it was 
used by the political right in the United States to discredit the Old
and New 
Left.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#cite_note-Perry-1992a-0>[1]

================
"Initially seriously and later ironically"--I think the "seriously" 
aspect might not have been long-lived, except among the rabid 
Maoists. I encountered it in Australia in the late '60s and early 
'70s in use among lefties and libertarians who *always* meant it 
ironically (usually uttered with a laugh), at the expense of the 
programmatic communist lunatics. Maybe this was not the case in the 
US, in which case I've been... misinformed.

Damien Broderick






From kanzure at gmail.com  Wed Sep 10 00:36:39 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:36:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Uploading people has started.
In-Reply-To: <62c14240809091308y47bea609k60a2eadb62989bc9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0809090644o2ec29a3fke468afa75bc80fb9@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809091308y47bea609k60a2eadb62989bc9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809091936.39423.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Tuesday 09 September 2008, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> Who do you think is responding to every email on this list? ?The
> _real_ Lee Corbin has been retired 15 years and living like a king in
> Patagonia.

I've *met* the _real_ Lee Corbin, and he's been retired for THIRTY years 
ever since his make and model was terminated from the factory floor.

More seriously, I looked at the link that Bill provided and I'm not 
impressed. I asked Abe a few questions and he's just Alexa, a hidden 
makrov model or something less.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 10 01:04:15 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:04:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909175640.024d2f90@satx.rr.com>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
	<022801c912cd$6375f400$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909175640.024d2f90@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909185422.02440c20@satx.rr.com>

There's a lot of confusion surrounding this ham-fisted "PC" 
expression. Whose "politics" are supposed to be supported by 
"correct" thinking and speaking, and who are the Western politicians 
who ordain its correctness?

One component is PCness what I'd rather call "mealy-mouthed 
euphemism". Even there, it's not clear who gains by calling a person 
who is cognitively disabled "a veggie" rather than "someone with 
special needs". I'd rather such people were called "disabled" or 
"impaired" or something accurate. There's a degree of wishful 
thinking in slurring from "that term is ugly and hurts" to magical 
thinking along the lines of "If we call Suzie a `developing genius,' 
maybe she'll stop sitting in the corner sucking her thumbs and 
crapping on the floor."

Another component is explicit denial of what appears to be the case: 
maybe you can lose your job and get beaten up for asserting that the 
reason black people as a group score on average 15 points lower on 
alleged culture-fair IQ tests, is probably because a lot of them 
can't think very well about the sorts of questions posed on IQ tests, 
and furthermore IQ tests results correlate quite well with success in 
an industrial nation, which is ne reason why... etc. Is it due to 
PCness if you can't openly discuss findings that suggest Asian IQ 
scores are somewhat to the right of 100, but have a more narrow 
standard deviation than the normalized 15 or 16?  It goes right out 
of control when you lose your job for using the word "niggardly," as 
happened to a political aide with a broad vocabulary (although he got 
his job back).

Nothing simple about any of this.

Damien Broderick



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 10 01:10:32 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Uploading people has started.
In-Reply-To: <200809091936.39423.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <208867.91326.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


--- Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:

> More seriously, I looked at the link that Bill provided and I'm not 
> impressed. I asked Abe a few questions and he's just Alexa, a hidden 
> makrov model or something less.

Don't kid yourself, those hidden Markov models are rather impressive. I've used
them before and have no idea wherein Markov could be hiding. ;-)



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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 10 01:42:45 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:42:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909185422.02440c20@satx.rr.com>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
	<022801c912cd$6375f400$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909175640.024d2f90@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909185422.02440c20@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909203911.024509f0@satx.rr.com>

At 08:04 PM 9/9/2008 -0500, I somehow typed (since I was watching the 
premiere of FRINGE at the time):

>One component is PCness what I'd rather call "mealy-mouthed euphemism".

I meant, of course, One component of PCness is what I'd rather call 
"mealy-mouthed euphemism". Ditto the other typos.

DB





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 10 01:44:40 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:44:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Uploading people has started.
In-Reply-To: <208867.91326.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <200809091936.39423.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<208867.91326.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909204340.02356bc8@satx.rr.com>

At 06:10 PM 9/9/2008 -0700, Stuart wrote:

>Don't kid yourself, those hidden Markov models are rather 
>impressive. I've used
>them before and have no idea wherein Markov could be hiding. ;-)

You'll never find him, they have him chained up.

Damien Broderick




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 10 01:49:27 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:49:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909185422.02440c20@satx.rr.com>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
	<022801c912cd$6375f400$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909175640.024d2f90@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909185422.02440c20@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909204607.02323900@satx.rr.com>

Oh, btw--in Oz it was more often "ideologically incorrect" (again, 
mostly for ironic purposes; a woman writer friend was planning a book 
titled IDEOLOGICALLY INCORRECT LOVE STORIES but I suppose Lee's 
Orwellian thought police must have had it crushed; they certainly 
didn't make it mandatory, the other possibility).

Damien Broderick



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 10 03:30:27 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:30:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <022901c912d0$32521ef0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809080319s2860ded6n411d3569eec48198@mail.gmail.com>
	<022901c912d0$32521ef0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909222710.022a6958@satx.rr.com>

At 04:01 PM 9/9/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>We should find a way of sending your paragraph to the author
>of that article.

Nothing stopping you, not even the Leninist Thought Cops. I've 
forgotten which blog it was, but wait, by a stroke of luck here's the 
LJ url I posted right at the top of my first email in this thread:

http://ladislaw.livejournal.com/

Why not send the whole lot to him?







From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Sep 10 05:23:04 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:23:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Origin of Religions was Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809091344qa7be030v7261bfba94f8e00a@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert>
	<200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<1220945431_36648@s5.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909125143.022ae140@satx.rr.com>
	<1220988061_38254@S4.cableone.net>
	<ee50357e0809091344qa7be030v7261bfba94f8e00a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1221024444_3030@s2.cableone.net>

At 01:44 PM 9/9/2008, BillK wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:16 PM, hkhenson wrote:
> > Longer version was printed
> > 
> http://www.mankindquarterly.org/summer2006_henson.html I can send you a copy
> > of the .pdf if you want.
> >
> > If you have a better analysis of the selection forces that drove the
> > psychological characteristics that result in what we see as religions don't
> > keep it a secret.
><snip>
> > But to get selection for some trait at all, 
> you need the environment to have
> > serious survival effects on gene frequencies.  People generally have filled
> > the world to beyond capacity for all the time they existed.  Fighting
> > between groups who exploited the environment was a major source of
> > selection.  See Azar Gat on this subject.  Or consider the Old Testament.
>
>A new paper, here:
><http://www.physorg.com/news140174454.html>
>
>Quote:
>Tribal war drove human evolution of aggression
>By Lisa Zyga,
>Wars are costly in terms of lives and resources ? so why have we
>fought them throughout human history? In modern times, states may
>fight wars for a number of complex reasons. But in the past, most
>tribal wars were fought for the most basic resources: goods,
>territory, and women.

>These reproduction-enhancing resources prompted our ancestors to fight
>in order to pass down their family genes. With war as a driving force
>for survival, an interesting pattern occurred, according to a new
>study. People with certain warrior-like traits were more likely to
>engage in and win wars, and then passed their warrior genes down to
>their children, which ? on an evolutionary timescale ? made their
>tribe even more warrior-like. In short, humans seem to have become
>more aggressive over time due to war's essential benefits.
>
>Basically saying that human males fight because in pre-history the
>males who were worse at fighting didn't pass their genes on.  But they
>are at a loss to explain why modern nations go to war.
>(Except for obvious economic reasons).

This is an incomplete picture.  Were it to be 
true without qualification then there would be no 
limits on the human trait to fight.  But that's 
obviously not the case, even though most peoples 
do engage in war, they don't do it all the time.

Genes are going to tune people up for wars, but 
only when the cost/benefit is in the gene's 
favor.  Going to war when you don't need to and 
could be hunting to feed wives and kids is not 
cost effective for genes.  If for some reason the 
population is hugely reduced, there is going to 
be a long time, generations possibly, before the 
cost/benefit of going to war becomes positive.

So like most other behavioral traits, fighting 
wars depend on an evolved behavioral switch, like 
the one that causes ducks to fly south in the fall and north in the spring.

If you read the article, I discuss the switch and how it is tripped.

Incidentally, economics, in the sense of feeding 
the kids through the next dry season, has always 
been the ultimate reason for wars, stone age and modern alike.

Keith




From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 10 05:42:20 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 22:42:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909140420.022dd498@satx.rr.com>
References: <1220979668_54647@s8.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909140420.022dd498@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809092242h55970881x5871cce9a5b4fda2@mail.gmail.com>

"Lisa, the world is a very complicated place, CANNONBALL! (Homer Simpson
jumps into a rich rap star's swimming pool during a party, right after
trying to explain to his daughter about how confusing and complex life can
be, and why a celebration is the right way to respond to things)."

I enjoyed the paper but if the Democrats have troubles getting their ideas
across, what hope is there for Transhumanists?? LOL  Regarding religion, I
would think non-violent proselytizing is a much more enlightened form of the
old "two tribes battling it out with swords and bows."  Meme wars that don't
end in human bloodshed!

John Grigg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080909/f35952bd/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Sep 10 05:59:59 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:59:59 +1000
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <021901c912c7$147b5a30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f7bfe5740807140806g7f4d3e4m90656d3f1cc57ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<003f01c90ac6$57295a20$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<007a01c90cb2$af9e50f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003501c90f7e$e0b9d1e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<00e001c91072$291dba20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<003001c91125$efb26d80$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<f21c22e30809071709l42c2f21rf7a2dff7249b5dc@mail.gmail.com>
	<000b01c9117b$cc9164e0$6de71e97@archimede>
	<f21c22e30809080419n2b3e9bc8g6786fbc648eb4e05@mail.gmail.com>
	<021901c912c7$147b5a30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809092259s11794457kc4bf81ecbe24bb0d@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/10 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> While they are still spacelike separated is when we assume that the
> measurement(s) take place; that is, in other words,
> the splitting occurs *first* neither here nor there, but outside
> each other's light cones. So like I was saying before, the
> Alices and Bobs---outside the light cones of each other's
> respective measurement events--- remain single and then
> become dual, all before getting any light signals from each other.

The splitting can be said to occur while they were separated, but
should we say that they were in the same universe they are revealed to
be in when they meet even while they were separated? It seems to me
that the Alice outside Bob's light cone who will eventually be
demonstrated to be in "same" world is just as unreachable, just as
causally isolated from him as the Alice in the "other" world. Perhaps
this could be dismissed as a mere philosophical point, but it does
emphasise that no FTL communication is possible or necessary.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Sep 10 07:26:58 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:26:58 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Uploading people has started.
In-Reply-To: <200809091936.39423.kanzure@gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0809090644o2ec29a3fke468afa75bc80fb9@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809091308y47bea609k60a2eadb62989bc9@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809091936.39423.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809100026r1741222fkcd14f0e82b6910d9@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> More seriously, I looked at the link that Bill provided and I'm not
> impressed. I asked Abe a few questions and he's just Alexa, a hidden
> makrov model or something less.
>


It's a very new Beta site.
Apparently you have to do a lot of training by feeding in all an
individual's written works plus providing answers to the questions the
persona doesn't know the answer to.

Abe Lincoln seems to be the best trained so far.


BillK


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Sep 10 10:14:11 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:14:11 +0200
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <022901c912d0$32521ef0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809080319s2860ded6n411d3569eec48198@mail.gmail.com>
	<022901c912d0$32521ef0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <580930c20809100314u46e4294euc3deac4d443ca589@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Yes, I understand that even the strictest Soviet Communists gave
> lip-service to "political freedom" and "democracy"---the "vastly
> different meanings" you speak of. And I guess I understand that
> when first coined, these terms did serve "as a way to challenge
> the order in place". But I don't understand what you mean exactly
> by suggesting that Newspeak aims to remove this---this what?

In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anybody declaring himself
against "freedom", even though, say, in absolutism monarchies this
used to mean just "freedom from foreign dominations" (as in "Jeanne
d'Arc freed the Kingdom from the Englishmen").

As for "democracy", we do have here a few catholic monarchists or
islamic traditionalists who challenge the very concept, but this is
not the case for most of totalitarian regimes of the XX century.
Communists notoriously engaged in a "war of words" with the West on
which part of the world was more (or "really") democratic (see inter
alia the curiously redundant terminology of "popular democracies") and
I believe that somewhere in Mein Kamp Hitler makes an express
reference to an ideal "german democracy". In fact, Mussolini is
probably the European dictator who made the least use, if any, of the
"D" word.

Having said that, in 1984 those working on Newspeak wants "free" to
mean only "free from fleas", and "Socing" to replace "socialism" in
order to indicate only the current state of affairs, and *not* a
possibly divergent concept covering a number of vaguer ideals.

Stefano Vaj


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 10 17:53:03 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:53:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Just to set your mind at ease...
In-Reply-To: <200809101240.m8ACeLa07231@borisnew.okima.com>
References: <200809101240.m8ACeLa07231@borisnew.okima.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080910125159.023d4268@satx.rr.com>

Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the Earth yet?

>http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Sep 10 17:09:59 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:09:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809092242h55970881x5871cce9a5b4fda2@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <1220979668_54647@s8.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909140420.022dd498@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670809092242h55970881x5871cce9a5b4fda2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1221066860_58965@s7.cableone.net>

At 10:42 PM 9/9/2008, John Grigg wrote:

snip

>Regarding religion, I would think non-violent proselytizing is a 
>much more enlightened form of the old "two tribes battling it out 
>with swords and bows."  Meme wars that don't end in human bloodshed!

Some 60 million people who died in the context of WWII would probably 
disagree with you if they were not dead.  They would lay a lot of 
blame on Nazi memes, communist memes and various memes held by the 
opposing parties.  Communism in particular had fairly long non 
violent proselytizing phase.   But while memes are an element of the 
causal path to wars, they are not the ultimate reason for bloodshed.

The ultimate reason is human populations that get too large for the 
resource base.

The theory states that populations with a growing income per capita 
will not start a war.  (They can still be attacked of course.)

I have a particularly jaundiced view of religions.  Most of you know why.

Keith






From scerir at libero.it  Wed Sep 10 20:16:17 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:16:17 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Just to set your mind at ease...
References: <200809101240.m8ACeLa07231@borisnew.okima.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080910125159.023d4268@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <002501c91382$15bc7bc0$d1e61e97@archimede>

Not yet :-)
there was an end-of-the-world party in Geneva though ...
http://www.glocals.com/ActivityPartners/ViewAds.aspx?ids=7600

There is an exhibition here
http://cmsdoc.cern.ch/cms/performance/FirstBeam/cms-e-commentary.htm
and here
http://lhc-first-beam.web.cern.ch/lhc-first-beam/Welcome.html
see also LHC US blogs
http://blogs.uslhc.us/
and Tommaso
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/


"A society which accepts the idea
that the origin of the cosmos
could be explained in terms of an explosion,
reveals more about the society itself,
than about the universe."
-Carl Friedrich Freiherr von Weizsaecker



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Sep 11 01:48:45 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:48:45 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Just to set your mind at ease...
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080910125159.023d4268@satx.rr.com>
References: <200809101240.m8ACeLa07231@borisnew.okima.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080910125159.023d4268@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <98840D2C5DF84CF796ABB0D5C9A46933@Catbert>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote,
> Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the Earth yet?
> 
>>http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/


Nothing works perfectly the first time.  I'm sure they'll keep trying.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Sep 11 00:59:13 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:59:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080909175640.024d2f90@satx.rr.com>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com><200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com><022801c912cd$6375f400$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909175640.024d2f90@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <962E450303B648F5B98C73B5CC3E5DB1@Catbert>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote,
> "Initially seriously and later ironically"--I think the "seriously" aspect 
> might not have been long-lived, except among the rabid Maoists. I 
> encountered it in Australia in the late '60s and early '70s in use among 
> lefties and libertarians who *always* meant it ironically (usually uttered 
> with a laugh), at the expense of the programmatic communist lunatics. 
> Maybe this was not the case in the US, in which case I've been... 
> misinformed.

No, I've had the same experience since the late '60s.  I have always heard 
the term "politically correct" as a sarcastic description.  I have never in 
my life heard anybody ascribe it to themselves or actually endorse 
"political correctness".  It has always been used as an insult on other 
people.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Sep 11 01:08:38 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:08:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] "PC"
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809100314u46e4294euc3deac4d443ca589@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200809051214.56746.mail@harveynewstrom.com><200809080504.m8854O5K023407@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080908004747.0240c128@satx.rr.com><580930c20809080319s2860ded6n411d3569eec48198@mail.gmail.com><022901c912d0$32521ef0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<580930c20809100314u46e4294euc3deac4d443ca589@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3A1DD39AA1A4420FAE01BEBFC9D35FA0@Catbert>

"Stefano Vaj" <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote,
> In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anybody declaring himself
> against "freedom", even though, say, in absolutism monarchies this
> used to mean just "freedom from foreign dominations" (as in "Jeanne
> d'Arc freed the Kingdom from the Englishmen").

I think everybody wants "freedom".  It's just that different people have 
different interpretations of what they need to be free from.  A libertatian 
blames all ills on the government, and therefore wants the freedom of 
anarchy.  A person tired of spam and scammers wants freedom from criminals 
and wants the government to "do something".  A communist wants freedom from 
corporations making everybody a wage slave.  While a free-marketeer wants 
freedom to be in charge of their own business all by themselves.  Some 
people want the freedom to experiment with drugs, while others want the 
freedom to walk down a city street without drug-crazed persons mugging them. 
Gun lovers want the freedom to carry protection, while gun haters want the 
freedom to walk down the street unafraid of armed robbery.  A gay person 
wants the freedom to form any relationships, while a fundamentalist wants 
the freedom to live in a country "free" of gays.  Everybody wants freedom, 
but only for their own desires, and only using the methods they think will 
bring about their freedom.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 11 02:18:32 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:18:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Brave New World (was Re: "Toward a Type 1 civilization")
In-Reply-To: <580930c20808110224n3f90ab29t69d7849f8ff878bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ff585550807301115labaa343nf87965481ea77af4@mail.gmail.com>
	<EBB0BEDA-09A4-45E7-8634-4722ED5FD9BB@mac.com>
	<580930c20808040502g12b286c5w7240c4ab5dddb26d@mail.gmail.com>
	<159901c8f83c$53929260$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<580930c20808080726n68cb0d17i74b6ac171c5d5b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080808115022.02395008@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20808110224n3f90ab29t69d7849f8ff878bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080911021832.GA2225@ofb.net>

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:24:39AM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > Huxley did offer an alternative, thirty later, in the utopian novel ISLAND.
> 
> I heard he did. In fact, he is even apologetic on his "youth nihilism"
> in the preface to a subsequent edition of BNW. But while I am curious,
> I doubt that the "solution" he claimed to have later reached to be
> anything more than some kind of re-heated, bland humanism.

Whatever re-heated bland humanism means.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 11 02:40:43 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:40:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080821132331.026ea9f0@satx.rr.com>
References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30808200257t3310acc8odd4b0467cb77652f@mail.gmail.com>
	<037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30808210614p23c48096w27e5a885fdf020f0@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080821132331.026ea9f0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20080911024043.GB2225@ofb.net>

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 01:25:09PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 11:14 PM 8/21/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
> 
> >intelligent sociopaths are more likely to become successful
> >businessmen and politicians, because they don't let sentimentality get
> >in the way of career-advancing decisions. So although sociopaths are
> >more likely than average to commit violent crimes, it does not follow
> >that they need to be locked up because they will definitely do so.
> 
> No, they should be locked up before they become politicians or businessmen. 
> :)

I'd drop the smiley.  "Oh, he's not a violent criminal, he's just
running the country" isn't reassuring to me.

This all connects for me to low-trust vs. high-trust societies.  I
prefer high-trust.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 11 02:42:09 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:42:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Implications of Sociopath Testing
In-Reply-To: <580930c20808231610j1e809ee5s4abaadf92fc0cfaa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02b201c9026c$83c466e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<02c501c90270$ba22df10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30808200257t3310acc8odd4b0467cb77652f@mail.gmail.com>
	<037001c902d0$e4ee85e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30808210614p23c48096w27e5a885fdf020f0@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20808231105h6c892caag25caccaf27266357@mail.gmail.com>
	<001d01c90553$0ff72790$6401a8c0@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ee50357e0808231534o7be642dm6036a93cd8045d7c@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20808231610j1e809ee5s4abaadf92fc0cfaa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080911024209.GC2225@ofb.net>

On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 01:10:05AM +0200, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:34 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is possible for psychopaths to become successful in many lines of
> > work.
> 
> Sure. But as long as an organism is perfectly adapted to its
> environment, to define its features as "pathological" is little more
> than a scientific veneer on a moral judgment (that I may even share,

Though here the environment consists primarily of other people, so the
adaptiveness is relative to what they're like and what society is like.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 11 02:55:18 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:55:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <00b601c90724$d6dacb50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <005201c9059f$1568d2e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<0B092EDE99734DFEA402198E9C970F84@Catbert>
	<00b601c90724$d6dacb50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080911025516.GD2225@ofb.net>

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:38:17PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Such a pity that all the movies have it wrong about The Authorities
> waiting at the end of a gang plank to apprehend someone. From now
> on, they'd be well-advised to get help from some traitorous family
> member, who might stand a decent chance of recognizing a husband
> or other close relative, or a personal acquaintance of long standing.

That's a different problem.  That's "we have reason to believe X is one
of the few hundred passengers on this vessel, we'll wait to catch him."
Chance of someone resembling X enough to be a false positive is low.

Scanning a million people looking for X is a different problem.

> >>A: "Are telling me that a row of six or more recent convicted

And of course this "recent convicted bomber" thing is a red herring;
recently convicted bombers are probably in prison.  MI5 reportedly
looked for traits usefully distinguishing probable future bombers, and
failed to find them.

The fact that modern bombers may all have some connection to Islam is
not that useful a distinguishing feature, not when you're talking of a
few dozen bombers out of millions of Muslims.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Sep 11 04:39:49 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:39:49 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Just to set your mind at ease...
References: <200809101240.m8ACeLa07231@borisnew.okima.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080910125159.023d4268@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <012901c913c8$7139f360$0301a8c0@MyComputer>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:53 PM
Subject: [ExI] Just to set your mind at ease...


> Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the Earth yet?
> 
>>http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Sep 11 04:49:53 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:49:53 -0400
Subject: [ExI] CNET sucks
References: <200809101240.m8ACeLa07231@borisnew.okima.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080910125159.023d4268@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <013b01c913c9$dca7f9c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

I had thought that Cnet was a moderately respectable Website, 
I was wrong. They just posted an article of breathtaking 
stupidity called "Why the Large Hadron Collider must be stopped" at:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10038782-71.html

       John K Clark



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 06:24:53 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:24:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] CNET sucks
In-Reply-To: <013b01c913c9$dca7f9c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <200809101240.m8ACeLa07231@borisnew.okima.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080910125159.023d4268@satx.rr.com>
	<013b01c913c9$dca7f9c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809102324k5feba648x57293145eae1a08e@mail.gmail.com>

I don't see why you give Cnet such a bad rap.  They allow others to reply,
and so the poor ignorant fool was put in his place.

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080910/a4048a64/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 07:41:31 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:41:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <1221066860_58965@s7.cableone.net>
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>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809110041j7501f70et4e10842e18e9fbf2@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:09 AM, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> At 10:42 PM 9/9/2008, John Grigg wrote:
>
> snip
>
>  Regarding religion, I would think non-violent proselytizing is a much more
>> enlightened form of the old "two tribes battling it out with swords and
>> bows."  Meme wars that don't end in human bloodshed!
>>
>
> Some 60 million people who died in the context of WWII would probably
> disagree with you if they were not dead.  They would lay a lot of blame on
> Nazi memes, communist memes and various memes held by the opposing parties.
>  Communism in particular had fairly long non violent proselytizing phase.
> But while memes are an element of the causal path to wars, they are not the
> ultimate reason for bloodshed.


The meme wars I was making reference to were those which dealt with
religious proselyting/competition (both within and between nations) and as I
said did not end in mass human bloodshed.  WWII was at least in part about
secular memes (not religious memes) helping to lead groups toward war.



>
> The ultimate reason is human populations that get too large for the
> resource base.
>
> The theory states that populations with a growing income per capita will
> not start a war.  (They can still be attacked of course.)
>

A resource poor Japan and Germany made their big grab for power and wealth
in WWII.  But of course their despotic governments used nationalistic memes
to fan the fires of patriotism and twist their citizens to their will.  I'm
not so sure that their populations truly got too large for their resource
base as states your theory (despite all the lectures given on "lebenstraum"
to the German people by their leadership).  I think it was more a case on
the individual/group level of greedy "we are a uniquely special & powerful
nation and must be number one, screw international trade, we will just seize
what we want" thinking.



>
> I have a particularly jaundiced view of religions.  Most of you know why.
>
> Keith


Keith, please don't think an organization such as the one you refer to is a
worthy excuse for having a particularly negative view of religions in
general.


John Grigg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080911/1c347c22/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 11 07:39:54 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:39:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert>
Message-ID: <026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Harvey writes

>>> It sounds like you understand my answer, but you don't believe it.  Trust 
>>> me, I don't care to give away my money for free to strangers I will never 
>>> see again.
>>
>> Actually so? You wouldn't leave a tip in a restaurant you were
>> certain never to visit again? I had inferred from the preceding
>> that you would.
> 
> Yes, but this is not giving my money away for free.  This is a fair purchase 
> of services.  I would only pay this tip after I have received good services 
> in advance.

This is rather frustrating. The whole idea *is* to skip out, to "defect",
once you have been granted the services, where it's given that *no*
bad result will ever accrue to you! We have not got to the point where
you explain exactly why---in the name of self-interest---you would pay.
Let's say that with perfect impunity you can leave that restaurant you'll
never visit again in that distant city that you'll never visit it again.
Explain to me how it is in your self-interest, under these conditions,
to leave a tip.

> I wouldn't stiff a server on a tip any more than I would skip 
> out on the bill itself or rob the cash register on my way out.

But many would do exactly that if it were posited---as it is here
---that they will never be caught and that they'll suffer no bad
effect as a result.

> I really don't see this as being the same as throwing away
> money.  ["*Why* not" is the question!]  I just don't feel 
> tempted to cheat people for a few measly dollars.

Why not? It is actually easier to get up and leave that it is
to reach in your pocket, surrender some extra cash, and leave.

> As I say, I don't consider tipping to be "genuine altruism" done
> just for the benefit of the server.  I do it to purchase services for 
> *me*.  So I don't see myself as this altruist you want to argue against.

I don't care what you are, I'll argue with you anyway.

You say that you are not this thing, (we could call it *altruist*,
but let's stay away from dangerous terms. You are still saying
that you would leave a tip in this case, and are doing for a
selfish reason?  (Or something like that?)

Lee



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 07:58:54 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:28:54 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809110041j7501f70et4e10842e18e9fbf2@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>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809110058o5e07b6cao8728d392c061a833@mail.gmail.com>

>> I have a particularly jaundiced view of religions.  Most of you know why.
>>
>> Keith
>
> Keith, please don't think an organization such as the one you refer to is a
> worthy excuse for having a particularly negative view of religions in
> general.
>
>
> John Grigg

I think there is a definitional problem regarding "religion" in these arguments.

Generally, definitions of religion (by their followers primarily, and
what John is thinking of I think) would look like:

Religion = Metaphysics + Culture

Contrastingly, I think Atheists / secularists (and Keith's position
above) would say

Religion = Metaphysics

and

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.

OTOH, much of that culture falls down without the metaphysics to stand
on, so hey.

-- 
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 pharos at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 09:05:25 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:05:25 +0000
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: <ee50357e0809110205v4e42dcds4e834ae671c13c9a@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Emlyn wrote:
> I think there is a definitional problem regarding "religion" in these arguments.
> Generally, definitions of religion (by their followers primarily, and
> what John is thinking of I think) would look like:
>
> Religion = Metaphysics + Culture
>
> Contrastingly, I think Atheists / secularists (and Keith's position
> above) would say
>
> Religion = Metaphysics
> and
> Metaphysics = Blatantly wrong and probably dangerous memetic infection
>



And also there are swindlers who use the description 'religion' to
implement organized fraud.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800917.html>

Quote:
Judge Jean-Christophe Hullin ruled that the $cientologists' Celebrity
Center, bookstore and seven Church leaders should be tried for fraud
and "illegally practicing as pharmacists."
$cientology has faced numerous setbacks in France, with members
convicted of fraud in Lyon in 1997 and Marseille in 1999. In 2002, a
court fined it for violating privacy laws and said it could be
dissolved if involved in similar cases.


BillK


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 09:12:40 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:12:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a bleak outlook for sex?
Message-ID: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>

In this interesting Wired article, Dr. James Hughes is critiqued for his
views on the future of nanotech enhanced brains & human sexuality.  I kept
on thinking that the author Regina Lynn did not fully grok just how 100%
convincing a "neurojack" interface might be.

Human psychology and sexuality has an amazing way of adapting to new and
revolutionary technologies.

http://blog.wired.com/sex/2007/03/bleak_outlook_f.html

John Grigg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080911/7fd11db5/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 09:55:25 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:55:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <1221066860_58965@s7.cableone.net>
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>
Message-ID: <580930c20809110255w62fc62cej7e101d39ee8b997d@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:09 PM, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> The theory states that populations with a growing income per capita will
> not start a war.  (They can still be attacked of course.)
>


Mmhhh. Really? What if the population with a growing income per capita is
under the impression that it is going soon to hit a glass (or other)
ceiling?

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080911/37e9d1d5/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu Sep 11 12:09:25 2008
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:09:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] CNET sucks
In-Reply-To: <013b01c913c9$dca7f9c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <200809101240.m8ACeLa07231@borisnew.okima.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080910125159.023d4268@satx.rr.com>
	<013b01c913c9$dca7f9c0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <41250.12.77.168.195.1221134965.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

> I had thought that Cnet was a moderately respectable Website,
> I was wrong. They just posted an article of breathtaking
> stupidity called "Why the Large Hadron Collider must be stopped" at:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10038782-71.html
>

I *love* the part about "is there any government overseeing this" as though that
would *guarantee* that it will be "safe", because some government bureaucrat would
know ... argh. 8(  I can only hope this article was complete sarcasm.

sigh.

I like Damien's site better.  ;)

>> Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the Earth yet?
>>
>> http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/
>>

Regards,
MB



From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 13:14:50 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:14:50 -0400
Subject: [ExI] a bleak outlook for sex?
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:12 AM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> In this interesting Wired article, Dr. James Hughes is critiqued for his
> views on the future of nanotech enhanced brains & human sexuality.  I kept
> on thinking that the author Regina Lynn did not fully grok just how 100%
> convincing a "neurojack" interface might be.

Convincing?  If it's directly stimulating pleasure centers it only
needs to be effective.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 11 13:26:17 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:26:17 -0500
Subject: [ExI] a bleak outlook for sex?
In-Reply-To: <62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>

Never mind. There's always the Large Hardon Collider.



From ankara at tbaytel.net  Thu Sep 11 14:10:54 2008
From: ankara at tbaytel.net (ankara)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:10:54 -0400
Subject: [ExI] "PC" / freedom
Message-ID: <bb6a8c7e5358ce9e615fc77b4bf2ec47@tbaytel.net>

Hey guys (men),

Freedom is absolute dominion over one's own body - something Womankind 
has never had but men can take for granted. If war is 'always an 
economic venture' it's a luxury women has never had. How sweet it must 
be to stand in an army defending male privilege and wealth rather than 
alone, invisible and defenseless over one's own mere person.

~ankara

PS: Do populations start wars? Civil wars maybe.


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 15:20:53 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:20:53 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Just to set your mind at ease...
In-Reply-To: <98840D2C5DF84CF796ABB0D5C9A46933@Catbert>
References: <200809101240.m8ACeLa07231@borisnew.okima.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080910125159.023d4268@satx.rr.com>
	<98840D2C5DF84CF796ABB0D5C9A46933@Catbert>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809110820v656a3eb7j1bae884a142937b@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Nothing works perfectly the first time.  I'm sure they'll keep trying.
>



Oops!

<http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/09/11/power-on-self-test-a-1.html>


BillK


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Sep 11 15:44:24 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:44:24 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

Although I have a hunch there may be some here who won't like it
I have found a 30 minute video who's philosophy toward ESP is 
remarkably similar to mine:

Part 1 is at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90RfJjysXQ

Part 2 at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX1XEjX1b54

Part 3 at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meM6880M8rk

  John K Clark








From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Sep 11 16:48:15 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:48:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809110041j7501f70et4e10842e18e9fbf2@mail.gmail.co
 m>
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>
Message-ID: <1221151957_9455@s2.cableone.net>

At 12:41 AM 9/11/2008, you wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:09 AM, hkhenson 
><<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>At 10:42 PM 9/9/2008, John Grigg wrote:
>
>snip
>Regarding religion, I would think non-violent proselytizing is a 
>much more enlightened form of the old "two tribes battling it out 
>with swords and bows."  Meme wars that don't end in human bloodshed!
>
>Some 60 million people who died in the context of WWII would 
>probably disagree with you if they were not dead.  They would lay a 
>lot of blame on Nazi memes, communist memes and various memes held 
>by the opposing parties.  Communism in particular had fairly long 
>non violent proselytizing phase.   But while memes are an element of 
>the causal path to wars, they are not the ultimate reason for bloodshed.
>
>The meme wars I was making reference to were those which dealt with 
>religious proselyting/competition (both within and between nations) 
>and as I said did not end in mass human bloodshed.  WWII was at 
>least in part about secular memes (not religious memes) helping to 
>lead groups toward war.

I can't find any clear dividing line between religious memes and 
secular memes.  For more than 20 years I have said communism either 
has to be classed with religions or put in a larger class that 
includes religions and has essentially the same psychological 
properties.  If you use meme exclusion as a test of how much some 
meme is like a religion, it is clear that being a communists 
massively reduces the chance a person will be say a baptist.

>The ultimate reason is human populations that get too large for the 
>resource base.
>
>The theory states that populations with a growing income per capita 
>will not start a war.  (They can still be attacked of course.)
>
>A resource poor Japan and Germany made their big grab for power and 
>wealth in WWII.  But of course their despotic governments used 
>nationalistic memes to fan the fires of patriotism and twist their 
>citizens to their will.  I'm not so sure that their populations 
>truly got too large for their resource base as states your theory 
>(despite all the lectures given on "lebenstraum" to the German 
>people by their leadership).  I think it was more a case on the 
>individual/group level of greedy "we are a uniquely special & 
>powerful nation and must be number one, screw international trade, 
>we will just seize what we want" thinking.

They were resource poor only relative to their populations.  Had 
their populations been 1/3 or 1/10th as large they would not have 
been resource poor.  (But they probably would have been run over by 
neighbors.)   With "twist their citizens to their will" you are 
making the case for war being top down.  With "individual/group level 
of greedy" you are making the case for bottom up.

Which one do you favor?

There certainly is feedback between levels as a population under 
resource stress or that has been attacked will support or accept war 
leaders, even incompetent ones.  (Consider the current situation as 
an example.)  But ultimately it is a populating that is facing hard 
times for one reason or another that leads to them starting a war.

Also "greed" is a relative term.  A "necessity" depends on what you 
have become accustom to.  There are people who consider a private jet 
a necessity.  What the average person on this list considers bare 
necessities would sound like insane greed to stone age people.

>I have a particularly jaundiced view of religions.  Most of you know why.
>
>Keith
>
>Keith, please don't think an organization such as the one you refer 
>to is a worthy excuse for having a particularly negative view of 
>religions in general.

There is a difference between having a negative view and having a 
realistic one.  Read the article.

Keith





From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Sep 11 17:32:41 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:32:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809110255w62fc62cej7e101d39ee8b997d@mail.gmail.co
 m>
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>
	<580930c20809110255w62fc62cej7e101d39ee8b997d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1221154623_64576@s8.cableone.net>

At 02:55 AM 9/11/2008, you wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:09 PM, hkhenson 
><<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>The theory states that populations with a growing income per capita 
>will not start a war.  (They can still be attacked of course.)
>
>Mmhhh. Really? What if the population with a growing income per 
>capita is under the impression that it is going soon to hit a glass 
>(or other) ceiling?

You make a main point I make in the EP, memes and war article.

Humans are perhaps even more sensitive to an anticipated future.

That was the origin of the US Civil War.  The South anticipated the 
loss of slaves, which were a huge part of the economy in those 
days.  They were, of course, correct and some say the economic 
effects lasted 100 years.

Of course war was not a rational move for the relatively smaller and 
less wealthy south to undertake.  But the switched on behavioral 
traits led in that direction.  It is amusing to think about how a 
person versed in these EP models would have reacted.  The stupidest 
thing the south did was to attack.  Had they not done so, it is 
possible the north would have let them go, but being attacked is the 
surest and fastest way to get a people into "war mode."

Consider Pearl Harbor.  Or 9/11.

Keith 



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 11 18:17:53 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809092259s11794457kc4bf81ecbe24bb0d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <305617.22733.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> The splitting can be said to occur while they were separated, but
> should we say that they were in the same universe they are revealed to
> be in when they meet even while they were separated? It seems to me
> that the Alice outside Bob's light cone who will eventually be
> demonstrated to be in "same" world is just as unreachable, just as
> causally isolated from him as the Alice in the "other" world. Perhaps
> this could be dismissed as a mere philosophical point, but it does
> emphasise that no FTL communication is possible or necessary.

I don't see why people would have a problem with the possible FTL nature of a 
correlation in the EPR experiment, or wave-function collapse, but have no
problem with the idea of the entire universe being causally split in the mere
seconds it takes for someone to make a measurement, each and *every* time a
measurement is made. Perhaps one of the Everettistas could explain this to me.
If the split starts at Alice and travels at c toward Bob, if Bob is space-like
separated it won't ever reach him.

If you imagine that the universe is a sheet of paper, it doesn't matter what
dimension you split it in, whether you simply rip it in half or peel it apart
along the plane, the split still has to travel at some finite speed. Or lets
say it's simply the information in the universe that is splitting like a file
being copied. The larger the file, the longer it will take to be copied, even
if you don't edit the file to make sure that one of the particles had its spin
reversed. Of course if MWI is *magical* or something, then I suppose the
splitting makes sense.



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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 11 18:59:20 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:59:20 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>

At 11:44 AM 9/11/2008 -0400, JKC wrote:

>Although I have a hunch there may be some here who won't like it
>I have found a 30 minute video who's philosophy toward ESP is 
>remarkably similar to mine

So it seems. Of course almost all of what is shown amid the usual 
Penn and Teller antics and outbursts is BULLSHIT, a child could see 
that. The small part that actually mentions real psi research just 
makes claims--that it doesn't work, the statistics were actually at 
chance level, the money was wasted--while providing zero evidence or 
argument for these claims. This is coarse lowbrow entertainment at 
the expense of people stupid enough to be taken in by corner-store 
"psychics," plus a few mandatory but empty slaps at serious work. Big 
deal. Try harder next time, and show your work.

Damien Broderick



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 11 22:24:47 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <20080911025516.GD2225@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


--- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> And of course this "recent convicted bomber" thing is a red herring;
> recently convicted bombers are probably in prison.  MI5 reportedly
> looked for traits usefully distinguishing probable future bombers, and
> failed to find them.

Well I warrant that's because if you looked at all the bombers over the past
fifty years, the only trait you would find in common is that they bomb. And
until they bomb they are not a bomber. What one never hears about on the news
are all the guys that decide at the last minute to *not* step on that bus with
a bomb vest. And by cracking down on them, all you do is make them regret *not*
getting on that bus.
 
> The fact that modern bombers may all have some connection to Islam is
> not that useful a distinguishing feature, not when you're talking of a
> few dozen bombers out of millions of Muslims.

Yes, when you try to create a connection where there is none, it becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Making someone pay for something they *might* do is
liable to be all the economic incentive they need to actually do it. 



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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 11 22:37:06 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:37:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <20080911025516.GD2225@ofb.net>
	<289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080911173610.024569d8@satx.rr.com>

At 03:24 PM 9/11/2008 -0700, Avant wrote:

>Yes, when you try to create a connection where there is none, it becomes a
>self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hey--let's invade Iraq!



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 23:29:28 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:29:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <1221151957_9455@s2.cableone.net>
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>
	<1221151957_9455@s2.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809111629i75ce51c5q7905fe1fdc018416@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:48 AM, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> At 12:41 AM 9/11/2008, you wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:09 AM, hkhenson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>
>> hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>> At 10:42 PM 9/9/2008, John Grigg wrote:
>>
>> snip
>> Regarding religion, I would think non-violent proselytizing is a much more
>> enlightened form of the old "two tribes battling it out with swords and
>> bows."  Meme wars that don't end in human bloodshed!
>>
>> Some 60 million people who died in the context of WWII would probably
>> disagree with you if they were not dead.  They would lay a lot of blame on
>> Nazi memes, communist memes and various memes held by the opposing parties.
>>  Communism in particular had fairly long non violent proselytizing phase.
>> But while memes are an element of the causal path to wars, they are not the
>> ultimate reason for bloodshed.
>>
>> The meme wars I was making reference to were those which dealt with
>> religious proselyting/competition (both within and between nations) and as I
>> said did not end in mass human bloodshed.  WWII was at least in part about
>> secular memes (not religious memes) helping to lead groups toward war.
>>
>
> I can't find any clear dividing line between religious memes and secular
> memes.  For more than 20 years I have said communism either has to be
> classed with religions or put in a larger class that includes religions and
> has essentially the same psychological properties.  If you use meme
> exclusion as a test of how much some meme is like a religion, it is clear
> that being a communists massively reduces the chance a person will be say a
> baptist.
>


I would say that you have a good point.  Eric Hoffer's classic book "The
True Believer" comes to mind.  But the type of follower he profiles is a
generally very dysfunctional person who is desperate for a better future
because they hate their present.  I don't think this is representative of
the mainstream churchgoer in the United States.



>  The ultimate reason is human populations that get too large for the
>> resource base.
>>
>> The theory states that populations with a growing income per capita will
>> not start a war.  (They can still be attacked of course.)
>>
>> A resource poor Japan and Germany made their big grab for power and wealth
>> in WWII.  But of course their despotic governments used nationalistic memes
>> to fan the fires of patriotism and twist their citizens to their will.  I'm
>> not so sure that their populations truly got too large for their resource
>> base as states your theory (despite all the lectures given on "lebenstraum"
>> to the German people by their leadership).  I think it was more a case on
>> the individual/group level of greedy "we are a uniquely special & powerful
>> nation and must be number one, screw international trade, we will just seize
>> what we want" thinking.
>>
>
> They were resource poor only relative to their populations.  Had their
> populations been 1/3 or 1/10th as large they would not have been resource
> poor.  (But they probably would have been run over by neighbors.)   With
> "twist their citizens to their will" you are making the case for war being
> top down.  With "individual/group level of greedy" you are making the case
> for bottom up.
>
> Which one do you favor?
>


I would say generally top down.  But as the saying goes, "every people
eventually get the government they deserve."  There is obviously a complex
interrelation between the top, middle and bottom of any society.



>
> There certainly is feedback between levels as a population under resource
> stress or that has been attacked will support or accept war leaders, even
> incompetent ones.  (Consider the current situation as an example.)  But
> ultimately it is a populating that is facing hard times for one reason or
> another that leads to them starting a war.
>
> Also "greed" is a relative term.  A "necessity" depends on what you have
> become accustom to.  There are people who consider a private jet a
> necessity.  What the average person on this list considers bare necessities
> would sound like insane greed to stone age people.
>


I agree.  Americans right now see it as a "right" to run around all day in
automobiles that don't get very good gas mileage.  And they also see it as a
"right" to do this while buying cheap gasoline at their local pump.



>
>  I have a particularly jaundiced view of religions.  Most of you know why.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> Keith, please don't think an organization such as the one you refer to is
>> a worthy excuse for having a particularly negative view of religions in
>> general.
>>
>
> There is a difference between having a negative view and having a realistic
> one.  Read the article.
>
>

Keith, the very harmful organization you chose to fight cloaked itself in
the robes of religion to get tax exempt status and the other benefits of
mainstream religion.  It is wrong to compare Baptists, Presbyterians,
Buddhists, Mormons, Unitarians, etc., to them.  You have been so badly hurt
by your experiences that you have become unfairly biased.

I enjoyed the article and plan to share it with some of my politically
inclined friends.

John Grigg


"This is beyond anything I could have imagined!"  Lewis from "Meet the
Robinsons"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080911/2730e366/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Sep 11 23:31:06 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:31:06 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>



> almost all of what is shown amid the usual Penn and Teller antics and 
> outbursts is BULLSHIT,  a child could see that.



I am not a child and I do not see that.  I am not eight years old, I wish I 
were, the fact is I'M approaching sixty. And yet this silly pathetic old man 
can not fined one FUCKING error in what Penn and Teller were say, not one 
God damn fuckinnm error!  So Damien , show me the error in my ways.



 John K Clark






From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 23:55:29 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:55:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080911173610.024569d8@satx.rr.com>
References: <20080911025516.GD2225@ofb.net>
	<289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911173610.024569d8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809111655t717cd7fg8919e9647b7fd964@mail.gmail.com>

Hey, let's invade Iran and then just keep going!  U.S. foreign policy should
be just like playing the classic boardgame Risk!  Oh, wait, that would be
biting off more than we can chew...

I am amazed (in a good way) there is not more support for reinstating the
draft.  It would be a key way of having and American military capable of of
doing everything on the Neocon wishlist.  But so much life and treasure has
already been spent and we still don't see the light at the end of the
tunnel.

I think had New York City itself been vaporized in a flash of nuclear fire,
we would have likely seen a draft brought back.  And people would have
generally embraced it.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080911/4e075aae/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 11 23:59:12 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:59:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080911184149.0237fca0@satx.rr.com>

At 07:31 PM 9/11/2008 -0400, JKC wrote:

>>almost all of what is shown amid the usual Penn and Teller antics 
>>and outbursts is BULLSHIT,  a child could see that.
>
>I ... can not fined one FUCKING error in what Penn and Teller were 
>say, not one God damn fuckinnm error!

Calm down. Your grammar is out of control. The fuckinnm BULLSHIT is 
what I was pointing at: that is, almost everything they showed 
gloatingly in between their antics: the grab-it-in-your-fists 
spoonbending and the animal spirits or whatever it was and the 
grotesque unblinded stupidity masquerading as remote viewing, all the 
ridiculously childish nonsense they so bravely set out to debunk. 
Those "psychic" morons with their obvious crude fakery were almost 
exactly on a par with that blustering fool blithering about the Large 
Hadron Collider on the CNET page you url'd earlier. If P&T spent ten 
minutes laughing at him, would you conclude that they had thereby 
shown the errors of particle physics? You've heard of shooting fish 
in a barrel? P&T were blasting at dead sardines in a can.

There were, of course, errors in the very few claims they made about 
real parapsychology. For example, Hyman got in his couple of 
sentences about how he showed there was nothing at all happening in 
STAR GATE, having apparently forgotten what he actually wrote in his 
official report. From my book:

<Professor Jessica Utts and Professor Ray Hyman, both of whom had 
previously assessed psi for the military in 1988,[11] were contracted 
in 1995 by American Institutes for Research (AIR) to evaluate the 
Star Gate program. Under Pentagon pressure, the multi-decade program 
was then terminated late in 1995; one might suppose that these 
evaluators had examined the best results from the various wings of 
the long project and found them wanting. Not so, or not quite. 
Curiously, Utts's report had concluded: "It is clear to this author 
that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This 
conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted 
scientific criteria" (my italics).

Hyman, a well-known skeptic, predictably disagreed, but admitted: "I 
tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in 
these experiments." Irritatingly, the assessors were not given the 
"operational" remote viewing material, just laboratory results from 
the last three years of government-sponsored research done from 1989 
to 1994 at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 
after the program had moved from SRI. Most of the real material, 
according to Utts, remains classified (personal communication)...>

That is, Professor Hyman was obliged to acknowledge that the effects 
were real, and unexplained, even if he thought it was due to some *as 
yet unknown* flaw in the methodology.

Damien Broderick




From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 12 00:04:46 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:04:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>

Damien,

I must confess that I have not yet read your book on psi.  But my impression
was that the classic Project Stargate was based on some very solid research
and application.  I have a strong feeling there may yet be another
*underground* project currently going on that would meet with your rigorous
approval in terms of how they do things.

Do you think there is a genetic aspect to psi?  Will we in the future be
able to isolate "psi genes" and tweak them to create psionicists like the
ones in the pages of science fiction?

???

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080911/64f72aa1/attachment.html>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Thu Sep 11 23:58:53 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:58:53 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert>
	<026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
> Let's say that with perfect impunity you can leave that restaurant you'll
> never visit again in that distant city that you'll never visit it again.
> Explain to me how it is in your self-interest, under these conditions,
> to leave a tip.

This is silly.  I keep answering your questions, and you keep making them 
more contrived to avoid my benefit.

Your latest contrivance only works if I never visit that city, or at least 
that restaurant, again.  Great.  Now I have to keep a list of people and 
places that I have cheated so that I can avoid them for the rest of my life. 
It doesn't seem worth it to save a few measly bucks.

But I see a pattern here.  So let's skip into the future where you have 
contrived enough unlikely events that you get the answer you want.  (I am 
starving to death in a strange city that is about to be destroyed by an 
asteroid impact, I only have time to tip or teleport out of there, I forgot 
my wallet anyway, and I realize that its a bad dream and I'm waking up.) 
OK, so I finally concede that I don't always tip in every situation.  You 
win.  So what's your response?  Is there any point to this line of 
questioning when we get to the end?

I also wonder if you cheat people all the time like you seem to be arguing 
makes sense.  If so, why don't you explain why you do it rather than trying 
to get me to explain why I don't.  Or if you don't cheat, why don't you 
reveal your reasons to us.  And maybe if they are good enough for you they 
are good enough for the rest of us.  Is this going to turn out to be another 
case where you actually agree with me (you don't cheat), but wanted to see 
my response to your thought experiments?  And you aren't seriously trying to 
convince people that cheating is the best policy?

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Sep 12 01:34:01 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:34:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080911203041.02456b20@satx.rr.com>

At 05:04 PM 9/11/2008 -0700, John Grigg wrote:

>I must confess that I have not yet read your book on psi.

Few people have, evidently. Get yr local library to order a copy if 
you can't afford to buy one. I can't replicate the whole 90,000 words here.

>I have a strong feeling there may yet be another *underground* 
>project currently going on that would meet with your rigorous 
>approval in terms of how they do things.

One might think so. Ed May says he doesn't believe it, though.

>Do you think there is a genetic aspect to psi?

Some possible evolutionary aspects of psi are discussed a bit in the book.

>Will we in the future be able to isolate "psi genes" and tweak them 
>to create psionicists like the ones in the pages of science fiction?

I doubt it. But technology guided by deep insight can often boost 
what nature's stumbled on.

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 12 02:50:43 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:50:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] damien's book
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080911203041.02456b20@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200809120315.m8C3FA0W001149@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> Subject: Re: [ExI] ESP
> 
> At 05:04 PM 9/11/2008 -0700, John Grigg wrote:
> 
> >I must confess that I have not yet read your book on psi.
> 
> Few people have, evidently. Get yr local library to order a 
> copy if you can't afford to buy one... Damien Broderick


I returned from Newark NJ to San Francisco this morning on flight 93, the
same that was hijacked and crashed in Pennsylvania seven years ago today.
When moving thru the SFO airport, I noticed that Damien's Year Million is
still in that prime real estate, at the front endcap in the United terminal
bookstore (the best bookstore in that airport).  There were only about three
or four other titles still on the front endcap from four weeks ago when I
first saw Year Million on the endcap, and a couple of those were authored by
whats-his-name, that politician who is running against Sarah Palin.

spike






From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Sep 12 03:43:32 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:43:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911184149.0237fca0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <003701c91489$d114dbd0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> Calm down. Your grammar is out of control
> The fuckinnm BULLSHIT is what I was pointing at

Hey Damien you don't think that was accidental do you? No no 
not at all, I just liberated myself from the oppressive rules of 
grammar and my alternative spelling was part of a brilliant 
artistic edifice illuminating the freedom of man, just like what
Mr. James Joyce did.

And I still think ESP is fuckinnm BLIMSHOT!

   John K Clark





From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 12 04:06:51 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:06:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Origin of Religions was Terrorist? Who can tell?
References: <D6EEA869116044D3A20B266700E44236@Catbert><200809090612.m896CAu0008315@andromeda.ziaspace.com><1220945431_36648@s5.cableone.net><7.0.1.0.2.20080909125143.022ae140@satx.rr.com><1220988061_38254@S4.cableone.net>
	<ee50357e0809091344qa7be030v7261bfba94f8e00a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02c401c9148d$05298080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

BillK wrote (Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:44 PM)

> A new paper, here:
> <http://www.physorg.com/news140174454.html>
>
> Quote:
> Tribal war drove human evolution of aggression
> By Lisa Zyga,
> Wars are costly in terms of lives and resources ? so why have we
> fought them throughout human history? In modern times, states may
> fight wars for a number of complex reasons. But in the past, most
> tribal wars were fought for the most basic resources: goods,
> territory, and women.
> These reproduction-enhancing resources prompted our ancestors to fight
> in order to pass down their family genes. With war as a driving force
> for survival, an interesting pattern occurred, according to a new
> study. People with certain warrior-like traits were more likely to
> engage in and win wars, and then passed their warrior genes down to
> their children, which ? on an evolutionary timescale ? made their
> tribe even more warrior-like. In short, humans seem to have become
> more aggressive over time due to war's essential benefits.
> ----------------

That seems right, though I'll bet that Scandanavians have far fewer
warlike genes than they did 1000 years ago. Much less agressive
genes paid off better in the 17th through 20th centuries.

> Basically saying that human males fight because in pre-history the
> males who were worse at fighting didn't pass their genes on.  But they
> are at a loss to explain why modern nations go to war.
> (Except for obvious economic reasons).

But modern nations do not go to war. There has been no recorded
instance of two democracies going at it. For quite a while I thought
that the War of 1812 was an exception, but that turned out to be
glaringly wrong.

lee



From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 12 04:20:31 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:20:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] sad anniversary
In-Reply-To: <200809120315.m8C3FA0W001149@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200809120445.m8C4jA5v018669@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
I just realized that contrary to the classic paintings, everyone really
isn't naked in hell.  How do I know?  Because then the place would be too
cool.

spike

(Do forgive the random bit of attempted humor on this sad anniversary.)



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 12 06:28:37 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:28:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] sad anniversary
In-Reply-To: <200809120445.m8C4jA5v018669@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809120315.m8C3FA0W001149@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<200809120445.m8C4jA5v018669@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809112328n76688456le755894b3b8e50e6@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:20 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
> I just realized that contrary to the classic paintings, everyone really
> isn't naked in hell.  How do I know?  Because then the place would be too
> cool.


Mmmmmm........, well....., actually....., many people look better with their
clothes *on.* lol  But perhaps a Hell full of naked but gorgeous
nano/bio-modified Transhumanists would be more to your liking.  I sadly
suspect Satan would torture them by recreating a pre-Singularity Earth
scenario for them to be forced to live in.

It is a sad anniversary.  But we can be grateful of the fact that despite
whatever else has gone wrong, at least we have not had yet another 911 level
terrorist event.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080911/c93ba218/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Sep 12 06:38:18 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:38:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] sad anniversary
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809112328n76688456le755894b3b8e50e6@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <200809120315.m8C3FA0W001149@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<200809120445.m8C4jA5v018669@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<2d6187670809112328n76688456le755894b3b8e50e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080912013732.01108510@satx.rr.com>


>But we can be grateful of the fact that despite whatever else has 
>gone wrong, at least we have not had yet another 911 level terrorist event.

Perhaps this is why:

<http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/on-seventh-anniversary-of-september-11.html>http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/on-seventh-anniversary-of-september-11.html


On the Seventh Anniversary of September 11: Time to Declare the 
original al-Qaeda Defeated  



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 12 07:02:48 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:02:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <305617.22733.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <031601c914a5$948c6cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart writes

> --- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The splitting can be said to occur while they were separated, but
>> should we say that they were in the same universe they are revealed
>> to be in when they meet even while they were separated?

Stathis, let me see if I am interpreting your question correctly.
First, I thought that the Alices and Bobs did stay physically
separated from each other, so that you probably mean at
a time before some signal went from a particular Alice event
A to a particular Bob event B, after which we do understand
them to be in the same universes, (i.e. A1 and B1 as henceforth
ongoing persons can reliably communicate with each other
and marvel that their photons did come out the same way,
way back when).

So let's say that A becomes A1 and A2, and B becomes B1 and B2,
and the question is, should we say that A1 and B1 are
immediately in the same universe, even though the splits
caused at A and B haven't yet had time to reach each other
and match up? I suppose that yes, we could say that A1 and B1
(pre-any signal having gone from any A to any B) are in the
same universe now, since they're fated to be anyway.
But I'd be agin it because

\                /
 a--------------b
/                \

the splits that are (very roughly speaking) still
separated (in someone's reference frame) by the
distance ab and which are moving towards each other
don't make it clear *by definition* that the upper
slashes will turn out to be together in the one universe
and the lower slashes will turn out to be in the
other universe. That the photon that was measured
somewhere to the left of the diagram will have outcomes
exactly parallel to the EPR-entangled one measured
somewhere to the right of the diagram, is a deduction
or at least a mathematical consequence. 

>> It seems to me that the Alice outside Bob's light
>> cone who will eventually be demonstrated to be in
>> "same" world is just as unreachable, just as
>> causally isolated from him as the Alice in the
>> "other" world.

Yes, I agree.

>> Perhaps this could be dismissed as a mere
>> philosophical point, but it does emphasise
>> that no FTL communication is possible or
>> necessary.

Anything to help with that! But it may simply do,
to say that A1 and B1 *will* be in the same universe
after their splits join up, rather than announcing
that they're beforehand already in the same universe.

Stuart writes

> I don't see why people would have a problem
> with the possible FTL nature of a correlation
> in the EPR experiment, or wave-function collapse,

It's incomprehensible on the theory of SR, that's why.

> but have no problem with the idea of the entire
> universe being causally split in the mere seconds
> it takes for someone to make a measurement,

The whole universe never ends up being split in its
entirety unless it's of finite extent. The splits
start locally and speed outwards only at c.

> each and *every* time a measurement is made.

It *is* a horrible zoo; David Deutsch says on p. 213
of "The Fabric of Reality":

   "...rely on such things as solid matter or
   magnetized materials, which could not exist
   in the absence of quantum-mechanical effects.
   For example, any solid body consists of an
   array of atoms, which are themselves composed
   of electrically charged particles (electrons,
   and protons in the nuclei). But because of 
   classical chaos, no array of charged particles 
   could be stable under classical laws of motion.
   The positively and negatively charged particles
   would simply move out of position and crash into
   each other, and the structure would disintegrate.
   
   *It is only the strong quantum interference 
   between the various paths taken by charged
   particles in parallel universes* that prevents
   such catastrophes and makes solid matter possible.

So any solid object is making nearly infinitely
many measurements each nanosecond, and those "splits"
radiate away at c, so that the whole fabric of reality
is a seething jumble of massive interference everywhere.

> Perhaps one of the Everettistas could explain this to me.
> If the split starts at Alice and travels at c toward Bob,
> if Bob is space-like separated it won't ever reach him.

We have to be clear about the difference between an event
Bob-X and the ongoing entity Bob who retains the characteristics
of a physical object. Say the split starts at Alice-Y,
Alice is then hit by a truck, but the split goes on
(especially if it's evil, as the old saying goes) and
reaches not the Bob-X what was interviewed at a point
along his timeline where it was deemed that Alice-Y
was outside his light cone, but instead reaches Bob
when he's at a different point (say z, so it's Bob-Z). 

> If you imagine that the universe is a sheet of paper,
> it doesn't matter what dimension you split it in,
> whether you simply rip it in half or peel it apart
> along the plane, the split still has to travel at
> some finite speed.

Yes, and it travels at the speed of c. 

   "Although the points of measurement indeed are few"
   (remarked the late Professor Grew)
   "Instead of all four worlds created anew
   We only get but two!" [1]


> Or let's say it's simply the information in the
> universe that is splitting like a file being copied.
> The larger the file, the longer it will take to be
> copied, even if you don't edit the file to make sure
> that one of the particles had its spin reversed.

Yes, could be like that.

> Of course if MWI is *magical* or something, then I suppose the
> splitting makes sense.

Hopefully not any *instantaneous* splitting.
Not enough evidence to go against SR yet.

Lee

[1] With respect to Dr. Paine, who was of triangle poetry fame,
and who didn't, I suspect, really have a daughter Rachel by name,
(Damn, the little ditty used to be on-line, but I can't find it now.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080912/02624c4e/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 12 07:06:25 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:06:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Uploading people has started.
References: <ee50357e0809090644o2ec29a3fke468afa75bc80fb9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <031c01c914a6$13f41620$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

BillK writes

> Virsona  makes "virtual personas" for chat. The idea is that you feed
> it the written works and online resources of a particular persona, and
> then its chatbot will respond with the appropriate facts and
> personality.
> 
> ...
> I can hardly wait for the virtual 'Lee Corbin' !!!   ;)

*You* can hardly wait! For decades(!), I've dreamed about
getting 2 seconds per second experience afforded by the
original plus the copy, and despite all the work, genuine
realization is still decades away. I'll probably have to
wait for uploading  :-(

Bryan writes

> I've *met* the _real_ Lee Corbin, and he's been retired for THIRTY years 
> ever since his make and model was terminated from the factory floor.

You probably just encountered the prototype/facsimile that was
supposed to be confined to Marin County while I was in Tacoma
this summer. Please don't tell me it was loose in the south bay,
nosing around Palo Alto or Stanford.

And Mike, if you have any details about a Patagonia sighting, please
forward them to me---it's possible that yet another one has got away
(I've never been to South America).

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 12 07:09:42 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:09:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
References: <1220979668_54647@s8.cableone.net><7.0.1.0.2.20080909140420.022dd498@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670809092242h55970881x5871cce9a5b4fda2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <032901c914a6$898d3830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Grigg writes

> Regarding religion, I would think non-violent proselytizing
> is a much more enlightened form of the old
> "two tribes battling it out with swords and bows." 

You mean, like two bribes battling it out with words and bows?  :-)

Lee

> Meme wars that don't end in human bloodshed!  
> John Grigg       



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Sep 12 07:22:33 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:22:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Food for thought
In-Reply-To: <032901c914a6$898d3830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <1220979668_54647@s8.cableone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080909140420.022dd498@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670809092242h55970881x5871cce9a5b4fda2@mail.gmail.com>
	<032901c914a6$898d3830$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080912022118.022baaa0@satx.rr.com>

At 12:09 AM 9/12/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>>"two tribes battling it out with swords and bows."
>
>You mean, like two bribes battling it out with words and bows?  :-)

No, no, John meant "two brides battling it out with buttons and bows."

Damien Broderick 



From pgptag at gmail.com  Fri Sep 12 09:38:58 2008
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:38:58 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Uploading people has started.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809090644o2ec29a3fke468afa75bc80fb9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0809090644o2ec29a3fke468afa75bc80fb9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <470a3c520809120238m6b144414q7a9ded40e166cfab@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:44 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> See:  <http://www.virsona.com/>

Not mind uploading quite yet, but certainly a very interesting step in
a very interesting direction.

Virsona's AI based technology lets users gradually build a "virtual
persona" (Virsona) which learns how to emulate its creator. From the
Virsona website: "Virsona has a patent-pending artificial intelligence
technology integrated into each Virsona , which enables it to reason,
remember and react as if the Virsona were the person it was designed
to emulate". There is the possibility that future advances in AI may
fire up consciousness in a virsona, which may then be considered as a
upload of its creator. "Personal Virsonas take the term 'social media'
to an entirely new level by giving people the ability to achieve
digital immortality," said Peter Hodge, CEO and co-founder of Virsona.

More thoughts and links on practical steps to uploading:
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Project_Mindfile

G.


From scerir at libero.it  Fri Sep 12 11:46:51 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:46:51 +0200
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <305617.22733.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<031601c914a5$948c6cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <000901c914cd$3faad020$7ae41e97@archimede>

Stuart:
> Perhaps one of the Everettistas could explain this to me.
> If the split starts at Alice and travels at c toward Bob,
> if Bob is space-like separated it won't ever reach him.

In the orthodox view the (usual) collapse must be instantaneous.

Carlton M. Caves has shown that the collapse must be taken
as instantaneous and that assuming the collapse takes a
non-zero time would lead to observable conflict with, e.g.,
the Stern-Gerlach experiment. See Carlton M. Caves, 
'Quantum mechanics of measurements distributed in time', 
Part-I: Phys. Rev. D33 pp.1643-1665 (1986), Part-II: 
Phys. Rev. D35 pp.1815-1830 (1987).

Regarding the collapse due to measurements of entangled
pairs the orthodox view does not say anything, at least 
to my knowledge. QM only gives pure and simple algebraic 
expressions for those correlations. Nothing more.

But if one (like Einstein, or Bohm, or many more) tries
to inject a realistic explanation (i.e. a causal behaviour 
in space-time) into the orthodox picture (by means of 'spooky 
actions', or by means of 'empty waves', etc.) strange
consequences arise (i.e. actions/passions at a distance, 
superluminal influences, non-locality of some uncontrollable 
kind, etc.). 
 
>From the experimental side, again, the Geneva group has shown 
(with measurements on time/energy entangled pairs, performed 
with fast rotating Franson interferometers) that realistic 
explanations (like Bohmian mechanics, or 'spooky actions') 
presuppose superluminal velocities. 
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316

Now, that said, it seems to me that MWI is a realistic 
interpretation (I was an 'Everettista' in the early '70s!). 
It also seems to me difficult that MWI - being a realistic 
interpretation, or a realistic theory - may avoid the tragic 
destiny of all other interpretations which try to introduce 
elements of reality in QM or in measurement theory. 



From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 12 13:13:44 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:13:44 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Uploading people has started.
In-Reply-To: <031c01c914a6$13f41620$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <ee50357e0809090644o2ec29a3fke468afa75bc80fb9@mail.gmail.com>
	<031c01c914a6$13f41620$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <62c14240809120613i55fe7bd8p36dd5afbeba38c35@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> And Mike, if you have any details about a Patagonia sighting, please
> forward them to me---it's possible that yet another one has got away
> (I've never been to South America).

This is inconsistent with a multiple-identity identity.  Just because
your experience(s) haven't been locally integrated doesn't mean that
you weren't there.  (It may be a memory-merge problem)


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep 13 04:04:19 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:04:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
References: <289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <03ef01c91556$3a122c10$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart writes

> --- Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> And of course this "recent convicted bomber" thing is a red herring;
>> recently convicted bombers are probably in prison.  MI5 reportedly
>> looked for traits usefully distinguishing probable future bombers, and
>> failed to find them.
> 
> Well I warrant that's because if you looked at all the bombers over the past
> fifty years, the only trait you would find in common is that they bomb.

Are you literally being serious? We're discovering amazing correlations
all the time. Consider the MRI studies alone, which can (often, I suppose)
tell when one is using the rational part of his mind and when one is not,
or whether one is sociopathic. What was once considered to be a 
psychiatric trait, homosexuality, is now found to have astonishing indicators,
such as the ratio of lengths of two fingers, and sizes and shapes of other
members.

I was systematically lied to by my teachers, starting in high school, who
wanted us all to believe axiomatically that in every way possible all
races were psychologically and mentally identical, with only a very
few physical outer markers enabling any distinction at all. (Later, even
these were under attack to the point that the very existence of race
was questioned.) Then came the 1970s, and it was expected that we
would all take as a given that no gender or sexual differences existed
outside of the purely functional physical apparatus. Yet another lie.

Now, why do I say "lie", why choose the incendiary indictment? Because
the people standing behind those lies, who in very many cases were
defying their own senses and their own common sense, knew that they
had no real basis for their generalities, and were (or should have been)
aware that they were making these pronouncements only for the good
they thought it would so should everyone believe these mistruths.
Indeed, they might have been right about that---the world might indeed
be a better place if no one was aware of many differences that actually
exist;  but this has *nothing* to do with the search for the truth.

We need retain minds completely open to all conjectures, and hold as 
tentative the ones that we do accept and do find probable. It's overwhelmingly
probable in my opinion that real differences do exist between Republicans
and Democrats, between Presbyterians and Calvinists, and between bombers
and non-bombers. It could very well be the case that those raised as
Presbyterians are of a more fanatical or mercurial disposition, and are
perhaps more likely to engage in acts of violence to further their faith,
and that those raised as Calvinists may one day be found to be more
fatalistic about certain kinds of eventualities or in certain sitations.
We must not shut our minds to these possibilities. And the whole area
of "profiling" should not, of course, be dismissed as ultimately futile; we
don't know, and I'll even bet that for many purposes it even works now.

> And until they bomb they are not a bomber.

But they may still have characteristic traits, or at least a greater propensity
to have these traits than others, and were a means devised to identify
with sufficiently high probability those with these traits, lives could be
saved. Would anyone be prepared to claim categorically, for instance,
that the Bali bombers of a few years back could absolutely have no
distinguishing characteristics that were many standard deviations away
from normal?

> What one never hears about on the news are all the guys that decide at
> the last minute to *not* step on that bus with a bomb vest.

What is your conjecture here? How would you guess that they differ?
FWIW, my conjecture would be that they prove to be a bit more
cautious or timorous than those who actually go through with it, but
I would be the last person on Earth to suggest that that exhausts the
differences.

> And by cracking down on them, all you do is make them regret *not*
> getting on that bus.

This seems implausible to me. For some, yes: it could be that an interrogation
based upon certain spotted characteristics would galvanize them to the point
that they actually would go ahead next time, but there might be even more
who'd acquire a distaste for the whole business as a result, and be deterred
from even trying.
 
>> The fact that modern bombers may all have some connection to Islam is
>> not that useful a distinguishing feature, not when you're talking of a
>> few dozen bombers out of millions of Muslims.

First, as we have all agreed in this thread so far as I know, it's
exceedingly unlikely that *all* modern bombers have some 
connection to Islam. But you have brought up the practical
point: namely, even when identifying characteristics are uncovered,
it doesn't follow that there'll necessarily be any useful methodology
immediately applicable in the field.

> Yes, when you try to create a connection where there is none,
> it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Making someone pay for
> something they *might* do is liable to be all the economic
> incentive they need to actually do it. 

Sounds to me as though you're definitely getting carried away.
Could you give some examples? To illustrate, in my experience,
those accused of cheating, for example, are not thus made more
likely to cheat.

(Incidentally, what I have found that probably *will* ring a bell is
that those who are very quick to accuse others of cheating turn
out in many cases to be precisely those who themselves cheat,
which isn't too surprising when you stop to think about it. As
a result, when I run chess tournaments and someone is quick to
accuse others of cheating, I do my bit of "profiling", and keep
a careful watch on that person---and, I'll have to admit, retain
that prejudice (and rightly so, I maintain) when I weigh evidence
for and against later charges that this person himself has cheated.
But I do *not* believe that my extra observations in any way
will *cause* someone to begin cheating.)

Would you suggest that random searches for drugs among commuters
or people crossing the border are likely to turn non-drug user into
drug users? People falsely apprehended as bank robbers develop
a propensity to rob banks? As in other cases when someone makes
what is to me a startling claim or conjecture, I do want to know the
limits to it they have in mind.

Lee



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Sep 13 06:02:35 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:02:35 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
References: <200809120315.m8C3FA0W001149@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200809120445.m8C4jA5v018669@andromeda.ziaspace.com><2d6187670809112328n76688456le755894b3b8e50e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080912013732.01108510@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <002501c91566$66074610$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

I was thinking about what the Large Hadron Collider could potentially
find, and what could ignite the public imagination. That last point is
important if you expect taxpayers to pay for future machines, and I
don't think the average person would say these sort of devices have
discovered anything very cool since 1957 when they found out the
difference between left and right. I don't think even physicists
would say finding the Higgs particle would be very cool, not finding
it would be cooler than that. Finding out what Dark Matter is, now 
that would be cool by any standard, and Dark Energy would be 
even better. Of course it may discover something wonderful that 
nobody today can even imagine, but I can imagine making a mini
Black Hole and that would be very cool indeed because it would 
demonstrate the existence of other dimensions; but I think it 
would also mean there would be no point in making a more 
powerful machine, you'd just get more Black Holes.

Finding extra dimensions would give a big boost to the many 
would theory, all those other universes have to go somewhere, 
and I can't think of a better place to put them.

It's interesting that if the SSC hadn't been canceled when it
was about 20% complete it would have been about two and a
half times as powerful as the Large Hadron Collider and would 
have gone online 7 or 8 years ago. However it was decided in 
the early 90's that we could only afford one really big science 
project; we could have the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)
or the Fucking International Fucking Space Fucking Station (FIFSFS)
but not both. 

It was decided to go with FIFSFS.

 John K Clark




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep 13 06:11:44 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:11:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
References: <20080911025516.GD2225@ofb.net><289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080911173610.024569d8@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670809111655t717cd7fg8919e9647b7fd964@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <040901c91567$bb213420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Grigg writes

> Hey, let's invade Iran and then just keep going!
> U.S. foreign policy should be just like playing the
> classic boardgame Risk!

Actually, I got over that attitude about the time I
turned eleven!  :-)  But up until then, what Hitler
had tried to do made a whole lot of sense to me  :-D

> Oh, wait, that would be biting off more than we can chew...

Well, maybe someday. What if we make the nanotech breakthrough first?
World Domination!

> I am amazed (in a good way) there is not more support for
> reinstating the draft.  It would be a key way of having an
> American military capable of of doing everything on the
> Neocon wishlist.

In a democracy, there seems to be two requirements for
a workable draft: an enormous reservoir of patriotism and
a palpable feeling of emergency.

> I think had New York City itself been vaporized in a flash
> of nuclear fire, we would have likely seen a draft brought back.
> And people would have generally embraced it.    

Good point. There's still a lot of life left in the old carcass,
though I wonder how much there'd be without the Italians
and 19th century Germans and Scots-Irish who came.
The liberal WASP progressives, who a century ago were
all for eugenics, prohibition, and other revolutionary
measures have mostly lost their patriotism, and the only
fire left in their bellies would appear to be an one-worlder
internationalist urge to be green, or to supplant capitalism.

Speaking of the alteration of national character, I'm listening
to Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia", where while narrating his
adventures and dismay in the Spanish Civil War (1936), he
describes in great detail the ineptitude of the Spanish in so
many things, from war making (both sides) to the stark poverty
of the countryside. He mentions, for example, that while the
Spanish secret police had all the enthusiasm of the Gestapo,
they simply didn't have any of its competence.

As I listened, it became clear to me that if you teleported 
Cortez, Pizarro, DeSoto and all their followers into the Spain
of 1936 and enlisted their wholehearted support in the Loyalist
cause, Franco would have been beaten. More realistically, if
they'd joined the more religious side, i.e., the Nationalists,
then the war wouldn't have lasted a month longer.

What happened to the indomitable will of the Conquistadors and
to the fact that between 1500 and 1650 the Spanish infantry
*never* lost a single battle? There was simply no stopping them,
as the inhabitants of the Americas learned. Where there is a will,
there most often indeed is a way, and will they had aplenty.

I think that what happened was that during the 17th and 18th
century the spirit of conquest and the tremendous vitality and
will of the Spanish gradually died on the vine. Too many reverses
at the hands of the superior technology of the Dutch, English,
and French finally cracked their armor. (In the same way, I 
contend, the Sweden of Charles XII gradually turned into the
milquetoast country of today, but only after Peter the Great
pulled their teeth. No more would Swedish bayonets terrify
all of Europe.) And the Japanese of mid-century too: no
amount of elan and invincibly high morale really works against
vastly superior industrial strength and better technology.

Vietnam had an effect on the American soul almost as deadly
and wearying as the decades of the sixties and seventies 
themselves. Yet just as it took Rome a long time to become
Italian, so indeed America would respond just as you have
suggested. Despite all the talk and soul-searching and great
remorse expressed here and there, once again the "likely
suspects" would be rounded up and put into concentration
camps, precisely as befell the Japanese in 1942.

Rome was no longer capable of Republican government by
the first century BC, and though Caesar was a genocidal
monster outside of Italy, and an unscrupulous politician inside
it, he and later Augustus saw clearly what needed to be done,
which escaped many of their contemporaries. And it wasn't
for hundreds of years yet that Roman patriotism was to 
perish, perhaps forever. (Today, the Italians explain that
they're too intelligent to make good soldiers, and you can
sort of see what they're getting at.)  I am afraid that what
the Italian Fascists, with all their symbols of unity, their great
hunger to regain the sense of national purpose and glory that
animated their great ancestors, really were after was simply
out of reach.

Perhaps after the present demographic changes in America
are carried through another couple of generations (and the
average IQ has fallen to 95), not even the nuking of an
American city will be able to rouse the old passions.

Lee



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Sep 13 06:14:11 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:14:11 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
References: <200809120315.m8C3FA0W001149@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200809120445.m8C4jA5v018669@andromeda.ziaspace.com><2d6187670809112328n76688456le755894b3b8e50e6@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080912013732.01108510@satx.rr.com>
	<002501c91566$66074610$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <003401c91567$f8dce250$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"John K Clark" <jonkc at bellsouth.net> Wrote:

> many would theory

What the hell is the "many would theory"? This John Clark character
is a complete moron!

 John K Clark







From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep 13 06:23:36 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:23:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Grigg writes

> Damien, I must confess that I have not yet read
> your book on psi. [Outside the Gates of Science:
> Why It's Time for the Paranormal to Come in
> from the Cold, 2007]. But my impression is that
> the classic Project Stargate was based on some
> very solid research and application.  I have a
> strong feeling there may yet be another
> *underground* project currently going on
> that would meet with your rigorous approval
> in terms of how they do things.

Oh, way to go John! Cool. Now that you've pointed it
out, I like to fancy that yes if I had been the commanding 
general in charge of Stargate and it had begun to show
unmistakable results, I would have immediately canceled
the project, left "failure" stamped on every portion of it
that I could get away with, and got another general to
start from scratch with a VERY SECRET version of the
same thing with no trace to me remaining.

Hmm, so maybe that's why we've not suffered any Al Qaeda
attacks since 9/11. Every time they get close, somehow they
find they've been "spotted".

Lee



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Sep 13 06:32:32 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:32:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
References: <200809120315.m8C3FA0W001149@andromeda.ziaspace.com><200809120445.m8C4jA5v018669@andromeda.ziaspace.com><2d6187670809112328n76688456le755894b3b8e50e6@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080912013732.01108510@satx.rr.com><002501c91566$66074610$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<003401c91567$f8dce250$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <004f01c9156a$92331df0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"John K Clark" <jonkc at bellsouth.net> Wrote:

> This John Clark character  is a complete moron!

How dare you make such a ad hominin attack against me!
Ad hominin ad hominin ad hominin!! You should be 
expelled from the list! 

 John K Clark






From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep 13 06:45:40 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:45:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert>
Message-ID: <042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Harvey writes

> [Lee wrote]
> 
>> Let's say that with perfect impunity you can leave that restaurant you'll
>> never visit again in that distant city that you'll never visit it again.
>> Explain to me how it is in your self-interest, under these conditions,
>> to leave a tip.
> 
> This is silly.  I keep answering your questions, and you keep making them 
> more contrived to avoid my benefit.

This is a classic question---don't think that I invented it!

> Your latest contrivance only works if I never visit that city, or at least 
> that restaurant, again.  Great.  Now I have to keep a list of people and 
> places that I have cheated so that I can avoid them for the rest of my life. 
> It doesn't seem worth it to save a few measly bucks.

Hmm, I don't think that a truly selfish person practiced and intent
only on his own self-interest would have the least bit of trouble 
with weighing the simple likely outcomes. Of course, there are no
certainties in life, but he weighs his chances, and easily concludes
that it's exceedingly improbable that he'll ever want to visit *this*
restaurant in Paris in the future. And a proper tip may not be
"a few measly bucks", especially if he can't afford it easily the
way that you or I can.

> But I see a pattern here.

You are in security, after all. (Or---sorry, but I can't resist---just insecure?)

> So let's skip into the future where you have 
> contrived enough unlikely events that you get the answer you want.
> (I am starving to death in a strange city that is about to be destroyed by an 
> asteroid impact, I only have time to tip or teleport out of there, I forgot 
> my wallet anyway, and I realize that its a bad dream and I'm waking up.) 
> OK, so I finally concede that I don't always tip in every situation.  You 
> win.  So what's your response?  Is there any point to this line of 
> questioning when we get to the end?

So suspicious! Always worried about what a "yes" may lead to, eh?
I wonder if you were this way *before* taking up your line of work  :-)

> I also wonder if you cheat people all the time like you seem to be arguing 
> makes sense.

Certainly not. If you had read all my posts, you'd find that I take some
pride in being a genuine altruist. ("We are a better cut of people.", that
sort of thing.)

But it *does* make sense for someone who has only self-interest
at heart to avoid engaging in selfless acts, such as being unnecessarily
nice to people (beyond the call of reciprocation, genes, and reputation).
That's my claim: we who are really nice---and I had to make a
very determined thought experiment vividly portraying myself
and how I would act if I were the only real person in a simulated
world, and saw that indeed my behavior would change---us, we
do not always act out of self-interest.

> If so, why don't you explain why you do it rather than trying 
> to get me to explain why I don't.  Or if you don't cheat,
> why don't you reveal your reasons to us.

Done!  Well... let's say I very seldom cheat. As Solzhenitsyn
famously wrote, the line between good and evil cuts through
every human heart.

> And maybe if they are good enough for you they are good
> enough for the rest of us.  Is this going to turn out to be another 
> case where you actually agree with me (you don't cheat),
> but wanted to see my response to your thought experiments?

<sigh>, Merely trying to defend my claim above that we
genuine altruists frequently do *not* act in our own self-interest,
and have no intention of "correcting" the situation.

> And you aren't seriously trying to convince people
> that cheating is the best policy?

I am not speaking of a *policy*, per se. If you (incorrectly)
believe your behavior is ruled by a set of axioms, then
you might argue that you almost always follow a policy.
But most of us vacillate between principles, situation ethics,
and (like Mr. Bean when no one is looking), an occasional
greedy or lustful impulse.

But yes, I am indeed arguing that cheating under circumstances
where it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will know, defecting when
one cannot be caught at it, and never being the last to reciprocate,
are all in the person's best interest, modulo the obvious torments of
conscience in those of us that have them.

Lee



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 13 11:26:32 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 04:26:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>

Okay, I admit I really overstated things. lol  But I still do think there is
probably yet another underground Stargate type project being run by the U.S.
government.  Perhaps they will be more rigorous in their research this time
and *maybe* even see some solid results.  Despite all the failure and
disappointment in the past I suspect major nations will continue covertly to
study this field because the possibility of a major breakthrough (however
unlikely) is just too tempting to pass up.  And such a venture costs a
fraction of many R & D weapons programs.  It is ultimately a national
security matter because American leadership is very disturbed by the idea of
powerful rival nations getting the jump on us in this or any other area.

And though unlikely it is possible that Stargate was set up to fail with the
purpose of providing a smokescreen for another similar project (cue X-Files
music...).

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080913/0fa516dc/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Sep 13 15:06:39 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:06:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
In-Reply-To: <002501c91566$66074610$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <200809131531.m8DFVIfk025519@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of John K Clark
> Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
> 
> ... but I can imagine making a mini Black Hole and that 
> would be very cool indeed because it would demonstrate the 
> existence of other dimensions...

John, why would making a black hole demonstrate addition dimensions?

> ...However it was decided in 
> the early 90's that we could only afford one really big 
> science project; we could have the Superconducting Super 
> Collider (SSC) or the Fucking International Fucking Space 
> Fucking Station (FIFSFS) but not both. 
> 
> It was decided to go with FIFSFS.
> 
>  John K Clark

Oy vey, ja.  I am a hard core space fan and even *I* recognize how bad a
decision that was in 1993.  But it is even worse than that.  The station
needs access, the space shuttle was slated for retirement in 2010, the
Russians are acting up and you know they will soon invade the Baltics, so we
don't want to be dependent on them for access to space, nor the other
commies in China, so now we hafta keep the space shuttles flying loooong
after their retirement age at stunning expense and nail-biting risk.  I
would not be at all surprised if another one comes apart on re-entry.
Aluminum has metal fatigue characteristics that make it very unforgiving
stuff when you play close to the margins, as one must do on spacecraft.  The
FIFSFS is hurting us on multiple levels and keeps on hurting.

spike




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Sep 13 16:51:25 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:51:25 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Security 2001 (was Re: [wta-talk] Christian Transhumanist
	Declaration)
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809130522x5a1e108flf752705c06d9383@mail.gmail.com>
References: <468346.24674.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><BLU109-DS76A806854DA2500FA81978E6A0@phx.gbl><Pine.NEB.4.64.0808221620380.255@panix1.panix.com><DC565994EC74496289368AA52C468EA1@Catbert><Pine.NEB.4.64.0808242054090.255@panix1.panix.com><40773E4087E0462CAD2FCC7697002CE3@Catbert><Pine.NEB.4.64.0809111500200.12355@panix2.panix.com>
	<2d6187670809130522x5a1e108flf752705c06d9383@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <970786688169490181D4301A131B3D3F@Catbert>

John Grigg wrote,
> Harvey is an awesome guy.  I will never forget how he scared the
> daylights out of the Extro 5 conference crowd by sharing in his talk
> just how vulnerable their computers really were to hacking!  LOL

Yeah, that was fun.

You know, I got a lot of condemnation for that speech.  Some thought it was 
good and accurate.  But most people thought I was outrageously overhyping 
the issues as a scare tactic for my career.  Believe it or not, most people 
simply did not believe that corporations were profiling and tracking 
customers, that governments had routine domestic spying programs, or that 
hacking would turn into big business with advertising and information 
brokering.  This all seems obvious to us to day, and did to security 
professionals back then, but the general public as still mostly oblivious.

Here were my concluding "future predictions" from that speech in 2001:

- Privacy will become as big a concern as Security, maybe bigger
- While companies hide security incidents, individuals will not hide privacy 
concerns
- After SpyWare and Anti-SpyWare, look for Anti-Anti-SpyWare
- Corporations will start using viruses to spread more SpyWare without 
permission
- Governments will start using viruses as well
- Software will be designed to break if SpyWare features are disrupted or 
regular reports are not received
- Companies and Government will increase surveillance and hide surveillance 
where it is deemed illegal
- Beyond spying without permission, companies will start taking actions or 
making contracts "for" the customer without permission
- Company databases of customer information will become preferred targets of 
hackers rather than the individuals themselves
- Companies will escalate industrial espionage programs to steal customer 
data from each other
- Individuals will resort to data poisoning and sabotage if they cannot get 
their information removed from corporate databases
- Companies will increase legal actions against security consultants who 
report these events
- Expect more deception, more conflict, and all-out war . . .

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP 




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep 13 17:16:57 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:16:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <044d01c915c5$00c01a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Grigg writes

> Okay, I admit I really overstated things. lol  But I still do think there is probably yet another underground Stargate type 
> project being run by the U.S. government.  Perhaps they will be more rigorous in their research this time and *maybe* even see 
> some solid results.  Despite all the failure and disappointment in the past I suspect major nations will continue covertly to 
> study this field because the possibility of a major breakthrough (however unlikely) is just too tempting to pass up.  And such a 
> venture costs a fraction of many R & D weapons programs.  It is ultimately a national security matter because American leadership 
> is very disturbed by the idea of powerful rival nations getting the jump on us in this or any other area.

And though unlikely it is possible that Stargate was set up to fail with the purpose of providing a smokescreen for another similar 
project (cue X-Files music...).
<

Yes, well, I've often wondered what I would have
done back in the 80s (or maybe even today) if I
had been a pentagon type who had responsibility
in this area. I don't believe in the possibility of the
paranormal at all (I do have Damien's book, but
not the time to read it).  But.  What would really
be my duty insofar as checking it out?

That is, egads, what if it was real and the Russians
or someone else got it first? On the one hand, if I
*don't* back the program, then I could be putting
the nation at risk.  But on the other hand, if I do
back it, and the Skeptical Inquirer finds out, then
they'll cancel my SCICOP membership. Not to
mention embarrassing me   :-)

Lee



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Sep 13 16:23:15 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:23:15 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert>
	<042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
> This is a classic question---don't think that I invented it!

No, I didn't think you inented it.  I meant that you keep asking it 
repeatedly, and refuse to accept my answer since it doesn't match your 
answer.

> Hmm, I don't think that a truly selfish person practiced and intent
> only on his own self-interest would have the least bit of trouble with 
> weighing the simple likely outcomes.

I don't think anybody would have trouble doing this.  You only think I am 
having trouble because my conclusions are different than yours.

> So suspicious! Always worried about what a "yes" may lead to, eh?
> I wonder if you were this way *before* taking up your line of work  :-)

No, you keep making this unfounded assertion, and I keep denying it.  It's 
not suspicion, it's tiredness and time constraints.  I am wondering where 
this conversation is going and how much longer it will take.

> <sigh>, Merely trying to defend my claim above that we
> genuine altruists frequently do *not* act in our own self-interest,
> and have no intention of "correcting" the situation.

I agree that this is often true for most people.  But why are you so intent 
on proving that it is true for me?  I have explained my rationale 
repeatedly.  I don't see where my analysis is wrong in my situation.  But 
even if  my calculations are wrong, can't you see that I am still choosing 
the best-self interest as I have calculated them?  Or that I would choose 
your answers if I believed your calculations were correct?

> But yes, I am indeed arguing that cheating under circumstances
> where it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will know, defecting when
> one cannot be caught at it, and never being the last to reciprocate,
> are all in the person's best interest, modulo the obvious torments of
> conscience in those of us that have them.

I agree with your argument completely for most people.  But I am not like 
most people.

- As I get better known on the internet and in my career, I am more likely 
to get recognized in these "anonymous" situations you describe.
- As I make more and more money, the value of skipping a tip becomes less 
and less.
- As I travel more on business, and keep getting called to random locations 
and restaurants, I am even more likely to have to return to a specific city 
or restaurant than ever.
- As I become more rich and famous, the risk of strangers being able to come 
forward with a story of how I cheated them becomes more likely and damaging.
- As I learn more about ubiquitous surveillence, the change of me secretly 
being watched is growing all the time.

Even if your proposition is true for some, it could be less so for me.  And 
even if it is true for me in some cases, that likelihood is decreasing all 
the time.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep 13 17:58:32 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:58:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>

At 04:26 AM 9/13/2008 -0700, John Grigg wrote:

>And though unlikely it is possible that Stargate was set up to fail 
>with the purpose of providing a smokescreen for another similar 
>project (cue X-Files music...).

Star Gate didn't "fail". Read Prof. Utts's AIR reports ( 
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/response.html
http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html ). The relevant sections 
of my book (which Lee tells us he owns but hasn't read; cough groan) 
sketch some of the contortions in this whole long process.

Essentially, it was found that remote viewing was useful as an 
adjunct to conventional intelligence gathering, but insufficient by 
itself. There was far too much pressure from the military side for 
immediate operationalizable results, despite the wish of the 
scientific side to get more work done on establishing the parameters 
of the phenomena; this produced enough startling good data that the 
program was repeatedly funded, year after year for nearly two 
decades, by its sponsors. But I think the bottom line is that these 
sponsors were demanding jet fighter aircraft from the Wright 
brothers, and as the original staff resigned in frustration or 
because their terms were up the whole thing started to fall apart.

As everyone knows who's spent a couple of days looking into this 
topic seriously, data acquired by ostensible psi is always at least 
somewhat murky and contaminated by the expectations, prejudices, 
mental set and so on of the operator and judge/s--just as it is with 
liminal perception of briefly exposed imagery in a lab. It's the 
nature of the beast. And the effect size is always small. There are 
no sf-style telepathic/precognitive supermen out there, and 
nobody  except $cientologists and Crowleyites ever thought there 
were. (Of course, some of the key SRI figures involved in starting 
Star Gate *were* $cientologists for a while, which muddies the 
waters. Again, see my book.)

Anyone open to looking into this topic might turn to Jim Schnabel's 
very funny but not altogether reliable book REMOTE VIEWERS (which is 
what first led me to think there might be something in this), and 
some of Joseph McMoneagle's first hand testimony as an Army remote 
viewer in his several books. Under no circumstances pay any attention 
at all to the lying fuckers who *pretend* to have held important 
roles in Star Gate, the likes of "Dr." David Morehouse, ret-Major Ed 
Dames, Dr. Courtney Brown, or any of the other deluded or scammish 
bullshitters who rake in money "teaching" remote viewing for 
thousands of bucks a pop, and help you get in touch with Jesus and 
the Grey Aliens. Naturally, these morons and crooks are the ones 
everyone who reads National Enquirer for their information on the 
topic will assume speak for the parapsychologists.

Damien Broderick




From spike66 at att.net  Sat Sep 13 18:12:37 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:12:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
In-Reply-To: <200809131531.m8DFVIfk025519@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200809131837.m8DIbGlV019833@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> Subject: Re: [ExI] Cool Physics
> 
> > ...On Behalf Of John K Clark
> > Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
> > 
> > ... but I can imagine making a mini Black Hole and that 
> would be very 
> > cool indeed because it would demonstrate the existence of other 
> > dimensions...
> 
> John, why would making a black hole demonstrate addition dimensions? spike

Is this one of those discoveries that would be cool until you realize your
calculations were wrong, the mini black hole wasn't evaporating like it was
suppose to but rather was growing?  

The question did give me a darkly entertaining thought.  Back in the final
phases of the development of the atomic fission bomb, a group of theoretical
physicists under Edward Teller were already exploring the creation of a much
larger atomic fusion weapon.  They realized that any fission bomb has a
theoretical limit to its yield, but a fusion weapon could be made of
arbitrary size.  Consequently, they realized that as a purely defensive
weapon, perhaps the most effective would be a fusion weapon large enough to
destroy everything on the planet.  This they called the backyard device, for
it made a delivery device unnecessary.  Just park the thing in your back
yard and politely request that your enemies keep their goddam distance,
thank you.

This story is related by Teller in his wildly entertaining and scary
Conversations on the Dark Secrets of Physics (1991).  Subsequent years of
study have shown that a backyard fusion bomb would require tritium, which
has such a short halflife (12 yrs) that it would not be feasible.  

I read the arguments advanced by the physicists on the Large Hadron Collider
that a mini black hole would not be created and would not devour the planet.
I found the reasoning convincing, but what if they discovered a way that
they actually *could* create a black hole that *would* devour the earth?
Would not that be the ultimate backyard bomb?  Could not a wacky national
leader one day send out a message: you infidels back off, or I will push
this button and we will all meet face to face in a space smaller than an
olive pit!  {8-|

Well on the bright side, that would be cheaper to maintain than a bunch of
nukes, ja?

spike 

   



From spike66 at att.net  Sat Sep 13 18:53:36 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:53:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
Message-ID: <200809131918.m8DJIFqA000337@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

OK, so it is FoxNews that is propagating this whole Islam = race business.
The story contains the following quote:
 
"Take control of the American hero and wipe out the Muslim race with an
arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons," the "Muslim Massacre" Web
site says.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422122,00.html
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080913/fa3180e4/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep 13 19:33:57 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:33:57 -0500
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
In-Reply-To: <200809131918.m8DJIFqA000337@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809131918.m8DJIFqA000337@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913142804.02600be0@satx.rr.com>

At 11:53 AM 9/13/2008 -0700, Spike wrote:

>OK, so it is FoxNews that is propagating this whole Islam = race 
>business.  The story contains the following quote:
>
>"Take control of the American hero and wipe out the Muslim race with 
>an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons," the "Muslim 
>Massacre" Web site says.
>
><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422122,00.html>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422122,00.html

Eh? The Fox site headline is:


" 'Muslim Massacre' Video Game Has 'American Hero' Avatars Wipe Out 
Followers of Islam"

It's the morons who make and sell the game who misuse the term 
"race." After all, they're Australians; what can you expect?

Meanwhile, expect attacks to increase against the Atheist Race and 
the Scientist Race. Sorry, that's the Western "So-called Science" Race.

Damien Broderick




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep 13 19:43:07 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:43:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
In-Reply-To: <200809131918.m8DJIFqA000337@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809131918.m8DJIFqA000337@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913143841.0232a948@satx.rr.com>

It is, of course, a geek's idea of loads o' funny fun. See the 
exchanges back at the start of the year at

<http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2884255>

====================Sigvatr
Jan 07, 2008
I MAKE MONEY FROM MASS MURDER


unscripted a.i. posted:

Why did you do this?


I realize it's not most people's thing, but I thought it would be a 
fun and funny game to play, and it was fun to make too.

==================

Right, it's all fun and games until someone loses a New York.

Damien Broderick



From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Sep 13 19:45:06 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:45:06 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Security 2001 (was Re: [wta-talk] Christian Transhumanist
	Declaration)
In-Reply-To: <970786688169490181D4301A131B3D3F@Catbert>
References: <468346.24674.qm@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<BLU109-DS76A806854DA2500FA81978E6A0@phx.gbl>
	<Pine.NEB.4.64.0808221620380.255@panix1.panix.com>
	<DC565994EC74496289368AA52C468EA1@Catbert>
	<Pine.NEB.4.64.0808242054090.255@panix1.panix.com>
	<40773E4087E0462CAD2FCC7697002CE3@Catbert>
	<Pine.NEB.4.64.0809111500200.12355@panix2.panix.com>
	<2d6187670809130522x5a1e108flf752705c06d9383@mail.gmail.com>
	<970786688169490181D4301A131B3D3F@Catbert>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809131245s11db9792xa64580d9d47bb11f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> You know, I got a lot of condemnation for that speech.  Some thought it was
> good and accurate.  But most people thought I was outrageously overhyping
> the issues as a scare tactic for my career.  Believe it or not, most people
> simply did not believe that corporations were profiling and tracking
> customers, that governments had routine domestic spying programs, or that
> hacking would turn into big business with advertising and information
> brokering.  This all seems obvious to us to day, and did to security
> professionals back then, but the general public as still mostly oblivious.
>


Yea.  My friends tell me to stop being so paranoid about security.
They think I've got a fixation or something.

In several cases they have since brought their computer round for me
to spend a day cleaning hundreds of viruses and trojans off. And,
could I please repeat that stuff about firewalls and anti-virus and
safe computing that I was rabbiting on about the other week?  ;)


BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep 13 19:49:08 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:49:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913142804.02600be0@satx.rr.com>
References: <200809131918.m8DJIFqA000337@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913142804.02600be0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913144747.022c3e00@satx.rr.com>

Same guy, it seems, behind

http://www.electricretard.com/

and choice comedy like

http://fagart.electricretard.com/

It's so... edgy... doncha know.



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sat Sep 13 20:38:01 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:38:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
In-Reply-To: <200809131918.m8DJIFqA000337@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809131918.m8DJIFqA000337@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <261DD37453D540A2A9F886209BB358FD@Catbert>

spike wrote,
> OK, so it is FoxNews that is propagating this whole Islam = race business.
> The story contains the following quote:
>
>"Take control of the American hero and wipe out the Muslim race with an
> arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons," the "Muslim Massacre" 
> Web site says.

This is yet another example where it is not the Muslims claiming to be a 
race.  It is stupid racists who want to wipe out other races that can't tell 
the difference.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP 




From spike66 at att.net  Sat Sep 13 21:13:39 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:13:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
In-Reply-To: <261DD37453D540A2A9F886209BB358FD@Catbert>
Message-ID: <200809132111.m8DLBcXJ010513@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
> ...On Behalf Of Harvey Newstrom
...
> >"Take control of the American hero and wipe out the Muslim 
> race with an  
> >arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons," the 
> "Muslim Massacre" Web site says.
> 
> This is yet another example where it is not the Muslims 
> claiming to be a race.  It is stupid racists who want to wipe 
> out other races that can't tell the difference... Harvey Newstrom

This whole line of discussion gives me an idea.  Humanity has long struggled
to defeat racism, but few would argue today that the effort is or has been
successful.  So I propose we redefine the goal.  Altho we may eventually be
able to modify our genetic makeup, thereby essentially having the option to
choose our race, we cannot do so today.  We may change our hair and skin
color, and even our physical characteristics to some extent (ex. Michael
Jackson and ExtenZe for instance) but we currently cannot change our
genetics.  So I propose we redefine race as something that we do control,
something that we choose.  If we do that, then racism, criticism of a race,
generalization about a race are all perfectly legitimate exercises,
analogous to criticism of political parties.  I am proposing we transfer our
thinking from a genotype to a memetype.  Perhaps we call them meces.

We currently think of three main races, broadly: European, African and
Asian, and their subtypes (racelets?), so I propose three main meces and
their mecelets.  Over time we can let meces take on more and more racelike
characteristics, until traditional racism is defeated or forgotten, replaced
by legitimate mecism.  I propose orange, purple and green.  They can have
sub-meces, so that for instance an orange with a particular drive to amass
lots of money might be a gold racelet.  At least at first it would be a gold
mecelet.

There is currently a global green movement, so we can distinguish that from
the broader greens by defining it as a memelet of green, call them
enviro-greens for instance.  Of course one can take on characteristics of
all three meces, until one can be defined as black.  Or one can disagree
with everything everyone says, until one is white.  

Eventually perhaps memist thinking would replace racist thinking.

Do play with this idea in the spirit in which it is proposed.

spike 





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep 13 21:23:08 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:23:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
In-Reply-To: <200809132111.m8DLBcXJ010513@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <261DD37453D540A2A9F886209BB358FD@Catbert>
	<200809132111.m8DLBcXJ010513@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913161945.058fd8a0@satx.rr.com>

At 02:13 PM 9/13/2008 -0700, Spike wrote:

>Over time we can let meces take on more and more racelike
>characteristics, until traditional racism

Or feces

>is defeated or forgotten, replaced
>by legitimate mecism.  I propose orange, purple and green.

Been there, done that in the distinction I recycled from Ken Wilber 
(with whom I am generally not in agreement) and a book drawn from my 
doctoral dissertation, of Red vs. Blue vs. Orange vs. Green social 
memesets: http://wise-nano.org/w/Broderick_CTF_Essay

Damien Broderick




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Sep 13 23:00:41 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913142804.02600be0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <811611.68501.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 9/13/08, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> It's the morons who make and sell the game who misuse
> the term 
> "race." After all, they're Australians; what
> can you expect?

Well Rupert Murdoch is Australian too and he and Fox News helped convince America that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So let's just say I am not suprised. Won't Australia take Rupert from us? I'd gladly exchange him for Stathis or Emlyn.

So I wonder if the final boss in the video game is you know who of Danish cartoon fame?

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 lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 14 00:11:50 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:11:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert>
Message-ID: <046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

>> This is a classic question---don't think that I invented it!
> 
> No, I didn't think you invented it.  I meant that you keep asking it 
> repeatedly, and refuse to accept my answer since it doesn't match your 
> answer.  ["Since"?  Objection! Conclusion on the part of the witness, your honor!]
[Have I surmised your reasons for anything, or is it that I just keep asking? You
probably shouldn't surmise my reasons.]

Harvey had written

> > > Your latest contrivance only works if I never visit that city, or at least 
> > > that restaurant, again.  Great.  Now I have to keep a list of people and 
> > > places that I have cheated so that I can avoid them for the rest of my life. 
> > > It doesn't seem worth it to save a few measly bucks.

To which I responded,

> > Hmm, I don't think that a truly selfish person practiced and intent
> > only on his own self-interest would have the least bit of trouble with 
> > weighing the simple likely outcomes.
> 
> I don't think anybody would have trouble doing this.

Well, you had *just* said "Now I have to keep a list of people
and places..."  indicating the trouble! Our communication is a mess, here!

> You only think I am having trouble because my conclusions
> are different than yours.

No (and once again you dare have the balls to tell me what I am
thinking)---I was just responding to what you wrote!  It might
help if you included more of the relevant text, so that statements
like your last one are more easily seen to be non-sequiturs.

In fact, I completely welcome conclusions different from mine: what
would there be to discuss without them?

>> So suspicious! Always worried about what a "yes" may lead to, eh?
>> I wonder if you were this way *before* taking up your line of work  :-)
> 
> No, you keep making this unfounded assertion, and I keep denying it.

That was a *joke*, sir.  Please notice the little three-character
symbol following it. I have *never* made any "assertion" about
your character before you took up your present vocation---that
was, to repeat, an attempt at levity that obviouisly misfired. No
more, sir, not with you. Instead of improving the communication
and lightening the confrontational aspect, it just seems to make it worse.

>> <sigh>, Merely trying to defend my claim above that we
>> genuine altruists frequently do *not* act in our own self-interest,
>> and have no intention of "correcting" the situation.
> 
> I agree that this is often true for most people.  But why are you so intent 
> on proving that it is true for me?  I have explained my rationale repeatedly.

I don't care that much about any single individual. I'm sure that
you and I, however, are not really too atypical. We're having
to search for words and are trying to refine concepts on the
road to truth here, i.e., situation normal.

> I don't see where my analysis is wrong in my situation.  But 
> even if  my calculations are wrong, can't you see that I am still
> choosing the best-self interest as I have calculated them?

Ah, good. We wander back into substance. If it will not 
overly tire you more, it still seems to me that this is a very
key point upon which we apparently disagree. You claim
that you are choosing for your own self-interest. Maybe,
maybe not. I ascribe "genuine altruism" to people whose
behavior is exemplified by

      a. leaving a tip in restaurants even though the
          waiter mentioned that he's moving back to Mexico
          in less than an hour (and won't be talking to anyone
          about your less than generous behavior)
      b. letting someone out of a crowded parking lot in
          front of your own vehicle, although that only slows
          you down, makes it more likely that you'll not make
          it past the next yellow light, while all the time there is
          almost chance that the driver of that vehicle will ever
          or even would be able to hold it against you
      c. frequently calling an aged, but rather boring, parent 
          who wouldn't hold it against you if you called half as
          much, but whom you call more than is strictly
          necessary simply because you know it comforts
          him or her.
      d. would however, immediately cease a lot of their
          ("nice") behaviors like this were they to learn that they
          were in a simulation wherein they were the only conscious
          individual

Now it may happen that you do none of a, b, or c, and that
you would act exactly the same in case d and you do in the
present world, but I do not understand how you can describe
a, b, and c as self-interested behavior.
(Unless one were talking about the question-begging case of
having a conscience that would bother one. We hardly refer
to people who are afraid of what hell their consciences may
unleash as "self-interested" or "selfish".)

> Or that I would choose your answers if I believed your
> calculations were correct?

Not sure if it's a question of "correctness", but maybe so.
Yes, I may indeed calculate (in a certain way) that it's high
time I gave my mother a call, but that calculation so far as
I am aware---and that's the truly difficult part---is regards
*her* interest, not *mine*. (Actually, lucky for me, she's
fine to talk to, but I'd call her regularly even if not.) Likewise
for a and b: I'm not thinking about *me* when I leave the tip
(unless it's a place where I know the waiters and waitresses,
and want to leave a good impression). I'm thinking about *them*,
and what is in their interest, and how they'll feel if they see a
nice tip.

>> But yes, I am indeed arguing that cheating under circumstances
>> where it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will know, defecting when
>> one cannot be caught at it, and never being the last to reciprocate,
>> are all in the person's best interest, modulo the obvious torments of
>> conscience in those of us that have them.
> 
> I agree with your argument completely for most people.  But I am not like 
> most people.
> 
> - As I get better known on the internet and in my career, I am more likely 
> to get recognized in these "anonymous" situations you describe.
> - As I make more and more money, the value of skipping a tip becomes less 
> and less.
> - As I travel more on business, and keep getting called to random locations 
> and restaurants, I am even more likely to have to return to a specific city 
> or restaurant than ever.
> - As I become more rich and famous, the risk of strangers being able to come 
> forward with a story of how I cheated them becomes more likely and damaging.
> - As I learn more about ubiquitous surveillence, the change of me secretly 
> being watched is growing all the time.

Well, then, you may wish to describe your behavior before you got
very far along on the road towards fame and fortune. From what you 
write, yes, indeed, it is now self-interested of you to engage in these 
behaviors, even if there is also (evidently unbeknownst to you) a
component of genuine altruism. You'll know if you are able to accurately
recall how it was for you many, many years ago.

Lee

> Even if your proposition is true for some, it could be less so for me.
> And even if it is true for me in some cases, that likelihood is decreasing all 
> the time.



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep 14 00:33:10 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:33:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
 or  Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert>
	<026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert>
	<042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert>
	<046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913192752.02457028@satx.rr.com>

At 05:11 PM 9/13/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>I ascribe "genuine altruism" to people whose
>behavior is exemplified by
>
>      a. leaving a tip in restaurants even though the
>          waiter mentioned that he's moving back to Mexico
>          in less than an hour (and won't be talking to anyone
>          about your less than generous behavior)
>      b. letting someone out of a crowded parking lot in
>          front of your own vehicle, although that only slows
>          you down, makes it more likely that you'll not make
>          it past the next yellow light, while all the time there is
>          almost chance that the driver of that vehicle will ever
>          or even would be able to hold it against you

This is truly bizarre. (a) You really think it takes a "genuine 
altruist" to honor a contract and to do so routinely? For that is the 
understanding between you and the waiter. [This is something it takes 
an Aussie a while to grasp, since tipping is or used to be frowned on 
in Oz and waiters were paid extra so bills go up a bit] (b) You 
really think it takes a "genuine altruist" to act in accord with a 
principle that, if generally acted upon, eases everyone's life, 
reduces everyone's tension, decreases the chances of costly accidents, etc?

Damien Broderick



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 14 01:20:27 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:20:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or  Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913192752.02457028@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <048601c91608$4a427ab0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien writes

> Lee wrote:
> 
>>I ascribe "genuine altruism" to people whose
>>behavior is exemplified by
>>
>>      a. leaving a tip in restaurants even though the
>>          waiter mentioned that he's moving back to Mexico
>>          in less than an hour (and won't be talking to anyone
>>          about your less than generous behavior)
>>      b. letting someone out of a crowded parking lot in
>>          front of your own vehicle, although that only slows
>>          you down, makes it more likely that you'll not make
>>          it past the next yellow light, while all the time there is
>>          almost chance that the driver of that vehicle will ever
>>          or even would be able to hold it against you
> 
> This is truly bizarre. (a) You really think it takes a "genuine 
> altruist" to honor a contract and to do so routinely?

Given the proviso that there will be *no* repercussions
whatever to the actor, the answer is Yes. This has to be
so (my claim goes) because someone truly acting only in
his own self-interest would have no motive to honor the
contract. Classic defection scenario.

> For that is the understanding between you and the waiter.
> [This is something it takes an Aussie a while to grasp,
> since tipping is or used to be frowned on in Oz and waiters
> were paid extra so bills go up a bit]

Yes, I'm listening to where Orwell describes the same thing
in Loyalist Spain. Leaving tips (or, as in the case of the egalitarian
smorgasbords, even being waited upon) is seen as dividing the
people into classes. I know I was very uncomfortable as a teen
being waited upon by adults in my pals and I went into a coffee
shop. It felt quite wrong.

> (b) You really think it takes a "genuine altruist" to act in accord
> with a principle that, if generally acted upon, eases everyone's life, 
> reduces everyone's tension, decreases the chances of costly
> accidents, etc.?

That is exactly so. Now, to be sure, "cooperating" by driving on the
same side of the road as most people do is very much in one's self-interest,
obviously. Here "what is good for everyone" coincides with what
is good for the (selfish) individual. I do mix "selfish" and "self-interested"
here in a way that I hope does not cause confusion (for there is an
important distinction, but it's rather tangential to the present discussion).

Normally those who are infinitely selfish, i.e. have no other interest
other than self-interest, will abide by the usual principles. This is 
because society regularly mets out punishment to those who do not.[1]
In fact, it is rather hard to come up with situations that expose genuine
self-interest at work. I observe, for instance, that with respect to my
very closest friends, everything I do is in my own self-interest. For,
should I not do everything I can to continue to cultivate them, even 
going out of my way in cases where it's not in my short-term self-interest
to do so, I weaken our bonds, and can expect that I will benefit less from
our relationship. Ironically, it is normally the case that complete strangers
are the ones who benefit from whatever selflessness I have.

Now if I did think about it, well, maybe I could perceive cases where I'd
be nicer than "necessary" to my best friends, but none springs to mind
easily. I do note that I am kinder to my mother than can (so far as I
can see) be explained by self-interest. It was *only* by vividly 
imagining the case of the VR Solipsist, on which I posted here many
years ago, that I was able to convince myself that some of my behavior
is purely altruistic, because behind most of my behavior, as well as
behind most everyone's behavior, there almost always lies an
element of self-interest, though it's quite often deeply hidden,
and the person is not aware of it.

Lee

[1] What word am I looking for here? Neither "mets out punishment" nor
"meets out punishment" score many google hits.


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 14 01:44:57 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:44:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
References: <200809131918.m8DJIFqA000337@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913142804.02600be0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <048901c9160b$cb673600$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien B. writes

> At 11:53 AM 9/13/2008 -0700, Spike wrote:
> 
>>OK, so it is FoxNews that is propagating this whole Islam = race 
>>business.  The story contains the following quote:
>>
>>"Take control of the American hero and wipe out the Muslim race with 
>>an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons," the "Muslim 
>>Massacre" Web site says.
>>
>><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422122,00.html>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422122,00.html

Looks like good clean fun to me.

> Eh? The Fox site headline is:
> 
> " 'Muslim Massacre' Video Game Has 'American Hero' Avatars Wipe Out 
> Followers of Islam"

Once again, Fox News escapes condemnation by a hair.

> It's the morons who make and sell the game who misuse the term 
> "race." After all, they're Australians; what can you expect?
> Meanwhile, expect attacks to increase against the Atheist Race and 
> the Scientist Race. Sorry, that's the Western "So-called Science" Race.

I would not mind a game called "Kill the Geek" in which one is
to go to Silicon Valley and try to hunt down and kill as many
men wearing pocket protectors and glasses as possible, nor 
would I especially mind "Massacre the Transhumans". In fact,
I'd in fact be positively delighted to see the emergence of a game
called "The Brights Must Die"  :-)  where you get to go after
Richard Dawkins (one of the purveyors of that stupid and
silly phrase).

But to hedge, often I do think that such things are *not* "good clean fun".
Almost the definition of a conservative is someone who is always
worried about society's morals, and fears and loathes nihilistic
artistic works. Any television rougher than "Leave it to Beaver"
excites in them (us) a feeling that one thing will lead to another,
and before long the standards of conduct will go all to hell.

Having my outlook firmly grounded in the fifties, I happened to
be one of those "innate conservatives" who was revolted by the
anomie and lack of respect for tradition of the sixties that took
place during my unfortunate teenage years.

On the other hand, I do not think that I and my little 11-year-old
friends were at all harmed by shows such as The Rifleman or
even The Untouchables, where every week at least two or three
in the former, and maybe a dozen people in the latter, were routinely
mown down. And it wasn't simply that they had it coming, were
bad guys who needed to be killed anyway---no, not only that.

I just finally came to believe decades later that folks are pretty good
at distinguishing fiction from reality, and that the same guy who
has slain thousands of people while playing "Doom" or any
realistic appearing game sporting immense amounts of blood,
does not have his true life behavior affected one bit, and if he
saw someone up close get bloodily killed, would have just as
great a chance as the rest of us has of throwing up.

Lee



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Sep 14 02:07:15 2008
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:07:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
 or  Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <048601c91608$4a427ab0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913192752.02457028@satx.rr.com>
	<048601c91608$4a427ab0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <33896.12.77.168.205.1221358035.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>


>
> [1] What word am I looking for here? Neither "mets out punishment" nor
> "meets out punishment" score many google hits.
>

*metes* out punishment

Regards,
MB



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sun Sep 14 03:52:03 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:22:03 +1030
Subject: [ExI] the what race?
In-Reply-To: <811611.68501.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913142804.02600be0@satx.rr.com>
	<811611.68501.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809132052i3ece2f4dm3cfd7cb76448842d@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/14 The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>:
> --- On Sat, 9/13/08, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> It's the morons who make and sell the game who misuse
>> the term
>> "race." After all, they're Australians; what
>> can you expect?
>
> Well Rupert Murdoch is Australian too and he and Fox News helped convince America that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So let's just say I am not suprised. Won't Australia take Rupert from us? I'd gladly exchange him for Stathis or Emlyn.
>

I'm flattered. However, such a swap would be undoing many years of
hard work by my compatriots. Just consider him payback for the cane
toads.

-- 
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 mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Sep 14 04:07:34 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:07:34 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Terrorist? Who can tell?
In-Reply-To: <03ef01c91556$3a122c10$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<03ef01c91556$3a122c10$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <CD77C168CBDC4B6EB6F0A8AC8EE5ED0C@Catbert>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
> I was systematically lied to by my teachers, starting in high school, who
> wanted us all to believe axiomatically that in every way possible all
> races were psychologically and mentally identical, with only a very
> few physical outer markers enabling any distinction at all. (Later, even
> these were under attack to the point that the very existence of race
> was questioned.) Then came the 1970s, and it was expected that we
> would all take as a given that no gender or sexual differences existed
> outside of the purely functional physical apparatus. Yet another lie.

Please, let's not have yet another Extropian flame-war about which race are 
the terrorists, which race contributed more to civilization, and which race 
has higher IQ scores, etc.  This has been argued so often that the 
Extropians List is infamous for this.  There is no reason to go through it 
yet again.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Sep 14 03:47:10 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:47:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert>
	<046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
> [Have I surmised your reasons for anything, or is it that I just keep 
> asking? You
> probably shouldn't surmise my reasons.]

Just to answer your question, you are constantly surmising my reasons for 
things:
- You keep arguing that I am being altruistic when I claim I am not.
- You keep arguing that my answers are really lies because I am afraid to 
admit the truth.
- You keep arguing that my explanations for my behavior aren't the real 
reasons I behave this way.
- You keep arguing that I am afraid to let you lead the conversation because 
I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.

>> I don't think anybody would have trouble doing this.
>
> Well, you had *just* said "Now I have to keep a list of people
> and places..."  indicating the trouble! Our communication is a mess, here!

You cut off the part where I clearly indicated that I could do it, but "It 
doesn't seem worth it to save a few measly bucks."

>> You only think I am having trouble because my conclusions
>> are different than yours.
>
> No (and once again you dare have the balls to tell me what I am
> thinking)---I was just responding to what you wrote!

That's because when you response to what I wrote, you told me what you 
thought was more accurate than what I thought.

>>> So suspicious! Always worried about what a "yes" may lead to, eh?
>>> I wonder if you were this way *before* taking up your line of work  :-)
>>
>> No, you keep making this unfounded assertion, and I keep denying it.
>
> That was a *joke*, sir.

This "joke" is wearing thin, as you have repeatedly asserted that I to 
cowardly to admit the truth.

> Ah, good. We wander back into substance. If it will not overly tire you 
> more, it still seems to me that this is a very
> key point upon which we apparently disagree. You claim
> that you are choosing for your own self-interest. Maybe,
> maybe not.

Yes.  You are just repeating the disagreement again.  My answers aren't 
going to change.

> I ascribe "genuine altruism" to people whose behavior is exemplified by
>
>      a. leaving a tip in restaurants even though the
>          waiter mentioned that he's moving back to Mexico
>          in less than an hour (and won't be talking to anyone
>          about your less than generous behavior)

It's not altruism to pay someone for a job well done.  If I got more service 
than the minimum required, paying them a little extra money for the extra 
service is not unreasonable.  Genuine altruism would be tipping servers at 
other tables who didn't serve me.

>      b. letting someone out of a crowded parking lot in
>          front of your own vehicle, although that only slows
>          you down, makes it more likely that you'll not make
>          it past the next yellow light, while all the time there is
>          almost chance that the driver of that vehicle will ever
>          or even would be able to hold it against you

It's not altruism to drive cooperatively in traffic rather than 
competitively.  It's safer for me to let him go first rather than for me to 
go first and hope he stops.  Genuine altruism would be letting multiple cars 
go ahead of me instead of just one, or letting cars behind me go around.

>      c. frequently calling an aged, but rather boring, parent who wouldn't 
> hold it against you if you called half as
>          much, but whom you call more than is strictly
>          necessary simply because you know it comforts
>          him or her.

It's not altruism to pay comfort back to a parent who has comforted me in 
the past.  I got something first, so payment back is not unreasonable. 
Genuine altruism would be going to an old folks home to talk to strangers.

>      d. would however, immediately cease a lot of their
>          ("nice") behaviors like this were they to learn that they
>          were in a simulation wherein they were the only conscious
>          individual

Nope.  Your examples all give real value to me for which I am willing to 
"pay back" for.  I wouldn't tip bad service, or call a absentee parent who 
was never there as I grew up.  Nor do I do these things to make the other 
people happy.  The waiter earned a tip whether he's a human or a robot.  The 
other cars are still dangerous to me, whether they are driven by humans or 
simulations.  I owe my parents a lot, whether they are humans or just 
simlations.

These examples are simply poor examples of "genuine altruism" because they 
all involve me getting benefits.  Why don't you come up with examples of 
"genuine altruism" where I don't get anything back?  Such as:

- Giving away money to strangers just to make them happy?
- Doing odd jobs for strangers?
- Carrying bags of groceries for the person behind me at the store?
- Waiting until last to get on the bus?
- Giving blood?
- Driving people to the polls to vote?

> Well, then, you may wish to describe your behavior before you got
> very far along on the road towards fame and fortune. From what you write, 
> yes, indeed, it is now self-interested of you to engage in these 
> behaviors, even if there is also (evidently unbeknownst to you) a
> component of genuine altruism. You'll know if you are able to accurately
> recall how it was for you many, many years ago.

No, I haven't changed.  I always had the hubris to assume that I would be 
very successful in life.  I was intelligent, creative, did well in school, 
and accomplished many things growing up.  I always knew I could make it big 
on my own, and never felt that I needed to take from other people to get 
ahead, even if I could get away with it.

Why cheat at a sport you are good at?  Why cheat at a game are winning?  Why 
fake work that you can do easily?  Why steal or skimp for money you can 
easily earn?  Why try to "secretly get away with something" that you don't 
need to do anyway?

Nobody who was successful or expected to be successful would bother with 
this penny-ante stuff to get ahead.  You keep asking "why not cheat?"  But 
I'm asking "why bother?"

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Sep 14 05:08:39 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:08:39 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
References: <200809131531.m8DFVIfk025519@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <003101c91627$f90379e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> Wrote:

> John, why would making a black hole demonstrate
> addition dimensions?

If gravity always worked according to the inverse square law (1/r^2)
no matter how close two particles got there would be no hope in 
making a Black Hole, you'd need an accelerator the size of the
Galaxy.

However string theory says there are 7 additional spatial 
dimensions in addition to the 3 we already know about. If true then
when 2 particles get so close that they approach the size of those
small dimensions then gravity is no longer a inverse r^2 law but a
inverse r^10 law; push the two particles just a little bit closer and
the gravitational force between them becomes enormously
stronger, and you have a shot at making a Black Hole.

At these small sizes gravity would be just as strong as the other 
forces of nature, only at larger sizes is gravity so much weaker than
the other forces because it leaks out into the other 7 dimensions 
and gets diluted. The other forces don't go into these other 
dimensions and so don't get diluted.

But of course nobody knows if any of this is true. Time will tell.

  John K Clark









From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 14 06:31:16 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:31:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] creationism in britain?
In-Reply-To: <003101c91627$f90379e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <200809140629.m8E6TE96022099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


Oy freaking vey.  The nation that gave us both Darwin and Wallace now wants
to discuss creationism in the public schools?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm

My British friends, do tell me this creationism plague long suffered by
American scientists isn't spreading to England of all places on this
superstitious planet.

spike






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep 14 06:43:14 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:43:14 -0500
Subject: [ExI] creationism in britain?
In-Reply-To: <200809140629.m8E6TE96022099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <003101c91627$f90379e0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<200809140629.m8E6TE96022099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914014140.022f50f0@satx.rr.com>

At 11:31 PM 9/13/2008 -0700, you wrote:

>My British friends, do tell me this creationism plague long suffered by
>American scientists isn't spreading to England of all places on this
>superstitious planet.

I'm not a UKian, but here's what the Director actually says:

<Rather than dismissing creationism as a "misconception", he says it 
should be seen as a cultural "world view".

Teachers should take the time to explain why creationism had no 
scientific basis, Prof Reiss said.

He stressed that the topic should not be taught as science. >

Might work. Could get hijacked, but school's a hideous waste of time anyway.

Damien Broderick





From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 14 06:46:52 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:46:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] the Spanish today
References: <20080911025516.GD2225@ofb.net><289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080911173610.024569d8@satx.rr.com><2d6187670809111655t717cd7fg8919e9647b7fd964@mail.gmail.com>
	<040901c91567$bb213420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <04eb01c91636$0d32fc20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Yesterday, I said the following about present-day Spaniards,
considered as a class:

> Speaking of the alteration of national character, I'm listening
> to Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia", where while narrating his
> adventures and dismay in the Spanish Civil War (1936), he
> describes in great detail the ineptitude of the Spanish in so
> many things, from war making (both sides) to the stark poverty
> of the countryside. He mentions, for example, that while the
> Spanish secret police had all the enthusiasm of the Gestapo,
> they simply didn't have any of its competence.
> 
> As I listened, it became clear to me that if you teleported 
> Cortez, Pizarro, DeSoto and all their followers into the Spain
> of 1936 and enlisted their wholehearted support in the Loyalist
> cause, Franco would have been beaten. More realistically, if
> they'd joined the more religious side, i.e., the Nationalists,
> then the war wouldn't have lasted a month longer.
> 
> What happened to the indomitable will of the Conquistadors and
> to the fact that between 1500 and 1650 the Spanish infantry
> *never* lost a single battle? There was simply no stopping them,
> as the inhabitants of the Americas learned. Where there is a will,
> there most often indeed is a way, and will they had aplenty.
> 
> I think that what happened was that during the 17th and 18th
> century the spirit of conquest and the tremendous vitality and
> will of the Spanish gradually died on the vine. Too many reverses
> at the hands of the superior technology of the Dutch, English,
> and French finally cracked their armor.

I forgot to mention a most interesting additional fact. All throughout
the nineties, and probably still true today, Spain had more cryonicists
than any country in Europe (excluding the UK). And the per-capita
rate is more astounding still!

It seems to me likely that something remains of the Spanish adventurer,
who, when there are rewards without measure to be had, distant worlds
to explore and conquer, has his imagination, energy, and tenacity
fired up exactly as of old.

My Hispanic friend and co-worker Angelo was far away in Europe
one night at the call of duty, and our phone conversation somehow
wandered on to the Tasman Straights, which I pointed out had
been named after a Dutch explorer.

"And why weren't my people there first?", asked Angelo, quite
conscious that every place from Florida to Tierra Del Fuego to
the Phillipines had been explored and colonized by Spain.

"Because, Angelo", said I, "there wasn't any gold there!", to
which he gave a hearty laugh.

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep 14 07:01:26 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:01:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] the Spanish today
In-Reply-To: <04eb01c91636$0d32fc20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <20080911025516.GD2225@ofb.net>
	<289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911173610.024569d8@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670809111655t717cd7fg8919e9647b7fd964@mail.gmail.com>
	<040901c91567$bb213420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<04eb01c91636$0d32fc20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914015441.023da3f0@satx.rr.com>

At 11:46 PM 9/13/2008 -0700, Lee wrote these gilded words:

>"And why weren't my people there first?", asked Angelo, quite
>conscious that every place from Florida to Tierra Del Fuego to
>the Phillipines had been explored and colonized by Spain.
>
>"Because, Angelo", said I, "there wasn't any gold there!", to
>which he gave a hearty laugh.

Bad luck, bum steer. The place was loaded with so much of the stuff 
that the gold rushes of Australia are legendary,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_gold_rushes

e.g. "1872 - Worlds largest ever gold nugget was discoverd by 
Bernhard Otto Holterman."

and paid for the wonderful buildings of Victoria. And brought a lot 
of Chinese miners, and market gardeners, to Oz. Bad luck, Spaniards!

Damien Broderick 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep 14 07:21:44 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:21:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] the Spanish today
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914021702.0248d008@satx.rr.com>

I url'd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_gold_rushes

and might as well mention that when I was a university student some 
friends and I got the mandatory licence and went gold-mining, built a 
Wonderful Venturi Machine that was certain to suck up any residual 
"dirt" (as flakes of the precious stuff were called) from a creek, 
and centrifuge the stuff into a pot of gold. Didn't work, sadly, and 
I almost got one leg cut off, but I digress.

Damien Broderick 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep 14 07:24:15 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:24:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] I hope this is hysterical nonsense
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914022324.02312db8@satx.rr.com>

<http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-YOU-can-do-to-prevent-by-Mark-Crispin-Mille-080912-383.html>What 
You Can Do To Prevent Another Stolen Election
MARK CRISPIN MILLER - OpEd News


There's really only one way to prevent another stolen race, and 
that's to focus national attention on the revelations of 
whistle-blower Stephen Spoonamore, who's lately been revealing all we 
need to know about the Bush regime's conspiracy to rig the vote from 
2000 to the present. Spoonamore knows all the principals in this 
conspiracy, has been dealing with them for some time, and has a trove 
of emails, etc., to back up what he says.

There have been several other whistle-blowers on this front, but none 
is as compelling as he is--not just because he knows about the whole 
plot overall, but also because he is (a) a Republican, (b) an 
erstwhile member of the McCain campaign (he quit some months ago, 
when he discovered what they have planned) and (c) a prominent and 
well-respected expert on computer fraud. Detection of such fraud is, 
in fact, his specialty.

Spoonamore has named the man who was Karl Rove's IT guru from 2000 
until sometime last year: Mike Connell, a pro-life zealot who told 
Spoonamore that he had helped the Bush regime subvert elections "to 
save the babies." (The actual nuts and bolts of the election fraud 
machinery are largely in the hands of Christianist fanatics, who have 
done whatever Karl Rove asked them to.) Connell's fingerprints are 
thick on every dubious election of the last eight years--not just the 
presidential races, but Gov. Don Siegelman's stolen re-election in 
Alabama in '02, Sen. Max Cleland's in Georgia that same year, and many others.

Spoonamore's testimony is the driving force behind a RICO lawsuit in 
Ohio. The lawyers handling it--Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis--are 
terrific, and they have a game plan that provides us with some hope. 
They intend to order depositions of Karl Rove, Connell, Jack 
Abramoff, Bob Ney and all the other major perpetrators of 
Bush/Cheney's (and McPalin's) fraud. Since this is a civil case, 
those guys can't weasel out of it (cf. Paula Jones); and in any case 
a number of them (including Connell, whom Rove has lately threatened 
with reprisals if he doesn't take the rap) want to testify. Also, the 
judge happens to be highly principled, which is a godsend.

So the best thing we can do is help to spread the word about what 
Spoonamore knows, first of all, and, no less, to get those 
depositions out there once they're taken.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 14 07:23:33 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:23:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] the Spanish today
References: <20080911025516.GD2225@ofb.net><289003.96271.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080911173610.024569d8@satx.rr.com><2d6187670809111655t717cd7fg8919e9647b7fd964@mail.gmail.com><040901c91567$bb213420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><04eb01c91636$0d32fc20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080914015441.023da3f0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <04fd01c9163b$0ccc7fe0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien B. writes

>>"And why weren't my people there first?", asked Angelo, quite
>>conscious that every place from Florida to Tierra Del Fuego to
>>the Phillipines had been explored and colonized by Spain.
>>
>>"Because, Angelo", said I, "there wasn't any gold there!", to
>>which he gave a hearty laugh.
> 
> Bad luck, bum steer. The place was loaded with so much of the stuff 
> that the gold rushes of Australia are legendary,
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_gold_rushes
> 
> e.g. "1872 - Worlds largest ever gold nugget was discovered by 
> Bernhard Otto Holterman."
> 
> and paid for the wonderful buildings of Victoria. And brought a lot 
> of Chinese miners, and market gardeners, to Oz. Bad luck, Spaniards!

Yeah, they didn't know about California, Nevada, or Alaska either.

And in all these other places, it would have taken some real
work to get the gold out. Not that the conquistadors would ever
dream of getting their fingernails dirty, but the absence of a large
population that could either discover the gold for them or be
enslaved to dig it out for them forbade Spanish exploitation.

Lee



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Sep 14 08:13:46 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:13:46 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer><2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com><041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <004201c91641$d7c02930$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> Essentially, it was found that remote viewing was useful as an
> adjunct to  conventional intelligence gathering

Please document who exactly found that this male bovine excrement
has been proven to be useful. And I must tell you, I will not be very
impressed if you say it's in Spoon Bending Digest, and I will be even
less impressed if you give me a website nobody's ever heard of and
 expect me to read the long boring thing.

Just show me something in Science, Nature, Physical Review letters,
or a dozen other reputable science journals, that it's true and then
it's all over. That's all you need do, do that and you have won the
argument and I have lost. Is that asking too much?

> There was far too much pressure from the military side for
>  immediate operationalizable results

Translation: There was too much pressure for the fucking
thing to actually work.

> data acquired by ostensible psi is always at least somewhat
> murky and  contaminated by the expectations

At last you have said something I cannot disagree in the slightest
degree.

Now let me make it clear, I respect the hell out of Damien! Except 
for the issue of ESP and cold fusion we are of nearly 100% 
agreement. But on those 2 issues it's like those people who blow 
the curve on standard IQ tests but who can't identify human faces,
who can't even identify his own son until he formally proclaims his
identity. I am convinced that either Damien or I have a similar sort
of mental handicap. I really don't know which of us has the
problem. Time will tell.

 John K Clark






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep 14 08:53:58 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:53:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <004201c91641$d7c02930$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>
	<004201c91641$d7c02930$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914034529.0232baa0@satx.rr.com>

At 04:13 AM 9/14/2008 -0400, John K Clark wrote:

>on those 2 issues it's like those people who blow the curve on 
>standard IQ tests but who can't identify human faces...
>I am convinced that either Damien or I have a similar sort
>of mental handicap. I really don't know which of us has the
>problem. Time will tell.

Indeed. It should be apparent that I'm not really directing my 
comments on these topics (cold fusion and psi) to John, but to anyone 
on the list perhaps open to my arguments and interested in making 
their own investigations--as Ben Goertzel, who's surely smarter than 
John or I, did on this list. Madness, as I think someone quoted here 
recently (or more likely misquoted), is endlessly repeating the same 
actions while expecting a different outcome. It's obvious that 
neither John nor I will change as a result of evidence or abuse, so 
let's leave it there.

Until next time, when of course it might turn out different.

Damien Broderick 



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Sep 14 11:39:28 2008
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:39:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] creationism in britain?
In-Reply-To: <200809140629.m8E6TE96022099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809140629.m8E6TE96022099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <33958.12.77.169.29.1221392368.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

>
> Oy freaking vey.  The nation that gave us both Darwin and Wallace now wants
> to discuss creationism in the public schools?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm
>
> My British friends, do tell me this creationism plague long suffered by
> American scientists isn't spreading to England of all places on this
> superstitious planet.
>

Oh indeed it is spreading, between the AIG folks and the conservative Muslims
there's a goodly number of believers.

However, if you read the article carefully, you'll see the gentleman is recommending
an approach to dealing with creationist discussion *when it arises* in science
classes - one that he hopes might be more effective than the approach he had been
using for years.

It sounds to me rather like the approach I used with my own children. When they
asked religious-type questions I tried to answer them without freaking out - mostly
by admitting that people had worried and thought about these subjects for centuries
and the church answers were.... and the science answers were....

I don't know the "right" way to deal with these subjects. They *will* arise, no
matter how you raise your kids, if you allow them to talk openly to you about their
questions. And questions they will have, either from their own minds or from some
school friend's talk.

If one is too emphatic in a put-down it will probably backfire into some schoolyard
trouble - so one must be careful and gentle, is my experience as a parent.

YMMV. But I got a children's bible story book and read it to my kids as information
so they'd have some familiarity with the subject matter. I *will* say I was startled
 when my pre-teen daughter asked me what Easter was about... :)))  We had to go
through that all over again. (rolling eyes)

Regards,
MB



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Sep 14 11:44:38 2008
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:44:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] the Spanish today
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914015441.023da3f0@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914015441.023da3f0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <33963.12.77.169.29.1221392678.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

Damien writes:
> and might as well mention that when I was a university student some
> friends and I got the mandatory licence and went gold-mining, built a
> Wonderful Venturi Machine that was certain to suck up any residual
> "dirt" (as flakes of the precious stuff were called) from a creek,
> and centrifuge the stuff into a pot of gold. Didn't work, sadly, and
> I almost got one leg cut off, but I digress.
>

:)))  How did we ever live through university? :))) We used to go "renaulting" when
the driver had had enough to drink to be "fun" on a local uncompleted highway!

... boggles the mind...

Regards,
MB



From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 14 14:37:59 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:37:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] I hope this is hysterical nonsense
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914022324.02312db8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200809141436.m8EEZueg002643@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: [ExI] I hope this is hysterical nonsense
> 
> <http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-YOU-can-do-to-prevent-b
> y-Mark-Crispin-Mille-080912-383.html>What
> You Can Do To Prevent Another Stolen Election MARK CRISPIN 
> MILLER - OpEd News
> 
> 
> There's really only one way to prevent another stolen race, and 
> that's to focus national attention on the revelations of 
> whistle-blower Stephen Spoonamore...

Oy vey thanks Damien.  I am encouraged that a lotta states are getting rid
of their electronic voting machines, especially in the swing states.

>From a libertarian point of view, the current sitch is as good as it gets.
The two majors are statistically tied.  Let's hope it stays there all the
way to the election, that the campaigns become increasingly bitterly
negative, and that we have another 2000-like outcome where it isn't clear
who won for some time, but the electoral college goes opposite the popular
vote.

This is good on many levels: it tends to diminish the power of the
presidency, it emphasizes the importance of following election law to the
letter, demonstrates the necessity of a paper trail, increases the voter
participation by showing that every vote counts, increases cynicism about
government and reduces the proletariat's dependence and trust of same,
eliminates any strong argument for a president claiming a popular mandate,
among many other positive results.  But the most beneficial aspect of a
cliff-hanger election is that it greatly increases the influence of tiny
third parties, such as libertarian, for the opinions of these parties count
for something when the outcome is very close.  It's like being the small kid
on the playground where the two big bullies get into it and beat each other
beyond recognition.

I notice votemaster has the electoral college nearly tied at 268-270.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

spike


 



From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 14 16:25:06 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:25:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] china in space
In-Reply-To: <200809141436.m8EEZueg002643@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200809141650.m8EGnhHJ019870@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


Arthur C Clarke predicted this over 40 years ago in the novel 2001 A Space
Odyssey.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422301,00.html

That was damn good foresight for 1968, ja?

spike




From kanzure at gmail.com  Sun Sep 14 17:32:08 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:32:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] china in space
In-Reply-To: <200809141650.m8EGnhHJ019870@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809141650.m8EGnhHJ019870@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200809141232.09082.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Sunday 14 September 2008, spike wrote:
> That was damn good foresight for 1968, ja?

Actually, no. A lot of good foresight happened in 1968. Comparatively, 
1967 or 1969, Clarke's a god for it. ;-)

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From max at maxmore.com  Sun Sep 14 17:14:56 2008
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:14:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
 or  Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert>
	<026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert>
	<042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert>
	<046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
Message-ID: <20080914171458.KOST299.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>

At 10:47 PM 9/13/2008, Harvey wrote:

>These examples are simply poor examples of "genuine altruism" 
>because they all involve me getting benefits.  Why don't you come up 
>with examples of "genuine altruism" where I don't get anything back?  Such as:
>
>- Giving blood?

This example is (if I'm informed correctly) not a good one, unlike 
your others. Apparently, giving blood can be beneficial to your 
health (if you are male) by lowering concentrations of iron in the body.

Caveat: I read that quite some time ago, am unsure of the source, and 
it may not be true. But it's plausible. Can anyone confirm this?

Max




Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com 



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Sep 14 18:02:34 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:02:34 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or  Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <20080914171458.KOST299.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
	<20080914171458.KOST299.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
Message-ID: <A3597D2E149E4E7C9A8D5EA9EB83C1E6@Catbert>

"Max More" <max at maxmore.com> wrote,
> This example is (if I'm informed correctly) not a good one, unlike 
> your others. Apparently, giving blood can be beneficial to your 
> health (if you are male) by lowering concentrations of iron in the body.

Good point.  I've read this too.  Males often have too much iron.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 14 19:21:19 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:21:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or  Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <20080914171458.KOST299.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
Message-ID: <200809141919.m8EJJG5O005619@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
> ...On Behalf Of Max More
...
> >- Giving blood?
> 
> This example is (if I'm informed correctly) not a good one, 
> unlike your others. Apparently, giving blood can be 
> beneficial to your health (if you are male) by lowering 
> concentrations of iron in the body... Can anyone confirm this? Max

Hi Max!  Glad to see you posting.

Next week I will hit the four gallon donor mark, but in all these years I
never knew bloodletting had any health benefits.  I hope it is true.  In my
case I suspect it is not because my beef consumption is about a tenth what
it was a decade ago.

The reason I give blood is that it is my way of donating something of value
without costing me any actual money.  Or rather, a needle stick is far less
painful than cleaning the cobwebs off my wallet and removing the decaying
bills therein.  So my donations are simultaneously generous or selfish,
depending on how you look at it.  Is a partial altruist called a sometruist?

Stanford blood bank keeps calling my wife because she is O negative CMV
negative.  I suggested she take a few weeks vacation in England, which makes
one ineligible to donate.  We are told it is because they devour nearly raw
cows there.  {8^D  John and Bill, do you guys really eat bovine sushi, or is
it urban legend?

spike







From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Sep 14 19:57:49 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:57:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <200809141919.m8EJJG5O005619@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <20080914171458.KOST299.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<200809141919.m8EJJG5O005619@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809141257r5d7a23c5n167b84c431e0d83e@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:21 PM, spike wrote:
<snip>
> Stanford blood bank keeps calling my wife because she is O negative CMV
> negative.  I suggested she take a few weeks vacation in England, which makes
> one ineligible to donate.  We are told it is because they devour nearly raw
> cows there.  {8^D  John and Bill, do you guys really eat bovine sushi, or is
> it urban legend?
>

You got to be three months in the UK to make you ineligible for US
blood donations.
That's a long holiday.  :)

It is because there have been cases of Mad Cow disease in the UK and
there is no test for it. We could all be going mad and not know about
it.
(I thought rare steaks were a US tradition, anyway?)
 But it's nothing to do with steaks, as you probably well know. ;)
It is 'meat' products, like burgers, sausages, etc. where sloppy
practice at the processing plants threw in all the other bits of the
cow, specifically, bits of brain stem which might carry the disease.
They are not supposed to do that nowadays. (!)

I've had a look at the iron research reports and I think the answer is
'In some cases it might be a benefit, in others no benefit, or even
lead to iron deficiency'.  The research which found the heart attack
protection benefit cautioned that there could be a big self-selection
factor at work. You have to be pretty healthy to give blood. The list
of exclusion factors is quite lengthy. See:
<http://www.bloodbook.com/donr-requir.html>  These health problems
might have applied to their control group who didn't donate.

People normally have a range of iron levels in their blood and if the
level tests too low, they won't let you donate blood. The blood
donation guidelines tell donors to eat plenty of iron-rich foods
following a donation to rebuild the iron levels in their blood
quickly. So any benefit (or harm) is likely to be temporary.


BillK


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 14 22:27:11 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:27:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
Message-ID: <055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Harvey writes

> "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
>> [Have I surmised your reasons for anything, or is it that I just keep 
>> asking? You
>> probably shouldn't surmise my reasons.]
> 
> Just to answer your question, you are constantly surmising my reasons for 
> things:
> - You keep arguing that I am being altruistic when I claim I am not.

That may be true, but if so, it's because I want to pin down
the meanings of the words, not that I would dare to argue
that you were a certain way when you claimed you were not
(insofar as behavior outside this forum goes). 

> - You keep arguing that my answers are really lies because I am afraid to 
> admit the truth.

Find me anywhere where I have argued that. Please. I cannot believe
I would ever have done that. I have stated on any occasion that you
were telling lies? GO AHEAD. Try to find an instance.

Indeed, that you were "afraid" to admit the truth? How ever should
I know that? Perhaps you are projecting your own behavior when
you have the temerity to announce how what I *think*? (That's only
a question, though it does factually relate to your earlier statement:)

      >>> You only think I am having trouble because my conclusions
      >>> are different than yours.

> - You keep arguing that my explanations for my behavior aren't the real 
>    reasons I behave this way.

I certainly wasn't picking you out specially on this one. I claim
that indeed all of us are often unaware of the real reasons we
do things. I'm sorry if you took that personally, but I think that
if you read back what I wrote, it was not directed at you
personally, but only to people in general.

> - You keep arguing that I am afraid to let you lead the
>    conversation because I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.

I have never, to my knowledge, announced that you were
afraid of anything. Please give me a concrete example where
I did so claim. I have made the general claim that there exist
some people who indeed are afraid of having to change 
their minds, and so are reluctant to answer multiple questions,
but there could be other causes as well of refusing to answer,
or complaining about questions. 

>>> You only think I am having trouble because my conclusions
>>> are different than yours.
>>
>> No (and once again you dare have the balls to tell me what I am
>> thinking)---I was just responding to what you wrote!
> 
> That's because when you response to what I wrote, you told me what you 
> thought was more accurate than what I thought.

Well, of *course* very, very often I believe that what I am thinking
is more accurate than what someone else is saying, but so far as
I know, I don't often assume I know what they're thinking. And
when I do, it's most often in the form of a question, or, especially
in the case of math or physics, what I hope is helpful guess on
my part that they'll appreciate.

> This "joke" is wearing thin, as you have repeatedly asserted
> that I [am] too cowardly to admit the truth.

Oh, please where, WHERE have I said anything at all about
anyone on this list being cowardly, least of all you! This *sounds*
to me a matter of your own invention. Cowardly? You? Hah, not
from anything I've ever seen! Please say where, please.

>> I ascribe "genuine altruism" to people whose behavior is exemplified by
>>
>>      a. leaving a tip in restaurants even though the
>>          waiter mentioned that he's moving back to Mexico
>>          in less than an hour (and won't be talking to anyone
>>          about your less than generous behavior)
> 
> It's not altruism to pay someone for a job well done.  If I got more service 
> than the minimum required, paying them a little extra money for the extra 
> service is not unreasonable.  Genuine altruism would be tipping servers at 
> other tables who didn't serve me.

Well, we should perhaps strive to avoid the word "altruism", since
its use seeds confusion. What I am saying is that in these special
circumstances it cannot be well argued that so paying would be
in the payer's self interest (modulo the conscience note again).

>>      b. letting someone out of a crowded parking lot in
>>          front of your own vehicle, although that only slows
>>          you down, makes it more likely that you'll not make
>>          it past the next yellow light, while all the time there is
>>          almost chance that the driver of that vehicle will ever
>>          or even would be able to hold it against you
> 
> It's not altruism to drive cooperatively in traffic rather than 
> competitively.  It's safer for me to let him go first rather than
> for me to go first and hope he stops.

I was not talking about a car in motion. So very often when
the traffic is bumper to bumper, I see a car lined up to get out
of a parking lot, but being very restrained and evidently 
patient about it (I want to entirely avoid the case where 
he or she is posing any risk to one).

> Genuine altruism would be letting multiple cars go ahead
> of me instead of just one, or letting cars behind me go around.

Well, not in any way I can see, even on your usage of terms.
For one thing, to let *anyone* go at all is at least slightly 
unfair to the people behind one. In fact, if I believe that the
traffic will clear, I may refrain from even letting a single car
go ahead of me, because of all those lined up behind me.
(Not to mention the rare cases where I'm very upset or
extremely anxious to be somewhere on time.)

>>      d. would however, immediately cease a lot of their
>>          ("nice") behaviors like this were they to learn that they
>>          were in a simulation wherein they were the only conscious
>>          individual
> 
> Nope.  Your examples all give real value to me for which I am willing to 
> "pay back" for.  I wouldn't tip bad service, or call a absentee parent who 
> was never there as I grew up.  Nor do I do these things to make the other 
> people happy.  The waiter earned a tip whether he's a human or a robot.
> The other cars are still dangerous to me, whether they are driven by
> humans or simulations.  I owe my parents a lot, whether they are humans
> or just simulations.

Well, as I indicated above, perhaps we are not talking about the same
traffic situation. Since it was I who brought it up, now hear this: I refer
to the situation described above wherein no other car is threatening one.

More importantly, I do not believe that you grok my meaning of 
"simulation". I will explain again, by a hypothetical. You find out
that not only your parents, but everyone else in the world is nothing
more than a puppet manipulated by a vast and cool and unsympathetic
intelligence that is to us as we are to amoeba, and whose motives are
completely unknown, except that you know that it is not "keeping
score" on your behavior for some later purpose. In this situation,
do you really think it makes sense to "pay back" people who have
been nice to you (when there is utterly no possibility of future 
encounters with them where the simulation will hold a grudge)? Before
you answer, let me make that even clearer if I can, (so that we avoid
needless confusion):

Namely, you find that you are the only conscious entity in the entire
scenario, (the vast and cool and unsympathetic intelligence perhaps
not even being conscious), and that these utterly lifeless automatons
are in no way capable of any experience or can in any way be
conscious of whether or not you have defected, and *most important*
of all, will not act any differently towards you in the future because
of your defection (in these particular cases I have in mind). Thus,
hopefully, closing the last loophole (I should think) of any of your
(one's) self-interest being at stake.

> These examples are simply poor examples of "genuine altruism" because they 
> all involve me getting benefits.  Why don't you come up with examples of 
> "genuine altruism" where I don't get anything back?  Such as:
> 
> - Giving away money to strangers just to make them happy?

Good example. Those who contribute anonymously to charity (and,
very subtly, honestly and truly never intend to tell a soul about it),
I would label the way you do. But since the word "altruist" is
proving problematic, we can agree that in this case one would
be acting without self-interest.

> - Doing odd jobs for strangers?

Could also be a good case. I believe that there are indeed people
who do this, and would do it entirely anonymously if given the
right opportunity---it's what benefits accrue to *others* that
separates these worthies from the likes of some of us.

> - Carrying bags of groceries for the person behind me at the store?
> - Waiting until last to get on the bus?
> - Giving blood?
> - Driving people to the polls to vote?

I like the last two, provided that one would maintain his or
her anonymity in these cases, else selfish motives could be
working deeply but perhaps unnoticeably.

>> Well, then, you may wish to describe your behavior before you got
>> very far along on the road towards fame and fortune. From what you write, 
>> yes, indeed, it is now self-interested of you to engage in these 
>> behaviors, even if there is also (evidently unbeknownst to you) a
>> component of genuine altruism. You'll know if you are able to accurately
>> recall how it was for you many, many years ago.
> 
> No, I haven't changed.  I always had the hubris to assume that I would be 
> very successful in life.  I was intelligent, creative, did well in school, 
> and accomplished many things growing up.  I always knew I could make it big 
> on my own, and never felt that I needed to take from other people to get 
> ahead, even if I could get away with it.
> 
> Why cheat at a sport you are good at?  Why cheat at a game are winning?
> Why fake work that you can do easily?  Why steal or skimp for money you can 
> easily earn?  Why try to "secretly get away with something" that you don't 
> need to do anyway?

Yes, right. I'm not really talking about cases like that. Even the
likes of Willie Sutton would steal only money, and then use it to
buy goods instead of just stealing them too. 

> Nobody who was successful or expected to be successful would bother with 
> this penny-ante stuff to get ahead.  You keep asking "why not cheat?"  But 
> I'm asking "why bother?"

Well, granting the possibility that there are no people who cheat
for the thrill of it, or are so greedy that they refrain from stealing
when they already have amassed a great fortune, I'm really talking
about those who could use the money, or the high scores, or some
other benefit, even if it harms others, and have no problem executing
such a plan provided that they're convinced they'll never be caught
or found out. These I call the "only self-interested", "the truly selfish"
and actually go so far (at odds with clinical practice, evidently) of
claiming that they're so far gone from altruism that they're really
sociopaths.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 14 22:27:25 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:27:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] creationism in britain?
References: <200809140629.m8E6TE96022099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<33958.12.77.169.29.1221392368.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <056801c916b9$c08ebab0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

MB writes

> [Spike wrote]
> 
>> My British friends, do tell me this creationism plague long suffered by
>> American scientists isn't spreading to England of all places on this
>> superstitious planet.
> 
> Oh indeed it is spreading, between the AIG folks and the conservative Muslims
> there's a goodly number of believers.
> 
> However, if you read the article carefully, you'll see the gentleman is recommending
> an approach to dealing with creationist discussion *when it arises* in science
> classes - one that he hopes might be more effective than the approach he had been
> using for years.
> 
> It sounds to me rather like the approach I used with my own children. When they
> asked religious-type questions I tried to answer them without freaking out - mostly
> by admitting that people had worried and thought about these subjects for centuries
> and the church answers were.... and the science answers were....
> 
> I don't know the "right" way to deal with these subjects.

Here is what I think would work (it worked on me, anyway). 

Raise the children in some mild branch of your favorite religion
such as Christianity (there are so many sects to choose from).
Make sure---for the inoculation to take well---that it is indeed
*mild*, no Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists
or anything of the kind. Just a little Methodist, Presbyterian, or
Episcopalian exposure, Sunday School, a few sermons, nothing
heavy duty.

Then the kids will naturally outgrow it, start to find it rather 
absurd by the time they're getting out of their teens, and---having
heard all the BS before, will have built up a natural immunity
towards the real thing. 

Lee

P.S. Thanks for setting me straight on "metes", MB, and to those
of you who sent off-list help.



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sun Sep 14 23:40:29 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:40:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] creationism in britain?
In-Reply-To: <056801c916b9$c08ebab0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <200809140629.m8E6TE96022099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<33958.12.77.169.29.1221392368.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
	<056801c916b9$c08ebab0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809141640k4801f946teb5571ddb1f85d70@mail.gmail.com>

>
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> Here is what I think would work (it worked on me, anyway).
> Raise the children in some mild branch of your favorite religion
> such as Christianity (there are so many sects to choose from).
> Make sure---for the inoculation to take well---that it is indeed
> *mild*, no Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists
> or anything of the kind. Just a little Methodist, Presbyterian, or
> Episcopalian exposure, Sunday School, a few sermons, nothing
> heavy duty.
>
> Then the kids will naturally outgrow it, start to find it rather absurd by
> the time they're getting out of their teens, and---having
> heard all the BS before, will have built up a natural immunity
> towards the real thing.
>

I'm surprised you did not mention the Unitarians.  I have fond memories of
once in a blue moon attending their services.  Shannon Vyff is raising her
children in this denomination and seems to really love doing it.

A large reason people (young and older) like to attend a church is for the
extended family/social network aspect.  And that is something many people do
not outgrow.

According to Spike the 7th Day Adventists are actually quite progressive (in
their own conservative way).

And even in a liberal or moderate church, you still get the message of the
four gospels and the Lord Jesus Christ risen on the third day.  : )

I wonder to what extent genetics play a part in belief/unbelief.  I have
read that both Max and Natasha have siblings who are devout Evangelicals
(and also bright and well educated, which is to be expected).

John Grigg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080914/b8fe0f72/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep 15 00:00:16 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:00:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] creationism in britain?
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809141640k4801f946teb5571ddb1f85d70@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809150025.m8F0Orku005342@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 


________________________________

	...On Behalf Of John Grigg
...
	
	According to Spike the 7th Day Adventists are actually quite
progressive (in their own conservative way)...	John Grigg 


Ja but be careful with that, for it is only in a few specific areas.  If you
need some wacky medical experiment, such as retrieving stem cells from an
embryo cloned for that specific purpose, and having those stem cells
injected directly into your spine for instance, they are the people to see.
They already have a very advanced medical facility in Loma Linda Taxifornia,
and the medical ethics board is a pushover.  The reason goes all the way
back to the origins.  They are open minded on cryonics too.  But in that
same group you will find plenty of young earth creationists.

Regarding Unitarians, I attended a few meetings there when going thru
religious memetic detox back in my 20s.  As far as I could tell, the
Universalist Unitarians didn't actually believe anything.  A refreshing
change, but the entire exercise seemed pointless.  So I eventually chose to
go cold turkey on religion.

spike



     
	





From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 15 01:03:22 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:03:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] creationism in britain?
References: <200809150025.m8F0Orku005342@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <058001c916cf$819b26c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Spike writes

> Regarding Unitarians, I attended a few meetings there when going thru
> religious memetic detox back in my 20s.  As far as I could tell, the
> Universalist Unitarians didn't actually believe anything.  A refreshing
> change, but the entire exercise seemed pointless.

Yes, being Unitarian is in many cases the same thing as being
non-religious or agnostic. No, if my innoculation strategy was
to work, the indocrination has to have more substance than that.

Lee



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 01:15:36 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:15:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a great movie for Transhumanist grownups and kids...
Message-ID: <2d6187670809141815n7ed217cbyf9a70952ac4762bf@mail.gmail.com>

I just saw "Meet the Robinsons" and was totally charmed by this very
inspirational and pro-technology film.  A fun and very smart CGI production
by Disney (based on the book by William Joyce), it tells the story of Lewis,
an orphan who has a brilliant scientific mind and is driven to invent,
despite many failures and obstacles.  He gets mixed up with time travelers
and has to prevent a horrible timeline from taking hold.

When he is in the "future" the name of the city is "Todayland", which I
thought was pretty funny (as compared to Disney's "Tomorrowland").  The
metropolis was obviously based on retro visions of the future and I loved
the scene where a skyscraper is "erected" in the blink of an eye with some
unknown technology so that it almost appears to have been inflated like a
balloon.  But I'm not sure which one was scarier, the pneumatic public
transport tubes in Futurama or the people moving bubbles in Meet the
Robinsons! lol

What I loved most about the film was how much heart it had.  Lewis is
desperate to find a loving family to adopt him and finds that the couples
looking for kids don't appreciate his (sometimes explosive!) inventing
talent.  But by the end of the film he has gained hope and vision for his
future and has learned the motto "keep moving forward!"  Lewis knows at that
point that his scientific ability can push forward technological progress
and over time make a vastly better world.  This movie is ideal to share with
kids *and* adults because it has such an overwhelmingly positive message
about making the right choices in life (showcasing a villain who excels at
blaming others for all his problems and even admits to this) and the
importance of science education, invention and technological progress.  It
is great Transhumanist family fare.  : )

Buy several copies for upcoming Christmas gifts!

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080914/eca785e0/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 01:30:02 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:30:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] creationism in britain?
In-Reply-To: <058001c916cf$819b26c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <200809150025.m8F0Orku005342@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<058001c916cf$819b26c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809141830s1bf9d23br5d0a02ac67e40a02@mail.gmail.com>

Unitarians actually encourage you to develop your own personal belief
system.  They focus on ethics and learning to appreciate diversity.  They
may feel too politically correct for some people.  I found them fun to talk
to, but on the older side and ironically sort of fuddy duddy.  They seemed
to really appreciate their young people (not too many youngsters, so a
scarce and treasured resource).  I have a feeling that most people (even
here) could not win at academic Jeapardy against the presiding pastor they
had at this particular congregation.  This man had numerous advanced degrees
and was a wonderful conversationalist with a very wide breadth of
knowledge.  He reminded me of Robert Ettinger.

But ultimately, they still share that desire to do lots of $$ fund raising!
lol

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080914/06a4bacc/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep 15 01:19:09 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:19:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809141640k4801f946teb5571ddb1f85d70@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809150144.m8F1hm25026128@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
Non ant fans, do delete forthwith, no extropian content here.
 
I saw something today that so amazed me.  Brief review of previous
experiments: ants in my fruit trees, farming aphids which draw sap from the
tree and I don't like that.  Put sticky goo around the base of the trees so
the ants could not get to the ground.  The ants wandered about in the tree
for a while, then apparently leapt to the ground for some odd reason.  The
antomic half-leap was about 25 to 30 hours.
 
Follow-on experiment: I allowed a twig to grow until it touched an adjoining
maple tree into which the ants had free access.  They have no interest in
farming aphids in the maple tree, but will gladly use it for a path to the
orange tree.  Twice I came out in the back to find the twig had made contact
and the ants were streaming across, but what I really wanted to find out is
how long the fruit tree twig had to be in contact the maple before the
simple-minded bugs would inadvert-ant-ly discover the new bridge.
 
Ants must be running an exceedingly simple program: goto orange tree, run
subroutine aphid, return on same path to hole in the ground.  To verify
this, I was hoping to have a maple branch grow out over the orange tree, so
then an ant could go out on the maple, leap down to the orange tree, run
aphid subroutine, leap to the ground, walk to the hole.  This would involve
the ants coming and going on different paths, which I have never seen them
do.
 
Yesterday a branch of the orange tree was growing close to the maple, but
not below.  The distance yesterday was about one cm.  The orange tree branch
was about even with, or slightly above the maple branch.  Today they were
closer, perhaps half a cm, but still not touching.  I noticed there were
some, not many, ants in the orange tree.  I checked for other paths into the
orange tree, but none existed.  Then I noticed there were a bunch of ants on
the leaves of both the maple and the orange, right where they were the
closest.
 
Here was the amazing observation.  Occasionally a breeze would cause the
leaves to oscillate, at which time the two trees would very briefly touch.
The ants were jumping across the gap in those brief instances when the
leaves touched.  They were going both directions in those brief instances.
 
I don't know what in the hell to think now.  Surely they don't reason in any
real sense.  How did they figure out how to jump across?
 
spike
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080914/06f69b89/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 15 01:57:21 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:57:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <200809150144.m8F1hm25026128@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <2d6187670809141640k4801f946teb5571ddb1f85d70@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809150144.m8F1hm25026128@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914205547.02403ef8@satx.rr.com>

At 06:19 PM 9/14/2008 -0700, spike wrote:

>Here was the amazing observation.  Occasionally a breeze would cause 
>the leaves to oscillate, at which time the two trees would very 
>briefly touch.  The ants were jumping across the gap in those brief 
>instances when the leaves touched.  They were going both directions 
>in those brief instances.
>
>I don't know what in the hell to think now.  Surely they don't 
>reason in any real sense.  How did they figure out how to jump across?

They were confronted by an antinomy. In that situation, the only 
recourse is to close your eyes and jump.

Damien Broderick




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Sep 15 02:11:54 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
Message-ID: <362832.82040.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> > I don't see why people would have a problem
> > with the possible FTL nature of a correlation
> > in the EPR experiment, or wave-function collapse,
> 
> It's incomprehensible on the theory of SR, that's why.

Sure it is a paradox but that doesn't make it false.

> > but have no problem with the idea of the entire
> > universe being causally split in the mere seconds
> > it takes for someone to make a measurement,
> 
> The whole universe never ends up being split in its
> entirety unless it's of finite extent. The splits
> start locally and speed outwards only at c.

Well that is just about the scariest cosmology I have ever heard of. Violate every conservation law in existense and then have the split come along like the Langoliers and clean up the horror just in a nick of time. If the split was just one iota slower than c, then everything would be cooked from the radiation of exponentially reproducing suns. Unless of course the universe were finite. Of course if the universe *were* finite then implications of MWI would be truly profound.

> > each and *every* time a measurement is made.
> 
> It *is* a horrible zoo; David Deutsch says on p. 213
> of "The Fabric of Reality":
> 
>    "...rely on such things as solid matter or
>    magnetized materials, which could not exist
>    in the absence of quantum-mechanical effects.
>    For example, any solid body consists of an
>    array of atoms, which are themselves composed
>    of electrically charged particles (electrons,
>    and protons in the nuclei). But because of 
>    classical chaos, no array of charged particles 
>    could be stable under classical laws of motion.
>    The positively and negatively charged particles
>    would simply move out of position and crash into
>    each other, and the structure would disintegrate.
>    
>    *It is only the strong quantum interference 
>    between the various paths taken by charged
>    particles in parallel universes* that prevents
>    such catastrophes and makes solid matter possible.

Well this certainly begs the anthropic principle. Talk about balancing on a razor's edge.

> So any solid object is making nearly infinitely
> many measurements each nanosecond, and those "splits"
> radiate away at c, so that the whole fabric of reality
> is a seething jumble of massive interference everywhere.

But Copenhagen is already a seething jumble of massive interference everywhere. MWI is putting that seething jumble into a funhouse hall of mirrors. Although to be honest, the implications of MWI in a finite universe are very bizzare.

Still do not epicycles worry you? I mean Tycho Brahe's epicycles described the solar system just fine from a predictive stand point. They were just a jumbled mess to work with. Kepler's model just used the simplifying assumption of heliocentricity to make the jumbled mess easier to work with. Voila, ugly epicycles became beautiful elipses and everybody was happy. Put the sun at the center of the solar system and the epicycles disappear. Put the mind at the center of QM and many worlds become one and the Langolier-like cosmic censors go back to the abyss. *The mind is first in all things.* thus said Guatama about 2500 years ago. 

Don't you see that an infinite universe that constantly grows incomplete copies of itself like monstrous hair is just like epicycles? 

Another issue I have with MWI is computional complexity. First off, an infinite universe, immediately rules out any simulation-type theories. Turing machines are defined to have a finite number of states. I hope you realize that an infinite universe cannot have a finite number of states. Therefore an infinite universe can neither be a turing machine nor be simulated on one.

That being said, assuming that the universe is finite, MWI grows in computational complexity exponentially versus Copenhagen's which remains steady or perhaps increases linearly due to entropy. I think MWI running on a computer would run out of memory long before Copengahen.

And you really don't want to know what MWI in a finite universe implies. It's not just swallowing a bullet; its swallowing a cannonball. ;-)




      


From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep 15 02:45:45 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:45:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914205547.02403ef8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200809150310.m8F3ALht025584@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
...
> >
> >I don't know what in the hell to think now.  Surely they 
> don't reason 
> >in any real sense.  How did they figure out how to jump across?
> 
> They were confronted by an antinomy. In that situation, the 
> only recourse is to close your eyes and jump... Damien Broderick


They would have no reason to fear falling.  But now I am not at all sure
that they jump.  Perhaps ants sometimes lose their footing and fall out of
the trees?  This is how I plan to confirm or disprove: make a bridge out of
masking tape over the goo-band so that the tree is soon full of ants, place
under the tree a white board with a goo circle about a meter in diameter.  I
have a compressor so I can blow the ants away periodically in order to
repeat the experimant arbitrarily many times.  

If the falling ant theory is correct, then the ants will continually appear
inside the circle, even tho they have a masking tape bridge over the goo,
allowing access to the ground.

If the leaping ant theory is correct, then the little beasts shouldn't start
appearing inside the goo circle until I remove the masking tape bridge and
they have enough time to start missing their underground babies, and decide
to leap from the tree.

My guess is that ants are not smart enough to reason that they can leap to
the ground and go home.  Perhaps ants have always been falling out of trees
accidantally, but no human ever thought to measure it.  What crazy fool
would ever do such a thing anyway?  I have been a fan of ants for over 40
years, and it never occurred to me they sometimes just fall.  

I will likely perform the experimant next weekend.  Any speculations?  

spike 



From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Sep 15 03:10:35 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:10:35 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
	<055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <3BD726C2FDE440A384DE9FA89E99A9A1@Catbert>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
> Harvey writes
>> - You keep arguing that my answers are really lies because I am afraid to 
>> admit the truth.
>
> Find me anywhere where I have argued that. Please. I cannot believe
> I would ever have done that. I have stated on any occasion that you
> were telling lies? GO AHEAD. Try to find an instance.
[...]
> I have never, to my knowledge, announced that you were
> afraid of anything. Please give me a concrete example where
[...]
> Oh, please where, WHERE have I said anything at all about
> anyone on this list being cowardly, least of all you! This *sounds*
[...]

Give it a rest.  You are constantly implying this.  I know you are going to 
object and nitpick every single example, so I don't relaly want to rehash 
every instance.  But below are a few quick cut-and-pastes from the last few 
e-mails still in my inbox from you:

> So suspicious! Always worried about what a "yes" may lead to, eh?

> But wringing such confessions (it's too hard for them to be merely
admissions) is like pulling teeth.

> Okay, okay, I get it.  You're simply not going to admit any more
than you already I (I'm speaking of a collective you, here).

> In the cases at hand, it's more likely that one is worried (and perhaps
rightly so) that the admission of certain statements, true as though they
may be, will have damaging social consequences.

> Well, I don't think so.  And so why don't you just wait for the
"big moment", and be unafraid of answering my little admissions?

> Yeah, just like my friend Andy in high school. He was simply
afraid of where a line of questions might lead.

>Well, evidently it makes *you* suspicious, defensive, and angry.

> Just go with the flow. You have nothing to fear but fear itself.  :-)

>Don't assume that everyone is a fool but you and that
they don't see that there may be some weird primrose path down
which I'm going, and that they don't realize that they're being not
only very nice by answering honestly, but conveying that they have
nothing to hide and are unafraid.

>I wanted honestly see what the boundaries of the claims of you, BillK,
and Damien were.  I honestly expected[....]  But oh, no. Lee might have
something up his sleeve. This mght be, might be, might be.... a trap!
Who knows what his next question might be???  Christ, I might have
to re-examine something I believe!

See a pattern?  You keep implying that people aren't honestly answering your 
questions out of fear.  It really makes it hard to have a conversation with 
you.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 03:27:28 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:27:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <200809150144.m8F1hm25026128@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809150144.m8F1hm25026128@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200809142227.29115.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Sunday 14 September 2008, spike wrote:
> I don't know what in the hell to?think now.? Surely they don't reason
> in any real sense.? How did they figure out how to jump across?

Have you considered the ants from the rain forests? Apparently some of 
these ants have evolved to glide because in the rain forests, falling 
off a tree means days of climbing back up. So when they fall off by 
mistake, they can glide back to the trunk without falling to the floor.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Sep 15 03:10:37 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:10:37 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
	<055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <3B383E2AAF1C4002991DA18E42FA27B0@Catbert>

>"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
> Well, we should perhaps strive to avoid the word "altruism", since
> its use seeds confusion. What I am saying is that in these special
> circumstances it cannot be well argued that so paying would be
> in the payer's self interest (modulo the conscience note again).

You're fixing the wrong problem.  The word "altruism" is fine.  There is no 
confusion.  I really am arguing that the tipper is paying for services 
rendered.  The tipper literally gets something for their money.  You keep 
thinking I must be misunderstanding the question, and you keep asking the 
same question over and over in different ways.  But, seriously, this is my 
answer.  Tipping is not charity.  It is paying for services rendered.

> More importantly, I do not believe that you grok my meaning of 
> "simulation". I will explain again, by a hypothetical.

No, don't explain again.  I grok just fine.  You keep asking the same 
question and clarifying the same question and inventing new thought 
experiments about the same question.  It's always the same question.  Why 
can't you accept that the answer is always going to be the same?

> do you really think it makes sense to "pay back" people who have
> been nice to you (when there is utterly no possibility of future 
> encounters with them where the simulation will hold a grudge)?

Yes, yes, and yes!  Again, yes!  I pay them back because I owe them.  Not 
because they will hold a grudge.  Not because I will be caught or punished 
later.  Not because I might encounter them again.  None of those 
considerations enter my mind.  Even if I never see them again, I pay back 
what I owe.  They show kindness to me, I show kindness to them.  They give 
me extra service, I give them extra pay.  All of these examples involve me 
paying for something I have received.  It is a fair exchange of goods and 
services.

Every time you ask the same question, you are going to get the same answer.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep 15 04:46:37 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:46:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <200809142227.29115.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809150444.m8F4iXlb007907@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> On Behalf Of Bryan Bishop
> Subject: Re: [ExI] ants again
> 
> On Sunday 14 September 2008, spike wrote:
> > I don't know what in the hell to?think now.? Surely they 
> don't reason 
> > in any real sense.? How did they figure out how to jump across?
> 
> Have you considered the ants from the rain forests? 
> Apparently some of these ants have evolved to glide because 
> in the rain forests, falling off a tree means days of 
> climbing back up. So when they fall off by mistake, they can 
> glide back to the trunk without falling to the floor.
> 
> - Bryan

Intriguing notion Bryan.  I would really be impressed if these tiny beasts
were running a sufficiantly sophisticated program in their brains to
manipulate aerodynamic control surfaces, but I could be wrong.

I can't tell from this post which theory, if either, that Bryan supports.
Bryan, jumper or faller?  I think I am a faller, but without a test, I can't
say with any certanty.  Anyone else?

spike


  



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Sep 15 04:19:44 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <200809150310.m8F3ALht025584@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <252021.10701.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Sun, 9/14/08, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
> I will likely perform the experimant next weekend.  Any
> speculations?  
> 

Not quite a speculation but . . .

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/726398/ants_engineering_building_a_bridge_within_no_time/


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 spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep 15 05:35:40 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:35:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <252021.10701.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200809150533.m8F5Xbcl010607@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> Subject: Re: [ExI] ants again
> 
> --- On Sun, 9/14/08, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > 
> > I will likely perform the experimant next weekend.  Any 
> speculations?
> > 
> 
> Not quite a speculation but . . .
> 
> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/726398/ants_engineering_building
> _a_bridge_within_no_time/
> 
> 
> Stuart LaForge

Definitely wicked cool Avant.  In an odd way, watching cool stuff that ants
do gives me hope that humans can tinkerbellize, or figure out how to
download our brains into nanoscale computers, perhaps the size of an ant's
brain.  If we were to manage that task, where all our synapses were
simulated by such a tiny processor, we have every reason to believe we could
think thousands of times faster, since the signal paths would be shorter.

So Stuart, jumper or faller?

spike


  



From dagonweb at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 07:00:00 2008
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:00:00 +0200
Subject: [ExI] I hope this is hysterical nonsense
In-Reply-To: <200809141436.m8EEZueg002643@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914022324.02312db8@satx.rr.com>
	<200809141436.m8EEZueg002643@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0809150000x6e4ac87ap36fa28c0c16d5312@mail.gmail.com>

I must state I am ideologically compelled to regard this as true. The
"history books" in a century (if we still use those)
will explain how in 2000 the US suffered a silent coup. I am looking forward
to a full explanation of their motive, but I
expect it'll prove to have been corporatism run amok.

Even more bitter is the continued ties between christians and fascists.
Those xians claim to be heavenly, all about turning
the other cheek and being meek and shit, but in practice their behavior is
more in sync with the demons of the third bolgia
of hell. Jung will have something to say about that, no doubt.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080915/bce4a245/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Mon Sep 15 10:34:36 2008
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:34:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <200809150444.m8F4iXlb007907@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809150444.m8F4iXlb007907@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <34267.12.77.169.5.1221474876.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

Bryan wrote:
>>
>> Have you considered the ants from the rain forests?
>> Apparently some of these ants have evolved to glide because
>> in the rain forests, falling off a tree means days of
>> climbing back up. So when they fall off by mistake, they can
>> glide back to the trunk without falling to the floor.
>>
>> - Bryan
>

Spike replied:
> Intriguing notion Bryan.  I would really be impressed if these tiny beasts
> were running a sufficiantly sophisticated program in their brains to
> manipulate aerodynamic control surfaces, but I could be wrong.
>
> I can't tell from this post which theory, if either, that Bryan supports.
> Bryan, jumper or faller?  I think I am a faller, but without a test, I can't
> say with any certanty.  Anyone else?
>

spike - I am not ignoring the ants posts, I'm reading them with interest, but I do
not have a theory.  I've also read about what Bryan wrote, and it would not suprise
me that it is "a so tale" (true). It sounds like they fall, but perhaps they jumped
to escape a predator.

I'm not at all sure I'd call it "running a sophisticated program" - I'd suggest it
is more evolutionary advantage to glide to the tree trunk and those who could do so
survived better.

The tricky thing about that is that those worker ants that do the gliding, they
don't get to pass their genes - so where's the *evolutionary* advantage? Maybe it's
that "cousins" thing again?

Regards,
MB



From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 11:24:27 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:24:27 +1000
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <20080914171458.KOST299.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert>
	<026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert>
	<042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert>
	<046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
	<20080914171458.KOST299.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809150424q109de4f0nac4ceb9845860d59@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/15 Max More <max at maxmore.com>:
> At 10:47 PM 9/13/2008, Harvey wrote:
>
>> These examples are simply poor examples of "genuine altruism" because they
>> all involve me getting benefits.  Why don't you come up with examples of
>> "genuine altruism" where I don't get anything back?  Such as:
>>
>> - Giving blood?
>
> This example is (if I'm informed correctly) not a good one, unlike your
> others. Apparently, giving blood can be beneficial to your health (if you
> are male) by lowering concentrations of iron in the body.
>
> Caveat: I read that quite some time ago, am unsure of the source, and it may
> not be true. But it's plausible. Can anyone confirm this?

It's only a problem if they have the hereditary disease
haemochromatosis, which affects about 1/200 people. Iron overload can
cause multi-organ failure and eventually death. The treatment is
regular bloodletting until body iron stores are depleted to a normal
level. Men present earlier with symptoms and tend to be more severely
affected than women because they don't menstruate. But the best that
can be said for blood donation for most of the population is that it
doesn't seem to do any harm.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 11:56:16 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:56:16 +0200
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
wrote:
> At 04:26 AM 9/13/2008 -0700, John Grigg wrote:
> Star Gate didn't "fail". Read Prof. Utts's AIR reports (
> http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/response.html
> http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html ). The relevant sections of my
> book (which Lee tells us he owns but hasn't read; cough groan) sketch some
> of the contortions in this whole long process.

I have carefully perused Damien's
book<http://www.amazon.com/Outside-Gates-Science-Time-Paranormal/dp/1560259868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221479081&sr=8-1>,
which is absolutely the best source on ESP I have ever stumbled upon,
besides being a very pleasant reading, and I took from it confirmation of a
few old ideas of mine:
- phenomena that can hardly be explained away by conventional science do
exist;
- we have not the foggiest idea of how they "work", which would be the first
step to make them of any practical use besides the traditional, trivial and
inevitable profiting from individual hunches face to insufficient data, and
to establish the framework for value-added reliable ESP-based "technology";
- scientific research is far from a disembodied, angelic field where
everybody is impartially and unbiasedly working in the quest of the truth,
availing himself of all the necessary instruments and progressing every area
of knowledge at a similar pace.

An interesting comparison could in this respect be made with what is
reported at a more journalistic level in * Bonk: The Curious Coupling of
Science and Sex*
<http://www.amazon.com/Bonk-Curious-Coupling-Science-Sex/dp/0393064646/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221479477&sr=8-1>by
Mary Roach, documenting how little was known about the physiology of sex, as
opposed to, say, digestion, well into the second half of the XX century, and
how much remains to be investigated beyond anedoctical and empirical hints!

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080915/39c28262/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 12:24:48 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:24:48 +1000
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <362832.82040.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <362832.82040.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809150524q5def553md8d2fe0d25dc16d1@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/15 The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>:

> Another issue I have with MWI is computional complexity. First off, an infinite universe, immediately rules out any simulation-type theories. Turing machines are defined to have a finite number of states. I hope you realize that an infinite universe cannot have a finite number of states. Therefore an infinite universe can neither be a turing machine nor be simulated on one.

A Turing machine has an infinite amount of memory. If it also had an
infinite amount of time available to it, it could model an infinite
universe or multiverse. Real computers are finite state machines, not
Turing machines.

> That being said, assuming that the universe is finite, MWI grows in computational complexity exponentially versus Copenhagen's which remains steady or perhaps increases linearly due to entropy. I think MWI running on a computer would run out of memory long before Copengahen.

Yes, the multiverse is extravagant. But that in itself is no argument
against the multiverse, any more than the concept of unimaginable
vastness is an argument against the universe being very big.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 15 12:32:50 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:32:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <362832.82040.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <05aa01c9172f$3ef5fce0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart the Avantguardian writes

> --- Lee wrote:
>
>> > I don't see why people would have a problem
>> > with the possible FTL nature of a correlation
>> > in the EPR experiment, or wave-function collapse,
>>
>> It's incomprehensible on the theory of SR, that's why.
>
> Sure it is a paradox but that doesn't make it false.

If you believe SR, then how can you believe "instantaneous"
wave-function collapse? (Even if somehow that bizarre
idea becomes coherent, which almost no one claims it is.)

>> > but have no problem with the idea of the entire
>> > universe being causally split in the mere seconds
>> > it takes for someone to make a measurement,
>>
>> The whole universe never ends up being split in its
>> entirety unless it's of finite extent. The splits
>> start locally and speed outwards only at c.
>
> Well that is just about the scariest cosmology I have ever
> heard of. Violate every conservation law in existense

Not at all. You probably have the idea (though unlike some
people I don't really claim to know what you are thinking!)
that when a new "branch" is created, it is analogous to a
new file being created, or copied, i.e., that as many new
resources are somehow required as went into the original.

But when the Mississippi splits into two separate streams,
is any conservation law broken? Likewise, at the delta
where it splits into innumerable streams, no conservation
laws are broken because the entire flow of water is still
the same, merely broken into discrete channels.

It's the same on MWI branching. The "measure" of two
separate streams, when added, equals the measure of
the single undistinguished branch before splitting.

>and then have the split come along like the Langoliers and clean up the horror just in a nick of time. If the split was just one 
>iota slower than c, then everything would be cooked from the radiation of exponentially reproducing suns. Unless of course the 
>universe were finite. Of course if the universe *were* finite then implications of MWI would be truly profound.
<

Hmm. I admit that I've never wondered if splitting would
be problematical in a finite universe. Let me think out loud.

Suppose we represent the universe at the time of the big
bang by five zeros 00000 that have a weight of, say, one
pound.

Then the first quantum event happens, and we have two
universes, each of eight ounces:

00000   and   00001

Then these each break into two, and then those into two, and
finally we have the upper limit of 32 possible "branches" or
universes. Let's examine the one which is 10011. Suppose that
it now bifurcates into 10011 and 11011. That merely makes
it merge with a pre-existing 11011, i.e., become identical with.
This is analogous to interference.

Why? Because in the typical interference archetype, a beam
splitter causes one photon to go straight (keep going to the
right) and one to go up (and so the universe splits). But if
interference occur, the upward traveling photon happens to
be reflected to the right and the lower rightward moving
photons happens to be reflected upwards so that they meet
in the other beam splitter, and the two branches become so
identical that the two photons in essence merge, and the
two universes go back to being one.  (It's this last "merging"
process that I myself find so weird. It doesn't work unless the
two beams are nearly perfectly set up so that the two beams
are in exactly the same phase, and even then, the probability
of merging is quantum-mechanical, and falls off if the beams
are ever so little out of phase.)

>> > each and *every* time a measurement is made.
>>
>> It *is* a horrible zoo; David Deutsch says on p. 213
>> of "The Fabric of Reality":
>>
>>    "...rely on such things as solid matter or
>>    magnetized materials, which could not exist
>>    in the absence of quantum-mechanical effects.
>>    For example, any solid body consists of an
>>    array of atoms, which are themselves composed
>>    of electrically charged particles (electrons,
>>    and protons in the nuclei). But because of
>>    classical chaos, no array of charged particles
>>    could be stable under classical laws of motion.
>>    The positively and negatively charged particles
>>    would simply move out of position and crash into
>>    each other, and the structure would disintegrate.
>>
>>    *It is only the strong quantum interference
>>    between the various paths taken by charged
>>    particles in parallel universes* that prevents
>>    such catastrophes and makes solid matter possible.
>
> Well this certainly begs the anthropic principle. Talk about balancing on a razor's edge.

I don't follow.

>> So any solid object is making nearly infinitely
>> many measurements each nanosecond, and those "splits"
>> radiate away at c, so that the whole fabric of reality
>> is a seething jumble of massive interference everywhere.
>
> But Copenhagen is already a seething jumble of massive
> interference everywhere. MWI is putting that seething
> jumble into a funhouse hall of mirrors. Although to be honest,
> the implications of MWI in a finite universe are very bizzare.

They don't seem so to me, not at least from what you've said.

> Still do not epicycles worry you?

Definitely. We almost always like to stick to Occam's Razor
and employ the simplest explanations that fit all the facts.
I urge you to read "The Fabric of Reality" and get the full
force of Deutsch's descriptions of the "shadow photons".
It seems likely to me that you'll agree that Everett's MWI
is the simplest idea anyone has ever thought of to account
for them.

> I mean Tycho Brahe's epicycles described the solar system
> just fine from a predictive stand point. They were just a
> jumbled mess to work with....

> Don't you see that an infinite universe that constantly grows
> incomplete copies of itself like monstrous hair is just like
> epicycles?

Yeah, but it's not copying, only branching. And although
MWI is "extravagent on universes", it employs one fewer
principle than CI or other theories like it. Namely, there
is no "collapse" postuate. So the number of *principles*
is reduced. An analogy might be that although Newton
may have made the entire universe far more mind-boggling
by suggesting that ever single particle of it is gravitationally
affecting every other particle, that complexity arises merely
from *one* nice principle with tremendous explanatory
power. You no longer need a deity to arrange the movements
of the stars and planets and so on.

> Another issue I have with MWI is computional complexity.
> First off, an infinite universe, immediately rules out any
> simulation-type theories. Turing machines are defined to
> have a finite number of states. I hope you realize that an
> infinite universe cannot have a finite number of states.

Good point. This is one implication of MWI I had not thought
about.

On the other hand, on p. 211 of "The Fabric of Reality", Deutsch
is completely definite about the number of universes (i.e. branches)
being on the order of the continuum. So that's not merely a
*countable* infinity at all. We're already at aleph-one. So any
more splitting isn't conceptually problematical at that point,
(when things are already about as "worse" as they can get).

> Therefore an infinite universe can neither be a turing machine
> nor be simulated on one.

Well---nice point again. Hmm, actually that's maybe one less
thing to worry about   :-)

No, seriously, if I entertain the idea that we are living in a simulation,
I merely suppose that some entity has arranged a finite emulation.
It would take me on the order of 2.5 million years, as astronomers
have finally agreed, to see that something was wrong with Andromeda.
But even then, not to worry. The entity running the simulation can just
mock up astronomical lightwaves coming in from that corner of the
sky and keep me continuing to think that I'm seeing a real Andromeda.

> That being said, assuming that the universe is finite, MWI grows
> in computational complexity exponentially versus Copenhagen's
> which remains steady or perhaps increases linearly due to entropy.
> I think MWI running on a computer would run out of memory long
> before Copengahen.

Yes. But then, again, ever since Newton, the simulators have had
their work cut out for them, (unless they take the easier route and
just play with our simulated neurons).

> And you really don't want to know what MWI in a finite universe
> implies. It's not just swallowing a bullet; its swallowing a cannonball. ;-)

When I think back to my five bit example, it doesn't seem so
rough to me.  Well, yes, on that analogy it is 32 times as
"complicated" with 32 times as many things "going on",
while in Copenhagen, 10011 either goes to 10011 or 11011
with a 50/50 chance, so less storage and I guess less calculation
is involved (it being a lot easier to keep track of 5 bits than 32).
You're right about that.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 15 12:43:33 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:43:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] I hope this is hysterical nonsense
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914022324.02312db8@satx.rr.com><200809141436.m8EEZueg002643@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<bf3acbfc0809150000x6e4ac87ap36fa28c0c16d5312@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <05b701c91731$5a8a9e00$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Dagon writes

> I must state I am ideologically compelled to regard this
> as true.

Maybe you ought to try running things the other way,
and aim for having your ideology based on what is
true rather than the other way around  :-)  

(Yes, just a cheap shot, sorry.)

> The "history books" in a century (if we still use those) 
> will explain how in 2000 the US suffered a silent coup.
> I am looking forward to a full explanation of their motive,

Good. You signed up for cryonics, or just hopeful that
Aubrey and his friends make a breakthrough just in
time for you?

> but I expect it'll prove to have been corporatism run amok. 

I expect that by then even the most committed follower of
20th century ideology will have made his piece with the free
market (and yes, this will have included reducing the size of
government to the point that unions and corporations no 
longer profit from bribing politicians and running government
regulatory boards).

> Even more bitter is the continued ties between Christians and
> Fascists.

Indeed there are a whole lot of people who persist in calling
themselves "Christians", but who are those others you refer
to? Nobody I know says he's a Fascist. In fact, in the U.S.
the people who go around still calling themselves Communists
must outnumber those who go around calling themselves
Fascists by 100 to 1.  Who is it that is a Fascist and not
admitting it?  And (just to make sure I learn something here)
isn't socialism an explicit part of Fascism?

> Those xians claim to be heavenly, all about turning 
> the other cheek and being meek and shit, but in practice
> their behavior is more in sync with the demons of the
> third bolgia of hell.

Whoever it is you're talking about, what behaviors 
exactly do they exhibit that are not reflected by other
groups? You seem to think that whoever they are,
they're much un-nicer than other ideologues.

> Jung will have something to say about that, no doubt. 

I think he's quite dead, sorry. No freezey, no livey (ancient
Chinese proverb). On the other hand, perhaps we at the
UI (http://www.universalimmortalism.org/WDraft.htm)
may prove successful in the end, and so (hopefully) you
will turn out to be right about Mr. Jung, and our ability
to solicit his opinion. Nobody should be dead if it can
be helped, there are already too goddam many dead people.

Lee



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 12:58:54 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:58:54 +0200
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <A3597D2E149E4E7C9A8D5EA9EB83C1E6@Catbert>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert>
	<026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert>
	<042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert>
	<046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
	<20080914171458.KOST299.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<A3597D2E149E4E7C9A8D5EA9EB83C1E6@Catbert>
Message-ID: <580930c20809150558redba53ar58937c52d62d90ce@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com>wrote:

> Good point.  I've read this too.  Males often have too much iron.
>

Absolutely. I have just finished Iron Main: Hypervelocity, and can
definitely confirm that this is his case... :-)

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080915/3a13fb88/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 13:11:34 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:11:34 +0200
Subject: [ExI] I hope this is hysterical nonsense
In-Reply-To: <200809141436.m8EEZueg002643@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914022324.02312db8@satx.rr.com>
	<200809141436.m8EEZueg002643@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809150611u4499182dhbee6e7d0f7a36759@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> This is good on many levels:

... and this is an interesting angle. :-)

Stefano Vaj


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 15 15:48:19 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:48:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
	<055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<3B383E2AAF1C4002991DA18E42FA27B0@Catbert>
Message-ID: <05c801c9174a$a61543c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Harvey wrote


> [Lee] wrote
> 
>> Well, we should perhaps strive to avoid the word "altruism", since
>> its use seeds confusion. What I am saying is that in these special
>> circumstances it cannot be well argued that so paying would be
>> in the payer's self interest (modulo the conscience note again).
> 
> You're fixing the wrong problem.  The word "altruism" is fine.
> There is no confusion.  I really am arguing that the tipper is
> paying for services rendered.

The point that you seem to be missing is that the "rendered"
is "past tense". Have you ever studied the non-interated Prisoner's
Dilemma (NIPD) of game theory fame?

The whole idea---why am I having to explain this?---is that you tip
*after* the service is rendered, and that the person providing you the
service must *trust* you to pay. You can "defect", as is said in the
literature, by receiving the service and then leaving without paying
which gives that person no recourse. The special circumstance so widely
known in the literature specifies that it is no longer in your foreseeable
self-interest to leave the tip (in these special cases) *after* the service
has been rendered.

> The tipper literally gets something for their money.

Got something. Past tense.

> You keep thinking

I don't know what the hell you're thinking  (that's why I'm asking)
and please stop trying to say what I think. You don't know and
can't know that. Nastly habit there, fellow, that you've got to break!

> [that] I must be misunderstanding the question, and you keep asking the 
> same question over and over in different ways.  But, seriously, this is my 
> answer.  Tipping is not charity.  It is paying for services rendered.

I know! I know!  It's just that you don't *have* to pay and yet still
be acting (in these special situations) entirely in your own self-interest!

>> More importantly, I do not believe that you grok my meaning of 
>> "simulation". I will explain again, by a hypothetical.
> 
> No, don't explain again.  I grok just fine.  You keep asking the same 
> question and clarifying the same question and inventing new thought 
> experiments about the same question.  It's always the same question.
> Why can't you accept that the answer is always going to be the same?

Because you have not explained *how* it can be in the self-interest
of a truly rational, calculating, person who has only his own self-interest
at heart to leave the tip! 

>> do you really think it makes sense to "pay back" people who have
>> been nice to you (when there is utterly no possibility of future 
>> encounters with them where the simulation will hold a grudge)?
> 
> Yes, yes, and yes!  Again, yes!  I pay them back because I owe them.  Not 
> because they will hold a grudge.  Not because I will be caught or punished 
> later.  Not because I might encounter them again.  None of those 
> considerations enter my mind.  Even if I never see them again, I pay back 
> what I owe.

Yes, but why?   Why do you do that?   I do it too, but I can explain
why I do it. I do it because at that point in time, it's not just *my*
self-interest I have in mind, nor does my self-interest explain my
behavior. I actually care about that person in the NIPD who I am
able to defect against but against whom I choose not to, or at least
want to do this agreed-upon favor, in a completely unselfish way.

Your explanations keep coming down to things like "you owe him",
as though it were literally inconceivable that you could default on what
you owe, or inconceivable that you would welsh on a deal, or that
you could defect in the NIPD.   Notice that I said "as though". I do
not put thoughts into the minds of people I communicate with (except
in rare instances where I must guess and it's pretty easily seen as an aid to
communication, e.g., as can happen often in math or physics problems).

> They show kindness to me, I show kindness to them.  They give 
> me extra service, I give them extra pay.  All of these examples involve me 
> paying for something I have received.  It is a fair exchange of goods and 
> services.

But you don't explain *why* you act this way, or why people like you
act this way, and you appear to be evading the entire analysis of behavior
that takes place in those of us who cooperate even when it is no longer 
in our own interest to do so.

Lee



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Sep 15 16:05:35 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:05:35 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><62c14240809110614t49ad4360la7e508f85180d794@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080911082528.02365730@satx.rr.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer><2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com><041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

Stefano Vaj wrote:

> phenomena that can hardly be explained away by
> conventional science do  exist

That is true, and I don't know anyone who thinks differently.

> we have not the foggiest idea of how they "work"

Not only that but there are some phenomena where we don't even
have the foggiest idea that they DO work, not even after well over
a century's effort. 

You want to talk about weirs stuff, now that's weird!

  John K Clark




From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 16:17:34 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:17:34 +0200
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 6:05 PM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Not only that but there are some phenomena where we don't even
> have the foggiest idea that they DO work, not even after well over
> a century's effort.
>
>
Why, something that I am not sure it exists, say the proverbial Invisible
Pink Unicorn, I have no need to explain. :-)

The prob is with statistical divergences that resist attempts to make them
predictable and repeatable within an adequate theoretical framework, thus
preventing any real technical "appropriation". The situation was (is?) not
so different with psychological treatments, the occasional success of which
gave place to the effort represented by original NLP.

Besides the fact that NLP delivered much less than promised, we need perhaps
a similar approach with that other "Psy".

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080915/10c984ee/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 15 20:31:31 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:31:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
 or  Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <05c801c9174a$a61543c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com>
	<01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert>
	<026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert>
	<042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert>
	<046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert>
	<055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<3B383E2AAF1C4002991DA18E42FA27B0@Catbert>
	<05c801c9174a$a61543c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080915151959.022fcea8@satx.rr.com>

At 08:48 AM 9/15/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>The point that you seem to be missing is that the "rendered"
>is "past tense". Have you ever studied the non-interated Prisoner's
>Dilemma (NIPD) of game theory fame?
>
>The whole idea---why am I having to explain this?

Why indeed? Do you think people like Harvey don't *know* all this? 
Obviously the disagreement goes deeper.

>---is that you tip
>*after* the service is rendered, and that the person providing you the
>service must *trust* you to pay. You can "defect", as is said in the
>literature, by receiving the service and then leaving without paying
>which gives that person no recourse.

I suspect what's going on here is an inappropriate application of a 
brutally simplified abstraction to a complex social, interpersonal 
human reality.

My sense is that game theory, exemplified by PD, was created to model 
the paranoiac interactions of autarkic monads: nation states, 
especially. It can find a use as well in modelling mindless, 
affectless gene competition. Applied to complicated human being--with 
our numerous affiliations, elaborate memory and records, tendencies 
inherited and learned not only to punish cheats but to do so with 
special vehemence, empathy that causes one human to sympathize with 
another who's suffering or happy and therefore to act as if that 
person's interests were jointly shared--the PD and even NPD break 
down into a sort of self-defeating extreme autism or sociopathy. I'm 
reminded of the parched nonsense behaviorists used to spout when I 
was first at university in the 1960s. Psychology and linguistics 
eventually got over it.

Damien Broderick



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Sep 15 20:38:04 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:38:04 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer><2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com><041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com><580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com><004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

Stefano Vaj On  Monday, September 15, 2008 Wrote:

> The prob is with statistical divergences that resist
> attempts to make them  predictable and repeatable
> within an adequate theoretical framework, thus
> preventing any real technical "appropriation".

That is quite simply untrue. Spectacularly untrue! It is the dream of
ALL experimenters to find something that existing science can not
explain, and it is the dream of theorists to find red meat to sink
their teeth into, it's the only reason people do science. If the good
people who run the LHC don't find a "statistical divergence" from
the known physics then a large number of them will need to be put
on a suicide watch.

When Roentgen discovered X rays there was no theoretical
framework to explain them, zero, zilch, nada, goose egg; and yet
the man was treated as a conquering hero by his fellow scientists.
Why? Because he used those X rays, whatever the hell they were,
to photograph the bones in his wife's hand. Unlike X rays Psi has
no bones.

Suppose the Extropian list existed in 1870 and we were having
this same conversation. What would be difference? Well, we'd be
using Morse Code and a telegraph key instead of the Internet
(with a lot less quoted material I'll bet). Also, some names have
gone in and out of faction in that time. Spiritualism became ESP
which became PSI, but other than that the substance of our
conversation would be virtually identical. The only change from
that day to this happened in the 1920's where instead of saying
that Harry Houdini was being mean in the way he debunked
charlatans they now say that The Amazing Randy is being mean
in the way he debunks charlatans. Fooling a scientist is easy,
fooling a professional magician is hard, damn hard.

This entire field is like a fly frozen in amber that hasn't moved
a nanometer in centuries; I don't expect anything about this to 
change anytime soon, nor does anyone else on this list.

I add that last part because it is the only explanation I can 
think of to explain why nobody has accepted the bet I first 
made on this subject and on this very list about a decade ago. 
Not one person has accepted it even with my very generous 10
to 1 odds. Not one person! I just wish all of you who preach the
wonders of Psi had accepted my bet; if you had I'd be a very 
rich man by now. 

 John K Clark









From max at maxmore.com  Mon Sep 15 20:41:47 2008
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:41:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Genetics and belief Was: Re:  creationism in britain?
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809141640k4801f946teb5571ddb1f85d70@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <200809140629.m8E6TE96022099@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<33958.12.77.169.29.1221392368.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
	<056801c916b9$c08ebab0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809141640k4801f946teb5571ddb1f85d70@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080915204150.PCIA299.hrndva-omta06.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>

At 06:40 PM 9/14/2008, John Grigg wrote:

>I wonder to what extent genetics play a part in belief/unbelief.  I 
>have read that both Max and Natasha have siblings who are devout 
>Evangelicals (and also bright and well educated, which is to be expected).

As I learned only a few years ago, my two brothers are actually 
half-brothers. (I'm half-Welsh, not half-Irish as I had thought for 
40 years.) My oldest half-brother, Russell, died a few years ago. 
Both were/are bright, but not especially well-educated. After my 
grandfather, I'm the first member of my family to go to 
university/college. Russell and Martin both became highly 
religious--fundamentalist Christian--despite having been atheists in 
their early 20s.

I'm not especially inclined to finger a genetic cause of that. I 
suspect environmental/family factors were more significant. Russell 
seemed to calm down about his religion over time (from an incessant 
talking about Jesus, when I was in my mid-teens). Martin is still 
devout (and apparently his wife talks in tongues at their church). 
Interestingly (at least to me), Martin always had much more of a 
socialistic and pessimistic view of life and the world compared to 
Russell. (I once briefly outlined libertarian views to Russell. He 
responded quite favorably.)

Although the man who I thought was my biological father turned out 
not to be, I am still proud of Michael Joseph O'Connor's refusal to 
buy into Christianity even as my half-brothers implored and preached, 
as he lay in a hospital bed dying. If the longevity revolution 
arrives too late for me, I aim to die (or be frozen) with the same 
steadfast intellectual honesty.

Fortunately, a remarkable number of Cosmic Engineers and universal 
architects are here to help us all improve our odds.

Upward and Outward!

Max


Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com 



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 15 21:55:34 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:55:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Aussie cryonicist planning an Oz cryonics center
Message-ID: <2d6187670809151455p5a15867ard401e6ead188573d@mail.gmail.com>

Phillip Rhoades, an Australian, is supposedly planning a life extension
community and cryonics research center (futuristic domes included!) in his
native country.  Does anyone know anything more about this?

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080915/d9a4fd10/attachment.html>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Sep 15 23:19:10 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:19:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <05c801c9174a$a61543c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert><055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><3B383E2AAF1C4002991DA18E42FA27B0@Catbert>
	<05c801c9174a$a61543c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <4B23A791B5584038874824389A2C2B62@Catbert>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
>> You're fixing the wrong problem.  The word "altruism" is fine.
>> There is no confusion.  I really am arguing that the tipper is
>> paying for services rendered.
>
> The point that you seem to be missing is that the "rendered"
> is "past tense". Have you ever studied the non-interated Prisoner's
> Dilemma (NIPD) of game theory fame?

I am not missing the point.  You have repeated it endlessly.  I merely 
disagree with the point.  (And, yes, I have studied the non-iterated 
Prisoner's Dilemma.)

> The whole idea---why am I having to explain this?

You don't have to explain it.  I understand perfectly.  I merely disagree.

>> You keep thinking [that I must be misunderstanding the question]
>
> I don't know what the hell you're thinking  (that's why I'm asking)
> and please stop trying to say what I think. You don't know and
> can't know that. Nastly habit there, fellow, that you've got to break!

You keep jumping on me for claiming to know what you think.  But then you 
keep repeating the same statements about what you think:

>>> More importantly, I do not believe that you grok my meaning of 
>>> "simulation". I will explain again, by a hypothetical.
>>
>> No, don't explain again.  I grok just fine.  You keep asking the same 
>> question and clarifying the same question and inventing new thought 
>> experiments about the same question.  It's always the same question.
>> Why can't you accept that the answer is always going to be the same?
>
> Because you have not explained *how* it can be in the self-interest
> of a truly rational, calculating, person who has only his own 
> self-interest
> at heart to leave the tip!

I have answered this many times now.  You have contribed many different 
scenarios.  You have my answer.  You just don't like it.  I don't know what 
else you want.

Let me summarize my many arguments, just to dispell your claim that I have 
not explained "why":

1.  Cooperation works best for the total good of all, and the most 
improvement for each individual.
2.  Cooperation makes people cooperate with me in the future, so my future 
successes are enhanced.
3.  Your contrived situations where there is no future do not apply to real 
life.  Even when they do seem to apply, they cannot be guaranteed to be so, 
such that there is always risk of a much greater backfire than the measly 
gain attempted.
4.  Even if I were to get nothing in the future, I have already received 
something in the past and have promised to pay.  Notions of fairness, 
promises, contracts, reputation, consistency, risk avoidance, future 
unpredictability, and other factors have to all be ignored to accept your 
claim that I will get nothing back in the future.
5.  Even if the other person is not affected my my cheating, I am affected 
by my own cheating.
6.  I have enough money and skills to make more, so there is no temptation 
to cheat, because cheating gains me less in comparison to what I can get 
honestly.  You keep asking "why not" cheat, but I keep asking "why cheat?" 
Even if lose nothing by cheating (which I dispute), I still don't see any 
gain.
7. When comparing my own money-making skills to those of others, I would 
have to assume that I am less competant before the calculation to steal 
money is tempting.  As long as I a rate myself as more valuable, the 
temptation to cheat is less valuable.  I see no way for an average or 
superior person to reach this conclusion, and only see sub-average people 
considering this option.

So many answers.  You may disagree with all of them.  But stop claiming that 
I haven't answered.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Tue Sep 16 02:15:43 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
Message-ID: <108496.35585.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Mon, 9/15/08, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> If you believe SR, then how can you believe
> "instantaneous"
> wave-function collapse? (Even if somehow that bizarre
> idea becomes coherent, which almost no one claims it is.)

Because SR is a theory about physics, Lee, and a wave function has no physical existence. It is a mathematical abstraction and a mathematical abstraction can undergo a mathematical operation at any speed it needs to.

For example, imagine an incredibly large finite integer as a binary string that is 10^46 bits long. Now imagine I add 1 to that integer, what happens? That huge binary string grows by a single bit which becomes a 1, while the other 10^46 bits become zeroes:

{11111 . . . 10^46 . . . 11111} + {1} = {10000 . . . 10^46+1 . . .00000}

How long did that take?

Now imagine that that binary string of ones is written in the tiniest font imaginable -- merely one Planck length wide. Written on space-time, the big binary integer would stretch the distance between Earth and the Sun. So now when I add a 1 to it, an additional 1 bit gets added to the end of the string near the sun and the rest of the bits from the earth to the sun become zeroes. . . instaneously! Even though if Superman used his supervision to watch that distant bit change, he would have to wait 8 long minutes for the information to arrive.

If arithmetic addition can carry faster than light, than a wave function can collapse faster than light. And I don't mind the instantaneous collapse of a wavefunction any more than than I do of getting hit over the head with a probability density. 

> But when the Mississippi splits into two separate streams,
> is any conservation law broken? Likewise, at the delta
> where it splits into innumerable streams, no conservation
> laws are broken because the entire flow of water is still
> the same, merely broken into discrete channels.

Yes, but the amount of water flowing in each channel is diminished. What gets diminished in the separated universes? 

> But if  
> It's the same on MWI branching. The "measure"
> of two
> separate streams, when added, equals the measure of
> the single undistinguished branch before splitting.

What is the "measure"? What SI unit is it in?

> Then these each break into two, and then those into two,
> and
> finally we have the upper limit of 32 possible
> "branches" or
> universes. Let's examine the one which is 10011.
> Suppose that
> it now bifurcates into 10011 and 11011. That merely makes
> it merge with a pre-existing 11011, i.e., become identical
> with.
> This is analogous to interference.

I don't doubt that MWI is explanatory and I am sure the math comes out perfect. I simply doubt it is necessary to create new universes just to forget them except in the rare instance that the results of an experiment call for the universes to merge again.

> (It's this last
> "merging"
> process that I myself find so weird. It doesn't work
> unless the
> two beams are nearly perfectly set up so that the two beams
> are in exactly the same phase, and even then, the
> probability
> of merging is quantum-mechanical, and falls off if the
> beams
> are ever so little out of phase.)

I find it weird too. And if I have mechanistic problems with the split, then I have even more problems about the "merge". Do the Lagoliers eat the extra universe? How do the proper two universes find each other to merge? What happens if a Swiss physicist on the other side of the planet splits his own beam before the presumably American physicist in your example gets his split beams back in phase enough to merge them back together? Which alternate universe does the American physicist merge with?

> >>    *It is only the strong quantum interference
> >>    between the various paths taken by charged
> >>    particles in parallel universes* that prevents
> >>    such catastrophes and makes solid matter
> possible.
> >
> > Well this certainly begs the anthropic principle. Talk
> about balancing on a razor's edge.
> 
> I don't follow.

I was just saying that if we owe the stability of our universe to "interference" between the parallel universes *and* the diligent split occuring in a timely fashion, then it's a precarious existence we lead. How does MWI time the disappearence of all the extra matter-energy when two universe "merge" again? That's far more problematic than simply erecting an impenetrable barrier between universes at the speed of light.  

> > But Copenhagen is already a seething jumble of massive
> > interference everywhere. MWI is putting that seething
> > jumble into a funhouse hall of mirrors. Although to be
> honest,
> > the implications of MWI in a finite universe are very
> bizzare.
> 
> They don't seem so to me, not at least from what
> you've said.

Oh, just wait. ;-)

> I urge you to read "The Fabric of Reality" and
> get the full
> force of Deutsch's descriptions of the "shadow
> photons".
> It seems likely to me that you'll agree that
> Everett's MWI
> is the simplest idea anyone has ever thought of to account
> for them.

Admittedly, I have never read Deutsch. "Shadow photons"? That sounds an aweful lot like an antiparticle of light. Bosons are supposed to be their own antiparticle. Besides, Lee, you have explained MWI to me far better than anyone has explained it to me before. I doubt Deutsch could do it better. And I don't even know for sure that it is wrong, since it gives the right answers. I just don't like the Langoliers and the magic glue.

> Yeah, but it's not copying, only branching. And
> although
> MWI is "extravagent on universes", it employs one
> fewer
> principle than CI or other theories like it. Namely, there
> is no "collapse" postuate. So the number of
> *principles*
> is reduced. An analogy might be that although Newton [...wrote...] 
> *one* nice principle with tremendous explanatory
> power. You no longer need a deity to arrange the movements
> of the stars and planets and so on.

No, you just need one to split an infinite universe an infinite times a second and keep track of all the branches on the off chance that some quantum physicist somewhere decides to fine tune his interferometer so that those same two branches can again be merged.

> > Another issue I have with MWI is computional
> complexity.
> > First off, an infinite universe, immediately rules out
> any
> > simulation-type theories. Turing machines are defined
> to
> > have a finite number of states. I hope you realize
> that an
> > infinite universe cannot have a finite number of
> states.
> 
> Good point. This is one implication of MWI I had not
> thought
> about.
> 
> On the other hand, on p. 211 of "The Fabric of
> Reality", Deutsch
> is completely definite about the number of universes (i.e.
> branches)
> being on the order of the continuum. So that's not
> merely a
> *countable* infinity at all. We're already at
> aleph-one. So any
> more splitting isn't conceptually problematical at that
> point,
> (when things are already about as "worse" as they
> can get).

But this is my point exactly. Infinity is a mathematical treasure-trove and MWI treats it like a waste dump for unnecessary universes.

> > Therefore an infinite universe can neither be a turing
> machine
> > nor be simulated on one.
> 
> Well---nice point again. Hmm, actually that's maybe one
> less
> thing to worry about   :-)

Yes, until one starts to wonder what could be keeping track of the transfinite aleph-1 universes out there so that only the right ones get merged. If it's not a Turing machine, what is it?
Furthermore, if the universe really is aleph-1 infinite, then it never really splits and instead of calling it the "Many Worlds Interpretation" they should call it the "Single Hairy World Interpretation".

> > And you really don't want to know what MWI in a
> finite universe
> > implies. It's not just swallowing a bullet; its
> swallowing a cannonball. ;-)

> When I think back to my five bit example, it doesn't
> seem so
> rough to me.  Well, yes, on that analogy it is 32 times as
> "complicated" with 32 times as many things
> "going on",
> while in Copenhagen, 10011 either goes to 10011 or 11011
> with a 50/50 chance, so less storage and I guess less
> calculation
> is involved (it being a lot easier to keep track of 5 bits
> than 32).
> You're right about that.

Well, Lee, if you still believe in MWI or SHWI in an infinite universe, I can't prove you wrong by math or logic. Being extravagent with universes in an infinite multiverse is just as correct as saying that the planet Jupiter does backflips in the sky if one is extravagent with fictitious forces. That's the beauty of relativity:

If they were goddesses, the Earth could claim that the Moon is tidally locked to her. The Moon for her part could claim that the Earth orbits her in a lunar-stationary orbit. Einstein would have to throw up his hands and say they were both right.

But if you would indulge MWI in a finite universe, then contemplate my cannonball:

List all the physical processes you know of whereby complex systems with no outside intervention can replicate themselves, with only minor differences between copies, at an exponential rate. I can only think of one.


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 spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 16 03:02:12 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:02:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] I hope this is hysterical nonsense
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809150611u4499182dhbee6e7d0f7a36759@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809160302.m8G32IMC001570@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> 
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> > This is good on many levels:
> 
> ... and this is an interesting angle. :-)
> 
> Stefano Vaj

Thanks Stefano.  Anyone can play, Europeans too.  Assuming a two-party
political system, how many positives can you think of for having the two
parties almost exactly equally matched?  I listed several earlier.  This
question is particularly relevant, for overall polls today (15 September)
show the two US majors exactly tied, even tho they polled a skerjillion
people.  This happened twice before (both previous presidential elections.)

spike






From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 16 03:26:35 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:26:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
Message-ID: <060b01c917ac$093bfd70$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Several books suggest that laughing, smiling, and grinning
came about as evolutionary signals.

Question: when you are completely alone, and something
strikes you as amusing or funny, do you ever smile or laugh
out loud?

Thanks,
Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 16 03:24:44 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:24:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repressed Science of Brain Transplantation
Message-ID: <060a01c917ac$0921beb0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

We began arguing on this list many, many months ago
whether or not the body is necessary for the experience
of emotion (or of all emotion).

Prominent researchers can be found who claim that it
is, yet logically, their case seems weak. After all, if it's
conceivable that our whole universe can be emulated,
and it doesn't have any bodies, then why can't my mind?

Besides, whatever signals do transpire from the body 
to the brain to help the experience of emotion (and 
perhaps other things), then couldn't very small modules
inserted on those very nerves or blood vessels perform
the same role? All in all, the more I think about it---and
I think people here will agree---the more dubious it seems
that the body really is needed for anything.


As a result, I began to inquire with my friends whether 
any progress on keeping a head alive without a body
had got very far. We do know that people are put on
life support all the time, and shouldn't there be a version
of that which was good for "head only"? It didn't seem
to be out of the question at all for someone whose body
was hopelessly mangled in a car accident to nonetheless
be saved by proper nutrition and circulation being
supplied by machine.

Not only that, but I think that some quadriplegics are in
a lot of trouble because their body (which is totally
paralyzed anyway) is failing them---so why can't they
be placed on such a life support system?

Neither I nor my friends knew, but we wondered if perhaps
animals had been experimented upon, and whether any had
been kept alive "head only". 

Then a couple of month's later, I was going over Bryan's
amazing roadmap, when this caught my eye:
A Brief History of Disembodied Dog Heads
http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/02/a_brief_history.html

Warning: there is also something seriously very funny there.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 16 04:02:28 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:02:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or  Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080830154627.025846a0@satx.rr.com>
	<02da01c90ae8$76ce1ec0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<3CAC5F5C-FC94-4F38-B131-D4F50967FB20@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <061b01c917b1$a5d8aa20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Isabelle writes (welcome, Isabelle!)

> I've thought about it, and I disagree for another reason... I think  
> that if you found out that in fact, you were the only living person  
> and then you DIDN'T change your behavior that THAT would mean you are  
> altruistic. You would /definitively/ know you would not receive  
> something back, because they are not real, and yet  you would still  
> act with kindness.

Perhaps we are miscommunicating about what it means "to
get something back". I refer to the usual conventions in daily
life where if you are nice to people, they are nice back. If
you are nasty to most people, they'll either avoid you or
be nasty back. Therefore, in a simulation that was *perfect*,
i.e., other people are controlled by the puppet-master to
behave just as they would behave in real life, you had better
be nice to people (for your own good) or the puppet-master
will naturally simulate retaliation on their part. Does this make
what I am saying any clearer?

> That would mean your altruistic tendencies are  
> genuine and natural. Lots of people are not genuinely altruistic.
> They may be acting in an altruistic manner simply because
> that is how they want to be perceived by others, or because
> they believe in karma, or because it makes them FEEL GOOD,
> all of which are benefits to self.  

But would it really make you feel better to be altruistic
towards people *in a simulation*?  And now I am 
addressing cases of genuine altruism, which is the
term I use to exclude all those payback cases: 
namely, a, b, and c, of the former emails.

Take the case of being nice to someone in traffic (who by
hypothesis cannot possibly pay you back because
of the size of the metropolitan district, or you are
a foreigner, or something). Why ever be nice in a way
that was not immediately self-rewarding? In real life,
one may do so because it is in one's nature, or one
has a conscience, or (as has been argued here by 
others) one is principled, one wishes to be fair, etc.

That is, in a simulation, I myself would cure my habit
of sometimes letting cars go ahead of me (in cases
where there is no danger to myself or anything).
Since I am the only consciousness in the simulation,
it makes no sense for me to be nice. So I would *change*. 
Shouldn't you too? I would advise it. For in those cases
being nice benefits no one, and actually hurts someone
(namely you).

> All of which technically  would not be altruistic.
> But to be kind to virtual people simply because
> it is in your nature to be kind, even if they are
> not real, and cannot appreciate it, nor benefit from it...  
> well, that sounds more like a test of altruism to me.

For initial reactions, I agree. At first, I would continue
to be nice. But then I'd start thinking about it and
start saying to myself "Hey, you're only causing 
yourself delay or inconvenience, and *no one*
is benefiting, so stop it, Lee."

Your point "because it is in your nature to be kind"
is very important, I think. I believe genuine altruism
to be built-in at the genetic level, whereas reciprocal
altruism or kin-selection, however they arise or arose,
is altruism of a lower order, and does not qualify
as "genuine altruism". Does that make sense? (See also
below.)

> PS, I did not seem to get the first in this line of conversation...  
> can someone forward it to me, or send me a link? Thanks -Isabelle

This thread began on August 30:
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-August/045224.html

Lee

------------------------Original Message-------------------------

> [Lee wrote]
> 
>> (2) if it was revealed to you that you were living in a simulation
>>     wherein you were the only conscious person, and everyone
>>     else merely a puppet under the manipulation of a cold,
>>     distant, infinitely calculating entity who had no emotions
>>     whatsoever... would your behavior towards others change
>>     at all?
>>
>>     If you can answer yes to either (1) or (2), you possess genuine
>>     altruism.
> 

[Damien B. wrote]

> This has got to be wrong, and suggests a flaw in your definition of  
> altruism (which I think must embody a benefit to some other person  
> with interests) [Yes].
 
 Well, I agree with that, and with any implications of it that I can  
 think of. [I was agreeing only with the characterization of "altruism"]
 
> If you treat your toaster well, are you more altruistic than someone
> who never cleans it or even smashes it on the bench when it burns  
> the toast?
 
 Certainly not. I am claiming that if you *did* find yourself living in the
kind of simulation described above, and your behavior *did* change
as a result, then you are a genuine altruist since there are now in your
presence no feeling or conscious entities whatsoever who your actions
can affect. Thus there is no longer the behavior evinced by the genuine
altruist, e.g. leaving tips in restaurants he or she will never visit  
again, and letting people go ahead of you in traffic.
 
 For example, it took some time, but I finally managed to prove (at least
to myself) that I am a genuine altruist because I *do* let people out of
crowded parking lots ahead of me, and I *do* leave tips in restaurants
I know I'll never visit again, and I would immediately stop doing that
in a simulation where I was the only genuine person. I thought of the
scenario (which I call the "VR-Solipsist") as a means to determine
whether or not I was a genuine altruist[1].

Lee
 
[1] Altruism based either upon kin selection or reciprocation, though
very real, very powerful, and very beneficial to our world, does not
count as what is here being called "genuine altruism".



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 16 04:09:01 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:09:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert><055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<3BD726C2FDE440A384DE9FA89E99A9A1@Catbert>
Message-ID: <061e01c917b2$5a1a7270$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Harvey wrote

> [Lee] wrote,
> 
>> Harvey writes
>>> - You keep arguing that my answers are really lies because I am afraid to 
>>> admit the truth.
>>
>> Find me anywhere where I have argued that. Please. I cannot believe
>> I would ever have done that. I have stated on any occasion that you
>> were telling lies? GO AHEAD. Try to find an instance.
> [...]
>> I have never, to my knowledge, announced that you were
>> afraid of anything. Please give me a concrete example where
> [...]
>> Oh, please where, WHERE have I said anything at all about
>> anyone on this list being cowardly, least of all you! This *sounds*
> [...]
> 
> Give it a rest.  You are constantly implying this.

No, you are inferring this. Also, I observe that you have *not*
found an instance of me arguing that your answers are *lies*.

> I know you are going to object and nitpick every single example,
> so I don't really want to rehash every instance.

Okay, I'll restrain myself to a few.

> But below are a few quick cut-and-pastes from the last few 
> e-mails still in my inbox from you:
> 
>> So suspicious! Always worried about what a "yes" may lead to, eh?

Your *behavior* indeed did appear suspicious to me. And please note
that here I ended it with a question.

And most of the rest follow that pattern.  I'll say things like "it's as though",
or "you seem...". (There is nothing wrong with such conjectures, so far
as I can see; I allow plenty of room for explanation or outright denial.)

Or where I speak of many people, and conjecture like this:

>> In the cases at hand, it's more likely that one is worried (and perhaps
>> rightly so) that the admission of certain statements, true as though they
>> may be, will have damaging social consequences.

You have caught me on one or two, though:

>> Well, I don't think so.  And so why don't you just wait for the
>> "big moment", and be unafraid of answering my little admissions?

Here, yes, indeed I was suggesting that you be unafraid, yes, implying
that perhaps you were at the moment afraid.

>> I wanted honestly see what the boundaries of the claims of you, BillK,
>> and Damien were.  I honestly expected[....]  But oh, no. Lee might have
>> something up his sleeve. This might be, might be, might be.... a trap!
>> Who knows what his next question might be???  Christ, I might have
>> to re-examine something I believe!
> 
> See a pattern?  You keep implying that people aren't honestly answering your 
> questions out of fear.  It really makes it hard to have a conversation with you.

In these particular cases I sympathize; if one read this in a hostile
frame of mind, it could be insulting, I suppose. For me, sentences
like that are "if the shoe fits, then wear it". But I will try to do so less
often, but this here *is* a general phenomenon I've encountered all
my life that people (including me) will often avoid talking about certain
unpleasant subjects the very raising of which they fear will be
harmful to society.

But I expect it will be a cold day in hell before you'll apologize for
all the times you say "You think" or "you are constantly surmising
my reasons" and so on, when it so happens that such statements
by you are not factual at all.

Lee



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Sep 16 04:04:43 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:04:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Tim Wise on White Privilege
Message-ID: <E3CD8155909E4534933575B7ADF28259@patrick4ezsk6z>

Over the years I've read several people's opinions here on the subject of "race."  

The following article gets to the heart of the matter - it's the nitty gritty, it's succinct, and I have observed (starting with Bristol Palin's pregnancy, then going down the line - check, check, check ...) and thought about every single obvious point made in this piece.  But I must be missing something, because I can't understand why the presidential race is as close as it supposedly is.  I just don't get it.


Link to the article is below the copied text that follows:
This is Your Nation on White Privilege  

By Tim Wise 

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.  

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug. 

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action. 

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced. 

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

from Tim Wise's page: 

from www.timwise.org, then go to BLOG (The Red Room)








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080915/614591b4/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 16 04:03:34 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:03:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] silly riff on :Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <060b01c917ac$093bfd70$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200809160430.m8G4UKfJ028584@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
> 
> Several books suggest that laughing, smiling, and grinning 
> came about as evolutionary signals.
> 
> Question: when you are completely alone, and something 
> strikes you as amusing or funny, do you ever smile or laugh out loud?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lee


I do.  I have been caught laughing in an empty room.  The scary part is it
sometimes isn't even something I saw or read, but rather just thought of
something funny and made myself laugh out loud.  

I crack me up.  Mine is a fun brain to live in.

To run with the idea just a bit, it shouldn't surprise us that it is
theoretically possible to tickle one's own funny bone.  We can after all get
ourselves pissed off, ja?  We can get our selves sexually aroused by the
appropriate mental imagery.  In some ways, autoeroticism is actually more
effective than an erotic video, for one controls everything in one's own
fantasy, rather than seeing some other bonehead's notion of what is sexy,
which usually isn't.  (It isn't sexy, right?  Someone tell me I'm not the
only one.)

So then, if we ever get to where we can download our mental selves and if we
can mess around with the code, one thing I want to do is find the mechanism
for humor and the mechanism for eroticism.  Then I want to switch those two,
so that funny is erotic and vice versa.  Just think of the fun we could have
with that!  

Of course it would have its disadvantages.  One would not be able to relieve
the semen pressure on the brain while showering, for everyone in the house
would hear and know exactly what you are up to.  Waiting in the dentist
office, Readers Digest, you would need to skip the jokes and read the stupid
articles, just to keep from scaring away the little old ladies, who would
begin to look very attractive.   Closing time at the local singles bar,
everyone would be laughing at each other.  If your partner is seriously
turned on, you would know she is faking the orgasm.  The fertility clinic
sample collection room would be a hoot but wouldn't result in any successful
inseminations.  Sitcom laugh tracks could be created from an orgy. No
scratch that, it would sound like a pack of hyenas.  And so forth.   

spike






From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 04:45:57 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:15:57 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Tim Wise on White Privilege
In-Reply-To: <E3CD8155909E4534933575B7ADF28259@patrick4ezsk6z>
References: <E3CD8155909E4534933575B7ADF28259@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809152145q1124c4d8t3f852d930b18ec02@mail.gmail.com>

If I could vote for Obama I surely would. If you guys screw this one
up, god help us!

otoh, have people here read this article on Edge.org?

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? [9.9.08]
By Jonathan Haidt
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

It's a really good answer to that nagging question about W, ie: "WTF???!?!?!?"

-- 
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


2008/9/16 Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com>:
> Over the years I've read several people's opinions here on the subject of
> "race."
>
> The following article gets to the heart of the matter - it's the nitty
> gritty, it's succinct, and I have observed (starting with Bristol Palin's
> pregnancy, then going down the line - check, check, check ...) and thought
> about every single obvious point made in this piece.  But I must be missing
> something, because I can't understand why the presidential race is as close
> as it supposedly is.  I just don't get it.
> Link to the article is below the copied text that follows:
>
> This is Your Nation on White Privilege
>
> By Tim Wise
>
> For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are
> constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this
> list will help.
>
> White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin
> and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a
> personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents,
> because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families
> with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible,
> pathological and arbiters of social decay.
>
> White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like
> Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with
> you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot
> shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a
> great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
>
> White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years
> like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then
> returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no
> one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a
> person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and
> probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative
> action.
>
> White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller
> than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the
> same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes
> you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on
> themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state
> Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
>
> White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God"
> in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding
> fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from
> holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s
> and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that
> reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the
> Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires
> it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
>
> White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people
> immediately scared of you.
>
> White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an
> extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union,
> and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or
> that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to
> come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of
> school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.
>
> White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the
> work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to
> vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child
> labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely
> question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no
> foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow
> being mean, or even sexist.
>
> White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree
> with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate
> anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired
> confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a
> "second look."
>
> White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your
> political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a
> typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely
> knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you
> must be corrupt.
>
> White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose
> pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George
> W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian
> nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological
> principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict
> in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and
> everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if
> you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin
> Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often
> the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism
> and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates
> America.
>
> White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a
> reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a
> "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word
> answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question,
> or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
>
> White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything
> at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and
> experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.
>
> And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow
> someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent
> of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their
> homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world
> opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change"
> thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more
> years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.
>
> White privilege is, in short, the problem.
>
> from Tim Wise's page:
>
> from www.timwise.org, then go to BLOG (The Red Room)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 16 04:50:49 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:50:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <108496.35585.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <062201c917b7$f619cdb0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart writes

> Lee wrote:
>
>> If you believe SR, then how can you believe
>> "instantaneous" wave-function collapse?
>> (Even if somehow that bizarre idea becomes
> coherent, which almost no one claims it is.)
>
> Because SR is a theory about physics, Lee, and a
> wave function has no physical existence. It is a
> mathematical abstraction

yes

> and a mathematical abstraction can undergo a
> mathematical operation at any speed it needs to.

All right---so long as you remain in the abstract
realm. After all, it's timeless in there.

> For example, imagine an incredibly large finite
> integer as a binary string that is 10^46 bits long.
> Now imagine I add 1 to that integer, what happens?
> That huge binary string grows by a single bit which
> becomes a 1, while the other 10^46 bits become zeroes:
>
> {11111 . . . 10^46 . . . 11111} + {1} = {10000 . . . 10^46+1 . . .00000}
>
> How long did that take?

Unless you are performing it in Virtual Reality,
or performing this operation on a real machine,
then asking how long it took doesn't make any
sense to me. It doesn't "take" because in
Platonia there is no becoming, no actions at all.

> If arithmetic addition can carry faster than light, then a
> wave function can collapse faster than light. And I don't
> mind the instantaneous collapse of a wavefunction any
> more than than I do of getting hit over the head with a
> probability density.

But what does "instantaneous" mean? Are you sure
that you are not simply consulting your intuition about
that? For, when one has internalized the reference-frame
dependence of everything in SR, then "instantaneously"
doesn't even mean anything. If event A and event B
are outside each other's light cone, then as you very
well know, neither can be said to happen before the
other, and it's equally nonsensical to say that they
"happened at the same time".

Your arithmetic example of addition going faster
than light arises from your projection of the abstract
process (which is timeless) onto the radius of the
Earth's orbit, or onto some other length (once
again reference-frame dependent!) in 4D spacetime.

>> But when the Mississippi splits into two separate streams,
>> is any conservation law broken? Likewise, at the delta
>> where it splits into innumerable streams, no conservation
>> laws are broken because the entire flow of water is still
>> the same, merely broken into discrete channels.
>
> Yes, but the amount of water flowing in each channel is
> diminished. What gets diminished in the separated universes?

Measure.

One really does not need to have studied measure theory
to understand this, however (although it does perfectly
conform to the principle of countable additivity). One
merely thinks of a stream having half the content, or
a light shining half as brightly, or a wave with half the
amplitude, and so on.

This is a *theory* in the sense that you were using the term,
and people like David Deutsch believe that this theory
applies as well to our existences and our universe as,
say, Keplerian ellipses apply to solar system orbits.

>> But it's the same on MWI branching. The "measure"
>> of two separate streams, when added, equals the
>> measure of the single undistinguished branch before
>> splitting.
>
> What is the "measure"? What SI unit is it in?

Measure could be thought of in terms of ratio (i.e.
unitlessly), I think. For example, say that you are
about to throw a fair die. Then I for one will claim
that the measure of the universes in which you get
a 3 or higher is twice the measure of the universes
in which you throw a 1 or a 2.

>> (It's this last "merging" process
>> that I myself find so weird. It
>> doesn't work unless the two
>> beams are nearly perfectly set
>> up so that the two beams are
>> in exactly the same phase, and
>> even then, the probability of
>> merging is quantum-mechanical,
>> and falls off if the beams
>> are ever so little out of phase.)
>
> I find it weird too. And if I have
> mechanistic problems with the split,
> then I have even more problems
> about the "merge". Do the Langoliers
> eat the extra universe?

Only if the universe has been a bad
little boy or bad little girl.

> How do the proper two universes
> find each other to merge? What
> happens if a Swiss physicist on the
> other side of the planet splits his
> own beam before the presumably
> American physicist in your example
> gets his split beams back in phase
> enough to merge them back together?

"Before"?  Ahem. You risk me
foaming at the mouth yet one
more time on the nature of
relativistic reference frames!

If you mean, suppose that S
(the Swiss event) and A (the
American event) are outside
each other's light cones, then
these two things have no
effect on each other. Four
universes result. (It's only
two if we have some reason
to expect correlation.)

> Which alternate universe does the
> American physicist merge with?

Since these merges were of such
short duration (i.e. the spacetime
interval between the photons
hitting the first half-silvered mirror
and hitting the last one where they
merge) is so small that they don't
include the two physicists.

But let's suppose that we make
the experiment large enough so
that although each physicist is
affected and does split, and each
one sees that he or she is in just
*one* universe (and is not aware
of the other), he or she does not
remember *which*---this is
necessary for them to be able to
merge again. See David Deutsch's
remarkable story of the conscious
computer that can feel the universes
split in his remarkable essay in
Davies' "The Ghost in The Atom".

> I was just saying that if we owe
> the stability of our universe to
> "interference" between the parallel
> universes *and* the diligent split
> occurring in a timely fashion, then
> it's a precarious existence we lead.

Not if you identify with all your copies
in all the universes who are similar
enough to you.

> How does MWI time the disappearance
> of all the extra matter-energy when two
> universe "merge" again?

No matter disappears, any more than
water disappears if a river splits at
one place and then recombines
downstream.

> Admittedly, I have never read Deutsch.
> "Shadow photons"? That sounds an
> awful lot like an antiparticle of light.
> Bosons are supposed to be their own
> antiparticle. Besides, Lee, you have
> explained MWI to me far better than
> anyone has explained it to me before.

Thanks. But think of it as payback for
(most recently) the material analysis
of Bell's two spaceships.  :-)

> I doubt Deutsch could do it better.

Ha!

>> On the other hand, on p. 211
>> of "The Fabric of Reality", Deutsch
>> is completely definite about the
>> number of universes (i.e. branches)
>> being on the order of the continuum.
>> So that's not merely a *countable*
>> infinity at all. We're already at
>> aleph-one. So any more splitting
>> isn't conceptually problematical
>> at that point, (when things are already
>> about as "worse" as they can get).
>
> But this is my point exactly. Infinity
> is a mathematical treasure-trove and
> MWI treats it like a waste dump for
> unnecessary universes.

Great quote! At least in one way,
methinks your immortality now
insured, even if you don't get frozen.

> Yes, until one starts to wonder
> what could be keeping track of
> the transfinite aleph-1 universes
> out there so that only the right
> ones get merged. If it's not a
> Turing machine, what is it?

Oh, one could have asked Newton
the same question:  "Just explain to
us, Isaac, please, how can the
universe compute the answers to
your gravitation formula so damn
fast?"

My guess is that we may be looking
at the universe in a parochial sense,
based upon the computer or calculating
paradigm. First, things happen. Second,
humans evolve. Third, they get theories
going that describe how things happen.
It's probably anthropomorphic (or
"sentientmorphic" to look at what the
universe does as calculation).

Lee

> Furthermore, if the universe really is aleph-1
> infinite, then it never really splits and instead
> of calling it the "Many Worlds Interpretation"
> they should call it the "Single Hairy World
> Interpretation".
> ...
>
> 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 lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 16 04:56:20 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:56:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer><2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com><041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com><580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com><004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer><580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com>
	<002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <062801c917b8$aaed27a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Clark writes

> Suppose the Extropian list existed in 1870 and we were having
> this same conversation. What would be difference? Well, we'd be
> using Morse Code and a telegraph key instead of the Internet
> (with a lot less quoted material I'll bet).

:-)

> Also, some names have
> gone in and out of fashion in that time. Spiritualism became ESP
> which became PSI, but other than that the substance of our
> conversation would be virtually identical. The only change from
> that day to this happened in the 1920's where instead of saying
> that Harry Houdini was being mean in the way he debunked
> charlatans they now say that The Amazing Randi is being mean
> in the way he debunks charlatans. Fooling a scientist is easy,
> fooling a professional magician is hard, damn hard.
> 
> This entire field is like a fly frozen in amber that hasn't moved
> a nanometer in centuries;

I think you are exaggerating a bit. It was in the late
1840s, the Fox Sisters in upstate New York started
the whole thing, didn't they? So nothing seems to have
happened since *then*, but that's not, like, centuries
or anything  :-)

Lee

> I don't expect anything about this to 
> change anytime soon, nor does anyone else on this list.
> 
> I add that last part because it is the only explanation I can 
> think of to explain why nobody has accepted the bet I first 
> made on this subject and on this very list about a decade ago. 
> Not one person has accepted it even with my very generous 10
> to 1 odds. Not one person! I just wish all of you who preach the
> wonders of Psi had accepted my bet; if you had I'd be a very 
> rich man by now. 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 16 04:58:44 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:58:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] silly riff on :Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
References: <200809160403.m8G43aDp053540@mail1.rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <063401c917b9$5f199330$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Spike writes

>> Several books suggest that laughing, smiling, and grinning 
>> came about as evolutionary signals.
>> 
>> Question: when you are completely alone, and something 
>> strikes you as amusing or funny, do you ever smile or laugh out loud?
> 
> I do.  I have been caught laughing in an empty room.  The scary part is it
> sometimes isn't even something I saw or read, but rather just thought of
> something funny and made myself laugh out loud.  

I wonder if it's partly an extroversion/introversion thing?

Thanks for the data point,

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep 16 05:17:49 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:17:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <062801c917b8$aaed27a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com>
	<002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<062801c917b8$aaed27a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080916000918.0245c498@satx.rr.com>

At 09:56 PM 9/15/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>It was in the late
>1840s, the Fox Sisters in upstate New York started
>the whole thing, didn't they? So nothing seems to have
>happened since *then*

I love the airy and ex cathedra way you say this, Lee, when you own a 
copy of a book, by an intelligent and quite skeptical person, that 
describes in some detail a multitude of closely observed things that 
"have happened since *then*"--but you decline to read it. This is 
scholarship the easy, but not I hope the extropian, way!

Damien Broderick
[meanwhile, on another list populated by parapsychologists, I spend 
quite a lot of time being beaten up for my narrow, materialistic, 
scientistic, unspiritual opinions]




From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 16 05:26:05 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:26:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Tim Wise on White Privilege
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809152145q1124c4d8t3f852d930b18ec02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809160526.m8G5QBpm026325@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

...
> 2008/9/16 Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com>:
> > 
> > The following article gets to the heart of the matter -  it's the nitty 
> > gritty, it's succinct...  I must be missing something, because I can't
understand why the presidential race is as close as it supposedly is...

www.timwise.org


I know!  Read the Tim Wise article and notice that almost every bit of it is
about Sarah Palin, almost nothing about John McCain, perhaps one sentence.
The presidential candidate on one ticket seems to be running against the
vice-presidential candidate on the other.  Even casual outside observers
must have noticed this.  I just don't recall that ever happening before,
even when the airhead Dan Quayle was the VP candidate.  

The reason this race is so close is that both sides are running equally
incompetent campaigns.

spike




 



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 06:04:25 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:04:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Tim Wise on White Privilege
In-Reply-To: <200809160526.m8G5QBpm026325@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <710b78fc0809152145q1124c4d8t3f852d930b18ec02@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809160526.m8G5QBpm026325@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809152304m432caeb1k37d786b68ab75e37@mail.gmail.com>

>> 2008/9/16 Olga Bourlin wrote:
>> > The following article gets to the heart of the matter -  it's the nitty
>> > gritty, it's succinct...  I must be missing something, because I can't
> understand why the presidential race is as close as it supposedly is...
>
> www.timwise.org

It is close in part because so many *diehard* Republicans are so sick
of the current Republican president that they have lost faith with
their party and have decided to not vote.

I have a friend who works as a Republican party fundraiser and he said
it is shocking how many registered Republicans have lost heart and not
only decline donating money but say they are not going to vote
(because voting Democrat would I suppose cause them to catch on fire,
lol).

Spike wrote:
> I know!  Read the Tim Wise article and notice that almost every bit of it is
> about Sarah Palin, almost nothing about John McCain, perhaps one sentence.
> The presidential candidate on one ticket seems to be running against the
> vice-presidential candidate on the other.  Even casual outside observers
> must have noticed this.  I just don't recall that ever happening before,
> even when the airhead Dan Quayle was the VP candidate.

McCain very well might die in office and so Sarah Palin would become
*the* president.  This alone is a major reason for focusing on her
candidacy.

he continues:
> The reason this race is so close is that both sides are running equally
> incompetent campaigns.

I disagree.  I think Obama has generally run a smart campaign (Hilary
is probably *still* in shock that he displaced her, the *heir
apparent* to the Democratic party presidential nominee throne).  And
Obama put together a crack team of fundraisers who have run circles
around McCain's people.

But in spite of Obama's natural charisma and campaign running
savviness, I feel the *real* adversary to McCain has been our current
president.  Bush utterly fouled the waters due to his various foreign
policy and economic blunders.  And McCain was a fool for not seriously
distancing himself from the president.

John


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Sep 16 07:15:15 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:15:15 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer><2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com><041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com><580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com><004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer><580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com><002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><062801c917b8$aaed27a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080916000918.0245c498@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <070d01c917cc$51a0cdf0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> meanwhile, on another list populated by
> parapsychologists, I spend quite a lot of
> time being beaten up for my narrow,
> materialistic,  scientistic, unspiritual opinions

Damien: I believe you are one hell of a smart man, but even the
best of us can have blind spots; I think you have two, I think you
know which two I'm talking about. But that's OK, I know I have far
more than my fair share of blind spots, like Joyce for example, 
or poetry, or just Literature with a capital L. Enough people I 
respect love those things to make me think they must have value,
but of their virtues I am totally tone deaf. Maybe the cause of my
disability was genetic, maybe environmental, who knows, who cares.
I do know, or at least I believe that in two areas and only two you
have a similar problem.

And if on that other list you want somebody to cover your back let me know.

 John K Clark





From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 09:52:06 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:52:06 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Repressed Science of Brain Transplantation
In-Reply-To: <060a01c917ac$0921beb0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <060a01c917ac$0921beb0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <580930c20809160252j5088edqe02231dd8026746a@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> We began arguing on this list many, many months ago
> whether or not the body is necessary for the experience
> of emotion (or of all emotion).
>
> Prominent researchers can be found who claim that it
> is, yet logically, their case seems weak. After all, if it's
> conceivable that our whole universe can be emulated,
> and it doesn't have any bodies, then why can't my mind?

Absolutely. But were it true, in order to experience emotions you
would have to emulate as well the body, or the relevant portions
thereof. Not that this would increase much the complexity of the
emulation, I suspect less than an order of magnitude in bytes.

In fact, I believe that there is here a more general argument, namely
that against "you cannot be uploaded, because your
intelligence/identity is diffused throughout your body, not just your
brain". Reply: even if this assumption is correct, what's the big
deal? When you have a good enough emulation of the brain, to scan and
add the rest is probably trivial enough.

Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 10:28:44 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:28:44 +0200
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com>
	<041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com>
	<002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <580930c20809160328x687cea14o457437bfab17a55e@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:38 PM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Stefano Vaj On  Monday, September 15, 2008 Wrote:
>> The prob is with statistical divergences that resist
>> attempts to make them  predictable and repeatable
>> within an adequate theoretical framework, thus
>> preventing any real technical "appropriation".
>
> That is quite simply untrue. Spectacularly untrue! It is the dream of
> ALL experimenters to find something that existing science can not
> explain, and it is the dream of theorists to find red meat to sink
> their teeth into, it's the only reason people do science. If the good
> people who run the LHC don't find a "statistical divergence" from
> the known physics then a large number of them will need to be put
> on a suicide watch.

I must have been explaining myself very poorly. *Of course* you are
right, and "It is the dream of ALL experimenters to find something
that existing science can not explain, etc.", so that they can do
their job and find the relevant "explanation".

Conversely, as long as it does not happen, the problem remains there,
unresolved, challenging them, and by extension all of us. Or at least
it should, in the case of ESP and other fields a trend being possibly
there to sweep the phenomena under the carpet and forget about them.

> Spiritualism became ESP
> which became PSI, but other than that the substance of our
> conversation would be virtually identical.

In fact, I do not care much for past and current PSI community and
dominant ideas, not much more than I do for rainman's metereology.
Yet, I am inclined to admit the reality of the rainfall, and to wish
that whatever has to be known there be investigated and discovered.

Even if the entire "Psy" background had to be discarded as consistent
with statistical fluctuations and/or "tricks", some effort would be in
order to explain more in depth the epistemological, cultural,
sociological and methodological aspects that come into play into both
structured experimenting and anedoctical evidence concerning those
very phenomena.

An entirely different aspect is the current "state of the art". While
I do not claim to be an expert myself, it is rather apparent that we
have never really developed any technology  pertaining to the
selection, training, reinforcement, artificial reproduction of Psy
phenomena with a significant edge over "ordinary" intuition, whatever
the psycho-physiological mechanisms of the latter might be. In fact,
were it the case, casinos would be out of business.

Guessing where missile silos are located with unusual luck does not
change much if the guess is performed while being watched by a man
with a white smock.

Stefano Vaj


From kanzure at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 12:13:04 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:13:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Repressed Science of Brain Transplantation
In-Reply-To: <060a01c917ac$0921beb0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <060a01c917ac$0921beb0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200809160713.04272.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Monday 15 September 2008, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Then a couple of month's later, I was going over Bryan's
> amazing roadmap, when this caught my eye:
> A Brief History of Disembodied Dog Heads
> http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/02/a_brief_history.html

See also:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060918231834/www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/home.html
http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~rd13/hd/fetal.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20060613082614/http://216.247.9.207/ny-best.htm
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=189017
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bennun/interviews/drwhite.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/head-transplant.html
http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/06/06/018.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3283976&dopt=Citation
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=3988697&postcount=44
http://whyfiles.org/023spinal_cord/biblio.html
http://www.makoa.org/sci.htm
http://www.neure.com/Index.cfm?file=SCIlinks.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_transplant

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 13:22:38 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:22:38 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Repressed Science of Brain Transplantation
In-Reply-To: <060a01c917ac$0921beb0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <060a01c917ac$0921beb0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809160622w3d5367bev667e3fe41b1478ac@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/16 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:
> We began arguing on this list many, many months ago
> whether or not the body is necessary for the experience
> of emotion (or of all emotion).
>
> Prominent researchers can be found who claim that it
> is, yet logically, their case seems weak. After all, if it's
> conceivable that our whole universe can be emulated,
> and it doesn't have any bodies, then why can't my mind?
>
> Besides, whatever signals do transpire from the body to the brain to help
> the experience of emotion (and perhaps other things), then couldn't very
> small modules
> inserted on those very nerves or blood vessels perform
> the same role? All in all, the more I think about it---and
> I think people here will agree---the more dubious it seems
> that the body really is needed for anything.

The body obviously does contribute to emotion. For example, in panic
attacks this gets out of hand in a positive feedback loop: a mental
event makes you anxious, which triggers a physiological response,
which you notice and get more anxious about, which increases the
physiological response, which makes you even more anxious, etc. But as
you correctly point out, this whole process could be duplicated with
just a brain, provided that it was given the same I/O as it would
normally get from the attached body.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Sep 16 13:47:15 2008
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:47:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <060b01c917ac$093bfd70$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <060b01c917ac$093bfd70$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <35261.12.77.169.54.1221572835.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>


> Question: when you are completely alone, and something
> strikes you as amusing or funny, do you ever smile or laugh
> out loud?
>

Yes indeed. More often, probably, than in a group.  Perhaps because more amusing
things come up when I'm alone!?! ;)

... like reading stuff online... probably a result of *reading* rather than hearing
- I'm old and becomming deaf. Which has its positive aspects.

:)

Regards,
MB



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 16 13:55:22 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:55:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] why so close?  was: RE:  Tim Wise on White Privilege
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809152304m432caeb1k37d786b68ab75e37@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809161355.m8GDtSpV011702@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



>> 2008/9/16 Olga Bourlin wrote:
>> > ...
>> > because I can't understand why the presidential race is as close as it
supposedly is...
>
> www.timwise.org


Spike wrote:
> ...
> The presidential candidate on one ticket seems to be running against 
> the vice-presidential candidate on the other...

>John wrote: McCain very well might die in office and so Sarah Palin would
become
*the* president.  This alone is a major reason for focusing on her
candidacy.
... John

Certainly true, statistically likely.  But one campaign seems to have lost
sight of an important detail.  To run for president requires winning a
primary, which takes jillions of votes.  To run for VP requires only one
vote.  So for one presidential nominee to run against the VP on the other
ticket is a losing proposition.  

By hammering on the fact that the one guy is really old causes the really
old voters to feel irrelevant.  The over 80 crowd may show up in teeming
grey hordes at the polls to show us irrelevant.

spike






From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 16 14:31:18 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:31:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] two new mersenne primes confirmed
In-Reply-To: <200809160713.04272.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809161431.m8GEVN3V015837@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

The two new Mersenne primes are M43112609 and M37156667.  You can read 
all about their discovery at http://mersenne.org

spike






From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 14:32:23 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:32:23 +1000
Subject: [ExI] why so close? was: RE: Tim Wise on White Privilege
In-Reply-To: <200809161355.m8GDtSpV011702@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <2d6187670809152304m432caeb1k37d786b68ab75e37@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809161355.m8GDtSpV011702@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809160732g20fbc479u6dccb5d250008582@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/16 spike <spike66 at att.net>:

> By hammering on the fact that the one guy is really old causes the really
> old voters to feel irrelevant.  The over 80 crowd may show up in teeming
> grey hordes at the polls to show us irrelevant.

He's only 72. 72 isn't that old these days, is it?

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Sep 16 15:49:38 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:49:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer><2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com><041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com><580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com><004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer><580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com><002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<580930c20809160328x687cea14o457437bfab17a55e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002501c91813$fe41a510$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"Stefano Vaj" <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>

> Even if the entire "Psy" background had to be discarded as
> consistent with statistical fluctuations and/or "tricks",
> some effort would be in order to explain more in depth
> the epistemological, cultural, sociological and
> methodological aspects that come into play into both
> structured experimenting and anedoctical evidence
> concerning those very phenomena.

Yes millions of people believe in the power of Psy, and even more
believe in the power of prayer, it has far more anedoctical
evidence than Psy does. I have no burning desire for 
science to spend any more time on either phenomenon, because
a negative finding by science will convince no true believer,
not one, and it will just bore everybody else. In other words
they are both Bullshit.

> it is rather apparent that we have never really developed any
> technology  pertaining to the selection, training, reinforcement,
> artificial reproduction of Psy phenomena

Before you talk about developing something there must be
something to develop.

> were it the case, casinos would be out of business.

Yes, and you'd think venture capitalists would be investing
heavily in this area. 

I don't see it, but hey, they didn't get rich by being stupid.

  John K Clark






From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 16:04:16 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:04:16 +0200
Subject: [ExI] ESP
In-Reply-To: <002501c91813$fe41a510$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com>
	<004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com>
	<002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<580930c20809160328x687cea14o457437bfab17a55e@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91813$fe41a510$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <580930c20809160904m26b8b9a6r471af988cb33f951@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:49 PM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Yes millions of people believe in the power of Psy, and even more
> believe in the power of prayer, it has far more anedoctical
> evidence than Psy does.

In fact, there has been substantial investment both in the study of
the belief, and even, believe it or not, in the scientific checking of
the alleged effectiveness of prayer on the physical world, with the
expected results, even though in that case no studies whatsoever
existed "from the other side", as it is the case for psy.

Stefano Vaj


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Sep 16 16:09:50 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (fauxever at sprynet.com)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:09:50 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Subject: [ExI] why so close? was: RE: Tim Wise on White Privilege
Message-ID: <28242549.1221581390681.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

>From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
>Sent: Sep 16, 2008 7:32 AM
>Subject: Re: [ExI] why so close? was: RE: Tim Wise on White Privilege
>

>He's only 72. 72 isn't that old these days, is it?

Yes, but ... McCain has had four melanomas already (one was an invasive melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer).  Some people suspect he doesn't have all his marbles.

I think McCain is as surprised as almost anyone that he's the Republican presidential candidate ("last man standing").  The Republicans just couldn't seem to come up with a candidate without serious downsides.

Olga



From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 20:21:40 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:21:40 -0400
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <108496.35585.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <108496.35585.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809161321n5d8f4017nf50266b17c4a0421@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:15 PM, The Avantguardian
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> For example, imagine an incredibly large finite integer as a binary string that is 10^46 bits long. Now imagine I add 1 to that integer, what happens? That huge binary string grows by a single bit which becomes a 1, while the other 10^46 bits become zeroes:
>
> {11111 . . . 10^46 . . . 11111} + {1} = {10000 . . . 10^46+1 . . .00000}
>
> How long did that take?
>
> Now imagine that that binary string of ones is written in the tiniest font imaginable -- merely one Planck length wide. Written on space-time, the big binary integer would stretch the distance between Earth and the Sun. So now when I add a 1 to it, an additional 1 bit gets added to the end of the string near the sun and the rest of the bits from the earth to the sun become zeroes. . . instaneously! Even though if Superman used his supervision to watch that distant bit change, he would have to wait 8 long minutes for the information to arrive.

This reminds me of the topological deformation question I think I
asked in this thread.  What you are describing sounds like a state
change without a propagation from one state to another.  I was
thinking about photon being related to electron shells in discrete
units - it either exists in one state or another, but there is no 'in
between' - or is that a probability of indeterminate states?  If a
probability, then does the probability move toward a state, or does
the eventual state reflect the outcome of a wave collapse?

To reference Lee's response to this post, is there any difference in
Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2?  is there a
way to distinguish the moment t'2 ?  How do we know at t3 that some of
our peers didn't actually experience t'2?  If that's a perfectly valid
transition of states, why not observer t1, t'1, t3, t'3 ?  Maybe
people who observe life this way (upconverted from a lower definition)
have a difficult time understanding those who perceive t1, t2, t3, t4
(non-interlaced)  Likewise there may be observers capable of
comfortable perceiving t1, t2+t'2, t3 (even numbered moments
simultaneously "in stereo" from two universes)  I'll stop here now
because if you're with me, then you are probably capable of refuting
this point; if not then no further examples make sense anyway.


From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Sep 16 17:01:15 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:01:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Black Swans - Revisited
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809161001yfcb88ebvec8ef35e67b46a37@mail.gmail.com>

A timely essay by Nassim Taleb at Edge.org.

<http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html>

While Taleb uses far too many words per concept (in my opinion, and I'm
certainly guilty of the inverse) he tries to convey a crucial point
increasingly relevant to increasingly informed decision-making within an
increasingly uncertain world.  Paradoxical?  Not at all.

In a sense, Taleb reminds me of Eliezer.  Both outsiders, both posessing
rare insights (upsights?), and both following their own path, progressively
discarding assumptions on the way to uncovering what might remain to form a
highly applicable instrument.

Recommended for those who care, for example, about the distinction between
likelihood and probability, how goals are meaningful only as values
effectively specified, and how effective decision-making in an environment
of evolving uncertainty must deemphasize outcomes in favor of principles
promoting an increasing context of increasingly coherent (evolving) values.

- Jef
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080916/3159a268/attachment.html>

From clementlawyer at hotmail.com  Tue Sep 16 21:41:43 2008
From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:41:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Black Swans - Revisited
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809161001yfcb88ebvec8ef35e67b46a37@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740809161001yfcb88ebvec8ef35e67b46a37@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BLU106-DS504B63A95BC765E2F96FCA34D0@phx.gbl>

Totally agree with Jef's recommendation of Black Swan.  I'd also like to recommend, as a companion, Leonard Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk.  His information about how Mutual Fund Manager, CEO and Movie Exec careers are largely based on short, random strings of events is really eye-opening!  You also don't find many books that come highly recommended by Stephen Hawking:

 In The Drunkard's Walk Leonard Mlodinow provides readers with a wonderfully readable guide to how the mathematical laws of randomness affect our lives. With insight he shows how the hallmarks of chance are apparent in the course of events all around us. The understanding of randomness has brought about profound changes in the way we view our surroundings, and our universe. I am pleased that Leonard has skillfully explained this important branch of mathematics. --Stephen Hawking 

James Clement, www.betterhumans.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080916/4cdfec95/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Tue Sep 16 22:18:12 2008
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:18:12 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <mailman.135.1221538335.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.135.1221538335.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <48D030A4.8070509@lineone.net>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> scratched:

>Several books suggest that laughing, smiling, and grinning
>came about as evolutionary signals.
>
>Question: when you are completely alone, and something
>strikes you as amusing or funny, do you ever smile or laugh
>out loud?




Why do you even have to ask that question?

Does this mean that you don't?

I probably laugh out loud (or at least have a chuckle) to myself just
about every day, when there's no one else around. Usually because of the
Simpsons or Futurama, or something I've read.

That's not remarkable, but the thing i find interesting is the
phenomenon of grinning or even laughing out loud, not because of
something funny, but just because you feel great. Usually during
physical exercise. I've broken into laughter from riding a bike before,
and skating round the streets of London almost always puts a big grin on
my face after a while.

I suppose you could call it 'Exhilaration laughter'. Dunno what the
evolutionary basis of that might be.

Ben Zaiboc

PS And this from Spike definitely made me guffaw, with nobody else
around at all:

"So then, if we ever get to where we can download our mental selves and
if we can mess around with the code, one thing I want to do is find the
mechanism for humor and the mechanism for eroticism.  Then I want to
switch those two, so that funny is erotic and vice versa.  Just think of
the fun we could have with that!"

Spike is twisted.
Brilliantly, hilariously twisted.

Spike, I salute you.

Ben



From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 16 23:25:12 2008
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:25:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] why so close? was: RE: Tim Wise on White Privilege
In-Reply-To: <28242549.1221581390681.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <28242549.1221581390681.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40809161625o3d75baax944afb44404bae57@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:09 AM,  <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

> ...The Republicans just couldn't seem to come up with a candidate without serious downsides.

For instance, being a Republican.

Thus the McCain "I'm a Maverick, not a Republican, really.  Next
question, please" strategy.

                         **********************************

In this essay

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

I found this, the foundation of my own view of the matter:

"...when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare." ...

"... philosopher David Hume's dictum that reason is "the slave of the
passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey
them."...

"... feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which
reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion,
they can usually find a way to do so."...

[And finally:]

"The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing
uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments
were forms of persuasion."

Or the way I like to say it:

The US Presidential election campaign is little more than an
infotainment reality-tv gladiatorial mini-series;  part WWF Smackdown,
part Miss America pageant.

Best, Jeff Davis

I know it is a weakness of human nature to become emotionally invested
in inconsequential tribal spats, but people who want to be
transhumanists need to be able to get past that almost as a
prerequisite.  In fact, a good portion of the transhumanist ideals are
all about shedding this behavior.
                 j. andrew rogers


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Tue Sep 16 22:48:02 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:48:02 -0400
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
In-Reply-To: <061e01c917b2$5a1a7270$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert><055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><3BD726C2FDE440A384DE9FA89E99A9A1@Catbert>
	<061e01c917b2$5a1a7270$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <611C2C283AF34A2891F91F184A3C07B8@Catbert>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote,
> No, you are inferring this. Also, I observe that you have *not*
> found an instance of me arguing that your answers are *lies*.

Actually, you conceded that I had later in your note:

> You have caught me on one or two, though

And your defensive explanations are more than lame.  They are downright 
childish:

>>> So suspicious! Always worried about what a "yes" may lead to, eh?
>
> Your *behavior* indeed did appear suspicious to me. And please note
> that here I ended it with a question.

So that's not a claim, it's a question?  Right....

> And most of the rest follow that pattern.  I'll say things like "it's as 
> though",
> or "you seem...". (There is nothing wrong with such conjectures, so far
> as I can see; I allow plenty of room for explanation or outright denial.)

So conjectures don't count as claims?  You never "claimed" this stuff or 
"stated" this stuff.  You merely conjectured that "it's as though" or "you 
seem..."

You really wasted my time denying these claims and DEMANDING in capital 
letters that I give examples of any such statements or claims.  And this is 
your defense?  I shouldn't have even bothered responding to your feigned 
indignation.

>>> Well, I don't think so.  And so why don't you just wait for the
>>> "big moment", and be unafraid of answering my little admissions?
>
> Here, yes, indeed I was suggesting that you be unafraid, yes, implying
> that perhaps you were at the moment afraid.

Yes.  And more than that, you keep wasting my time by goading me into 
waiting for some "big moment".  Maybe the joke's on me.  But I'm beginning 
to "conjecture" that there is no big moment.  "It's as though" you are just 
stringing me along to see how long you can keep me in a conversation that 
never actually goes anywhere.  "You seem" to be doing this on purpose.  You 
really are an asshole, "eh?"

I'm going to stick you in my kill file.  That way I don't have to see your 
"conjectures" that I am too afraid to argue with you, and mistake those for 
actual claims or statements that I should respond to.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 17 01:10:59 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:10:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer><2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com><041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com><580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com><004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer><580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com><002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><062801c917b8$aaed27a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080916000918.0245c498@satx.rr.com>
	<070d01c917cc$51a0cdf0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <067d01c91862$794ab2d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John "Bulldog" Clark advertises his services to Damien

> And if on that other list you want somebody to cover your back let me know.

You know, I've never seen such a blatent ad for an on-line
"hit man" in my entire life. But I guess having John Clark on one's
case for a couple of weeks would indeed make anyone think
twice about ever giving you a hard time again---so I guess
I have to go on record as to the efficacy of "the treatment"
and offer myself as a "reference available".

I take it that for Damien it's free, but I wonder what would be
the charge per hour for someone else, given that, obviously, the
subject matter or what side of the issue he'd be on is irrelevant.

Lee

P.S.  And would someone please tell John that in

> Yes millions of people believe in the power
> of Psy, and even more believe in the power
> of prayer, it has far more anedoctical
> evidence than Psy does. 

it's "psi" not "psy"? I can't do that, of course, because the
obstinate one would then deliberately use "psy" on every
possble occasion he could to create the most negtive affect.



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 01:41:58 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:11:58 +1030
Subject: [ExI] why so close? was: RE: Tim Wise on White Privilege
In-Reply-To: <28242549.1221581390681.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <28242549.1221581390681.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809161841w55adfb60k62ab2930553bf49c@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/17  <fauxever at sprynet.com>:
>>From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
>>Sent: Sep 16, 2008 7:32 AM
>>Subject: Re: [ExI] why so close? was: RE: Tim Wise on White Privilege
>>
>
>>He's only 72. 72 isn't that old these days, is it?
>
> Yes, but ... McCain has had four melanomas already (one was an invasive melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer).  Some people suspect he doesn't have all his marbles.
>

Like being marble challenged is a disqualification to run as the
republican candidate! It's appearing recently to be a necessary
precondition.

-- 
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 spike66 at att.net  Wed Sep 17 01:46:48 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:46:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <48D030A4.8070509@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <200809170147.m8H1krOT016331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> Ben Zaiboc
> 
> PS And this from Spike definitely made me guffaw, with nobody 
> else around at all:
> 
> ... Then I want to switch those two, so that 
> funny is erotic and vice versa.  Just think of the fun we 
> could have with that!"
> 
> Spike is twisted...

Well, thanks I am trying to be.

> Spike, I salute you. Ben

Ben you are too kind.  But what I think Lee was asking was not do we laugh
at jokes we are reading.  Everyone does that.  But do we ever just think of
something and laugh.  I do, but that is a very interesting question, which
goes back to one I asked a few years ago in this forum: when something is
funny, why do we stop laughing eventually?  When we are sad, why do we stop
weeping?  What changes?

spike



From kanzure at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 02:08:42 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:08:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] India's open source drug discovery
Message-ID: <200809162108.43192.kanzure@gmail.com>

Joseph was telling me that India understood ..

http://osdd.net/

> OSDD is a CSIR Team India Consortium with Global Partnership with a
> vision to provide affordable healthcare to the developing world by
> providing a global platform where the best minds can collaborate &
> collectively endeavor to solve the complex problems associated with
> discovering novel therapies for neglected tropical diseases like
> Malaria, Tuberculosis, Leshmaniasis, etc. It is a concept to
> collaboratively aggregate the biological and genetic information
> available to scientists in order to use it to hasten the discovery of
> drugs. This will provide a unique opportunity for scientists,
> doctors, technocrats, students and others with diverse expertise to
> work for a common cause.
>
>  The success of Open Source models in Information Technology (For
> e.g., Web Technology, The Linux Operating System) and Biotechnology
> (For e.g., Human Genome Sequencing) sectors highlights the urgent
> need to initiate a similar model in healthcare, i.e., an Open Source
> model for Drug Discovery.
>
>  Funding source - Th Government of India has committed Rs. 150 crores
> (US $38 million) towards this project. An equivalent amount of
> funding would be raised from inernational agencies and
> philanthropists. About 46 crores (US $12 million) has been already
> released by the Government of India.

Hey look, somebody understands! :) It hit slashdot today.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 17 02:05:00 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:05:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <200809170147.m8H1krOT016331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <48D030A4.8070509@lineone.net>
	<200809170147.m8H1krOT016331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080916210256.024a0a48@satx.rr.com>

At 06:46 PM 9/16/2008 -0700, spike wrote:

>when something is
>funny, why do we stop laughing eventually?

The joke gets old.

>  When we are sad, why do we stop
>weeping?

We get over it.

Well, all right, no, but there are doubtless hormone/transmitter 
changes that saturate or the like.

As for Lee's question: like Spike, I'm always breaking myself up. 
Just as well, so few other people get my jokes.

Damien Broderick




From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 02:10:36 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:10:36 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <200809170147.m8H1krOT016331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <48D030A4.8070509@lineone.net>
	<200809170147.m8H1krOT016331@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809161910l2de791efk1705747d479a971e@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Ben you are too kind.  But what I think Lee was asking was not do we laugh
> at jokes we are reading.  Everyone does that.  But do we ever just think of
> something and laugh.  I do, but that is a very interesting question, which
> goes back to one I asked a few years ago in this forum: when something is
> funny, why do we stop laughing eventually?  When we are sad, why do we stop
> weeping?  What changes?

Isn't it called "down regulation" ?  (amusing double-entendre)


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 04:43:58 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:13:58 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <48D030A4.8070509@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.135.1221538335.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<48D030A4.8070509@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809162143p5b2dbd24s52b3926c3861e110@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/17 ben <benboc at lineone.net>:
> PS And this from Spike definitely made me guffaw, with nobody else
> around at all:
>
> "So then, if we ever get to where we can download our mental selves and
> if we can mess around with the code, one thing I want to do is find the
> mechanism for humor and the mechanism for eroticism.  Then I want to
> switch those two, so that funny is erotic and vice versa.  Just think of
> the fun we could have with that!"
>
> Spike is twisted.
> Brilliantly, hilariously twisted.
>
> Spike, I salute you.
>

Here's some of the mechanism you need showing itself:

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/09/erotic_selfstimulat.html

"Erotic self-stimulation and brain implants:

A 48-year-old woman with a stimulating electrode implanted in her
right ventral thalamus started to compulsively self-stimulate when she
discovered that it could produce erotic sensations.

This is a report from the early days of deep brain stimulation, way
back in 1986, from an article for the medical journal Pain which
discussed some unintended side-effects from one patient's DBS
treatment for chronic pain.

--
Soon after insertion of the nVPL electrode, the patient noted that
stimulation also produced erotic sensations. This pleasurable response
was heightened by continuous stimulation at 75% maximal amplitude,
frequently augmented by short bursts at maximal amplitude. Though
sexual arousal was prominent, no orgasm occurred with these brief
increases in stimulation intensity. Despite several episodes of
paroxysmal atrial tachycardia [heart disturbance] and development of
adverse behavioural and neurological symptoms during maximal
stimulation, compulsive use of the stimulator developed.

At its most frequent, the patient self-stimulated throughout the day,
neglecting personal hygiene and family commitments. A chronic
ulceration developed at the tip of the finger used to adjust the
amplitude dial and she frequently tampered with the device in an
effort to increase the stimulation amplitude. At times, she implored
her to limit her access to the stimulator, each time demanding its
return after a short hiatus. During the past two years, compulsive use
has become associated with frequent attacks of anxiety,
depersonalization, periods of psychogenic polydipsia and virtually
complete inactivity.
Similar cases are still being reported today. A 2005 case report
described a gentleman who had a DBS electrode inserted into the right
subthalamic nucleus to treat the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. He
found that switching the device on and off produced a 'morphine like'
sensation that he became quite fond of.
--

This effect was first discovered in humans in the early 1960s, when
controversial psychiatrist Robert Heath reported on two cases of
people with a number of electrodes implanted in the brain, including
some in similar areas to the patients mentioned above.

In 1972, he undertook a notorious study where he implanted electrodes
into the brain of a consenting 24-year-old gay male who had been
repeatedly hospitalized for chronic suicidal depression and found to
have temporal lobe epilepsy.

The brain implant was specifically introduced for non-sexual reasons
but Heath decided to test whether pleasurable brain stimulation would
encourage the man, known only as B-19, to engage in heterosexual
sexual activity with a prostitute.

The study was a 'success' but has become infamous as one of the more
distasteful episodes in the history of 'gay conversion therapy', which
is quite hard going in a field that is well-known for its distasteful
episodes.

Heath was apparently funded by the CIA as part of their abortive
research programme into 'mind control' techniques, but I can't find
any reliable reference for that, so it might need to be taken with a
pinch of salt."

-- 
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 Sep 17 06:13:59 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:13:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What the frak?
Message-ID: <2d6187670809162313w5e71ccb7y3aac74fe2bc5e316@mail.gmail.com>

The curse word "Battlestar Galactic" created:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/02/tv.what.the.frak.ap/index.html

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080916/495f0497/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 17 06:51:01 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:51:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What the frak?
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809162313w5e71ccb7y3aac74fe2bc5e316@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <2d6187670809162313w5e71ccb7y3aac74fe2bc5e316@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080917015004.0234b7f0@satx.rr.com>

You dagget!



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Wed Sep 17 16:20:57 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:20:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer><2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com><041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com><580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com><004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer><580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com><002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><062801c917b8$aaed27a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080916000918.0245c498@satx.rr.com><070d01c917cc$51a0cdf0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<067d01c91862$794ab2d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <001001c918e1$5ea10950$0301a8c0@MyComputer>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] ESP


> John "Bulldog" Clark advertises his services to Damien
>
>> And if on that other list you want somebody to cover your back let me 
>> know.
>
> You know, I've never seen such a blatent ad for an on-line
> "hit man" in my entire life. But I guess having John Clark on one's
> case for a couple of weeks would indeed make anyone think
> twice about ever giving you a hard time again---so I guess
> I have to go on record as to the efficacy of "the treatment"
> and offer myself as a "reference available".
>
> I take it that for Damien it's free, but I wonder what would be
> the charge per hour for someone else, given that, obviously, the
> subject matter or what side of the issue he'd be on is irrelevant.
>
> Lee
>
> P.S.  And would someone please tell John that in
>
>> Yes millions of people believe in the power
>> of Psy, and even more believe in the power
>> of prayer, it has far more anedoctical
>> evidence than Psy does.
>
> it's "psi" not "psy"? I can't do that, of course, because the
> obstinate one would then deliberately use "psy" on every
> possble occasion he could to create the most negtive affect.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Wed Sep 17 16:23:18 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:23:18 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ESP
References: <2d6187670809110212n51820b04l8a727528dd28acb4@mail.gmail.com><001c01c91425$4edafe10$0301a8c0@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080911135000.02366b28@satx.rr.com><000201c91466$91999130$0301a8c0@MyComputer><2d6187670809111704x5f99735rf95eb0352900cae9@mail.gmail.com><041901c91569$d621f9b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><2d6187670809130426p565f3090jfec3a5076825b4b2@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080913122935.0232f910@satx.rr.com><580930c20809150456j6c97a914s5aab4edf57e439c8@mail.gmail.com><004101c9174c$f47ff670$0301a8c0@MyComputer><580930c20809150917t19b11c38kb03ff78434471ac2@mail.gmail.com><002e01c91772$fc8e13d0$0301a8c0@MyComputer><062801c917b8$aaed27a0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080916000918.0245c498@satx.rr.com><070d01c917cc$51a0cdf0$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
	<067d01c91862$794ab2d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <001501c918e1$bbeb7b90$0301a8c0@MyComputer>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> it's "psi" not "psy"? 

Sigh.

  John K Clark





From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Sep 17 19:10:15 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:10:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Strange connections
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0809171210gea7c3dfg9da8bec49a23964a@mail.gmail.com>

There is an amazing trove out there if you happen to run across it.

"ViaGlobal appears to have used McCain, acting through staffer Chris
Paul, to divert a 2004 FBI internal investigation into dealings
between Rosetta contractors and certain FBI employees. This was the
subject of a meeting held with the FBI's Deputy Director John Pistole
in late 2004.
In mid 2006, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector
General conducted an investigation into criminal activities of the
same FBI employees. Rosetta's phone, email, and contractual records
were subpoenaed. In addition, several Rosetta officials and advisors
were questioned for several weeks."

http://votemccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccain-palin-08.html

There is a trial going on in NYC now, Haji Bashar Noorzai, where all
kind of interesting bits are coming out.  Why they are having this
trial in the run up to the election is beyond me.

Keith


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 17 23:18:14 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:18:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Tim Wise on White Privilege
References: <E3CD8155909E4534933575B7ADF28259@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<710b78fc0809152145q1124c4d8t3f852d930b18ec02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <073901c9191b$b85242e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Emlyn writes

> WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? [9.9.08]
> By Jonathan Haidt
> http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
> 
> It's a really good answer to that nagging question about W, ie: "WTF???!?!?!?"

Well, like a lot of things, it was on my "to read" list. Haidt writes

    and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of
    personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism,
    diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes,
    and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our
    diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait
    that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of
    hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death.
    People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"-a
    simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in
    much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with
    their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Naturally, Haidt doesn't really believe this, if you read the article. He's
no blockhead. More typical is his passage

    ...once I had tried on the moral lenses of my Indian friends
    and interview subjects, I was able to think about
    conservative ideas with a newfound clinical detachment. They
    want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex
    education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps
    would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why
    the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate
    of schools and discourage the view that children should be
    as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives
    think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of
    single motherhood and weaken the traditional social
    structures that compel men to support their own children?
    Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good
    effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had
    escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask
    rhetorical questions later), and began to think about
    liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of
    deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good
    society.

It is high time that someone on the left side, an American self-
confessed liberal, would attempt to get to the bottom of what is
really going on, and make real progress. I've seen or heard 
nothing so successful since Thomas Sowell's work that tries to
*explain*. And we are interested in explaining, right? Or just
ranting our favorite positions?

    Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across
    eras and cultures because they are about the same thing:
    performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals
    into a group. Durkheim long ago said that God is really
    society projected up into the heavens, a collective delusion
    that enables collectives to exist, suppress selfishness, and
    endure. The three Durkheimian foundations (ingroup,
    authority, and purity) play a crucial role in most
    religions. When they are banished entirely from political
    life, what remains is a nation of individuals striving to
    maximize utility while respecting the rules. What remains is
    a cold but fair social contract, which can easily degenerate
    into a nation of shoppers.

And is such an ESS? Casting an eye over history, the answer is no.

    The Democrats must find a way to close the sacredness gap
    that goes beyond occasional and strategic uses of the words
    "God" and "faith." But if Durkheim is right, then sacredness
    is really about society and its collective concerns. God is
    useful but not necessary. The Democrats could close much of
    the gap if they simply learned to see society not just as a
    collection of individuals-each with a panoply of rights--but
    as an entity in itself, an entity that needs some tending
    and caring. Our national motto is e pluribus unum ("from
    many, one"). Whenever Democrats support policies that weaken
    the integrity and identity of the collective (such as
    multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration), they show
    that they care more about pluribus than unum. They widen the
    sacredness gap.

I think he's going too far here. He is suggesting that Democrats (or
leftists) "learn to see" things differently than they already do. It is
one thing to explain the conflict of visions, quite another to prescribe
that one side or the other can change their ways. Lifelong ingrained
habits are not about to change.

     The ingroup/loyalty foundation supports virtues of
     patriotism and self-sacrifice that can lead to dangerous
     nationalism, but in moderate doses a sense that "we are all
     one" is a recipe for high social capital and civic well-being.

Well, how about that!  No kidding!

     A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E
     Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie
     and social isolation by decreasing people's sense of
     belonging to a shared community. Democrats should think
     carefully, therefore, about why they celebrate diversity.

Nicely said---but about fifty years too late for the west.

     If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and
     discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns),
     then these goals might be better served by encouraging
     assimilation and a sense of shared identity.

No, it's much simpler than that. The groups suffering from lack
of group identity and cohesion, and repudiation of shared community,
will, according to Darwinian principles, simply be replaced by groups
that are more fit. So the U.S. will become Hispanic and Europe will
become Moslem. Why? Simply because of meme-sets that got
loose in the 20th century which caused self-disintegration, and 
pride in who we were.

Singularity save us, but if you lose your sense of community with
the others who resemble you culturally and ethnically, and this 
fatal attraction becomes common enough throughout your group,
then you and your group are history.

Lee



From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Sep 18 00:02:13 2008
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:02:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a great movie for Transhumanist grownups and kids...
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809141815n7ed217cbyf9a70952ac4762bf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670809141815n7ed217cbyf9a70952ac4762bf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <71B9A0D964D7439E99723DEAF6F823EB@GinaSony>

Yes, I enjoyed the "Meet the Robinsons" movie very much. As a techno girl, and as an animator. There is of course my animated movie you all might want to consider supporting, as it stands right now I am not generating the kind of support that I need to continue making my movie (which includes nanotech, AI, cryonics and science galore). Please email me offllist to find out how you can help........... um, cuz I really need the help : ) a lot ; ) Thank you! 


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."

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Grigg 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:15 PM
  Subject: [ExI] a great movie for Transhumanist grownups and kids...


  I just saw "Meet the Robinsons" and was totally charmed by this very inspirational and pro-technology film.  A fun and very smart CGI production by Disney (based on the book by William Joyce), it tells the story of Lewis, an orphan who has a brilliant scientific mind and is driven to invent, despite many failures and obstacles.  He gets mixed up with time travelers and has to prevent a horrible timeline from taking hold.  

  When he is in the "future" the name of the city is "Todayland", which I thought was pretty funny (as compared to Disney's "Tomorrowland").  The metropolis was obviously based on retro visions of the future and I loved the scene where a skyscraper is "erected" in the blink of an eye with some unknown technology so that it almost appears to have been inflated like a balloon.  But I'm not sure which one was scarier, the pneumatic public transport tubes in Futurama or the people moving bubbles in Meet the Robinsons! lol

  What I loved most about the film was how much heart it had.  Lewis is desperate to find a loving family to adopt him and finds that the couples looking for kids don't appreciate his (sometimes explosive!) inventing talent.  But by the end of the film he has gained hope and vision for his future and has learned the motto "keep moving forward!"  Lewis knows at that point that his scientific ability can push forward technological progress and over time make a vastly better world.  This movie is ideal to share with kids *and* adults because it has such an overwhelmingly positive message about making the right choices in life (showcasing a villain who excels at blaming others for all his problems and even admits to this) and the importance of science education, invention and technological progress.  It is great Transhumanist family fare.  : )                                   

  Buy several copies for upcoming Christmas gifts!

  John 




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080917/65c253d3/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 18 00:04:14 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:04:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
Message-ID: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jonathan Haidt's article is quite an amazingly good step in the write
direction, but of course, it's only aimed at fellow travelers who wouldn't
dream of voting Republican in the first place.

>> WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? [9.9.08]
>> By Jonathan Haidt
>> http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

But there are other reasons why libertarians, for example, might find
themselves voting more often for the Republican rather than the
Democrat candidate. Of course, I am necessarily restricting my remarks
to those living in the U.S., since although it does stand to reason that
people in other nations would favor Obama, domestically a huge number
of those favoring leftwing candidates already believe that the U.S. is the
number one aggressor nation in the world, the greatest threat to peace,
a culturally aggrandizing, wicked power of globalization, etc.. My remarks
also can't address those whose deepest emotional sentiments are and
have been for years very anti-U.S.

So let me address myself to domestic libertarians, who have since time
immemorial (well, 1971, wasn't that it?) been drawn towards Republicans
on economic issues and repelled from them on social issues. (See the
Nolan Chart, and try taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html )

For me, economic issues dwarf almost everything else. It's simply been
a race between those draining the strength of the economic beast, and
those creating the technological and material wealth that keep it going.
All in all, of course, modern economies do grow exponentially, and
every effort to let government provide more, every increase in taxex,
every reduction of incentive, all naturally reduce that exponent and
bring about incalculable harm over the decades. Harm for all the causes
we hold dear, including life extension and other medical research.

At least the Republicans *talk* a good game, but it seems very seldom 
that they're able to put in place the fiscally conservative policies that
I imagine most of the readers of this list would support. I'm not sure
what explains their failure, and that is the question I would most like
to ask Newt Gingrich, who along with his friends did control both
houses of congress beginning in 1994. I imagine that simple politics,
i.e., who can bring home the most federal bacon to his district, prevailed
and that was that. Another earmark here, another boondoggle there.

Whether or not the government passes lots of ridiculous laws about
abortion, or who can sleep with whom, or whether the kiddies must
or must not pray in school---all these seem trivial to me in comparison.

But the Democrats make few pretensions on economic restraint. It's
perfectly clear from any Democrat platform that ever more socialization
of almost everything and ever more government spending are positive
goods that serve to reform society towards higher ideals. So who do
you trust more to have a *chance* of exercising economic common
sense?  Those who dismiss it entirely, or those who sound as though
they mean it, despite their track record? Not a very good choice, I'll admit.

However, two other areas are important, and at times make it seem as
if economics weren't everything. One is foreign policy, which is important
in the long run to Americans, because it cannot be taken for granted that
the sole superpower status will last forever. A revitalized Russia and an
emergent China suggest that it's only a question of time before the 5000
year history of power politics as usual resumes. And the last people we
want in the White House are those who would exhibit the least naivety
here, one-worlders who really cannot understand the reality of "us vs. them".

Another is stem-cell research. What exactly would happen if Palin became
president? I'm not familiar enough with her views, but it seems to me that
the chances are good that she'd follow the same prescription Bush has
endorsed, namely to remove as much as possible government funding for
the very techniques that look most promising for life extension. Here is
one place where I'll candidly make an unprincipled exception: some issues,
among them defending your country or modest efforts towards space
exploration, are so important that the traditional libertarian views should
be put on hold.

So whether I'll vote Republican is based on "for" 75 percent economics,
"for" 30 percent international relations, and "against" 30 percent stem-cell
and related research.

Lee



From pjmanney at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 00:23:53 2008
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:23:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <29666bf30809171723l38e95fa7tda707a6f9e5175c6@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> So whether I'll vote Republican is based on "for" 75 percent economics,
> "for" 30 percent international relations, and "against" 30 percent stem-cell
> and related research.

McCain Makes Sharp Right Turn on Stem Cells
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/mccain-on-stem.html

Republican presidential nominee John McCain would criminalize a
promising branch of stem cell research, according to a statement
issued by the candidate's campaign. Though such legislation would
probably not survive Congress, he might extend President Bush's
much-criticized limitation of embryonic stem cell research.

"I read the statement as a bad omen for stem cell research under a
McCain administration," said George Daley, a leukemia researcher at
the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

The McCain campaign responded on Monday to questions about stem cell
research posed by ScienceDebate2008, a nonpartisan science advocacy
group.

In his statement, McCain at first claimed to support ESC research.
However, he said "clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal
to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of
scientific progress" -- a qualification that disturbed many scientists
and bioethicists with its ambiguity.

McCain also took a harder line than the Bush administration with
somatic cell nuclear transfer, better known as therapeutic cloning --
a cutting-edge process that could some day provide personalized
embryonic stem cell therapies. Though currently legal, McCain would
outlaw the technique.

The new stance is an abrupt reversal for the Arizona senator. As
recently as 2007, McCain appeared to favor embryonic stem cell
research more strongly than most of the Republican party, especially
its most religiously conservative members. "I believe that we need to
fund this," he said during a presidential candidates' debate in May
2007.

Since then, he's become steadily cagier in his support, courting
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, an ardent opponent of all ESC research, and
avoiding discussion of ESCs in favor of alternative cell types. Those
familiar with the debate interpreted McCain's latest platform, which
framed his support in the language of research opponents, as a signal
that President Bush's research-limiting policies may continue.

"He cannot be trusted to be a supporter of embryonic stem cell
research," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan. "He
is moving toward a straight pro-life stance and this sort of answer
can only be read as such."

The language of this week's statement, said University of Wisconsin
bioethicist R. Alta Charo, "is a close echo of Bush's language used to
support the ban on funding for work with newer lines."

Under President Bush, federal funding is denied for all research on
ESC lines developed after Aug. 9, 2001 -- the date of the moratorium's
announcement.

Only 21 such lines exist, and many of these are contaminated;
scientists say they are insufficient for serious research, much to
fulfill their potential for treating a wide range of diseases.

"McCain's answer is deliberately ambiguous," said Charo. "Nowhere does
he state that he will continue to support expanding embryonic stem
cell research funding beyond the Bush policy."

McCain also denounced "the intentional creation of human embryos for
research purposes" -- a near-verbatim version of the Republican Party
platform -- and calls somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) a form of
"fetal farming."

In SCNT, an egg's nucleus is removed and replaced with the nucleus of
a patient's cell. Under chemical inducement, it forms an embryo from
which, after five days of growth, scientists can harvest
patient-specific embryonic stem cells -- the Holy Grail of
regenerative medicine.

Under President Bush's policy, SCNT is denied federal funding, but
still legal. McCain would make it "a federal crime for researchers to
use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research
purposes."

"I am researching SCNT and so would be considered a criminal if McCain
gets his way," said the Harvard researcher Daley. "It's a sad society
that starts criminalizing legitimate science."

Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology,
noted that the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the
National Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical Association all
support SCNT. McCain "would fine and/or imprison scientists for this
work," said Lanza.

Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center, a nonpartisan
bioethics think tank, said that McCain's proposition would almost
certainly be rejected by Congress, which has repeatedly rejected
ESC-criminalizing legislation. Instead, he said, McCain was likely
trying to placate religious fundamentalists.

"But if implemented, this could have quite radical implications," he
said. "It's a far leap from anything resembling current U.S. policy."

The McCain campaign did not respond to e-mail or telephone queries
regarding this story.


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 18 01:27:09 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:27:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net>

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 05:04:14PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> At least the Republicans *talk* a good game, but it seems very seldom 
> that they're able to put in place the fiscally conservative policies that
> I imagine most of the readers of this list would support. I'm not sure
> what explains their failure, and that is the question I would most like
> to ask Newt Gingrich, who along with his friends did control both
> houses of congress beginning in 1994. I imagine that simple politics,

Well, these days there's a little war thing soaking up money.  Oh, and
the ongoing collapse of the banking system.  Can't speak for Newt.

> Whether or not the government passes lots of ridiculous laws about
> abortion, or who can sleep with whom, or whether the kiddies must
> or must not pray in school---all these seem trivial to me in comparison.

Let me guess... the author is a straight man.

What matters more?  Growth tomorrow, or rights today?

> of almost everything and ever more government spending are positive
> goods that serve to reform society towards higher ideals. So who do
> you trust more to have a *chance* of exercising economic common
> sense?  Those who dismiss it entirely, or those who sound as though
> they mean it, despite their track record? Not a very good choice, I'll 

The party with historically higher growth rates, regardless of rhetoric?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html
The party whose policies could plausibly lead to balanced budgets, vs.
the borrow and spend of the Republicans and resulting economic drag?

BTw, an article on Obama's economic influences
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html

> the sole superpower status will last forever. A revitalized Russia and an
> emergent China suggest that it's only a question of time before the 5000
> year history of power politics as usual resumes. And the last people we
> want in the White House are those who would exhibit the least naivety
> here, one-worlders who really cannot understand the reality of "us vs. 
> them".

Not that there's anything self-fulfilling about foreign policy
attitudes.  Oh, wait.

Or anything valuable about maintaining a healthy alliance of
democracies and of goodwill.

Also BTW, a different 2D quiz:
http://quiz2d.com/

-xx- Damien X-) 


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 18 02:18:12 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:18:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <075901c91935$2635c930$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien S. writes

>> Whether or not the government passes lots of ridiculous laws about
>> abortion, or who can sleep with whom, or whether the kiddies must
>> or must not pray in school---all these seem trivial to me in comparison.
> 
> Let me guess... the author is a straight man.

This here is our problem. With every man... oh, sorry, person... thinking
only of him/her/self  it's just as Haidt is saying. Consider a man, gay at heart
who thinks first of his country---will any mere personal burden so betray
him that he's no longer part of his nation's soul?

Well---hope you got a laugh out of that 19th, er, no 4th century B.C.
riposte  :-)

> What matters more?  Growth tomorrow, or rights today?

I'm *so* interested in growth, that very small infringements don't bother
me; For example, I'm fine with the Securities and Exchange Commission
taking away some of my freedom to buy and sell with whom I want
when I want. Nor does it bother me that I cannot buy a piece of 
land and build anything I want there, but must bow to zoning ordinances.
And I'm even *relieved* that the government curtails what I may
wear or not wear, explicitly prohibiting nudity. Naked sex on public
streets and in the parks should be prohibited too, not to mention
the sexual seduction of small children.

As for abortion "rights", privacy "rights", and other novelties, no,
I don't think they matter at all, compared with having a sound
economy. Being poor or collapsed makes those things appear
pretty trivial.

>> year history of power politics as usual resumes. And the last people we
>> want in the White House are those who would exhibit the least naivety
>> here, one-worlders who really cannot understand the reality of "us vs. 
>> them".
> 
> Not that there's anything self-fulfilling about foreign policy
> attitudes.  Oh, wait.

Yes, indeed, there can be something quite dangerous here. Too much
suspicion can actually start conflicts that no one wanted. But as with
most things, seek moderation. Simply understand that in the real world
some people and some institutions are almost unimaginably evil. Don't
wonder at *anything* the Gestapo or the NKVD, or their modern
counterparts in some places in the world might do. Well--you probably
know that.

> Or anything valuable about maintaining a healthy alliance of
> democracies and of goodwill.

Nothing wrong with that at all. Remember, no two democracies have
*ever* gone to war against each other. (IN 1812, Great Britain was
not a democracy, with only 3% of the people able to vote.)

> Also BTW, a different 2D quiz:  http://quiz2d.com/

Interesting.

For once, my little splotch of red stayed entirely out of the
conservative domain. But I still tilt to the right of pure libertarian.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 18 02:29:55 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:29:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] People are Genuine Altruists, Sociopaths,
	or Confused/Moody
References: <02c001c90adf$5890f710$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200808302159.40129.mail@harveynewstrom.com><002e01c90bf3$bce32110$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><200809052114.07552.mail@harveynewstrom.com><01a401c9121d$55a1d2f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><786CD606C4224D209F1821CCFF1B0671@Catbert><026d01c913e2$014a1a20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><D22231AB3FBA4A84829E008F0953EE29@Catbert><042201c9156c$a4631d20$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><6A142A2B1E7F4570B0B3D55617FD2C39@Catbert><046801c915ff$2e845cc0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><A511C7D9EF3040C6A265FAB0CD3DB4B4@Catbert><055f01c916b9$0c39df90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><3BD726C2FDE440A384DE9FA89E99A9A1@Catbert><061e01c917b2$5a1a7270$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<611C2C283AF34A2891F91F184A3C07B8@Catbert>
Message-ID: <075f01c91936$8eb736f0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Harvey writes

>>>> Well, I don't think so.  And so why don't you just wait for the
>>>> "big moment", and be unafraid of answering my little admissions?
>>
>> Here, yes, indeed I was suggesting that you be unafraid, yes, implying
>> that perhaps you were at the moment afraid.
> 
> Yes.  And more than that, you keep wasting my time by goading me into 
> waiting for some "big moment".

All in your mind.

> Maybe the joke's on me.  But I'm beginning to "conjecture" that there is
> no big moment.  "It's as though" you are just stringing me along to see
> how long you can keep me in a conversation that never actually goes anywhere.

I'm interested now, just as I was interested then, in finding out
the truth. I'm sorry if my questions make you uncomfortable.
Often, it really is the case that I just want to know (though,
yes, often I ask with an air of incredulity).

> "You seem" to be doing this on purpose.  You 
> really are an asshole, "eh?"

Not at all. Not by the normal meaning of the term. I wasn't doing this
to annoy or insult you. I want to understand why you think that you 
do certain actions, like leave tips in restaurants you'll never visit again
(and, by the way, your list in one of your last emails, I forgot to mention,
was very helpful---though I'm still standing by my claim that either you
are doing what you do for selfish reasons, self-interested reasons, or
you are not; and if not, then you really are a genuine altruist).

And I'm not about to flare into outrage or anger at your cute little
question "You really are an asshole, eh?".

> I'm going to stick you in my kill file.  That way I don't have to see your 
> "conjectures" that I am too afraid to argue with you, and mistake those for 
> actual claims or statements that I should respond to.

Yes, that's what I expect from certain people. Better, they think, just to turn away.

Just *who* have you ever argued with, I wonder, that sooner or later didn't end
up in your kill file, for it's hard for me to imagine you having a protracted exchange
with anyone that doesn't end venomously.

Lee



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 18 05:18:49 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
Message-ID: <685968.72086.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:15 PM, The Avantguardian
> <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Now imagine that that binary string of ones is written
> in the tiniest font imaginable -- merely one Planck length
> wide. Written on space-time, the big binary integer would
> stretch the distance between Earth and the Sun. So now when
> I add a 1 to it, an additional 1 bit gets added to the end
> of the string near the sun and the rest of the bits from the
> earth to the sun become zeroes. . . instaneously! Even
> though if Superman used his supervision to watch that
> distant bit change, he would have to wait 8 long minutes for
> the information to arrive.
> 
> This reminds me of the topological deformation question I
> think I
> asked in this thread.  What you are describing sounds like
> a state
> change without a propagation from one state to another. 

Yes, I was decribing a state change without propagation. What I was alluding to was that there was no reason that a given quantum system could not itself change state in no time, provided that any information, regarding the state change does not propagate faster than light. As my example shows, a large integer could be considered non-local.

In other words, even though the binary string changed from all ones to almost all zeros in abstract non-time, Superman, were he watching, would see the zeroes start at Earth and propagate toward the Sun at the speed of light. However if he was hovering in outer space halfway between the Earth and the Sun, looking down perpendicularly on the bit string, he would see it start to change to zeroes in the middle and spread outward toward the ends.

I guess the best way to describe what I what I was trying to show by my example is that there really isn't a reason why an abstract waveequation could not could not switch between states instaneously, even if the information took a while to catch up. Just like if Superman *knew* that I was simply adding one to my large integer, he could have done math and known exactly what would happen, without having to *wait* for the information to actually get to him. Keep in mind this is a very loose analogy for collapse/decoherence because a wavefunction is more complex than an integer. 

In this regard, the wavefunction is the mathematical decription of our *a priori ignorance* about the state of a quantum system much like a prior distribution is in Bayesian inference. I consider it axiomatic that ignorance is necessarily subjective and a recurrent theme in QM seems to be that the universe enforces a minimal degree of ignorance in all observers, even if the system under consideration has to act highly counter-intuitively to do so.

I believe this may be a side-effect of our conscious perception of time in the sense that if we were certain about the future it would cease to be the future as distinguishable from the past. But then again, the deep past is just as unknowable as the future.

> I
> was
> thinking about photon being related to electron shells in
> discrete
> units - it either exists in one state or another, but there
> is no 'in
> between' - or is that a probability of indeterminate
> states?

That is an excellent question, Mike. Quantum mechanics traditionally ascribes these photons to be in a superposition of both states until you attempt to observe them, whereupon they snap to one state or another. It is not so much the probability of the indeterminate state as a vector addition of *all* the possible states which can be used to find the probability of each state individually.

If you are a maverick who believes that the particle is *a priori* in one state or the other, that is called a "hidden variable theory". None of the prevailing interpretations is a hidden variable theory, but in the early days Bohm did some interesting work with what he called pilot waves that you may want to read up on.

The reason for this is that there are some quantum phenomena that can't be explained by hidden variables. People like to talk about the Bell Theorem in regards to this but there other problems with hidden variables as well. Quantum tunneling is an example. You can put a particle inside a box, and if the wavefunction of the particle extends outside of the box, there is a *chance* the particle will escape the box even if you designed the box to be impervious to the particle. Obviously the particle cannot be *a priori* outside of the box, because you put the particle in the box to begin with. If that isn't the universe messing with your mind, what is? BTW how does MWI explain quantum tunneling?

>  If a
> probability, then does the probability move toward a state,
> or does
> the eventual state reflect the outcome of a wave collapse?

That depends on the situation. For example if a physicist generates a slow moving low momentum particle in freespace, the large wavelength of the wavefunction would be interpreted by him to mean that particle was smeared out over huge area at a fairly low probability density. 

If our physicist were to sample a small section of that space for the particle by enclosing that area in an inpenetrable box, for example and not find it, that new information would change the particle's wavefunction and therefore its probability density and its momentum.

So in effect, repeated observations would not so much "collapse" the wave function as to cause it to evolve in increments toward the final state. So the more boxes he uses to sample the space, the fewer places the particle could be. And when he eventually found it, it would be going a lot faster than it was when he generated it, because it would be confined to the space within the box, removing uncertainty about its position but increasing its momentum.

> To reference Lee's response to this post, is there any
> difference in
> Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2? 
> is there a
> way to distinguish the moment t'2.

Well the rest of your post is something I would hand off to Lee. He is more familar with other universes than I am. I for one don't believe in Platonia any more than I believe in the Langoliers. For me the realm of abstraction is the mind. And in the mind, t1 to t2 can take as long or as short as you want. Don't believe me? Then close your eyes and imagine yourself flying a few laps around Jupiter. I bet it takes you less than a minute even if you pose for pictures over the red spot. How's that for FTL? ;-)


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 moulton at moulton.com  Thu Sep 18 06:03:18 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:03:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <1221717798.7201.16167.camel@hayek>


On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 18:27 -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 05:04:14PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
> > Whether or not the government passes lots of ridiculous laws about
> > abortion, or who can sleep with whom, or whether the kiddies must
> > or must not pray in school---all these seem trivial to me in comparison.
> 
> Let me guess... the author is a straight man.
> 
> What matters more?  Growth tomorrow, or rights today?
> 

Let me state the obvious: individual liberty is not trivial to a
libertarian.  Damien, your point is spot on.  It is rather difficult to
enjoy economic growth if a man or woman is in prison for having a sexual
experience with a member of the same sex.

One of the major problems that the libertarian movement has is the
number of people who call themselves libertarians yet fundamentally do
not understand it and really are just conservatives.  These people are
not libertarians they are just poseurs.

Fred




From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 07:13:17 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:13:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Tim Wise on White Privilege
In-Reply-To: <073901c9191b$b85242e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <E3CD8155909E4534933575B7ADF28259@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<710b78fc0809152145q1124c4d8t3f852d930b18ec02@mail.gmail.com>
	<073901c9191b$b85242e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809180013x46108756q1151101841a63ac1@mail.gmail.com>

>
>    A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E
>    Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie
>    and social isolation by decreasing people's sense of
>    belonging to a shared community. Democrats should think
>    carefully, therefore, about why they celebrate diversity.
>
> Nicely said---but about fifty years too late for the west.
>


Ummm...., what should the West have done over the past fifty years to
prevent this fate?



>
>    If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and
>    discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns),
>    then these goals might be better served by encouraging
>    assimilation and a sense of shared identity.
>
> No, it's much simpler than that. The groups suffering from lack
> of group identity and cohesion, and repudiation of shared community,
> will, according to Darwinian principles, simply be replaced by groups
> that are more fit. So the U.S. will become Hispanic and Europe will
> become Moslem. Why? Simply because of meme-sets that got
> loose in the 20th century which caused self-disintegration, and pride in
> who we were.



But will the Mexican/Latino/Hispanic/Spanish who dominate mid and late 21st
century America get along with the Moslems ruling Europe??  I see a fight
happening! lol  Would the temperament and desire to use military force
change for both these power blocs with such drastic changes in their
demographics?


Singularity save us, but if you lose your sense of community with
> the others who resemble you culturally and ethnically, and this fatal
> attraction becomes common enough throughout your group,
> then you and your group are history.
>


This has been the primary preaching point of arch-conservative talking head
Pat Buchanan.  By what decade do you think whites will be a minority in the
United States? lol  But it doesn't really matter, what counts is that the
memes/values which lead to American solidarity and greatness are passed on
to those of other ethnic & cultural groups before they dominate the nation.


John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080918/13e680b6/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 18 07:34:58 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
Message-ID: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

If the American people now own 80% of AIG, the world's largest insurance company, does that we mean we get to have nationalized healthcare now? Or are AIG's customers going to have to continue to pay premiums to be eligible to file any claims that will end up being paid with their own tax dollars?

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 benboc at lineone.net  Thu Sep 18 09:51:47 2008
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:51:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <mailman.157.1221697463.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.157.1221697463.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <48D224B3.7020101@lineone.net>

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> speculated:

 > what I think Lee was asking was not do we laugh
 > at jokes we are reading.  Everyone does that.  But do we ever just
 > think of something and laugh.  I do, but that is a very interesting
 > question, which goes back to one I asked a few years ago in this
 > forum: when something is funny, why do we stop laughing eventually?
 > When we are sad, why do we stop weeping?  What changes?

I understood the question to be "do we laugh when there is no-one else 
around, so no social benefit?"

Can you clarify, Lee?

Laughing at something you just thought of is the same as laughing at 
something you've read, if you've already read it before, i think.
Unless it's something novel you just thought of.

But yes, i do that. I'd expect everyone does.

The question of why do we stop laughing is probably partly habituation, 
partly necessity (or we'd be extinct, having laughed ourselves into the 
belly of a lion).

The thing that changes is the amount of time you've been doing it. 
Nothing is endlessly enjoyable, without pause. We have built-in 
mechanisms to make sure we stop doing things, at least for a while.

I expect that if you can keep doing the same thing all day, day after 
day, without pause except for loo breaks, food and sleep, then either 
you're pharmaceutically enhanced or something's broken.

There's probably also a social component. What would you think of 
someone who always laughed twice as long as everyone else? It would get 
tedious after a while, no?  You'd probably end up regarding them as a 
complete prat.

Hm, that's interesting. If there's a 'right amount of time' to laugh 
for, in a social context, i wonder if this time varies between different 
groups of people?

Ben Zaiboc


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 11:12:25 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:12:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809180412r351a87eam3e0fc226e88d0f93@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:34 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:
> If the American people now own 80% of AIG, the world's largest insurance company, does that we mean we get > to have nationalized healthcare now? Or are AIG's customers going to have to continue to pay premiums to be
> eligible to file any claims that will end up being paid with their own tax dollars?
>


You can hope.  :)
But governments usually have no problem with taxing poor people then
giving benefits back to them because they are below the poverty level.
Keeps their bureaucracies in business. That's the way the UK works
anyway.

This crisis is all down to an overdose of the free market.
Bush did away with all the old boring banking regulations, 'cause the
free market is great, isn't it?
So all the greedy smart-alecs sold funny-money bonds to each other,
pocketing millions in commission on every deal. Then borrowed more
money using the previous funny-money bonds as security, more
commission, more deals, more commission, until the whole pyramid
scheme collapsed.

They get to keep their commission and are put in charge of sorting the
mess out, because they are financial wizards! It is the poor smucks
lower down the scale that lose their homes, jobs and pensions.

But it is going to be pretty traumatic to get all the funny-money
shaken out of the system. At the moment nobody trusts anyone.  It will
take years for trust to come back into the financial system.


BillK


From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 13:09:51 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:09:51 +1000
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809180412r351a87eam3e0fc226e88d0f93@mail.gmail.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0809180412r351a87eam3e0fc226e88d0f93@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809180609g75345ce9m9c61a63682819342@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/18 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:

> This crisis is all down to an overdose of the free market.
> Bush did away with all the old boring banking regulations, 'cause the
> free market is great, isn't it?
> So all the greedy smart-alecs sold funny-money bonds to each other,
> pocketing millions in commission on every deal. Then borrowed more
> money using the previous funny-money bonds as security, more
> commission, more deals, more commission, until the whole pyramid
> scheme collapsed.
>
> They get to keep their commission and are put in charge of sorting the
> mess out, because they are financial wizards! It is the poor smucks
> lower down the scale that lose their homes, jobs and pensions.
>
> But it is going to be pretty traumatic to get all the funny-money
> shaken out of the system. At the moment nobody trusts anyone.  It will
> take years for trust to come back into the financial system.

Of course, this isn't a problem at all for the free marketeers, not in
the slightest. Bankruptcy, depression, starvation, paranoia: it's all
a necessary part of the process that weeds out the bad and promotes
the good.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From artillo at comcast.net  Thu Sep 18 13:28:07 2008
From: artillo at comcast.net (artillo at comcast.net)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:28:07 +0000
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
Message-ID: <091820081328.18008.48D257660006B401000046582200737478010404079B9D0E@comcast.net>


I think that if I was an AIG customer I would only pay 20% of my premium, seeing as now we own 80% of them. ;)

I certainly don't expect the government to step up and do anything for ME if I start to slide towards insolvency. Hmmm... maybe I should write them a letter to them requesting a bailout from my current debt so I can afford to put food on my family's table. I wonder what kind of response I would get back.

It really REALLY irritates me that the government would bail out ANY company (yeah, I understand that it's a messy entanglement with these giant companies and it really can't be simplified as much as I'd like it to be, BUT....). Think about it. A small business that goes under for whatever reason has to deal with the consequences of it's actions. AFAIC that's the nature of business... you take a risk, you pay the consequences of your decisions and hope that those consequences produce positive returns.

It seems to me it's just one more piece of evidence showing that supply-side/"trickle-down" economics doesn't work.

my 2 cents,

Artillo


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> If the American people now own 80% of AIG, the world's largest insurance 
> company, does that we mean we get to have nationalized healthcare now? Or are 
> AIG's customers going to have to continue to pay premiums to be eligible to file 
> any claims that will end up being paid with their own tax dollars?
> 
> Stuart LaForge
> 
> "See them clamber, these nimble apes!  They clamber over one another, and thus 
> scuffle into the mud and the abyss."- Friedrich Nietzsche
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From scerir at libero.it  Thu Sep 18 13:17:29 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:17:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <108496.35585.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<62c14240809161321n5d8f4017nf50266b17c4a0421@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000701c91990$e763eb40$fd074797@archimede>

Mike Dougherty:
> thinking about photon being related to electron 
> shells in discrete units - it either exists in one 
> state or another, but there is no 'in between' - 
> or is that a probability of indeterminate states?  
> If a probability, then does the probability move 
> toward a state, or does the eventual state reflect 
> the outcome of a wave collapse?

Subtle questions. And the possible answers depend
on the specific points of view, or interpretations.
What are these states? Are they physical? Are they
mathematical? Are they statistical? Do they represent
informations carried by a quantum system? Do they 
represent observer's information? Rather, do they 
represent the 'image' of the information carried by 
a quantum system? Do they represent experimental contexts? 
Do they represent statistical ensembles? Or do they 
represent single systems? Are they subjective? Are they 
objective? Are they tendencies, propensities, potentialities? 
Are they actualities? Should we give up the possibility 
of treating the wave function as an isomorphic image 
of what is actually processed in the laboratory?

In QM the outcome of a measurement - repeated many
times - of an observable, isn't in general the same. 
So QM gives the expectation value of the observable 
to be measured. (In special cases it gives the actual 
outcome of the measurement, non just the expectation 
value).

While it is possible to say that QM does not care of
unperformed measurements, what can we say about the
value of an observable between two measurements?
Is it undefined? Is it unknowable? 

In QM the total information of a system, represented 
by the state vector, is never complete. Information
is limited. The total information of a system suffices 
to specify the eigenstate of one observable only, 
at choice. Thus, all possible future measurement results 
cannot be precisely defined.

The state vector can be said to represent our knowledge 
about the recent history of a system which is necessary 
to arrive at the set of probabilistic predictions
for all possible future observations of the system.
The set of future probabilistic predictions specified 
by the recent history of the system is indifferent 
to the knowledge collected from all the previous measurements 
in the whole history of the system. As Pauli once wrote: 
"In the case of indefiniteness of a property of a system 
for a certain experimental arrangement (for a certain
state of the system) any attempt to measure that property 
destroys (at least partially) the influence of earlier 
knowledge of the system on (possibly statistical) statements 
about later possible measurement results."

Can we say that the observable has a *definite* value between 
two measurements? No, in general we cannot say that. 
If the state is a pure state (and not a mixture) we cannot 
say there is any definite value [1].

Can we say the value of the observable is *unknowable* between
two measurements? No, we cannot say that, because QM in general
provides a sort of information, a sort of knowledge, whose nature
is probabilistic though.  
 
[1]
Imagine a spin-1/2 particle. Imagine its state described by 
the superposition psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z].
There are two possibilities.
    A) That psi above is a pure state. Since we know that
(s+)_z = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_x +(s-)_x]
(s-)_z = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_x -(s-)_x]
(where _z, _x, are the z-component and the x-component of spin) 
we can write that psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] = (s+)_x.
Now, if the x-component of spin is measured by passing 
the spin-1/2 particle through a Stern-Gerlach with its field 
oriented along the x-axis, the particle will *always* emerge 'up' 
(that is, as (s+)_x). The experiment confirms that.
    B) But if by sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] we mean
a *mixture* of sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z] and sqrt(1/2)[(s-)_z],
we might also think that -before measurement- the particle 
has a *definite* value of the z-projection of spin,
say [(s+)_z] or [(s-)_z]. But in this case, measuring the 
x-component of the spin, we would find 'up' with the
probability 0,5 and 'down' with the same probability.
Experiments does not confirm that! 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Sep 18 13:13:23 2008
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:13:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30809171723l38e95fa7tda707a6f9e5175c6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<29666bf30809171723l38e95fa7tda707a6f9e5175c6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000101c91990$542f70b0$0501a8c0@DFC68LF1>

 
A fear of socialism.



From russell.rukin at lineone.net  Thu Sep 18 13:37:21 2008
From: russell.rukin at lineone.net (Russell Rukin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:37:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <000101c91990$542f70b0$0501a8c0@DFC68LF1>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<29666bf30809171723l38e95fa7tda707a6f9e5175c6@mail.gmail.com>
	<000101c91990$542f70b0$0501a8c0@DFC68LF1>
Message-ID: <48D25991.7020806@lineone.net>

Ha, like the US has any electable party that would implement socialist 
policies! The democrats would be considered right wing in most European 
countries...


Russell R



Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>  
> A fear of socialism.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>   




From max at maxmore.com  Thu Sep 18 14:06:35 2008
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:06:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809180412r351a87eam3e0fc226e88d0f93@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0809180412r351a87eam3e0fc226e88d0f93@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080918140636.KSJB17523.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>

At 06:12 AM 9/18/2008, you wrote:

>This crisis is all down to an overdose of the free market.

It had nothing to do with the fed holding interests rates down too 
low for years, right? Of course not. Nor did it have anything to do 
with the moral hazard created by government financial guarantees. 
Anti-marketeers always miss the real causes.

Max




Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Sep 18 14:31:00 2008
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:31:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <48D25991.7020806@lineone.net>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<29666bf30809171723l38e95fa7tda707a6f9e5175c6@mail.gmail.com><000101c91990$542f70b0$0501a8c0@DFC68LF1>
	<48D25991.7020806@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <2FA51052839B4A45AD3FAA8DAB0260BC@DFC68LF1>


Well, sure, but that is not a equitable comparision.  It is impracticale to
loosely compare any country's system to the systems of other countries
because the processes have deep history in the building of policies, the
relationship of society to these politices, and the meaning of the terms
terms used to express them.

Natasha Vita-More
 

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Rukin
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:37 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican

Ha, like the US has any electable party that would implement socialist
policies! The democrats would be considered right wing in most European
countries...


Russell R



Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>  
> A fear of socialism.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 pharos at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 14:34:22 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:34:22 +0000
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <20080918140636.KSJB17523.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0809180412r351a87eam3e0fc226e88d0f93@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080918140636.KSJB17523.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809180734v7fe25fd0vc470da07724ce21f@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Max More wrote:
> It had nothing to do with the fed holding interests rates down too low for
> years, right? Of course not. Nor did it have anything to do with the moral
> hazard created by government financial guarantees. Anti-marketeers always
> miss the real causes.
>

There are many contributory factors and side-issues.

But the *main* cause was lack of regulation. The sharks saw an
opportunity, thought they could get away with it, and, indeed, not
only did get away with it but were handsomely rewarded for their
greed. Until the house of cards fell down. This always happens to
unregulated markets when greed is given free reign and the gangsters
take over.

This crisis is being analyzed every which way, with blame being flung
to all quarters. There are hundreds of articles being written.

But for one opinion see:
<http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html>

Quote:
As we learn this morning via Julie Satow of the NY Sun, special
exemptions from the SEC are in large part responsible for the huge
build up in financial sector leverage over the past 4 years -- as well
as the massive current unwind

Satow interviews the above quoted former SEC director, and he spits
out the blunt truth: The current excess leverage now unwinding was the
result of a purposeful SEC exemption given to five firms.

You read that right -- the events of the past year are not a mere
accident, but are the results of a conscious and willful SEC decision
to allow these firms to legally violate existing net capital rules
that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net
capital ratio to 12-to-1.

Instead, the 2004 exemption -- given only to 5 firms -- allowed them
to lever up 30 and even 40 to 1.

Who were the five that received this special exemption? You won't be
surprised to learn that they were Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear
Stearns, and Morgan Stanley.
-----------------


BillK


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 18 14:54:27 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:54:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <108496.35585.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<62c14240809161321n5d8f4017nf50266b17c4a0421@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <07a201c9199e$7494b640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Mike writes

> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:15 PM, The Avantguardian
> <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> For example, imagine an incredibly large finite integer as a
>> binary string that is 10^46 bits long. Now imagine I add 1
>> to that integer, what happens? That huge binary string
>> grows by a single bit which becomes a 1, while the
>> other 10^46 bits become zeroes:
>>
>> {11111 . . . 10^46 . . . 11111} + {1} = {10000 . . . 10^46+1 . . .00000}
>>
>> How long did that take?
>>
>> Now imagine that that binary string of ones is written in
>> the tiniest font imaginable -- merely one Planck length wide.
>> Written on space-time, the big binary integer would stretch
>> the distance between Earth and the Sun. So now when I
>> add a 1 to it, an additional 1 bit gets added to the end of
>> the string near the sun and the rest of the bits from the
>> earth to the sun become zeroes. . . instantaneously!

Yes, "instantaneously"!     ;-)

>  Even though if Superman used his supervision to watch
> that distant bit change, he would have to wait 8 long
> minutes for the information to arrive.

I already expressed to Stuart that all this seemed to me
an improper mixing of the abstract and a supposed-real
computation (involving "carry's" in addition, no less) that
might take place on some real computing device.

> This reminds me of the topological deformation question I think I
> asked in this thread.  What you are describing sounds like a state
> change without a propagation from one state to another.  I was
> thinking about photon being related to electron shells in discrete
> units - it either exists in one state or another, but there is no 'in
> between' - or is that a probability of indeterminate states?  If a
> probability, then does the probability move toward a state, or does
> the eventual state reflect the outcome of a wave collapse?

Naturally, I can't address that because it involves concepts
which, to put it mildly, I don't understand at all, namely
"wave collapse".

> To reference Lee's response to this post, is there any difference in
> Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2?  is there a
> way to distinguish the moment t'2 ?

I am not 100% sure I know what you are asking, but if
you are asking about one timeless "event" in platonia
(the universe of all possible patterns), where an integer
is supposed somehow to have value "99999999" and
then at some other place in platonia "it" (whatever is
remaining constant here is very mysterious to me)  has
the value "100000000" (i.e. one more), I don't know
how to connect that with any possible computing 
machinery that might exist in the space between the
Earth and the sun. One can merely say that in timeless
platonia all patterns already exist, including all the 
positive numbers like 99999999 and 100000000.

> How do we know at t3 that some of our peers didn't
> actually experience t'2?  If that's a perfectly valid
> transition of states, why not observer t1, t'1, t3, t'3 ?

Asking about peers brings in a lot of extra machinery,
from my point of view. To me, we are *no longer* 
talking about quantum mechanics or physics per se,
but whatever neural events may occur in the brains
of some very large evolutionarily derived Earth organisms.
Indeed, it seems folly to try to compare experiences 
between any two of these monstrously large human
beings, to say that somehow when one of them has
a (vast) experience involving billions of neurons (that
were perhaps set into motion by the result of what
the organism thought about certain photons collected
in its retina), and that it is comparable to some other
experiences of an entirely different organism also
involving billions of neurons.

> Maybe people who observe life this way (upconverted
> from a lower definition) have a difficult time understanding
> those who perceive t1, t2, t3, t4 (non-interlaced)  Likewise
> there may be observers capable of comfortable perceiving
> t1, t2+t'2, t3 (even numbered moments simultaneously
> "in stereo" from two universes)  I'll stop here now
> because if you're with me, then you are probably capable of refuting
> this point; if not then no further examples make sense anyway.

Yes, sorry, but I do think that people's experiences are not
at all that comparable. We're damned lucky that we can even 
both look up into the sky and agree that it's dark---although
if the conversation is allowed to proceed very long, exactly
how dark and exactly which points of light conceal the darkness
and by how much will lead to controversy, with one of us
reading one value of a spectrometer and another of us reading
an almost but not quite equal value.

Lee



From russell.rukin at lineone.net  Thu Sep 18 14:50:49 2008
From: russell.rukin at lineone.net (Russell Rukin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:50:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <2FA51052839B4A45AD3FAA8DAB0260BC@DFC68LF1>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<29666bf30809171723l38e95fa7tda707a6f9e5175c6@mail.gmail.com><000101c91990$542f70b0$0501a8c0@DFC68LF1>	<48D25991.7020806@lineone.net>
	<2FA51052839B4A45AD3FAA8DAB0260BC@DFC68LF1>
Message-ID: <48D26AC9.9050003@lineone.net>

Sure but to continue with the over simplification in the US I get the 
impression that.

Liberal = bed wetting appeaser
Socialist = communist

When I hear republicans use those tags they blatantly or in a more 
subtle form try to make those links.

I agree with THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?ex=1379044800&en=c3c37388fe4618aa&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg 


Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country 
on breathing life into a 19th-century technology ? fossil fuels ? rather 
than giving birth to a 21st-century technology ? renewable energy? As I 
have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. 
revolution ? on the eve of PCs and the Internet ? is pounding the table 
for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. 
?Typewriters, baby, typewriters.?

Forgetting completely 'bed wetting liberal green issues' we as 
technoprogressives surely want, 'need' advanced technologies to 
flourish? I see more Nano technology in solar, hydrogen and new battery 
technology than I do in revamping 19th century oil based technology...


Russell R


Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> Well, sure, but that is not a equitable comparision.  It is impracticale to
> loosely compare any country's system to the systems of other countries
> because the processes have deep history in the building of policies, the
> relationship of society to these politices, and the meaning of the terms
> terms used to express them.
>
> Natasha Vita-More
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Rukin
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:37 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
>
> Ha, like the US has any electable party that would implement socialist
> policies! The democrats would be considered right wing in most European
> countries...
>
>
> Russell R
>   




From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Sep 18 15:21:13 2008
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:21:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Human as Hybrid
Message-ID: <EDE9B773D5CF4FFDA7B3E173554E23E5@DFC68LF1>

No one knows if we are the hybrid of interspecies breeding of Neandertals
and Cro-Magnons.  This is one theory and recently called a myth.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/12/10/2114205.htm  Who knows.  

 

Regardless, we are comprised of many cells containing DNA that is not human
- we are "1,000 species and more than 10 trillion bacterial cells inside us
at any given time." (Nicholson)   Some of these cells are invasive and our
immune system fights them.  Other microns are beneficial and make their way
into our system and often even help to fight of other invasive organisms.

 

Is this a good enough argument that humans are hybrids?  If so, why?

 

Natasha <http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/12/10/2114205.htm> 

Natasha Vita-More <http://www.natasha.cc/> 

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080918/5dea0972/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Thu Sep 18 15:22:17 2008
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:22:17 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>

The "people" do not own 80% of AIG. The federal government (which is 
NOT the people) *loaned* AIG $85 billion, to keep it going as new 
management sells off its businesses. You can say, loosely, that the 
government now *controls* AIG indirectly, but not that it owns it. 
Unless the transition is badly botched, only part of that $85 billion 
will be a cost to the taxpayers.

To add to my previous comment (barely post-waking-up): The knee-jerk 
finger pointing at markets at the problem is frustrating. Yes, it's 
entirely possible that problems can arise in financial markets 
through poor decision making and herd behavior. But such problems 
will usually reveal themselves before they grow as large as the 
recent Western financial problems. They only grow monstrous if the 
government won't allow the fuse to blow.

The anti-market types blame markets without reservation, despite the fact that
--the Federal Reserve, formed by the government, played a central 
role in the financial crisis with its insistence on keeping interests 
too low for too long.
--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-formed institutions that 
were given a legally-enforced monopoly over "conforming loans." 
Political pressures have distorted the market by pushing money to 
borrowers who wouldn't otherwise have received them.
--By bailing out AIG but not Lehman, the government will create 
additional financial uncertainty.

The economy will only grow more complex in the future. I find it 
disturbing how so many of us still run to Great God Government for 
top-down solutions to the intricacies of complex economic systems.

Max





At 02:34 AM 9/18/2008, you wrote:
>If the American people now own 80% of AIG, the world's largest 
>insurance company, does that we mean we get to have nationalized 
>healthcare now? Or are AIG's customers going to have to continue to 
>pay premiums to be eligible to file any claims that will end up 
>being paid with their own tax dollars?
>
>Stuart LaForge



From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Sep 18 15:23:04 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:23:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809180823v7bdf6751h73f084d6e203327c@mail.gmail.com>

Recommended, highly relevant to much discussion here, but not freely available.

<http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2008/5/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group>

- Jef

------------------

The process known as group selection was once accepted unthinkingly,
then was widely discredited; it's time for a more discriminating
assessment

David Sloan Wilson, Edward O. Wilson

The process known as group selection was once a central part of
evolutionary theory. It seemed obvious that evolution would often
favor traits that benefit groups?colonies, flocks, populations, entire
species?rather than individual organisms. For example, groups that
exercise restraint over their reproductive rate might be supposed to
have an advantage over those that overpopulate their territory and
quickly exhaust some critical resource. Later theorists recognized a
flaw in this reasoning: The evolution of traits that involve sharing
or cooperation could be undermined by "cheaters"?individuals who gain
the benefits of group membership without contributing to the common
welfare. After the 1960s, most biologists avoided explanations based
on group selection and tried to describe all evolutionary events in
terms of selection at the level of the individual. However, this
extreme view gives misleading interpretations of many important
biological phenomena. Now a more nuanced theory, generally known as
multilevel selection theory, acknowledges competing selective forces
within and between groups


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 18 15:48:38 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:48:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Tim Wise on White Privilege
References: <E3CD8155909E4534933575B7ADF28259@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<710b78fc0809152145q1124c4d8t3f852d930b18ec02@mail.gmail.com>
	<073901c9191b$b85242e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<2d6187670809180013x46108756q1151101841a63ac1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <07b001c919a6$2f2aa800$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Grigg writes

> [An article by Haidt mentioned that]
> >     A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E
> >     Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity
> >     increases anomie and social isolation by
> >     decreasing people's sense of belonging to
> >     a shared community. Democrats should
> >     think carefully, therefore, about why they
> >     celebrate diversity.

To which I interjected 

> > Nicely said---but about fifty years too late for the west.
> 
> Ummm...., what should the West have done over the past
> fifty years to prevent this fate?

I'll answer, but below. Meanwhile, not to interrupt Haidt
 
> >     If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and
> >     discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns),
> >     then these goals might be better served by encouraging
> >     assimilation and a sense of shared identity.

What should the West have done over the last fifty years
to have warded off the current predicament? A tough
question, as it involves several counterfactual elements,
e.g., hypotheses about how people could have been
different than they actually were.

But perhaps it can be mapped into a reply that suggests
what I would have said were I alive in 1950 or thereabouts
and knew what I know today. And had enough people said
and believed what I am about to say, then the West would
have had a fair chance of continuing to survive indefinitely.
(I do not mean to discount the possibility that vast technological
changes are so imminent that to even suggest that "the West
is doomed" is as unfounded as its opposite "everything is going
to be just dandy", since the future is far too unstable to predict.)

I should also preface my remarks by saying that even a tyro
should be able to spot right away that my remarks are *not*
in the least wise those of a typical libertarian or embrace
libertarian principles, despite my turning up as libertarian
on very interesting an accurate tests such as the newer quiz
http://quiz2d.com/, which allows much more discriminating
answers than any I've seen.

          *             *            *

In 1950 (or even earlier, in the 1920s) it should have been
recognized that it have never been true that democratic
government and nearly unlimited respect for due process,
rule of law, and respect for private property could apply
to all the peoples of the Earth without regard for their
cultural history. For example, no one knows if Iraq will
prove itself capable of sustaining democratic institutions;
we can only hope.

But in 1776 and 1789, the finest minds of their time (at least
in America) could see that such was the nature of the people
inhabiting the eastern shores of North American, a new form
of government was very possible. The strength and character
of the people could support representative democracy. Well,
at least for men. Well, at least for white men in the south.
But you have to take what you can.

This system worked and it prospered mightily all through the
succeeding century. However, by the second decade of the
twentieth century it became apparent that new classes of 
people had emigrated to the U.S. who did not share the 
traditional values of the 1790 Americans to a sufficient degree
that protection of all civil liberties was any longer practical as
regarded those people. The big cities of the United States
became ruled by criminal elements and corruption was so
visible and so well-known that the respect for the "rights" of
organized crime and organized criminals was clearly out of
place, and became laughable.

Even Jefferson had suggested a revolution every fifty years,
because he supposed that corruption in high places and a 
pervasive spread of non-Republican values in the ruling
circles would necessitate it. So by 1925, it should have
been completely apparent to the citizens of Illinois, for example,
that Chicago had been taken over by criminals, and that a 
general "revolution" was called for. An insurrection by the 
ordinary people in the rest of the state should have rounded
up (and if necessary summarily executed) all the known criminals
and their collaborators. Massive deportations may have also
been necessary.  For if a people cannot abide by rule of law,
then the rest of us---still a majority I hope---should not abide
by them.

Precisely the same situation occurs today in Los Angeles. It
has been estimated that the gangs are composed of something
like 90,000 members, and if the citizens do not rise up and
take revolutionary action against them, then control of the
city will continue to reside in these backward, primitive, 
ruthless, criminal hands. It's no longer 1790, and the protection
of the law afforded to these gangs is a joke, and not only to them,
but to anyone who examines the situation. It's to the point where
every movie, every television series openly mocks the inability
of the justice system to deal with "the streets".

So, the first thing that needed attending to was crime, and
addressing the real and legitimate fears of law-abiding members
of society---which began in the late fifties and was in full force
in the sixties---that they were no longer safe in their parks and
on their sidewalks. A republic can not survive indefinitely when
the character of the people is no longer that which is necessary
to provide a basis on which liberty and republican justice can
flourish. Whether by quick trial and execution, or deportation,
one way or another had to be found to eliminate the old 
corrupt systems that were in league with organized crime in
the cities.

But everything I've written so far is the *easy* part. And,
maybe, *that* would have been sufficient, with just a few
additional details. Perhaps through these acts alone, the
pendulum might have been reversed so that people no
longer felt like making movies that glorified criminality
and the mocking of traditional values, and no longer would
popular songs glorify base elements. Perhaps the loudly
expressed sentiments that "we have done away with the
criminal classes, and we are back on the road towards
a highly moral society" would have been enough. But I
don't have a lot of confidence that this really would have
been enough. It would have helped greatly, but I am afraid
that no, it might very well not have been sufficient.

Because other forces were at work, not only in the 1950s
and 1960s, but in the 1920s as well, forces that bring about
(and did exact a toll back then) precisely the anomie Haidt
refers to, the lack of respect for propriety and civil conduct,
the alienation and mocking of traditional standards that has
proved so corrosive to society. How to address them? What
draconian efforts could have been made in the 1950s even
if an overwhelming fraction of the populace had been willing
to stand up and effect the needed changes?  I could only 
guess, because the problems of Western civilization go even
deeper, I am afraid.

Lee



From kevinfreels at insightbb.com  Thu Sep 18 16:05:10 2008
From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:05:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <1221717798.7201.16167.camel@hayek>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net> <1221717798.7201.16167.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>


> 
> One of the major problems that the libertarian movement has is the
> number of people who call themselves libertarians yet 
> fundamentally do
> not understand it and really are just conservatives.  These 
> people are
> not libertarians they are just poseurs.
> 
> Fred
> 

True. But I think more common are the people who have libertarian values, but vote republican or democrat based on the hot-plate issues at the moment. For example:
A couple I know have voted Republican in the last 6 elections. They are avid gun-owners. But at the moment, Obama does not present a threat to their guns while Bush is a threat to their secular nature. So this election they will vote Obama. If Obama leaves their guns and their pocket-book alone, they will vote to re-elect him. If he goes on a gun and money grabbing rampage they will support a candidate that can defeat him. On and on it goes. If Obama is re-elected, I bet by then the republican candidate will have toned down the religion while the democrat candidate will be looking to appeal to their base. It's the pendulum of american politics. The majority in this country are mostly libertarian, but they have things that are important to them and they will support the candidate most likely to defeat the threat to those things. The libertarian candidate is almost never positioned to be that person. 

The Libertarian party needs a stated long-term goal; something like "we are committed to building a much larger base and winning the 2016 election." along with some simple press statements such as "Most people are somewhat libertarian and don't even know it. We feel that if we can just get that message out and educate people about what we are really about, we can gain enough support for a landslide victory in 2016."

I wouldn't even run a candidate in 2012 - instead remaining focused on the goal. 

This is a winning long-term strategy that I think would earn a lot of support and more importantly, some valuable press. I would start on this immediately following this election - maybe the day after the inauguration speech.

This is how the libertarian party can win. 


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 18 16:07:06 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:07:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
References: <mailman.157.1221697463.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<48D224B3.7020101@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <07b301c919a8$fe50ad30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Ben writes


> "spike" <spike66 at att.net> speculated:
> 
> > what I think Lee was asking was not do we laugh
> > at jokes we are reading.  Everyone does that.

Spike was mistaken about what I was asking, and
his is also mistaken about "everyone does that".

> > But do we ever just think of something and laugh.
> > I do, but that is a very interesting question, which
> > goes back to one I asked a few years ago in this
> > forum: when something is funny, why do we stop
>> laughing eventually? When we are sad, why do we
>> stop weeping?  What changes?
> 
> I understood the question to be "do we laugh when
> there is no-one else around, so no social benefit?"
> 
> Can you clarify, Lee?

You're quite right, Ben. I don't know that the evolutionary
psychologists have a ready answer.

The shocking fact---to me, shocking, at least---is that there
are a number of people who do *not* grin or laugh when
others are not present, even if they find something quite funny.

It happens to be true of a good friend of mine, an exceedingly
kind man (who is a lot nicer than I am). One night, not long after
a number of us had read a book on evolutionary psychology
that addressed this point---the book making the claim that
the purpose of laughter and smiles was to signal---he
commented that this explained why "you don't laugh or
smile except when others are around".  I was astounded,
and I said so (unfortunately).

For I myself laugh uproariously (as several other people have
admitted too) at things I read or see on TV, especially when
no one else is around. (I'm a little more subdued in company,
because I don't want to be thought thoroughly insane, laughing
at certain things that I just don't believe my present company
would find very funny.)  Worse, I often walk from my car to
my office with an enormous grin on my face at some thought
that is entertaining me, and sometimes I wonder what people
walking past me must think.

(Incidentally, for those of us who do do that, why is it, do you
suppose that we don't see others doing it much, unless they
happen to be on a cell phone or something? Has this list
attracted a number of people with rich inner lives, or something?)

I have some speculations regarding this phenomenon---originally
inspired by my friend who claimed never to laugh or smile unless
in the company of others---but I won't go into them right now.

Unfortunately, the chance that any of these people---who
laugh and smile only when around others---coming forth here
and giving us some information about it is practically nil, thanks
to too many of you having pointed out that for so many of us
it's "normal". Because I suspect that it is rather non-normal
for people to ordinarily smile and laugh only around others,
though my appreciation and admiration would know no bounds
if someone in this audience could admit that he or she in fact
is one of the people whose laughter only occurs in public situations.

Lee

> There's probably also a social component. What would you think of 
> someone who always laughed twice as long as everyone else? It would get 
> tedious after a while, no?  You'd probably end up regarding them as a 
> complete prat.
> 
> Hm, that's interesting. If there's a 'right amount of time' to laugh 
> for, in a social context, i wonder if this time varies between different 
> groups of people?
> 
> Ben Zaiboc



From kevinfreels at insightbb.com  Thu Sep 18 16:20:26 2008
From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:20:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
Message-ID: <fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>


I worked in the mortgage industry for a very long time while this was going on. I can tell you first hand that out on the front lines we were simply amazed at some of the programs and rates being offered. Not a day would go by when I would see some company like Countrywide approve and close a loan that should not have been made. I personally watched millions of dollars every month being funded for loans where the borrower had no job, or was self-employed for 6 months and couldn't even prove it, yet had a bankruptcy discharged 3 months ago and had $3000 down payment that everyone knew darn well was coming from the seller of the house in question. What was even more amazing was that after this started to correct itself, the fed's actions were to LOWER interest rates in order to continue fueling the fire. They just gave these banks more rope to hang themselves with. The proper move would have been to raise interest rates despite the obvious recession that it would have put us into. This isn't hindsight either. I was ranting about this a long time before the ball dropped. In fact, I left the mortgage industry long before the first casualties, Freemont, Ameriquest, New Centry, et al because I knew it was unsustainable and expected this to happen. The most surprising thing of all was that it took this long, but that was a direct result of the fed's rate cuts. 

Now I have a greater concern. It would be a terrific thing for everyone is people began saving their money rather than spending it all, but what happens if everyone suddenly stops buying at once because they are afraid of losing their jobs and need to build a quick savings account? That's the next wave. How do we prevent the herd from itself? 


----- Original Message -----
From: Max More <max at maxmore.com>
Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:25
Subject: Re: [ExI] AIG Bail out
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

> The "people" do not own 80% of AIG. The federal government 
> (which is 
> NOT the people) *loaned* AIG $85 billion, to keep it going as 
> new 
> management sells off its businesses. You can say, loosely, that 
> the 
> government now *controls* AIG indirectly, but not that it owns 
> it. 
> Unless the transition is badly botched, only part of that $85 
> billion 
> will be a cost to the taxpayers.
> 
> To add to my previous comment (barely post-waking-up): The knee-
> jerk 
> finger pointing at markets at the problem is frustrating. Yes, 
> it's 
> entirely possible that problems can arise in financial markets 
> through poor decision making and herd behavior. But such 
> problems 
> will usually reveal themselves before they grow as large as the 
> recent Western financial problems. They only grow monstrous if 
> the 
> government won't allow the fuse to blow.
> 
> The anti-market types blame markets without reservation, despite 
> the fact that
> --the Federal Reserve, formed by the government, played a 
> central 
> role in the financial crisis with its insistence on keeping 
> interests 
> too low for too long.
> --Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-formed institutions 
> that 
> were given a legally-enforced monopoly over "conforming loans." 
> Political pressures have distorted the market by pushing money 
> to 
> borrowers who wouldn't otherwise have received them.
> --By bailing out AIG but not Lehman, the government will create 
> additional financial uncertainty.
> 
> The economy will only grow more complex in the future. I find it 
> disturbing how so many of us still run to Great God Government 
> for 
> top-down solutions to the intricacies of complex economic systems.
> 
> Max
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 02:34 AM 9/18/2008, you wrote:
> >If the American people now own 80% of AIG, the world's largest 
> >insurance company, does that we mean we get to have 
> nationalized 
> >healthcare now? Or are AIG's customers going to have to 
> continue to 
> >pay premiums to be eligible to file any claims that will end up 
> >being paid with their own tax dollars?
> >
> >Stuart LaForge
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Thu Sep 18 16:23:08 2008
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:23:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <07b301c919a8$fe50ad30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <mailman.157.1221697463.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<48D224B3.7020101@lineone.net>
	<07b301c919a8$fe50ad30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <37141.12.77.168.207.1221754988.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

Lee writes:
> Because I suspect that it is rather non-normal
> for people to ordinarily smile and laugh only around others,
> though my appreciation and admiration would know no bounds
> if someone in this audience could admit that he or she in fact
> is one of the people whose laughter only occurs in public situations.
>

I find that whole concept astonishing - laughing only in public. I've been reduced
to tears of laughter by something I've read, so much so that I had to go find
kleenex and wipe my eyes to continue reading.

I don't know that I'm much on howling with laughter over something I've thought of,
but I will chuckle or grin.

However... can easily be reduced to tears of pain and sorrow by thinking. Moreso
than in public, for sure.

Does this mean I'm a melacholic personality? Strange.

Regards,
MB



From kevinfreels at insightbb.com  Thu Sep 18 16:38:24 2008
From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:38:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's Outlaw Marriage. Literally.
In-Reply-To: <02ed01c90aee$c7842430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <02ed01c90aee$c7842430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <fc78a1fc30cb4.48d23db0@insightbb.com>

The only other place I have ever even seen that possibility mentioned was here. Nice to see it out in the real world. 

----- Original Message -----
From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008 17:23
Subject: [ExI] Let's Outlaw Marriage. Literally.
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

> http://blog.oup.com/2008/05/on-marriage/
> 
> Lee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080918/42630a68/attachment.html>

From kevinfreels at insightbb.com  Thu Sep 18 17:04:34 2008
From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:04:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
In-Reply-To: <002501c91566$66074610$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
References: <200809120315.m8C3FA0W001149@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<200809120445.m8C4jA5v018669@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<2d6187670809112328n76688456le755894b3b8e50e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080912013732.01108510@satx.rr.com>
	<002501c91566$66074610$0301a8c0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <fc5bf76935314.48d243d2@insightbb.com>


I was at KSC several years ago with my wife and kids and later that evening my wife and I were talking about it and she called it the very same thing - the FIFSFS. The next day she let that slip in front of the kids and shortened it to the acronym FIFSFS. She recovered nicely but my kids to this day still refer to it as the Freakin International Freakin Space Freakin Station. lol


----- Original Message -----
From: John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008 1:06
Subject: [ExI] Cool Physics
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

> I was thinking about what the Large Hadron Collider could potentially
> find, and what could ignite the public imagination. That last 
> point is
> important if you expect taxpayers to pay for future machines, 
> and I
> don't think the average person would say these sort of devices have
> discovered anything very cool since 1957 when they found out the
> difference between left and right. I don't think even physicists
> would say finding the Higgs particle would be very cool, not finding
> it would be cooler than that. Finding out what Dark Matter is, 
> now 
> that would be cool by any standard, and Dark Energy would be 
> even better. Of course it may discover something wonderful that 
> nobody today can even imagine, but I can imagine making a mini
> Black Hole and that would be very cool indeed because it would 
> demonstrate the existence of other dimensions; but I think it 
> would also mean there would be no point in making a more 
> powerful machine, you'd just get more Black Holes.
> 
> Finding extra dimensions would give a big boost to the many 
> would theory, all those other universes have to go somewhere, 
> and I can't think of a better place to put them.
> 
> It's interesting that if the SSC hadn't been canceled when it
> was about 20% complete it would have been about two and a
> half times as powerful as the Large Hadron Collider and would 
> have gone online 7 or 8 years ago. However it was decided in 
> the early 90's that we could only afford one really big science 
> project; we could have the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)
> or the Fucking International Fucking Space Fucking Station (FIFSFS)
> but not both. 
> 
> It was decided to go with FIFSFS.
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


From moulton at moulton.com  Thu Sep 18 17:15:15 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:15:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809180734v7fe25fd0vc470da07724ce21f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0809180412r351a87eam3e0fc226e88d0f93@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080918140636.KSJB17523.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<ee50357e0809180734v7fe25fd0vc470da07724ce21f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1221758115.7201.16662.camel@hayek>


On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:34 +0000, BillK wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Max More wrote:
> > It had nothing to do with the fed holding interests rates down too low for
> > years, right? Of course not. Nor did it have anything to do with the moral
> > hazard created by government financial guarantees. Anti-marketeers always
> > miss the real causes.
> >
> 
> There are many contributory factors and side-issues.
> 
> But the *main* cause was lack of regulation. 

But is 'lack of regulation' really the case?  As has already been
pointed out financial markets are already regulated in the USA however
that regulation may not be appropriate and may create incentives for
investments to flow in ways where are problematic.  Yet some of the
legislation about financial markets has been to create incentives for
certain kinds of investments particularly home mortgages and as we have
seen Fannie Mae has been problematic.

I have read the article by Tyler Cowen in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/business/14view.html
in which he discusses this issue of regulation and has this quote:
"The privatization of Fannie Mae dates back to the Johnson
administration, which wanted to get the agency?s debt off its books. But
now, of course, the government is on the hook for the agency?s debt. As
late as this spring, Congressional Democrats were pushing for weaker
capital requirements for the mortgage agencies. The regulatory reality
was that few politicians were willing to exchange short-term economic
gains ? namely, higher rates of homeownership ? for protection against
longer-term financial risks."

Cowen goes on to point out two ways to view this history.  "First, with
the benefit of hindsight, one could argue that we needed only a stronger
political will to regulate every corner of finance and avert a crisis."

And the second is "Under the second view, which I prefer, regulators
will never be in a position to accurately evaluate or second-guess many
of the most important market transactions. In finance, trillions of
dollars change hands, market players are very sophisticated, and much of
the activity takes place outside the United States ? or easily could."

As I reflect on Cowen's comments it seems to me that we might be in a
situation where regulation in the sense that many people are advocating
is no longer possible.  The complexity, speed of execution and
jurisdictional questions are just some of the issues which need to be
considered.

Perhaps it is time for a new way of thinking about these issues.

Fred








From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 18 17:29:42 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:29:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net> <1221717798.7201.16167.camel@hayek>
	<fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
Message-ID: <20080918172942.GA25679@ofb.net>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:05:10AM -0500, Kevin Freels wrote:

> The Libertarian party needs a stated long-term goal; something like
> "we are committed to building a much larger base and winning the 2016
> election." along with some simple press statements such as "Most
> people are somewhat libertarian and don't even know it. We feel that

"somewhat libertarian" isn't all that Libertarian, though.  That
quiz2d.com link?  It's by a libertarian, though he's shifted from right
to left, and probably catered to libertarian populations.  But "abolish
all taxes" is the single least popular position.  Legalizing heroin does
better.

Internet polls aren't scientific but it's suggestive.

Or 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07Inequality-t.html
People surrounded by things that just work don't want to be told that
government can't work, they want a party that'll make government also
work.  -- I think it also connected Democraticness with inequality, from
either end, with Republican voters often being in homogenous suburbs
where they don't see the poor.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 18:22:30 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:22:30 -0400
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <685968.72086.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <685968.72086.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809181122l7758d054y7d3c435e7b4d57fd@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:18 AM, The Avantguardian
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> So in effect, repeated observations would not so much "collapse" the wave function as to cause it to evolve in increments toward the final state. So the more boxes he uses to sample the space, the fewer places the particle could be. And when he eventually found it, it would be going a lot faster than it was when he generated it, because it would be confined to the space within the box, removing uncertainty about its position but increasing its momentum.

Sounds suspiciously like the relationships in gas laws.

> Well the rest of your post is something I would hand off to Lee. He is more familar with other universes than I am. I for one don't believe in Platonia any more than I believe in the Langoliers. For me the realm of abstraction is the mind. And in the mind, t1 to t2 can take as long or as short as you want. Don't believe me? Then close your eyes and imagine yourself flying a few laps around Jupiter. I bet it takes you less than a minute even if you pose for pictures over the red spot. How's that for FTL? ;-)

So your realm of abstraction (mind) doesn't have real estate allocated
to Platonia?  Seems to me like Platonia the "real" place or the
concept represented by the name is a useful representation of a
collection of ideas that would otherwise require days of email to
restate.  I feel it's safe to say that even if my idea of Platonia and
Lee's version are slightly different, that they're still similar
enough to be useful in the context of this conversation.

Anyway, do you also suppose that our imaginings are some fractionally
real experiences?  Is it possible from the position you stated above
that people living under "obvious" delusions are in fact living in a
different universe than the rest of us?  (I quote obvious because the
nature of what makes delusions obvious or not could easily be called
into question)

Also, how do you suggest that the entity I conceive as myself compared
to the entity that I conceive as you (non-me) are able to experience
the same universe?  (within a given definition for experience that a
priori resolves identity and communication issues)


From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 18:43:06 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:43:06 -0400
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
In-Reply-To: <07a201c9199e$7494b640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <108496.35585.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<62c14240809161321n5d8f4017nf50266b17c4a0421@mail.gmail.com>
	<07a201c9199e$7494b640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <62c14240809181143se57b65eg35e14ba9c35cf652@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Naturally, I can't address that because it involves concepts
> which, to put it mildly, I don't understand at all, namely
> "wave collapse".

I'm confident you understand "wave collapse" as much as Stuart
understands "Platonia"

* I wrote:
>> To reference Lee's response to this post, is there any difference in
>> Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2?  is there a
>> way to distinguish the moment t'2 ?
* Lee replied:
> I am not 100% sure I know what you are asking, but if
> you are asking about one timeless "event" in platonia
...
> platonia all patterns already exist, including all the positive numbers like
> 99999999 and 100000000.

How are Platonic patterns referenced?  how do we 'move' our focus from
one to another if there is no concept of movement in Platonia?  To use
an OOP analogy - if Platonia is all possible class files, and the
instantiated objects exist in our world - then how do we discuss an
individual class from which an object is created?  Is this this
analogy is outside your field of expertise?  Sorry, it's pretty simple
nomenclature for me.  Part of the communication problem, eh?

* Lee:
> Asking about peers brings in a lot of extra machinery,
> from my point of view. To me, we are *no longer* talking about quantum
> mechanics or physics per se,
> but whatever neural events may occur in the brains
> of some very large evolutionarily derived Earth organisms.

Ok then, no peers.  Call them other LeeCorbin run-times; call them
variant lower-dimensional self-models inside a host mind; whatever  :)

* Lee:
> Indeed, it seems folly to try to compare experiences between any two of
> these monstrously large human
> beings, to say that somehow when one of them has
> a (vast) experience involving billions of neurons (that
> were perhaps set into motion by the result of what
> the organism thought about certain photons collected
> in its retina), and that it is comparable to some other
> experiences of an entirely different organism also
> involving billions of neurons.

Now it sounds like you are discussing Stuart's realm of mind being the
key factor in observing the universe.  Is the physical world real by
itself or is it only real when observed?  (Or does it only become real
when the fur has been worn off? I digress...)

* Lee:
> Yes, sorry, but I do think that people's experiences are not
> at all that comparable. We're damned lucky that we can even both look up
> into the sky and agree that it's dark---although
> if the conversation is allowed to proceed very long, exactly
> how dark and exactly which points of light conceal the darkness
> and by how much will lead to controversy, with one of us
> reading one value of a spectrometer and another of us reading
> an almost but not quite equal value.

Absolutely agreed.


From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 18:59:34 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:59:34 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <07b301c919a8$fe50ad30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <mailman.157.1221697463.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<48D224B3.7020101@lineone.net>
	<07b301c919a8$fe50ad30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <62c14240809181159h632c6a9dk87ffaa6fbc0e643d@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> (Incidentally, for those of us who do do that, why is it, do you
> suppose that we don't see others doing it much, unless they
> happen to be on a cell phone or something? Has this list
> attracted a number of people with rich inner lives, or something?)

My internal dialog consists of multiple perspectives; perhaps there is
some "signaling" across internal models.  Maybe those who are less
likely to outwardly express state when alone are using a more
single-threaded architecture than those who are multi-threaded?  I'm
pretty sure this conversation will end up at "You say you hear voices?
 Do they tell you to DO things?" - to which I assure you I am not
talking about command hallucinations.  :)


From scerir at libero.it  Thu Sep 18 20:39:41 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:39:41 +0200
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><ee50357e0809180412r351a87eam3e0fc226e88d0f93@mail.gmail.com><20080918140636.KSJB17523.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<ee50357e0809180734v7fe25fd0vc470da07724ce21f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c919ce$ad9c5170$ede91e97@archimede>

From: "BillK"
> There are many contributory factors and side-issues.

-----------
Fitch cuts Lehman ratings,
expects to downgrade subsidiaries
By Simon Kennedy
6:38 a.m. EDT Sept. 15, 2008
LONDON (MarketWatch)-Fitch Ratings slashed its credit ratings on Lehman
Brothers (LEH: 0.14, -0.16, -51.8%) Monday after the U.S. firm said it
would file for bankruptcy. The rating agency cut its long-term issuer
default rating to D from A+ and its senior debt rating to CCC from A+
among other downgrades. Fitch said its ratings on the group's subsidiaries,
which are not included in the bankruptcy, will likely be downgraded as more
information becomes available.
http://tinyurl.com/52pyfy
------------

According to Fitch (I must check S&P and Moodys)
Lehman's rating was still A+ on Sept.15 !

Doesn't this ring a bell?



From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 18 23:01:33 2008
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:01:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] the Spanish today
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914021702.0248d008@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914021702.0248d008@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40809181601uc978649kd70404563a9349e@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> ... Didn't work, sadly, and I almost got one leg cut off,
> but I digress.

And now you're cutting us off, right there, at the interesting part.
This is rude, inconsiderate, unmanly. and I believe violates a basic
ethical principle of the Scribocratic Oath, to wit:  Do no harm to thy
readership by leaving them hanging overlong in a stressful condition
of suspense. unless it be to excite them yet further as the moment of
rescue impends.

Therefore, out with it.  How so "almost"?  Remained attached  by a
mere thread of sinew?  Extreme blood loss, delerium, tunnel of light,
plus brief reunion with deceased and disreputable ex-family members?
Or perhaps Dinner with the Aborigines:  At midnight, bathed in the
dancing light of their Aboriginal bonfire, the broken body of the
Broderick lies submerged beneath a writhing mound of Aussie maggots
exuberantly feasting on toe-jam and gangrenously necrotic flesh, as
his flight-ready spirit lingers on the threshold of forever, even as
the shaman circle, the dappled entanglement of shadow and spirit and
enraptured clay awaits the universe's decision re the evening's entr?
: Plump Grubs Outback style, or Broderick au Plump Grubs?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Best, Jeff Davis

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
      Inside a dog it's too dark to read."
                 Groucho Marx


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 18 23:13:18 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:13:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] the Spanish today
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40809181601uc978649kd70404563a9349e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080914021702.0248d008@satx.rr.com>
	<a6a17bd40809181601uc978649kd70404563a9349e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080918181045.02301508@satx.rr.com>

At 04:01 PM 9/18/2008 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:

> > ... Didn't work, sadly, and I almost got one leg cut off,
> > but I digress.
>
>And now you're cutting us off, right there, at the interesting part.

But luckily your description is exact, so it'd be redundant of me to 
express more than my amazement at your accuracy. Was that *you* 
lurking behind the jumbuck?

Damien Broderick 



From neptune at superlink.net  Thu Sep 18 23:43:56 2008
From: neptune at superlink.net (Techno)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:43:56 -0400
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><ee50357e0809180412r351a87eam3e0fc226e88d0f93@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809180609g75345ce9m9c61a63682819342@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <135DFAA13F6E46DB8E1E61F4ACDE5A54@technotr9881e5>

On Thursday, September 18, 2008 9:09 AM "Stathis Papaioannou" 
<stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/18 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
>
>> This crisis is all down to an overdose of the free market.
>> Bush did away with all the old boring banking regulations, 'cause the
>> free market is great, isn't it?
>> So all the greedy smart-alecs sold funny-money bonds to each other,
>> pocketing millions in commission on every deal. Then borrowed more
>> money using the previous funny-money bonds as security, more
>> commission, more deals, more commission, until the whole pyramid
>> scheme collapsed.
>>
>> They get to keep their commission and are put in charge of sorting the
>> mess out, because they are financial wizards! It is the poor smucks
>> lower down the scale that lose their homes, jobs and pensions.
>>
>> But it is going to be pretty traumatic to get all the funny-money
>> shaken out of the system. At the moment nobody trusts anyone.  It will
>> take years for trust to come back into the financial system.
>
> Of course, this isn't a problem at all for the free marketeers, not in
> the slightest. Bankruptcy, depression, starvation, paranoia: it's all
> a necessary part of the process that weeds out the bad and promotes
> the good.

Well, to be sure, the current financial crisis seems to clearly be the 
result of government backed credit expansion plus specific regulations aimed 
at canalizing certain types of investments and the overall climate of "the 
federal government will bail out the biggest risk takers."

Regards,

Dan 



From neptune at superlink.net  Thu Sep 18 23:49:38 2008
From: neptune at superlink.net (Techno)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:49:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Varying constants and the origin of life
Message-ID: <A28609C488CF4D88AADA74DBDD87EA19@technotr9881e5>

Don't know if anyone has raised the topic before, but I was reviewing some 
of the arguments for changes in the fine structure constant over 
cosmological time scales.  I believe the alleged change is somewhere about 1 
part in 1 million over 12 billion years.  Would this have any implications 
for the origin of life?  In other words, would changes in this "constant" 
make it harder to originate life?

That life continues seems to be an argument against this, but maybe the 
continuance of life is much easier to maintain under the current value of 
the constant and genesis itself is harder if not impossible.

Any thoughts?

Regards,

Dan 



From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 03:07:19 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:07:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
Message-ID: <200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
> > ...These people are not libertarians they are just poseurs... Fred

I see this as yet another problem we libertarians have.  We cannot even
agree among ourselves how to define ourselves.  We end up a motley
collection of a lot of odds and ends with no party cohesiveness.

> True. But I think more common are the people who have 
> libertarian values, but vote republican or democrat based on 
> the hot-plate issues at the moment...Kevin Freels

Roger that.  Consider this election year. They try to convince us that if we
vote for this ticket then we are racists, or if we vote for that ticket we
are sexists, and if we vote for neither we are both.  But everyone can see,
even non-yanks, that the major parties have put forth the weakest candidates
in memory.  This should be obvious regardless of which party one favors:
both Palin and Obama are lightweights.  No, scratch that, they would need a
lot more experience to be lightweights.  They are both featherweights.
Lionel Hutz vs Marge Simpson.  

Yet I talk to plenty of informed people who have never even heard of Barr or
Root, which are themselves pretty flimsy examples of libertarians.  I'm not
even sure Barr is a libertarian at all.  But there I go again.  Seems like
the third parties should make a great showing this year but they are making
a poorer showing than the last two times, when we couldn't even distinguish
the two major party candidates from each other.

Oy.

spike




From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 03:20:48 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:20:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <07b301c919a8$fe50ad30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200809190347.m8J3lVOI025919@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
.
> > "spike" <spike66 at att.net> speculated:
> > 
> > > what I think Lee was asking was not do we laugh at jokes we are 
> > > reading.  Everyone does that.
> 
>>...Has this list 
> attracted a number of people with rich inner lives, or something?)
...
> 
> Lee

Lee I think you have hit on something important there, and I like the way
you phrased it.  It sounds so legitimate, that I can go around claiming to
have a rich inner life.  {8-]

>From the gatherings of transhumanists, extropians, cryonauts, math fans,
mensas, SL4-ers, the various geeks that hang out with us, it should be
obvious to the casual observer that we are not mainstream.  Being
non-mainstream causes one to ask why, and this leads to deep introspection.


I have often thought that one reason why gays have the reputation for being
deep and thoughtful types is that they are led to introspection to try to
understand why they are different from the crowd.  In my case, I wonder why
I am completely immune to embarrassment, to the point where I have the most
fun making myself look foolish.  How did I get that way?  I wonder why I am
emotionally wired differently than the crowd.  Now I know it is because I
have a rich inner life.  {8^D  Thanks Lee, this is a license to be weird.

spike





From fauxever at sprynet.com  Fri Sep 19 03:50:35 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:50:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
References: <200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7227918311DA4D9CAAB61D1DB043211D@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:07 PM

This should be obvious regardless of which party one favors: both Palin and 
Obama are lightweights.  No, scratch that, they would need a lot more 
experience to be lightweights.  They are both featherweights. Lionel Hutz vs 
Marge Simpson.

Oh, and another thing ... ;)

You'd like more "experience?"  Well, gee whilikers, Spikeman! We just had 
that wunnerful Cheney guy run things for a few years.  He was full of it 
(... experience, I mean)!

Cheney had just about the most experience of any politician of the last two 
presidential elections ... and certainly more experience than any politician 
running for president this year.

Olga

 



From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Fri Sep 19 03:25:44 2008
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] VP for Creationism
In-Reply-To: <03b401c914ae$4070a940$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <841918.43686.qm@web110406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

>Well, it may not be polite or kind under some circumstances, but >ridicule done right is too precious to discard   :-)

You are mistaking ridicule for sarcasm.  Ridicule is meant to humiliate and laugh at.  Sarcasm is to be witty with response  :-)

>Probably what many people long for (in the way of certainty for example) >there won't be any rational substitute for religion.

Yes I agree and I don't think it's a good idea.  I think religion has been around long enough to value purpose. 

>I doubt that religious people are any better behaved on the whole than >the irreligious.

Do you have some study in mind?

>>What are the alternatives to relate the same messages that where >>strongly given to those that had a religious background?  I mean >>messages such as stories like "The Goliath Story", "Family oriented >>stories", "meaningful messages" as opposed to the laws, norms and/or >>myths that exist today.       

>I agree that without stories like that, everyone can start to feel that >society is falling apart, and when everyone starts to feel that way, it >really happens. So that was one thing that religion has been (/is) good >for, namely giving a sense of wholeness to a community.
 
Well we agree on 1 point:)
Anna:)



      __________________________________________________________________
Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 03:52:32 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:52:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] the Spanish today
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40809181601uc978649kd70404563a9349e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809190352.m8J3qZT2023655@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

...
> 
> > ... Didn't work, sadly, and I almost got one leg cut off, but I 
> > digress.
...
> 
> Therefore, out with it.  How so "almost"?  Remained attached  
> by a mere thread of sinew?  Extreme blood loss, delerium, 
> tunnel of light, plus brief reunion with deceased and 
> disreputable ex-family members?... Best, Jeff Davis

There you go Lee.  Anyone who can read a Jeff Davis canardic screed without
laughing out loud must be humor challenged.  {8^D  

Thanks Jeff, your har-har inducing post has broken loose the stubborn throat
phlegm that has been hanging around last couple days.  Indeed laughter is
the best medicine.

spike






From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 03:26:30 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:26:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
Message-ID: <200809190353.m8J3rDAQ001697@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Kevin Freels
> ...

Kevin thanks for the insightful comments on the loan industry.  We saw it
firsthand here in the taxifornia bay area.  We saw people living in million
dollar homes who owned nothing.  Million dollar homes, empty except for an
old chair salvaged from the dump, a television, some trash, with token
owners sitting in there in disbelief, wondering what to do next.

> Now I have a greater concern. It would be a terrific thing 
> for everyone is people began saving their money rather than 
> spending it all, but what happens if everyone suddenly stops 
> buying at once because they are afraid of losing their jobs 
> and need to build a quick savings account? That's the next 
> wave. How do we prevent the herd from itself?

Don't worry Kevin.  It requires actual self-discipline to live under one's
means.  A few will do it, but the masses will not.

spike






From fauxever at sprynet.com  Fri Sep 19 03:37:03 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:37:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
References: <200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <65CAFDA8A06C4DC28A9C3836FF123111@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:07 PM

> But everyone can see, even non-yanks, that the major parties have put 
> forth the weakest candidates in memory.  This should be obvious regardless 
> of which party one favors: both Palin and Obama are lightweights.  No, 
> scratch that, they would need a lot more experience to be lightweights. 
> They are both featherweights. Lionel Hutz vs Marge Simpson.

You really think Palin and Obama are on the same plane?:

"If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first
black president of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive
that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a constitutional law
professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator, representing a district with
over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human
Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a
state of 13 million people while sponsoring or co-sponsoring 131 bills and
serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's
Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

"If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council 
and
6 years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7,000 people, 20 months as
the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to
become the country's second highest ranking executive."

OK, and ... how about Michelle Obama and the First Dude?:

"If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a high-paying job in 
a
good law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then
gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't
represent America's.

"If your husband [nickname "First Dude"], sports at least one DWI?
conviction and didn't register to vote until he was 25 but did belong to a
group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is
extremely admirable."

Olga




From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Sep 19 04:05:59 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:05:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
	<200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20080919040559.GA16937@ofb.net>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 08:07:19PM -0700, spike wrote:

> are sexists, and if we vote for neither we are both.  But everyone can see,
> even non-yanks, that the major parties have put forth the weakest candidates
> in memory.  This should be obvious regardless of which party one favors:
> both Palin and Obama are lightweights.  No, scratch that, they would need a
> lot more experience to be lightweights.  They are both featherweights.

Obama is a relative lightweight in the combination of national or
executive (no one usually dings governors for having no national or
foreign experience) experience, but he's got a lot more general
political experience in Illinois, and seems pretty heavyweight
intellectually.  Like Clinton or Gore or Clinton and not lke any GOP
candidates who come to mind.  He's a policy wonk with charisma, by my
reading -- I think that Obamonics article I gave has outsiders noting
his campaign cares about experts and research.

> Lionel Hutz vs Marge Simpson.  

So I'd say Marge Simpson vs. Lisa Simpson. :)

-xx- Damien X-) 


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 04:27:45 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:27:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <65CAFDA8A06C4DC28A9C3836FF123111@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <200809190428.m8J4Rm6I015327@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 > 
> > But everyone can see, even non-yanks, that the major 
> parties have put 
> > forth the weakest candidates in memory...Lionel Hutz vs Marge Simpson.
> 
> You really think Palin and Obama are on the same plane?:
> 
> "If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer... Olga

But that community today isn't brilliantly organized. 

I am not denying that Obama is a good guy, but he needs a few years in
Washington, to get some national level experience, to demonstrate to the
country that he understands how wealth is created.  It is not done by
raising taxes on the rich during bad economic times.  That would cause them
to hold their money, to stop creating wealth and jobs, bad times would get
worse.  Raise taxes on the rich in good times.  

The majors are *all* weak candidates this time.  Let's see how it goes in
the upcoming debates.  Those should be interesting viewing, ja?

spike




From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 04:08:41 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:08:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <7227918311DA4D9CAAB61D1DB043211D@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <200809190435.m8J4ZOWO009778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
...
> 
> This should be obvious regardless of which party one favors: 
> both Palin and Obama are lightweights. ...
> 
> Cheney had just about the most experience of any politician 
> of the last two presidential elections ... and certainly more 
> experience than any politician running for president this year.
> 
> Olga

True, but we can't really know how much of the policy was actually being
secretly run by W.  Do let us try to live at least fifty more years, when
everything becomes unclassified, so we can find out.

I don't claim that experience solves everything, but lack thereof is risky
in this job.  We don't even know who Palin will choose for VP.  We know
almost nothing of Michelle Obama, who will perhaps run for president in
2024.  If this isn't a libertarian year, I have never seen one.

spike








From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 04:32:06 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:32:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] FW: [Fwd: Seasteading '08:  Vote With Your House]
Message-ID: <200809190459.m8J4wnYh005523@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


Forwarding in case anyone missed this:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Seasteading '08:  Vote With Your House
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:56:28 -0700
From: Christopher Rasch <crasch at gmail.com>
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org

Hi,

The Seasteading Institute will be hosting its first annual conference on
October 10th, 2008. Seasteading, akin to homesteading on land, seasteading
is the long term settlement of the ocean. Participants of the conference
will explore solutions to some of the obstacles to seasteading (economic,
political, and engineering) and discuss recent advances in the development
of a prototype seastead.

The press release is attached below. (1) You can register here:

http://movement.meetup.com/72/calendar/8606039/

The day after the conference there will be a kayaking trip at Waldo Point:

http://movement.meetup.com/72/calendar/8606148/

...followed by dinner at the Forbes Island Floating Restaurant:

http://movement.meetup.com/72/calendar/8618558/

There will also be a regular social gatherings of interested seasteaders:

http://movement.meetup.com/72/calendar/8522320/


Chris


(1) Mountain View, CA, August 18th, 2008.

If the Seasteading Institute has its way, you will soon be able to relocate
your house--or even your entire town--almost as easily as you move your car.

"We are going to build permanent floating settlements on the ocean. The
first prototype will likely be built in the sheltered waters of the San
Francisco Bay, but future designs will be capable of withstanding open ocean
conditions."
says Patri Friedman, founder of the Mountain View based non-profit. The
Institute recently received some substantial backing for their approach, in
the form of a $500,000 grant from Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel.

Unlike some past projects which envisioned enormous, multi-billion dollar
cities, The Seasteading Institute advocates a modular, incremental approach,
where cities are built up one block, or even one house, at a time. Patri
says: "Cruise ships already demonstrate that people can live on the ocean in
big, movable buildings at reasonable cost. We've got a slightly different
design: we're going to build a city out of interconnected floating
platforms. That way you'll be able to move cities, and take your house and
yard with you! And we are designing these platforms to be comparable in cost
to high-end land-based homes."

Friedman and many other "seasteaders" are motivated by a desire to try new
forms of government:

"The founders of the U.S. intended for the states to be laboratories of
democracy, experimenting with different laws to compete for citizen. But so
much power has been centralized by the federal government that now states
have very little freedom to experiment. And all around the world, people
feel alienated from their governments."

The seasteaders believe that their cities will restore that competition.
"Modern democratic governments are often unresponsive to the needs of their
citizens. Our floating cities will change that - if you don't like your
government, you'll be able to pull up anchor and sail to a better one, or
start your own. Imagine the reduction in worldwide violence if Israel could
just move away from Palestine, Georgia from Russia, or Hong Kong from China.
On floating cities, this is actually possible!"

Seasteading advocates point to the Netherlands as an example of a country
that is gradually moving to an aquatic lifestyle. "In the Netherlands, many
homes are built on floating platforms moored to canal bottoms. If the sea
levels rise, the homes simply float on the water." Dura Vermeer, a Dutch
firm, also recently deployed a prototype floating greenhouse.

"Unlike the Dutch floating homes, we plan to build unmoored platforms
suitable for the high seas,", Friedman says. "So we have to solve additional
problems, such as how to stay in one area without an anchor, and how to deal
with big waves and storms." He also sees positive environmental aspects:
"Seasteads will be well-positioned to use wind and solar power, and of
course, seasteaders will not require cars. That means the environmental
footprint of the seasteading lifestyle will be far smaller than on land".

To help solve some of those problems, the Seasteading Institute will be
holding its first annual conference in Burlingame, CA on October 10th.

For more information, see the Institute's website, www.seasteading.org.

Contact:
The Seasteading Institute
Press Inquiries:
press at seasteading.org
http://seasteading.org/learn-more/press
General Inquiries:
info at seasteading.org
http://www.seasteading.org/

(The Seasteading Institute is a California nonprofit corporation that is in
the process of applying for recognition of tax exemption under Section
501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.)



From moulton at moulton.com  Fri Sep 19 05:01:22 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:01:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809190428.m8J4Rm6I015327@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809190428.m8J4Rm6I015327@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <1221800482.7201.17120.camel@hayek>


On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 21:27 -0700, spike wrote:
> > 
> > > But everyone can see, even non-yanks, that the major 
> > parties have put 
> > > forth the weakest candidates in memory...Lionel Hutz vs Marge Simpson.
> > 
> > You really think Palin and Obama are on the same plane?:
> > 
> > "If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer... Olga
> 
> But that community today isn't brilliantly organized. 
> 
> I am not denying that Obama is a good guy, but he needs a few years in
> Washington, to get some national level experience, to demonstrate to the
> country that he understands how wealth is created.  

Based on what I have seen thus far Obama is head and shoulders above
either McCain or Palin in both intelligence and ethics.  Of course that
is not saying much since my opinion of McCain and Palin is low and
sinking.  I certainly do not endorse him but at least he has some
positive personal qualities.

And years in Washington does not necessarily correlate with knowledge of
the economy or good judgment.  McCain shows that. Of course being from a
small town does not necessarily correlate with knowledge, good judgment,
honesty or intelligence.  Palin shows that.

Fred




From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Sep 19 05:06:19 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:06:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809190435.m8J4ZOWO009778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809190435.m8J4ZOWO009778@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <48D3334B.1050205@mac.com>

spike wrote:
>  
>
>   
>> ...On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
>>     
> ...
>   
>> This should be obvious regardless of which party one favors: 
>> both Palin and Obama are lightweights. ...
>>
>> Cheney had just about the most experience of any politician 
>> of the last two presidential elections ... and certainly more 
>> experience than any politician running for president this year.
>>
>> Olga
>>     
>
> True, but we can't really know how much of the policy was actually being
> secretly run by W.  Do let us try to live at least fifty more years, when
> everything becomes unclassified, so we can find out.
>
> I don't claim that experience solves everything, but lack thereof is risky
> in this job.  We don't even know who Palin will choose for VP.  We know
> almost nothing of Michelle Obama, who will perhaps run for president in
> 2024.  If this isn't a libertarian year, I have never seen one.
>
>   

There are no libertarians running.  Well there is some typically obscure 
LP candidate but compared to Ron Paul he in not worth even noting.    
No, there is nothing but Tweedledum and Tweedledumber this year, as 
usual.   Never mind that Rome is burning, the same band, either with a 
dumb donkey or ignorable elephant in the room, plays on. 

- samantha


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 05:12:40 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:42:40 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
	<200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809182212gfe7eca7ra3e7a8b108012096@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/19 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>
>> > ...These people are not libertarians they are just poseurs... Fred
>
> I see this as yet another problem we libertarians have.  We cannot even
> agree among ourselves how to define ourselves.  We end up a motley
> collection of a lot of odds and ends with no party cohesiveness.
>
>> True. But I think more common are the people who have
>> libertarian values, but vote republican or democrat based on
>> the hot-plate issues at the moment...Kevin Freels
>
> Roger that.  Consider this election year. They try to convince us that if we
> vote for this ticket then we are racists, or if we vote for that ticket we
> are sexists, and if we vote for neither we are both.  But everyone can see,
> even non-yanks, that the major parties have put forth the weakest candidates
> in memory.  This should be obvious regardless of which party one favors:
> both Palin and Obama are lightweights.  No, scratch that, they would need a
> lot more experience to be lightweights.  They are both featherweights.
> Lionel Hutz vs Marge Simpson.

I'm pretty amazed to hear anyone say that about Obama. To me, he is
the most compelling candidate the Democrats have run in my living
memory. The things he is proposing to do, particularly related to
corporate influence on politics, boggle the mind. From outside the US,
it has always seemed strange that you allow such overt corporate
manipulation of your democracy, culminating in the current executive
level regulatory capture.

And yes, as someone else said in this thread, the idea that the
democrats are socialist is pretty amusing; both of your major parties
are incredibly right wing seen from outside, so much so that you have
interesting colourings of right wing (neocon? christian right?
libertarian right?) which we just don't see in Australia. Something
like the apocryphal multifarious names for snow amongst the Inuit.

And back to Obama, all he's really proposing is to take the US a
tentative step toward the kinds of policies that have been quietly
working in the rest of the west for, what, a hundred years?

-- 
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 sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Sep 19 05:15:56 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:15:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809190428.m8J4Rm6I015327@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809190428.m8J4Rm6I015327@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <48D3358C.2090103@mac.com>

spike wrote:
>  > 
>   
>>> But everyone can see, even non-yanks, that the major 
>>>       
>> parties have put 
>>     
>>> forth the weakest candidates in memory...Lionel Hutz vs Marge Simpson.
>>>       
>> You really think Palin and Obama are on the same plane?:
>>
>> "If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer... Olga
>>     
>
> But that community today isn't brilliantly organized. 
>
> I am not denying that Obama is a good guy, but he needs a few years in
> Washington, to get some national level experience, to demonstrate to the
> country that he understands how wealth is created.  It is not done by
> raising taxes on the rich during bad economic times.  That would cause them
> to hold their money, to stop creating wealth and jobs, bad times would get
> worse.  Raise taxes on the rich in good times.  
>   

Obama has a few years in Washington and quite a bit at the state level.  
Far more than could have been said for many a US president.    So how is 
wealth created?  Is it done by having the government spend us into 
oblivion with a needless war, blow enough credit and print enough money 
to create the largest buble of all time, bail out the investment houses, 
mortgage businesses, banks, manufacturers and so on when they fail and 
then float forbidding short selling to protect and hedge against failing 
investments?  The only trick they have missed is confiscating gold.    
Give em time.  
> The majors are *all* weak candidates this time.  Let's see how it goes in
> the upcoming debates.  Those should be interesting viewing, ja?
>   

Not unless you have nothing better to do.  Like playing with the cat.   :-)

- samantha



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 05:22:21 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:52:21 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <20080919040559.GA16937@ofb.net>
References: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
	<200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<20080919040559.GA16937@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809182222j27d40dbfua5e7b037ca7440f@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/19 Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu>:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 08:07:19PM -0700, spike wrote:
>
>> Lionel Hutz vs Marge Simpson.
>
> So I'd say Marge Simpson vs. Lisa Simpson. :)
>

McCain + Palin == Abe Simpson + Maude Flanders
http://www.socialmedia.biz/images/2008/09/12/mccain_palin.jpg

(hit youtube and compare Palin's voice to Maude Flanders, you'll die laughing)

-- 
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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Sep 19 05:33:30 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:33:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809182212gfe7eca7ra3e7a8b108012096@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
	<200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809182212gfe7eca7ra3e7a8b108012096@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080919053330.GA1036@ofb.net>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 03:42:40PM +1030, Emlyn wrote:

> And yes, as someone else said in this thread, the idea that the
> democrats are socialist is pretty amusing; both of your major parties

Hell, Obama's the one who's been *against* mandatory health insurance,
which doesn't make sense for risk pool management, but is nicely
non-socialist.

> And back to Obama, all he's really proposing is to take the US a
> tentative step toward the kinds of policies that have been quietly
> working in the rest of the west for, what, a hundred years?

But those don't work!  No, not those either.  Or those!  Look, they just
don't work, okay?  They may work in practice but they don't work in
theory!

-xx- Damien X-) 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Sep 19 05:37:43 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:37:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <1221800482.7201.17120.camel@hayek>
References: <200809190428.m8J4Rm6I015327@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<1221800482.7201.17120.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <20080919053742.GB1036@ofb.net>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:01:22PM -0700, Fred C. Moulton wrote:

> And years in Washington does not necessarily correlate with knowledge of
> the economy or good judgment.  McCain shows that. Of course being from a
> small town does not necessarily correlate with knowledge, good judgment,
> honesty or intelligence.  Palin shows that.

I don't know, her ability to get 5000 people into $20 million of debt in
a few years seems to show her quite qualified to be a Republican
President.  Why scaled up, that'd only be another $2 trillion to the US
debt!  A true heir to Reagan!

-xx- Damien X-)


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Fri Sep 19 05:23:09 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:23:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
References: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com><200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809182212gfe7eca7ra3e7a8b108012096@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3C40E212B0D94295B17E6D525584705C@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "Emlyn" <emlynoregan at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:12 PM

> I'm pretty amazed to hear anyone say that about Obama. To me, he is
> the most compelling candidate the Democrats have run in my living
> memory. The things he is proposing to do, particularly related to
> corporate influence on politics, boggle the mind. From outside the US,
> it has always seemed strange that you allow such overt corporate
> manipulation of your democracy, culminating in the current executive
> level regulatory capture.

He is by far the most compelling candidate I've seen, too.
 
> And back to Obama, all he's really proposing is to take the US a
> tentative step toward the kinds of policies that have been quietly
> working in the rest of the west for, what, a hundred years?

Yes.  And he's got the goods.

Olga


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 05:43:09 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:13:09 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <20080919053330.GA1036@ofb.net>
References: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
	<200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809182212gfe7eca7ra3e7a8b108012096@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080919053330.GA1036@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/19 Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu>:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 03:42:40PM +1030, Emlyn wrote:
>
>> And yes, as someone else said in this thread, the idea that the
>> democrats are socialist is pretty amusing; both of your major parties
>
> Hell, Obama's the one who's been *against* mandatory health insurance,
> which doesn't make sense for risk pool management, but is nicely
> non-socialist.
>

The discourse about health insurance is amusing in a weird way. We
have health insurance in Oz, but it's an entirely optional system
given that government provided health care covers everything you need
- our family has gotten along just fine without any insurance.

I think mandatory insurance is probably a bad idea; it starts to warp
the very idea of insurance. Should insurers have to insure bad risk
clients, the same as everyone else? Not, I would think. Universal
basic healthcare is a job for the government, for sure.

-- 
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 sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Sep 19 05:49:41 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:49:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
Message-ID: <48D33D75.7020203@mac.com>

Max More wrote:
> The "people" do not own 80% of AIG. The federal government (which is 
> NOT the people) *loaned* AIG $85 billion, to keep it going as new 
> management sells off its businesses. You can say, loosely, that the 
> government now *controls* AIG indirectly, but not that it owns it. 
> Unless the transition is badly botched, only part of that $85 billion 
> will be a cost to the taxpayers.

A question I wonder about is who really owns "the federal government". 
>
> To add to my previous comment (barely post-waking-up): The knee-jerk 
> finger pointing at markets at the problem is frustrating. Yes, it's 
> entirely possible that problems can arise in financial markets through 
> poor decision making and herd behavior. But such problems will usually 
> reveal themselves before they grow as large as the recent Western 
> financial problems. They only grow monstrous if the government won't 
> allow the fuse to blow.
>
Yep. 

> The anti-market types blame markets without reservation, despite the 
> fact that
> --the Federal Reserve, formed by the government, played a central role 
> in the financial crisis with its insistence on keeping interests too 
> low for too long.
Which is actually a private consortium of banking interests, not 
necessarily ever all US, that dictates monetary terms to the government 
and the people much of the time.   Certainly not a free-market 
institution though as it runs of central bank monopoly privilege.

> --Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-formed institutions that 
> were given a legally-enforced monopoly over "conforming loans." 
> Political pressures have distorted the market by pushing money to 
> borrowers who wouldn't otherwise have received them.

Yes.  It was always assumed to be backed by the government / tax payer 
and thus not necessarily so beholden to sound business practice.

> --By bailing out AIG but not Lehman, the government will create 
> additional financial uncertainty.
Funny thing is that JP Morgan put $130 billion into Lehman *in some 
form* after they filed bankruptcy and the Fed paid them back much of it 
with Lehman to give them priority among creditors for the rest.   Who 
knows, maybe they laundered their own toxic waste this way.  It came out 
in bankruptcy proceedings that some such flow of major funds occurred.

> The economy will only grow more complex in the future. I find it 
> disturbing how so many of us still run to Great God Government for 
> top-down solutions to the intricacies of complex economic systems.
>
Maybe the people will finally notice that dear Uncle Sam is bare-ass 
naked.   

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Sep 19 06:01:43 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:01:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <65CAFDA8A06C4DC28A9C3836FF123111@patrick4ezsk6z>
References: <200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<65CAFDA8A06C4DC28A9C3836FF123111@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <48D34047.90102@mac.com>

Olga Bourlin wrote:
>
> "If your husband [nickname "First Dude"], sports at least one DWI?
> conviction and didn't register to vote until he was 25 but did belong 
> to a
> group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is
> extremely admirable."

"First Dude" sounds like a great neighbor and someone I would love to 
party and shoot the breeze  with.  Maybe if we called the president 
"First Dude" people wouldn't be so stupid as to think he (or she 
someday) should run every aspect of their lives.   I think considering 
secession qualifies one as a more serious political thinker than 
most.    I wish I could put a smiley on that.

- samantha



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Sep 19 05:43:55 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809182222j27d40dbfua5e7b037ca7440f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <681242.87532.qm@web65609.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> McCain + Palin == Abe Simpson + Maude Flanders
> http://www.socialmedia.biz/images/2008/09/12/mccain_palin.jpg
> 
> (hit youtube and compare Palin's voice to Maude
> Flanders, you'll die laughing)

Here is another funny one . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU

At first you think maybe he is looking at her speech on the podium right? But then you realize that she herself never once looks down and modern political candidates use heads-up teleprompters.


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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Sep 19 06:19:11 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:19:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <48D34047.90102@mac.com>
References: <200809190307.m8J37M8C024902@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<65CAFDA8A06C4DC28A9C3836FF123111@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<48D34047.90102@mac.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080919011812.02472ab0@satx.rr.com>

At 11:01 PM 9/18/2008 -0700, samantha wrote:

>"First Dude" sounds like a great neighbor and someone I would love 
>to party and shoot the breeze  with.

That's not how you spell "bears".

Damien Broderick




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 19 06:38:29 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:38:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
Message-ID: <07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Kevin writes

> I worked in the mortgage industry for a very long time while this
> was going on. I can tell you first hand that out on the front lines
> we were simply amazed at some of the programs and rates
> being offered. Not a day would go by when I would see some
> company like Countrywide approve and close a loan that
> should not have been made. I personally watched millions of
> dollars every month being funded for loans where the borrower
> had no job, or was self-employed for 6 months and couldn't
> even prove it, yet had a bankruptcy discharged 3 months ago
> and had $3000 down payment that everyone knew darn well
> was coming from the seller of the house in question.

Yes, Kevin, but why? I'm really asking. From your point of
view, what caused these managers---who normally are profit-
oriented profit-hungry capitalists with no heart---take such
stupid chances?  WHY would they do it?

> What was even more amazing was that after this started to correct
> itself, the fed's actions were to LOWER interest rates in order to
> continue fueling the fire.

Oh, that?  It's called a "stimulant". I hear Democratic politicians
talking all the time about the need for a new "stimulant". Picture
an alcoholic on the morning after holding his aching head, and
the pretty little thing next to him saying, "Oh, Sam, you were *so*
much more fun last night than now. What you need is a stimulant,
so here:  here is what you need: $$$$$$".  And of course, the money
flows, the interest rates are dropped the debt increased, the metaphorical
printing pressed turned to ON.

But I wish I could blame just Democrats. Unfortunately, I got a good
dose of Mrs. Palin's views of the economy today. It was absolutely
dreadful. I can not look to Republicans to be any the less in love with
"stimulants" than the Democrats, I'm afraid.

>  They just gave these banks more rope to hang themselves with.
> The proper move would have been to raise interest rates despite
> the obvious recession that it would have put us into!

Of course. Schumpeter called it "creative destruction more than 60
years ago". Recessions are for weeding out the companies that are
not truly creating wealth. But hey, with easy money, more "stimulants"
even the companies losing money think they're hanging on, because
the resulting inflation allows their chief accountants to say, "Well, 
we didn't have a good year, but at least we didn't *lose* money."
No way.

Everybody likes the heyday when, as in the late nineties, we all thought
we were getting rich. The truth of the matter is that is when the most
wealth was being destroyed. Millions of people were employed on
projects that went nowhere and had to be canceled. So when wealth
was *actually* being created by those companies all folding the next
decade, everyone thinks that that is terrible. Well, hangovers *are*
terrible, but they're a sign that you're on the road to recovery. And
hopefully that you'll one day have enough sense to resist "stimulants".

> Now I have a greater concern. It would be a terrific thing for
> everyone is people began saving their money rather than
> spending it all, but what happens if everyone suddenly stops
> buying at once because they are afraid of losing their jobs
> and need to build a quick savings account?

Relax. It never happens that people "all" begin doing anything
or "all" stop doing anything. It's very subtle, actually, and I don't
want to tackle it tonight. But consider that if you save, the money
simply goes into investments so that someone else can spend.
The fundamental idea is that---and here is the true mystery for
me---when plain folks spend on ordinary items it is somehow
often wealth-destroying, and when companies spend on new
equipment or make other investments, it is somehow often 
wealth-creating, but I will be damned if I know when which is
which.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 19 06:44:50 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:44:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<48D33D75.7020203@mac.com>
Message-ID: <07eb01c91a23$cff383b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Samantha points out

> Funny thing is that JP Morgan put $130 billion into Lehman *in some 
> form* after they filed bankruptcy and the Fed paid them back much of it 
> with Lehman to give them priority among creditors for the rest.

Funny thing: in 1907, 101 years ago, J.P. Morgan bailed out the
U.S. financial markets himself, (with the help of a group of bankers
he organized). This led to the creation of the Fed five or six years
later, ostensibly to do the very same thing whenever needed.

Some things never seem to change.

Lee


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 19 06:55:14 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:55:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <108496.35585.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><62c14240809161321n5d8f4017nf50266b17c4a0421@mail.gmail.com>
	<000701c91990$e763eb40$fd074797@archimede>
Message-ID: <07f901c91a25$38028090$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Serafino asks a lot of good questions. Fortunately I am not
in a state of mind to waver on anything, or to resist answering.
Or unfortunately. Wha'ever.

> Subtle questions. And the possible answers depend
> on the specific points of view, or interpretations.
> What are these states?

Actually existing configurations of matter and energy!

> Are they physical?

Yes.

> Are they mathematical?

Our descriptions of them are mathematical.

> Are they statistical?

No.

> Do they represent information carried by a quantum system?

Yes.

> Do they represent observer's information?

Not only that.

> Rather, do they represent the 'image' of the information carried by 
> a quantum system?

Yes, that too.

> Do they represent experimental contexts? 

Yes.

> Do they represent statistical ensembles?

No.

> Or do they represent single systems?

Yes.

> Are they subjective?

Certainly not!

> Are they objective?

Yes!

> Are they tendencies, propensities, potentialities? 

No!

> Are they actualities?

Yes! Yes!

> Should we give up the possibility of treating the wave function as
> an isomorphic image of what is actually processed in the laboratory?

Never! Never give up!

> In QM the outcome of a measurement - repeated many
> times - of an observable, isn't in general the same. 
> So QM gives the expectation value of the observable 
> to be measured. (In special cases it gives the actual 
> outcome of the measurement, non just the expectation 
> value).

Right.

> While it is possible to say that QM does not care of
> unperformed measurements, what can we say about the
> value of an observable between two measurements?
> Is it undefined? Is it unknowable? 

It is a superposition before the measurements, it is a
superposition between the measurements, and it will
be a superposition after the measurements. Superposition
now, superposition tomorrow, and superposition forever!
(If I cain't get segregation, I'll jist settle for superposition, me.)

Aren't you lucky I am in such a decisive state of mind 
tonight?   DON'T  ANSWER!

Lee

> In QM the total information of a system, represented 
> by the state vector, is never complete. Information
> is limited. The total information of a system suffices 
> to specify the eigenstate of one observable only, 
> at choice. Thus, all possible future measurement results 
> cannot be precisely defined.
> 
> The state vector can be said to represent our knowledge 
> about the recent history of a system which is necessary 
> to arrive at the set of probabilistic predictions
> for all possible future observations of the system.
> The set of future probabilistic predictions specified 
> by the recent history of the system is indifferent 
> to the knowledge collected from all the previous measurements 
> in the whole history of the system. As Pauli once wrote: 
> "In the case of indefiniteness of a property of a system 
> for a certain experimental arrangement (for a certain
> state of the system) any attempt to measure that property 
> destroys (at least partially) the influence of earlier 
> knowledge of the system on (possibly statistical) statements 
> about later possible measurement results."
> 
> Can we say that the observable has a *definite* value between 
> two measurements? No, in general we cannot say that. 
> If the state is a pure state (and not a mixture) we cannot 
> say there is any definite value [1].
> 
> Can we say the value of the observable is *unknowable* between
> two measurements? No, we cannot say that, because QM in general
> provides a sort of information, a sort of knowledge, whose nature
> is probabilistic though.  
> 
> [1]
> Imagine a spin-1/2 particle. Imagine its state described by 
> the superposition psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z].
> There are two possibilities.
>    A) That psi above is a pure state. Since we know that
> (s+)_z = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_x +(s-)_x]
> (s-)_z = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_x -(s-)_x]
> (where _z, _x, are the z-component and the x-component of spin) 
> we can write that psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] = (s+)_x.
> Now, if the x-component of spin is measured by passing 
> the spin-1/2 particle through a Stern-Gerlach with its field 
> oriented along the x-axis, the particle will *always* emerge 'up' 
> (that is, as (s+)_x). The experiment confirms that.
>    B) But if by sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] we mean
> a *mixture* of sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z] and sqrt(1/2)[(s-)_z],
> we might also think that -before measurement- the particle 
> has a *definite* value of the z-projection of spin,
> say [(s+)_z] or [(s-)_z]. But in this case, measuring the 
> x-component of the spin, we would find 'up' with the
> probability 0,5 and 'down' with the same probability.
> Experiments does not confirm that! 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 19 07:01:59 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:01:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>	<29666bf30809171723l38e95fa7tda707a6f9e5175c6@mail.gmail.com><000101c91990$542f70b0$0501a8c0@DFC68LF1>	<48D25991.7020806@lineone.net><2FA51052839B4A45AD3FAA8DAB0260BC@DFC68LF1>
	<48D26AC9.9050003@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <080001c91a25$ec388910$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Russell quotes Friedman

> I agree with THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?ex=1379044800&en=c3c37388fe4618aa&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
>
> Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology ? fossil 
> fuels ? rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology ? renewable energy?

Well, maybe because one is still profitable, and the other
still costs government subsidies?

> As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve
> of the I.T. revolution ? on the eve of PCs and the Internet ? is
> pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters
> and carbon paper. ?Typewriters, baby, typewriters.?

Mr. Friedman should know better than philosophizing in the
absence of economics.

If it's more profitable to build new IT devices and PC,
then go forth and build them. And if it's profitable to
dig black gold out of the ground, then go dig. Simple
enough, without a lot of foolish "masterminds" thinking
they know what's best for the future, what's best for
the economy, and what's best for all of us. Go screw
yourself, and leave this stuff free of your central-control
financing and management.

> Forgetting completely 'bed wetting liberal green issues' we as technoprogressives surely want, 'need' advanced technologies to 
> flourish? I see more Nano technology in solar, hydrogen and new battery technology than I do in revamping 19th century oil based 
> technology...

We need new advanced technology just as soon as they're
profitable, and not a moment sooner. We're not as smart
as we think we are.

Lee



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 07:08:01 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:38:01 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Open Learning?
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809190008k29a4a5d3v29ec95a4cd2cca9f@mail.gmail.com>

Is anyone well versed on open learning tools / communities online?

I've been thinking of doing a deal more study recently, for interest /
self-improvement rather than quals. There are some good materials out
there these days from universities, notably

- MIT Open Courseware - http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
- Stanford's Engineering Everywhere program -
http://www.deviceguru.com/2008/09/17/stanford-frees-cs-robotics-courses/
- Wikiversity.org looks good too

which is all good.

However, a bit more of the structure of uni would be nice;
particularly a cohort of people doing the same course, so some
supportive culture could build up around it. I don't think I would
really care about having a formal "lecturer" for a "course", but
someone in a light-on tutor role might be nice. Or maybe the group of
participants could just help each other out, and dispense with that?

Does anyone know of anything like that happening online anywhere?

-- 
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  Fri Sep 19 07:14:03 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:14:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] QT and SR
References: <685968.72086.qm@web65613.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<62c14240809181122l7758d054y7d3c435e7b4d57fd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <080a01c91a27$53bd4750$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Mike writes (isn't that great? lots of "Damien"s, "John"s, and others, but
yet only one "Mike"!)

> Anyway, do you also suppose that our imaginings are some fractionally
> real experiences?  Is it possible from the position you stated above
> that people living under "obvious" delusions are in fact living in a
> different universe than the rest of us?

I shall jump in. Yes, by all means your fantasies or mistakes are 
*real* in some different universe. But while your having just
imagined having been hit by a falling airplane does connect to
another you in a different universe having been actually struck
by a falling plane, there isn't any causal connection. For the
rules in play here, sadly or at least prosaically, we have to
ascribe your imaginings to your rich inner life, and not to what
is going on in other universes  :-)

> Also, how do you suggest that the entity I conceive as myself compared
> to the entity that I conceive as you (non-me) are able to experience
> the same universe?  (within a given definition for experience that a
> priori resolves identity and communication issues)

I submit that you are experiencing many universes right now, it's
just that a lot of the copies are probably not conscious of it (unlike
those reading this right now), perhaps because they're dealing with
falling airplanes, or stock prices exploding upwards. But so long
as they're sufficiently similar in structure, so says I, you are them too.

Lee


From kanzure at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 07:19:36 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:19:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Open Learning?
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809190008k29a4a5d3v29ec95a4cd2cca9f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809190008k29a4a5d3v29ec95a4cd2cca9f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809190219.36789.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Friday 19 September 2008, Emlyn wrote:
> Is anyone well versed on open learning tools / communities online?

Me, me, pick me! :) I haven't been paying attention these past few 
months though.

> I've been thinking of doing a deal more study recently, for interest
> / self-improvement rather than quals. There are some good materials
> out there these days from universities, notably

I have a few thousand links on many topics in many introductory college 
courses because of my scowering of the web too .. but not so much the 
structure that you're looking for.

> However, a bit more of the structure of uni would be nice;
> particularly a cohort of people doing the same course, so some
> supportive culture could build up around it. I don't think I would
> really care about having a formal "lecturer" for a "course", but
> someone in a light-on tutor role might be nice. Or maybe the group of
> participants could just help each other out, and dispense with that?
>
> Does anyone know of anything like that happening online anywhere?

I try to hold weekly "Wikipeding" meetings on freenode with others. What 
we do is we go through a subset of Wikipedia as quickly / completely as 
possible, but it's just as easily applicable to streaming video 
annotations and so on. I haven't seen other groups doing this quite 
yet .. but I'm sure they are out there somewhere.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 07:24:51 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:54:51 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Open Learning?
In-Reply-To: <200809190219.36789.kanzure@gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809190008k29a4a5d3v29ec95a4cd2cca9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809190219.36789.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809190024t18f8e4fcw22c72cf67f4aaf0@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/19 Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com>:
> On Friday 19 September 2008, Emlyn wrote:
>> Is anyone well versed on open learning tools / communities online?
>
> Me, me, pick me! :) I haven't been paying attention these past few
> months though.

Picked!

>
>> I've been thinking of doing a deal more study recently, for interest
>> / self-improvement rather than quals. There are some good materials
>> out there these days from universities, notably
>
> I have a few thousand links on many topics in many introductory college
> courses because of my scowering of the web too .. but not so much the
> structure that you're looking for.

Yeah, some structure. Lots of free information is awesome, but a bit
of structure is a lot more, web 2.0, you know?

A lot of people will read Web 2.0 and vomit a bit in their mouth, but
I'm coming to think it actually represents something :-)
>
>> However, a bit more of the structure of uni would be nice;
>> particularly a cohort of people doing the same course, so some
>> supportive culture could build up around it. I don't think I would
>> really care about having a formal "lecturer" for a "course", but
>> someone in a light-on tutor role might be nice. Or maybe the group of
>> participants could just help each other out, and dispense with that?
>>
>> Does anyone know of anything like that happening online anywhere?
>
> I try to hold weekly "Wikipeding" meetings on freenode with others. What
> we do is we go through a subset of Wikipedia as quickly / completely as
> possible, but it's just as easily applicable to streaming video
> annotations and so on. I haven't seen other groups doing this quite
> yet .. but I'm sure they are out there somewhere.
>
> - Bryan

Ooh, is this a closed group?

-- 
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 pgptag at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 08:24:31 2008
From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:24:31 +0200
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <20080918172942.GA25679@ofb.net>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net> <1221717798.7201.16167.camel@hayek>
	<fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
	<20080918172942.GA25679@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <470a3c520809190124l4be3bc48t4a87213cec53c7b0@mail.gmail.com>

This quiz2d is a very interesting. My score:

You desire substantially less government control of personal activity
and somewhat less government control over economic activity than is
presently the case in the U.S. I used to classify this area as part of
"Moderate Libertarian;" but got many objections; I guess calling you a
moderate libertarian is akin to calling a liberal Democrat a moderate
communist.;"
Your views would be best represented by a mix of Libertarian and
Democratic representatives?assuming that it was possible to get a
significant number of Libertarians elected. The Libertarian Party is
still dominated by people far more radical than you though there is an
ongoing effort to make the LP more inclusive and less radical. If you
have the patience and willingness do deal with infighting, you may
want to join this effort. Or, you might find my proposed new party
more to your liking.
Approximately 14% of the takers of this quiz scored in this area.

I always score in this range in political tests. In fact, the general
flavor of the author's "Business plan for a new political party" is
quite compatible with my own position: "But where is the home for
those who want smaller government AND smaller corporations? Where is
the home for those who want to disperse ALL power, not just the power
of the federal government? Where is the home for those who want small
government but still see a place for SOME public property, such as
town squares, public roads and parks?" (emphasis mine).

G.

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:05:10AM -0500, Kevin Freels wrote:
>
>> The Libertarian party needs a stated long-term goal; something like
>> "we are committed to building a much larger base and winning the 2016
>> election." along with some simple press statements such as "Most
>> people are somewhat libertarian and don't even know it. We feel that
>
> "somewhat libertarian" isn't all that Libertarian, though.  That
> quiz2d.com link?  It's by a libertarian, though he's shifted from right
> to left, and probably catered to libertarian populations.  But "abolish
> all taxes" is the single least popular position.  Legalizing heroin does
> better.
>
> Internet polls aren't scientific but it's suggestive.
>
> Or
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07Inequality-t.html
> People surrounded by things that just work don't want to be told that
> government can't work, they want a party that'll make government also
> work.  -- I think it also connected Democraticness with inequality, from
> either end, with Republican voters often being in homogenous suburbs
> where they don't see the poor.
>
> -xx- Damien X-)
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 08:42:15 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:42:15 +1000
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809190142ue694721v9ac855047ece423d@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/19 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

>> What was even more amazing was that after this started to correct
>> itself, the fed's actions were to LOWER interest rates in order to
>> continue fueling the fire.
>
> Oh, that?  It's called a "stimulant". I hear Democratic politicians
> talking all the time about the need for a new "stimulant". Picture
> an alcoholic on the morning after holding his aching head, and
> the pretty little thing next to him saying, "Oh, Sam, you were *so*
> much more fun last night than now. What you need is a stimulant,
> so here:  here is what you need: $$$$$$".  And of course, the money
> flows, the interest rates are dropped the debt increased, the metaphorical
> printing pressed turned to ON.

The Federal Reserve understands that the nature of capitalism is to
have booms and busts, and attempts to smooth out the fluctuations
using monetary policy. They stuffed up: during boom times they should
have noticed what was happening and raised interest rates, then
lowered them when the economy slowed too much. The equivalent in
treating an alcoholic is to try to reduce his intake during binges,
but make sure he has a little alcohol (or a less toxic substitute such
as diazepam) when withdrawing, or he could go into the DT's and die.
Now you might say: let him die, that'll remove him from the gene pool
and maybe teach others not to drink.

Interestingly, many central banks are by design independent of
Government even though they are Government funded, rather as the
courts are supposed to be. Governments don't like this, in general,
because they have less control over the economy, but they have
discovered empirically, through the free market of economic systems
around the world, that it works better than the alternatives.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From artillo at comcast.net  Fri Sep 19 12:28:15 2008
From: artillo at comcast.net (artillo at comcast.net)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:28:15 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
Message-ID: <091920081228.9813.48D39ADF0007F32D000026552207020853010404079B9D0E@comcast.net>


> "Thanks Lee, this is a license to be weird.
> 
> spike"

I'm a card-carrying member of the RPGA, does that count as an official license to be weird? :D
-Artillo


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Sep 19 12:35:30 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:35:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <080001c91a25$ec388910$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<48D26AC9.9050003@lineone.net>
	<080001c91a25$ec388910$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080919123530.GA803@ofb.net>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:01:59AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Russell quotes Friedman
> 
> >I agree with THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN 
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?ex=1379044800&en=c3c37388fe4618aa&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
> >
> >Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on 
> >breathing life into a 19th-century technology ? fossil fuels ? rather than 
> >giving birth to a 21st-century technology ? renewable energy?
> 
> Well, maybe because one is still profitable, and the other
> still costs government subsidies?

Or, you know, "research".

Plus the oil is being subsidized as well, most obviously through being
allowed to dump its waste products into the atmosphere.  Where's your
libertarian outrage about that?

-xx- Damien X-) 


From ain_ani at yahoo.com  Fri Sep 19 13:15:18 2008
From: ain_ani at yahoo.com (Michael Miller)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Human as Hybrid
Message-ID: <495531.11568.qm@web31501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

On a similar line (regarding the devolopment of DNA strands across species), this article was very interesting.

Original at http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19926711.600-viruses-the-unsung-heroes-of-evolution.html

Viruses: The unsung heroes of evolution
	* 27 August 2008 
	* Garry Hamilton 
FEW aspects of evolution are harder to explain than the emergence of complexity. How did the first cell emerge from the primordial soup? How did natural selection come up with a marvel as complex as the human brain? The tree of life is full of similar riddles - great evolutionary advances whose origins defy easy explanation.
?
Since the discovery of DNA, biologists have insisted they have the answer: complexity arises as the result of small errors that occur when genomes are copied and passed down the generations. Although individually small, these mutations can add up to enormous change across the vastness of time.
?
This view of evolution has held sway for about 50 years, but now biologists are sensing that it is missing a major element - viruses. For close to a century, these genetic parasites have been regarded as little more than a biological afterthought, notable mainly for their ability to cause death and disease. However, the era of genomics has unexpectedly revealed a much richer picture of viruses as a creative evolutionary force of unparalleled reach and power. "Everywhere you look, viruses seem to be playing a crucial role in evolution," says Luis Villarreal, director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine. "I would argue that they are the most creative genetic entities that we know of."
?
Such revelations will come as a surprise to many. Viruses are generally seen as finely honed killing machines - pared-down packages of genetic information that exist solely to attack cells and hijack their biochemistry. In some respects that reputation is well deserved. Viruses by definition are parasites, utterly dependent on their hosts for survival, and viral infections have been responsible for some of the worst epidemics in human history.
In the late 1980s, however, this view began to change. Researchers started exploring the size and diversity of the viral world, or "virosphere", by taking samples from different environments and counting the viruses. A millilitre of water from the Barents Sea turned out to contain 60,000 virus particles, and a similar sample from Lake Plussee in Germany contained 254 million. These and other results suggested viruses were up to 10 million times more common than previously estimated.
?
Subsequent research has confirmed that viruses are everywhere, in great abundance. They are found in hot springs, deserts, polar lakes and rocks 2000 metres below ground - anywhere there are life forms to infect. "There are more bacteriophages [viruses that infect bacteria] in the biosphere than all other life forms added together," says Graham Hatfull of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. "If you took all the phage particles and stacked them end to end, they would reach for a total distance of 200 million light years. It sounds kind of stupid, but it makes the point." Villarreal adds: "The world is mostly viral. They are the most abundant and diverse genetic entities."
?
This diversity in the virosphere is also coming as a surprise. There are now thought to be around 100 million types of virus. They boast a more varied biochemistry than cellular life, storing their genetic information as both single and double-stranded DNA and RNA. Recent virus-hunting expeditions have uncovered one with a unique hybrid genome structure, part single-stranded and part double-stranded DNA, plus a menagerie of novel forms - bottle-shaped viruses, viruses with tails at both ends, viruses shaped like droplets and viruses that resemble stalk-like filaments. Most astonishing of all is the giant mimivirus (see image, top right), which is bigger than some bacteria (New Scientist, 25 March 2006, p 37). And we have only scratched the surface. "In terms of diversity, I don't think we even have an inkling yet what's out there," says Curtis Suttle, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.
?
Perhaps most surprising of all, the more virus genomes we comb through, the more we are discovering hundreds of genes never seen anywhere else - not in any other virus, nor any living cell. According to Villarreal, these make up an amazing 80 per cent of viral genes, yet their function remains a mystery.
Dead or alive?
Such diversity comes as a surprise partly because viruses have long been considered cast-offs from the tree of life - shards of non-living genetic material that somehow escaped from cellular life forms and became parasites. As the number of sequenced viral genomes climbs towards 1000, however, there is a growing belief that viruses have a more interesting story to tell. "Most virologists no longer believe that viruses derived from host genome sequences, but instead that they arose as independent life forms, probably prior to bacteria," says science writer Frank Ryan, author of Virus X: Tracking the new killer plagues.
?
One important piece of the story emerged when Hatfull and his colleague Roger Hendrix compared the genomes of dozens of bacteriophages to map their evolutionary history. They found that instead of assorting into a family tree based on common ancestry, each phage appears to be a patchwork of randomly assembled fragments of DNA. Their conclusion was that viruses are genetic grab-bags whose genomes are constantly being mashed up with DNA from other viruses infecting the same host.
?
This genetic pick 'n' mix is no localised affair. Identical viral genes have been found in vastly different habitats on opposite sides of the world, suggesting that sequences are constantly being copied and pasted from virus to virus around a global DNA superhighway. "Viral genetic information is essentially being distributed all around the planet, presumably by different viruses recombining when they infect the same cells," says Shuttle. Add in a rapid mutation rate, and viruses quickly emerge as life's most fertile breeding ground for novel DNA sequences.
?
So how does that make viruses a key player in evolution? It turns out that this genetic productivity isn't confined to the viruses, but reaches deep into the cells of their hosts too. The first hints of this emerged in the 1950s, when researchers discovered that not all phage infections are the same. While many such viruses follow a scorched-earth policy - destroy one cell then move on to the next - others employ a longer-term strategy, inserting themselves into their host's genome and multiplying only when the cell divides. These "prophages" can sometimes re-emerge as virus particles, but they can also bed down as permanent additions to the bacterial DNA.
?
Such intrusions were considered freak events until recently, when genome sequencing revealed that between 10 and 20 per cent of DNA in most bacteria is prophage. In addition to that is a subset of bacterial genes called ORFans that bear no resemblance to genes seen anywhere else.
?
"When you sequence a [bacterial] genome, you always end up with genes that are unknown, usually around 10 per cent," says Patrick Forterre at Paris-Sud University in Orsay, France. "It was once thought that this was because we haven't sequenced many genomes. But even today, after more than 500 genomes, whenever you sequence a new one you still get 10 per cent ORFans." Forterre has found that ORFans tend to be small, much like viral genes, and many are located close to a common site of prophage integration. His conclusion is that 90 per cent of ORFans probably have viral origins.
?
It's not just bacteria that are full of virus genes. Geneticists have discovered that the genomes of every living organism appear to be laden with the remains of ancient viral infections. In eukaryotes, the most complex domain of cellular life including humans, the main source of this DNA is retroviruses - RNA viruses that, after infecting a cell, convert their genome into DNA and integrate it into the host. Sometimes they become a permanent addition, called an endogenous retrovirus, or ERV.
?
ERVs have been known of since the 1970s, but the full extent of their infiltration did not become apparent until 2003, when genome sequencing revealed that our DNA is absolutely dripping with them. At least 8 per cent of the human genome consists of clearly-identifiable ERVs. Another 40 to 50 per cent looks suspiciously ERV-like, and much of the rest consists of DNA elements that multiply and spread in virus-like ways. Taken together, virus-like genes represent a staggering 90 per cent of the human genome. ERVs have also been found in rodents, apes, monkeys, koalas - essentially everywhere geneticists look. "There is this continuous raining of viral genes into cellular genomes," says Forterre.
?
The curious thing about all this viral DNA is that it isn't just taking up room - a significant amount of it is functional. "Most [viral genes] don't play a role and they're eliminated," says Forterre. "But from time to time, when a protein does become useful to the cell for whatever reason, it can be retained, and then it can sometimes really change the story of the lineage - it can change the cell's evolutionary direction."
?
One of the first clues to the evolutionary power of viral DNA came in the 1950s, during efforts to eradicate diphtheria. Researchers discovered that the bacterial culprit, Corynebacterium diphtheriae, does its dirty work by latching onto throat cells and releasing a toxin. They later found that the gene for this toxin belongs to a prophage. Since then researchers have compiled a long list of bacterial diseases in which prophage genes supply the killer blow. These include botulism, cholera, bubonic plague and necrotising fasciitis, more commonly known as the flesh-eating disease.
Radical evolution
Prophage genes also turn out to be useful in other settings. For example, Hatfull has identified one that gives bacteria the ability to get together in communal groups called biofilms. "It's very likely that viruses affect host physiology in all sorts of interesting ways that have yet to be discovered," he says. Harald Br???ssow, a microbiologist at Nestl??? in Lausanne, Switzerland, has suggested that viral DNA provides bacteria with an evolutionary "second gear" that allows them to respond rapidly to short-term environmental pressures by acquiring radical new capabilities.
?
It's not just bacteria either. Evidence is mounting that viruses contribute to the biology of multicellular life forms too, including humans. The most dramatic example is the mammalian placenta, whose evolution is thought to have been pivotal to the rise of modern mammals. One of the key genes involved in placenta formation is called syncytin. In 2000, researchers at the Genetics Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the gene came from an ERV (Nature, vol 403, p 785).
?
That's not all. The cytoplasm of human cells is brimming with messenger RNA derived from viral genes, and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, recently published a list of 35 viral genes that appear to play a vital role in human biology. Viruses also appear to have played crucial roles in the evolution of the ability of our immune system to respond rapidly to pathogens it has never encountered before - one of the most important innovations of the past 500 million years. Sequences derived from ERVs also appear to be heavily involved in gene regulatory networks, which control when and where genes are switched on and off. Again, this fingers them as a key driver of evolution: the main difference between closely related species is not in genes themselves but how they are expressed.
?
Perhaps viruses' most dramatic claim to a starring role in evolution involves events in the dim and distant past. According to Forterre and others, viruses were responsible for some or even all of the main events in early evolution, including the invention of cells.
?
In the 1970s, Forterre began studying the molecular machinery involved in DNA replication. Scientists had only just learned that cellular life comprises three domains - bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes - and thought that comparing universal biochemical processes such as DNA replication could yield insights into how the domains were related.
?
But the results were perplexing. While some components showed the expected signs of common ancestry across all domains, others displayed more puzzling relationships. For example, DNA replication enzymes in archaea and eukaryotes are clearly related, but the bacterial versions are totally different. Other components were found to be the same in archaea and bacteria, but different in eukaryotes. This patchwork of shared features means it is impossible to arrange the three domains in a standard family tree.
?
This suggested to Forterre that the three domains might be the survivors of a much more diverse primordial biosphere that predates the evolution of cells (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 3669). Forterre and others have since built up evidence that early life was a period of wild biochemical experimentation in which molecular systems were constantly being invented and thrown together into new and increasingly complex ensembles (Virus Research, vol 117, p5). Once cells evolved, the experimentation continued, driven by innovation and gene transfer by the first viruses. The result was the creation of numerous alternative living systems, built up from random combinations of the available components. Only three of these systems survive to this day in the form of the three domains of cellular life; much of the rest lives on in the virosphere.
?
That puts viruses right at the heart of early evolution. "If you consider that viruses have always been more abundant than cells, you should conclude that the flow of genes has always been higher from viruses to cells," says Forterre. "Given this, it should not be surprising that major innovations could have occurred first in the viral world, before being transferred to cells."
?
Hendrix agrees. "If you are a primitive cell it is likely going to be prohibitively difficult to invent all the sophisticated biochemistry that cells have today," he says. "What you need is some way of sharing the successful experiments among different cells, and one of the best ways to do that is to move genes around using viruses."
Forterre now believes that the creative power of viruses lies behind many early leaps in complexity, such as the transition from the RNA world to that of DNA and the invention of the cell nucleus.
?
All in all, biologists are confronting what may be the biggest advance in evolutionary thinking since the discovery of the gene. Our emerging knowledge of viruses challenges many tenets of evolution, not least that it is driven by competition between selfish genes. Viruses provide a strong argument for the idea that evolution is also driven by fitness boosts gained through give and take.
?
Nor is evolution necessarily a gradual process. The rate at which viruses shuffle DNA around suggests that life is capable of acquiring fresh new material out of the blue, and also of making dramatic leaps in the time it takes to catch a cold.
?
Perhaps the most profound change will be in our concept of organisms and species. Individuals are supposed to be distinct packages of genetic information that have been passed along an unbroken line of ancestors extending back millions, if not billions, of years. But in truth we're all leaky vessels, and DNA knows no bounds. It is looking more and more as though the biosphere is an interconnected network of continuously circulated genes - a "pangenome", to use the term recently coined by microbiologist Victor Tetz of St Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University in Russia.
?
Oh, and another thing. We may have to revise our notions of common descent. Yes, we're related to apes. But we're also more than just a little bit virus.

?


----- Original Message ----
From: Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; wta-talk at transhumanism.org; extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:21:13 PM
Subject: [ExI] Human as Hybrid


No one knows if we are the?hybrid of?interspecies breeding of Neandertals and Cro-Magnons.? Thisis one?theoryand recently called a myth.? http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/12/10/2114205.htm? Who knows.? 
?
Regardless, we are comprised of many cells containing DNA that is not human? we are?"1,000 species and more than 10 trillion bacterial cells inside us at any given time.??(Nicholson)?? Some of these cells are invasive and our immune system fights them.? Other microns are beneficial and make their way into our system and often even help to fight of other?invasive organisms.
?
Is this a good enough argument that humans are hybrids?? If so, why?
?
Natasha
Natasha Vita-More


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080919/ffb50d0f/attachment.html>

From scerir at libero.it  Fri Sep 19 13:56:32 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:56:32 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Varying constants and the origin of life
References: <A28609C488CF4D88AADA74DBDD87EA19@technotr9881e5>
Message-ID: <000301c91a5f$864b31e0$5c074797@archimede>

Dan:
> That life continues seems to be an argument against this, but maybe the
> continuance of life is much easier to maintain under the current value of
> the constant and genesis itself is harder if not impossible.
> Any thoughts?

No, but the relation between variance of constants (and in general
variance of physical laws) and the very existence of stars 
seems to be discussed here. 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3697
Stars In Other Universes:
Stellar structure with different fundamental constants
-Fred C. Adams
Abstract: Motivated by the possible existence of other universes, with
possible variations in the laws of physics, this paper explores the
parameter space of fundamental constants that allows for the existence of
stars. To make this problem tractable, we develop a semi-analytical stellar
structure model that allows for physical understanding of these stars with
unconventional parameters, as well as a means to survey the relevant
parameter space. In this work, the most important quantities that determine
stellar properties -- and are allowed to vary -- are the gravitational
constant G, the fine structure constant alpha, and a composite
parameter C that determines nuclear reaction rates. Working within this
model, we delineate the portion of parameter space that allows for the
existence of stars. Our main finding is that a sizable fraction of the
parameter space (roughly one fourth) provides the values necessary for
stellar objects to operate through sustained nuclear fusion. As a result,
the set of parameters necessary to support stars are not particularly rare.
In addition, we briefly consider the possibility that unconventional stars
(e.g., black holes, dark matter stars) play the role filled by stars in our
universe and constrain the allowed parameter space.

In general, about the so called 'landscape' ....
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0511037
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604242



From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 14:49:20 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:49:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Emlyn
> ...
> - our family has gotten along just fine without any insurance.

Emlyn you are young as I recall.  Congratulations in any case, and best
wishes to you and the continuing good health of your family.  {8-]  
 
> I think mandatory insurance is probably a bad idea; it starts 
> to warp the very idea of insurance. Should insurers have to 
> insure bad risk clients, the same as everyone else? Not, I 
> would think. Universal basic healthcare is a job for the 
> government, for sure.
> 
> --
> Emlyn

The problem I see with that notion is that it sticks the taxpayer with all
the bad risks that private industry will not take, but without the option of
dropping the client.  That being the case, it seems logical that the
government would take possession of the health habits of its clients in
order to protect the bottom line.  We know for instance that diabetes is
costing a fortune.  The government could decide to tax sugar and corn syrup
imports to the point where they are uncompetitive with artificial sweeteners
and domestic sugar, much of which is being made into fuel ethanol.  

Actually when I write that, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

spike





From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Sep 19 15:06:09 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:06:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net> <1221717798.7201.16167.camel@hayek>
	<fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
Message-ID: <48D3BFE1.9050005@mac.com>

Kevin Freels wrote:
>> One of the major problems that the libertarian movement has is the
>> number of people who call themselves libertarians yet 
>> fundamentally do
>> not understand it and really are just conservatives.  These 
>> people are
>> not libertarians they are just poseurs.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>     
>
> True. But I think more common are the people who have libertarian values, but vote republican or democrat based on the hot-plate issues at the moment. For example:
> A couple I know have voted Republican in the last 6 elections. They are avid gun-owners. But at the moment, Obama does not present a threat to their guns while Bush is a threat to their secular nature. So this election they will vote Obama. If Obama leaves their guns and their pocket-book alone, they will vote to re-elect him. If he goes on a gun and money grabbing rampage they will support a candidate that can defeat him. On and on it goes. If Obama is re-elected, I bet by then the republican candidate will have toned down the religion while the democrat candidate will be looking to appeal to their base. It's the pendulum of american politics. The majority in this country are mostly libertarian, but they have things that are important to them and they will support the candidate most likely to defeat the threat to those things. The libertarian candidate is almost never positioned to be that person. 
>
> The Libertarian party needs a stated long-term goal; something like "we are committed to building a much larger base and winning the 2016 election." along with some simple press statements such as "Most people are somewhat libertarian and don't even know it. We feel that if we can just get that message out and educate people about what we are really about, we can gain enough support for a landslide victory in 2016."
>   

The LP needs the stand 100% and loudly for the principles it claims.  It 
has been making mealy mouthed gradualist political aspirations known for 
some time now.  That will not make the least bit of positive 
difference.  If the LP does not clearly stand for something then it 
deserves to die.  You can't "gain support" by just stating a goal to 
gain support.



From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 15:41:39 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:41:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <48D3BFE1.9050005@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200809191608.m8JG8LZU029717@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of samantha
> ...   
> 
> The LP needs the stand 100% and loudly for the principles it 
> claims.  It has been making mealy mouthed gradualist 
> political aspirations known for some time now.  That will not 
> make the least bit of positive difference.  If the LP does 
> not clearly stand for something then it deserves to die.  You 
> can't "gain support" by just stating a goal to gain support.


Ja, and this year was our big chance.  Not to win, realistically.  But had
the LP put forth a serious candidate, then we mighta gone into November with
the majors tied within statistical error, anyone's game, with a clearly
stated libertarian platform holding a solid ten percent, the deciding
margin.  We didn't get it done.

{8-[

spike







From kanzure at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 16:34:21 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:34:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Open Learning?
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809190024t18f8e4fcw22c72cf67f4aaf0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809190008k29a4a5d3v29ec95a4cd2cca9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809190219.36789.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0809190024t18f8e4fcw22c72cf67f4aaf0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809191134.21558.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Friday 19 September 2008, Emlyn wrote:
> >> I've been thinking of doing a deal more study recently, for
> >> interest / self-improvement rather than quals. There are some good
> >> materials out there these days from universities, notably
> >
> > I have a few thousand links on many topics in many introductory
> > college courses because of my scowering of the web too .. but not
> > so much the structure that you're looking for.
>
> Yeah, some structure. Lots of free information is awesome, but a bit
> of structure is a lot more, web 2.0, you know?

A good way of learning is to create your own such structures. At least, 
this is what was 'beaten' into me. Works so far.

> A lot of people will read Web 2.0 and vomit a bit in their mouth, but
> I'm coming to think it actually represents something :-)

I prefer Web -1.0.

http://surfraw.alioth.debian.org/

           ______  _     _  ______   _______  ______   _______  _  _  _
          / _____)(_)   (_)(_____ \ (_______)(_____ \ (_______)(_)(_)(_)
         ( (____   _     _  _____) ) _____    _____) ) _______  _  _  _
          \____ \ | |   | ||  __  / |  ___)  |  __  / |  ___  || || || |
          _____) )| |___| || |  \ \ | |      | |  \ \ | |   | || || || |
         (______/  \_____/ |_|   |_||_|      |_|   |_||_|   |_| \_____/
         Surfraw - Shell Users' Revolutionary Front Rage Against the Web

Surfraw provides a fast unix command line interface to a variety of 
popular WWW search engines and other artifacts of power. It reclaims 
google, altavista, babelfish, dejanews, freshmeat, research index, 
slashdot and many others from the false-prophet, pox-infested heathen 
lands of html-forms, placing these wonders where they belong, deep in 
unix heartland, as god loving extensions to the shell. 

Surfraw abstracts the browser away from input. Doing so lets it get on 
with what it's good at. Browsing. Interpretation of linguistic forms is 
handed back to the shell, which is what it, and human beings are good 
at. Combined with netscape-remote or incremental text browsers, such as 
lynx, links or w3m, along with screen a Surfraw liberateur is capable 
of navigating speeds that leave GUI tainted idolaters agape with fear 
and wonder. 

For example: 

         $ surfraw google -results=100 RMS, GNU, which is sinner, which 
is sin?
         $ sr wikipedia surfraw
         $ sr austlii -method=phrase dog like
         $ /usr/lib/surfraw/rhyme -method=perfect Julian

> >> Does anyone know of anything like that happening online anywhere?
> >
> > I try to hold weekly "Wikipeding" meetings on freenode with others.
> > What we do is we go through a subset of Wikipedia as quickly /
> > completely as possible, but it's just as easily applicable to
> > streaming video annotations and so on. I haven't seen other groups
> > doing this quite yet .. but I'm sure they are out there somewhere.
>
> Ooh, is this a closed group?

Hardly. It's in my friggin' signature.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 16:54:03 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:54:03 +0000
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809191608.m8JG8LZU029717@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <48D3BFE1.9050005@mac.com>
	<200809191608.m8JG8LZU029717@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809190954l1077cax124665fab1a5945d@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:41 PM, spike wrote:
> Ja, and this year was our big chance.  Not to win, realistically.  But had
> the LP put forth a serious candidate, then we mighta gone into November with
> the majors tied within statistical error, anyone's game, with a clearly
> stated libertarian platform holding a solid ten percent, the deciding
> margin.  We didn't get it done.
>


Avoiding getting into a discussion about libertarian politics,  :)
I think that one basic problem is that Libertarians deep-down are not 'joiners'.
So they don't like political organizing.

In TIME magazine, Michael Kinsley Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007 wrote:
The computer revolution has bred a generation of smart loners, many of
them rich and some of them complacently Darwinian, convinced that they
don't need society--nor should anyone else.
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673265,00.html>


BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Sep 19 17:52:58 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:52:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <470a3c520809190124l4be3bc48t4a87213cec53c7b0@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net> <1221717798.7201.16167.camel@hayek>
	<fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com>
	<20080918172942.GA25679@ofb.net>
	<470a3c520809190124l4be3bc48t4a87213cec53c7b0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080919125117.02575b28@satx.rr.com>

At 10:24 AM 9/19/2008 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

>This quiz2d is a very interesting. My score:
>
>You desire substantially less government control of personal activity
>and somewhat less government control over economic activity than is
>presently the case in the U.S. I used to classify this area as part of
>"Moderate Libertarian;"

Me too.

>flavor of the author's "Business plan for a new political party" is
>quite compatible with my own position: "But where is the home for
>those who want smaller government AND smaller corporations? Where is
>the home for those who want to disperse ALL power, not just the power
>of the federal government? Where is the home for those who want small
>government but still see a place for SOME public property, such as
>town squares, public roads and parks?" (emphasis mine).

Yep.

Damien Broderick 



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 19:14:15 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:14:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809180823v7bdf6751h73f084d6e203327c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740809180823v7bdf6751h73f084d6e203327c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809191214q1305b76dpc437f06f6a722d7e@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/18/08, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> Recommended, highly relevant to much discussion here, but not freely
> available.
>
> <http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2008/5/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group>

What about cut&paste? :-)

Stefano Vaj


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Sep 19 20:03:37 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:03:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809191214q1305b76dpc437f06f6a722d7e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740809180823v7bdf6751h73f084d6e203327c@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809191214q1305b76dpc437f06f6a722d7e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809191303h7071f5a0l303c6977ee7ce0e2@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/08, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>> Recommended, highly relevant to much discussion here, but not freely
>> available.
>>
>> <http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2008/5/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group>
>
> What about cut&paste? :-)

Responded off-list in quite favorable terms of "fair use" of
copyrighted material.

- Jef


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Fri Sep 19 18:59:20 2008
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:59:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] TIME:  What Happens When We Die
Message-ID: <380-220089519185920352@M2W008.mail2web.com>

Time magazine Sept 18, by M.J. Stephey

"A fellow at New York's Weill Cornell Medical Center, Dr. Sam Parnia is one
of the world's leading experts on the scientific study of death. Last week,
Parnia and his colleagues at the Human Consciousness Project announced
their first major undertaking: a 3-year exploration of the biology behind
"out-of-body" experiences. The study, known as AWARE (AWAreness during
REsuscitation), involves the collaboration of 25 major medical centers
through Europe, Canada and the U.S., and will examine some 1,500 survivors
of cardiac arrest. TIME spoke with Parnia about the project's origins, its
skeptics, and the difference between the mind and the brain."


http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1842627,00.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Sep 19 21:30:41 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:30:41 -0500
Subject: [ExI] TIME:  What Happens When We Die
In-Reply-To: <380-220089519185920352@M2W008.mail2web.com>
References: <380-220089519185920352@M2W008.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080919162616.025ac6f0@satx.rr.com>

The odd thing about all these studies is that none of their 
informants *is dead* and therefore none of them *has been dead*, not really.

It's somewhat interesting to know what it feels like to be very 
nearly dead. This happened to my wife Barbara Lamar, and she says it 
was pleasantly calm and peaceful and avolitional (she was dying of pneumonia).

Damien Broderick



From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 21:56:49 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:56:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809191214q1305b76dpc437f06f6a722d7e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809192223.m8JMNVx4018322@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
If anyone wishes to speculate on whether ants jump or fall out of trees, do
so today, for I will have the answer tomorrow.  I created two gak bridges
from tape.  The ants found it within minutes and were crossing both
directions, over the gak.  So shortly the tree will be filled with ants, and
I will observe the gak pit, which is a sheet of white paper with a 20 cm
diameter ring of gak.  Any ant who falls onto the gak pit cannot escape, nor
can she be joined by an outsider, so she must have fallen from the tree.

Jump or fall?

spike







From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Fri Sep 19 22:25:13 2008
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:25:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809191303h7071f5a0l303c6977ee7ce0e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740809180823v7bdf6751h73f084d6e203327c@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809191214q1305b76dpc437f06f6a722d7e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809191303h7071f5a0l303c6977ee7ce0e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0809191525ldbb0d5bq6c03315b5284235a@mail.gmail.com>

During most of the human EEA, "group" and "relative" overlapped.  The
tribe was the group and the tribe (or even smaller bands) were mostly
relatives.  Now taking risk and even dying for a group of relatives is
sound gene selection of the Hamilton/inclusive fitness variety.  The
fact that these mechanisms can be fooled in modern times when we no
longer live with tribal relatives is not a surprise.

But it is discouraging to see people who should know better taking this stand.

Keith

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/08, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>>> Recommended, highly relevant to much discussion here, but not freely
>>> available.
>>>
>>> <http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2008/5/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group>
>>
>> What about cut&paste? :-)
>
> Responded off-list in quite favorable terms of "fair use" of
> copyrighted material.
>
> - Jef
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Sep 19 22:13:49 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
Message-ID: <926011.22099.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Thu, 9/18/08, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

> Recommended, highly relevant to much discussion here, but
> not freely available.
> 
> <http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2008/5/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group>

I am pressed for time right now so I apologize if this comes across as an incoherent screed.It seems that others are converging on the same conclusions that I have reached with my Critter's Dilemma studies. Here is a different reference regarding the evolution of altruism that some of you might be interested in.

http://www.pdx.edu/media/s/y/sysc_jtb_2006_09.pdf

What I have figured out is that both Critter's dilemma and PD have somewhat different "best strategies" if you are playing it against a network or group. I have been working on what I call Networked Critter's Dilemma which is very similar to what the authors of the paper in the supplied link call N-player Prisoner's Dilemma. 

In essence our results tend to agree although they use computer simulations and I use graph theory, game theory, Ramsey theory, and algebra to obtain the same result. In short, while if you are playing a single round of CD or PD against an individual then you are best off defecting. But if you are playing against a group of individuals, then you might be better off cooperating, even for a single round.

I have discovered a new statistic to analyze the dilemma games in all-against-all networks. I call it the "Pareto Dividend". It is essentially the total payoff over all players in the network divided by the number of players in the network. So it can be thought of as the average payoff to every player in a network. In a *purely cooperative* network, the Pareto Dividend works out to be simply the number of players that are cooperating with you. In a mixed network, it is somewhat more complicated as you must consider all the relationships between nodes (critters) in the network. In a Critter's Dilemma Network for example, the number of relationships is (number of players)*(number of players minus one).  

So lets say the temptation to defect is 2 points of utility. If you are playing in a network of 3 players, all cooperating, then your pareto dividend is likewise 2. In other words cooperating with 2 other players is as profitable as defecting against any single player and carries no risk of retaliation.

The problem in however is that a player in a Critter's Dilemma network can ignore while his peers all cooperate and thus get a free ride, getting an only slightly diminished Pareto Dividend for doing nothing. Of course if enough players ignore, then the Pareto Dividend drops below the level of the temptation to defect. And once players start defecting on one another, the Pareto Dividend becomes negative.

The good news is that the Ramsey Theorem makes it nearly impossible in sufficiently large networks that at least a few individuals don't cooperate, even if it is entirely by accident. In other words small groups of the stupidest pieces of protoplasm will inadvertantly cooperate by sheer random chance if there is a enough of them and as soon as they do, they will aquire a selective advantage over their non-cooperative neighbors as long as they can somehow recognize their own. 

I will write a more cogent explanation later but in the meantime try answering the following questions which my new theory of networked games can answer quite readily:

How many possible ecosystems are there for a dozen species? How many possible economies are there with a dozen participants? The answer is the same for both and it is an exact number.
 

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 jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Sep 19 22:44:34 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:44:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d0809191525ldbb0d5bq6c03315b5284235a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740809180823v7bdf6751h73f084d6e203327c@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809191214q1305b76dpc437f06f6a722d7e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809191303h7071f5a0l303c6977ee7ce0e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0809191525ldbb0d5bq6c03315b5284235a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809191544h43783a22se94ac60ee101a3c8@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> During most of the human EEA, "group" and "relative" overlapped.  The
> tribe was the group and the tribe (or even smaller bands) were mostly
> relatives.  Now taking risk and even dying for a group of relatives is
> sound gene selection of the Hamilton/inclusive fitness variety.  The
> fact that these mechanisms can be fooled in modern times when we no
> longer live with tribal relatives is not a surprise.
>
> But it is discouraging to see people who should know better taking this stand.

Keith -

I'm looking forward to better understanding your position on this, but
Lizbeth and I are having our wedding tomorrow and I expect to be
preoccupied the next few days.

In the meantime, have your read this paper?  More generally, do you
accept epigenetic modes as valid?  Would you accept or agree that
biogenetic evolutionary processes represent only a subset of a broader
trend of "evolutionary" development including, for example, stellar
formation of the heavier elements?

- Jef


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 22:58:17 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:58:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d0809191525ldbb0d5bq6c03315b5284235a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809192258.m8JMwJDG021677@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson

> ...The fact that 
> these mechanisms can be fooled in modern times when we no 
> longer live with tribal relatives is not a surprise.
> 
> But it is discouraging to see people who should know better 
> taking this stand... Keith

Hi Keith, please clarify.  What stand is discouraging?  That group selection
is being rethought after being discredited?

spike



From clementlawyer at hotmail.com  Fri Sep 19 23:46:02 2008
From: clementlawyer at hotmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:46:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Convergence08 Speaker Sign Up Lists
Message-ID: <BLU106-DS6752A85CEBB505A6EAC28A34E0@phx.gbl>

Convergence08

Join a historic convergence of leading long term organizations and thought leaders. Two days with people at the forefront of world-changing technologies that may reshape our career, body and mind - that challenge our perception of what can and should be done.

Convergence08 is an Unconference: each day starts and ends with an eye-opening debate or keynote to inspire us, and the remaining agenda is created by YOU.

Join in freewheeling discussions on topics below, or - better yet - convene your own group focused on exactly what you think is most important:

  a.. Neurotechnology 
  b.. Artificial general intelligence 
  c.. Synthetic biology 
  d.. Human enhancement 
  e.. Space tourism 
  f.. Social software 
  g.. Prediction markets 
  h.. Nanotechnology 
  i.. Smart drugs
  a.. Bioethics 
  b.. Cleantech 
  c.. NBIC startup tips 
  d.. Reputation systems 
  e.. Life extension / anti-aging 
  f.. Accelerating change 
  g.. Biotechnology 
  h.. Open source everything 
  i.. Sousveillance / privacy
Don't see your topics here? Add them to the Convergence08 Wiki! You just may get a new startup or film project crystallizing around your topic before the conference is over.

All this takes place at the Computer History Museum in the heart of Silicon Valley - where new technological revolutions grow like weeds. Come help plant the next one!

Our website is officially up at www.convergence08.org.

We have a companion wiki site, at http://convergence08.pbwiki.com/ where you can volunteer to help out at the event or sign up to discuss a topic:  http://convergence08.pbwiki.com/Speaker-Sign-Up
TO ADD YOUR TOPIC TO THIS LIST click on "[edit]" at the upper right of this page, or email James Clement. We really do encourage everyone attending to speak or lead a discussion on a topic of interest. All you need is a session title, your name, a link to your bio or website, and perhaps a picture of you.

Right before the event we'll put up a time-slot sign up list at the Computer History Museum. Time-slots will be based on a 50-minute turnover per room. You can sign up for more than one time slot, back-to-back, or at different times during the day on different subjects.

Audio/Video equipment: Rather than relying on us to provide audio/video equipment, please bring your own! Please ensure you have what you need to make your presentation.

We encourage you to talk about new, interesting ideas percolating in your head, projects you are involved in or thinking of starting, or other topics that would interest our savvy audience. If you are unsure about your subject matter, please feel free to run the idea by co-organizer James Clement




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080919/3d0f156e/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Sep 20 00:40:46 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:10:46 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Open Learning?
In-Reply-To: <200809191134.21558.kanzure@gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809190008k29a4a5d3v29ec95a4cd2cca9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809190219.36789.kanzure@gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0809190024t18f8e4fcw22c72cf67f4aaf0@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191134.21558.kanzure@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809191740t6b342f98g3ea5b1b5c6ef80c8@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/20 Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com>:
> On Friday 19 September 2008, Emlyn wrote:
>> Ooh, is this a closed group?
>
> Hardly. It's in my friggin' signature.
>
> - Bryan
> ________________________________________
> http://heybryan.org/
> Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
> irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap

oic <insert lolcat drivel>

-- 
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  Sat Sep 20 01:20:26 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:50:26 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/20 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>
>
>> ...On Behalf Of Emlyn
>> ...
>> - our family has gotten along just fine without any insurance.
>
> Emlyn you are young as I recall.  Congratulations in any case, and best
> wishes to you and the continuing good health of your family.  {8-]

Well, we've been using the health care system. Two kids via public
hospitals (total direct cost: $0.00). Various emergency room visits,
all that good stuff. We do have to pay for dental, actually, has cost
plenty, it'd be nice if the more basic dental stuff was covered.

I don't know how it'd be if you had a serious illness (eg: cancer), I
have heard some nasty anecdotes, but I'm not sure I trust those.

>
>> I think mandatory insurance is probably a bad idea; it starts
>> to warp the very idea of insurance. Should insurers have to
>> insure bad risk clients, the same as everyone else? Not, I
>> would think. Universal basic healthcare is a job for the
>> government, for sure.
>>
>> --
>> Emlyn
>
> The problem I see with that notion is that it sticks the taxpayer with all
> the bad risks that private industry will not take, but without the option of
> dropping the client.

Yes! Exactly! Who's the client, after all? Us, people!

User pays is a pretty hard philosophy when it comes to health. The
people most able to pay tend to be the least in need, and vice versa.

> That being the case, it seems logical that the
> government would take possession of the health habits of its clients in
> order to protect the bottom line.  We know for instance that diabetes is
> costing a fortune.  The government could decide to tax sugar and corn syrup
> imports to the point where they are uncompetitive with artificial sweeteners
> and domestic sugar, much of which is being made into fuel ethanol.
>
> Actually when I write that, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
>
> spike

Well, you can have the spectre of all that, but I'm not sure it
happens in practice. I think, rather, that the government says what it
will and wont cover, firstly, so if you want stuff outside that you're
back to insurance (and that becomes an eternal pain point, to be
sure). Secondly, public  health care isn't a five-star hotel kind of
experience; it's batch mode. It's not fun to be in hospital like that,
but then maybe that's a useful disincentive to abusing 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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sat Sep 20 01:33:02 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:33:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080920013301.GA3876@ofb.net>

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:50:26AM +1030, Emlyn wrote:

> back to insurance (and that becomes an eternal pain point, to be
> sure). Secondly, public  health care isn't a five-star hotel kind of
> experience; it's batch mode. It's not fun to be in hospital like that,
> but then maybe that's a useful disincentive to abusing the system.

I never got this "abuse" fear.  Health care isn't like energy, where you
can use unbounded amounts of it.  No one wants another MRI or
colonoscopy.  If you got a flu vaccine, you don't need another shot that
year of the same batch.  If you're not wounded, you don't need
antiseptic or a bandaid; if you are, you only need so much.  If you're
healthy, you're healthy.  It's possible for demand to exceed supply,
especially at the end of life, but it's also at least conceivable for
supply to exceed demand, which isn't true of energy.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From spike66 at att.net  Sat Sep 20 01:07:14 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:07:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a business model for print medium news
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809191544h43783a22se94ac60ee101a3c8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809200134.m8K1XtrI001413@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
I had an idea while reading the Palo Alto Daily News today.  This is a free
paper, so all of its revenue comes from ad sales.  I used to get the Palo
Alto Daily to look at the cars for sale ads.  Today I noticed there was
exactly one car for sale ad.  This ad business has been taken by eBay and
CraigsList.  Clearly the print medium has become yesterday's news in hard
copy, and the entire business model is shaky, but I had an idea.

If one reads most print medium news, one is struck by the point of view.
Consider the example of home prices.  When they were going up quickly, the
headlines said "Home prices soar out of reach of middle class." But now when
those prices are coming back down, the headline is "Home values crumbling."
So when they go up, they are costs, but when they come down they are values.
Any time the price changes, there are winners and there are losers,
depending on whether you have no house and need to buy one (prices), or have
a house and need to sell one (values).  But the papers have printed both
stories from the point of view of the loser.

Another example is taxes.  I have seen absurdities in the print media such
as "...tax cut will cost Americans bla bla billion..." when of course just
the opposite is true.  Tax cuts don't cost, they save.

Another example, early this week I took a ferocious spanking in the stock
market, but yesterday and today it came all the way back.  When it was
plummeting, the news showed brokers in dispair and today the brokers elated.

How many examples can you find of news media, especially print, that present
news negatively if possible?  The news media will switch sides if necessary
in order to publish news from the point of view of the loser.  Perhaps news
media believe dogma that bad news sells, and alarming news sells even
better.  But has anyone tried the reverse recently?  Since there are so many
print news media outlets doing the same thing, do the reverse and write all
news stories from the point of view of the winner.

It would strike people as strange and wonderfully different: pictures of
short sellers rejoicing over the stock collapse for instance, positive
stories on *all* of the political candidates, the positive side of every
news story, even storms and other disasters.  Example headlines:

Compared to 1900 Galveston hurricane, fatalities down 99%

Ninety-four US senators not under ethics investigation

Contrary to popular belief, US is not in recession

US nominal GDP up for 75th consecutive year

Several new Hollywood movies this year do not suck

Congress approval rating increases by huge margin (15% up to 17%)

Gold buyers last year make tons of money

Most high schoolers eventually graduate

Steroids really do make us stronger, faster, better

and so forth.  

spike



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Sep 20 01:55:00 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:25:00 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <20080920013301.GA3876@ofb.net>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080920013301.GA3876@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809191855h57c7e12tf48c1b9a30d6a31e@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/20 Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu>:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:50:26AM +1030, Emlyn wrote:
>
>> back to insurance (and that becomes an eternal pain point, to be
>> sure). Secondly, public  health care isn't a five-star hotel kind of
>> experience; it's batch mode. It's not fun to be in hospital like that,
>> but then maybe that's a useful disincentive to abusing the system.
>
> I never got this "abuse" fear.  Health care isn't like energy, where you
> can use unbounded amounts of it.  No one wants another MRI or
> colonoscopy.  If you got a flu vaccine, you don't need another shot that
> year of the same batch.  If you're not wounded, you don't need
> antiseptic or a bandaid; if you are, you only need so much.  If you're
> healthy, you're healthy.  It's possible for demand to exceed supply,
> especially at the end of life, but it's also at least conceivable for
> supply to exceed demand, which isn't true of energy.
>
> -xx- Damien X-)

well... what is well? We have a health care system that generally
tries to take people who are less than healthy, and bring them to
healthy. But, we increasingly see people who are healthy wanting to
move toward more than healthy; a core extropic aim in fact! And that
tends to bring into focus the fact that the definition of healthy is
quite relative, and biased, and fuzzy.

That said, universal medicine, for now, should probably continue using
an absolute definition of healthy and sick, and leave any healthy+
stuff for people's own wallets. But with luck that doesn't need to
always be the case!

-- 
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 msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 20 02:53:42 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:53:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <926011.22099.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <926011.22099.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809191953p1d2d4c47s1d5fa47f30e736cd@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:13 PM, The Avantguardian
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The good news is that the Ramsey Theorem makes it nearly impossible in sufficiently large networks that at least a few individuals don't cooperate, even if it is entirely by accident. In other words small groups of the stupidest pieces of protoplasm will inadvertantly cooperate by sheer random chance if there is a enough of them and as soon as they do, they will aquire a selective advantage over their non-cooperative neighbors as long as they can somehow recognize their own.

What you describe remind me of liquid gathering into drops and drops
into puddles.  In a sufficiently large field of evenly distributed
small drops, there is little required action to become part of a
puddle.  This game may not be a perfect example, but it has an
interesting dynamic as levels increase:
http://www.1cup1coffee.com/fl/mercurydrops.swf

Do you get a "feel" for what I'm saying?  Does this agree with your
original point?


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 20 03:05:57 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:05:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <20080920013301.GA3876@ofb.net>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080920013301.GA3876@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <62c14240809192005n1d6ce988wbf082708b3356e08@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> I never got this "abuse" fear.  Health care isn't like energy, where you
> can use unbounded amounts of it.  No one wants another MRI or
> colonoscopy.  If you got a flu vaccine, you don't need another shot that
> year of the same batch.  If you're not wounded, you don't need
> antiseptic or a bandaid; if you are, you only need so much.  If you're
> healthy, you're healthy.  It's possible for demand to exceed supply,
> especially at the end of life, but it's also at least conceivable for
> supply to exceed demand, which isn't true of energy.

I don't think the consumer is responsible for the abuse, it's the
service provider.  Nobody wants the colonoscopy, but when the dentist
can get paid for requiring it, you will understand the abuse fear...


From spike66 at att.net  Sat Sep 20 03:17:10 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:17:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] FW: ants again
Message-ID: <200809200317.m8K3HCeI022672@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


 
If anyone wishes to speculate on whether ants jump or fall out of trees, do
so today, for I will have the answer tomorrow.  

I intentionally allowed my orange trees to be filled with ants by creating a
bridge over the sticky ant barrier (gak).  The ants found it within minutes
and were crossing both directions, over the gak.  So shortly the tree will
be filled with ants.  Then I created a gak pit, which is a 20 cm diameter
circle of gak on a sheet of white paper.  Any ant falling onto the gak pit
cannot escape, nor can she be joined by an outsider, so she must have fallen
from the tree.  Any ant in the gak pit now must have fallen.  In a tomorrow
I will remove the bridge, trapping the ants in the tree.  Those that end up
in the gak pit after that will be jumpers.

Last chance: jump or fall?

spike







From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Sat Sep 20 00:24:36 2008
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:24:36 -0400
Subject: [ExI]  TIME: What Happens When We Die
Message-ID: <380-22008962002436153@M2W039.mail2web.com>

Damien wrote:

>It's somewhat interesting to know what it feels like to be very 
>nearly dead. This happened to my wife Barbara Lamar, and she says it 
>was pleasantly calm and peaceful and avolitional (she was dying of
pneumonia).

Yes, understood. 

In 1980, I was hemmoraging to death with minutes to live.  Yet, I was calm
and at peace -- almost smiling because of the sense of peace that had come
over me. 

Natasha  



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft? Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE




From kevinfreels at insightbb.com  Sat Sep 20 04:02:53 2008
From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:02:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <fc61cda033dab.48d42f9d@insightbb.com>



----- Original Message -----
From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
Date: Friday, September 19, 2008 1:43
Subject: Re: [ExI] AIG Bail out
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

> Kevin writes
> 
> > I worked in the mortgage industry for a very long time while this
> > was going on. I can tell you first hand that out on the front lines
> > we were simply amazed at some of the programs and rates
> > being offered. Not a day would go by when I would see some
> > company like Countrywide approve and close a loan that
> > should not have been made. I personally watched millions of
> > dollars every month being funded for loans where the borrower
> > had no job, or was self-employed for 6 months and couldn't
> > even prove it, yet had a bankruptcy discharged 3 months ago
> > and had $3000 down payment that everyone knew darn well
> > was coming from the seller of the house in question.
> 
> Yes, Kevin, but why? I'm really asking. From your point of
> view, what caused these managers---who normally are profit-
> oriented profit-hungry capitalists with no heart---take such
> stupid chances?  WHY would they do it?

It wasn't just the managers. It was a complete underestimation of the risk these pools represented. They weren't going to keep and service these loans. They would package them into pools of similar loans and sell them to the next bigger bank who again would do the same all the way up to Lehman and Bear Stearns. Fannie and Freddie were even on the verge of rolling out subprime programs because they were so lucrative. 

But that was a problem. Everyne in this industry knew that it was cyclical. So they wanted to get as many as they could while they could. Every type of loan imaginable was put together and it was always an easy sell. We were getting 112 basis points on 8% 100% self-employed stated with a 580 credit score! In the end, it kept happening because some idiots at the top had a great interest in buying all of this debt. Their company worth was shifted towards assets and not cash. The way the process works - including a foreclosure process that sometimes drags on for a year or more - provided an atmosphere where the default rates were going up while they were continuing to expand these products even further. 

In the end, I would say it is a case of people at the top not understanding fully what they are buying, OR willfully ignoring it. I'm not sure which. Both are probably somewhat true. After all, these execs made hundreds of millions of dollars each and it really doesn't matter to them whether or not the whole thing collapses. They can retire just fine.

In a way, this is similar to the agressive behavior that is in our genes. The agressive ones were more likely to win wars, so agression is rewarded with greater reproduction. But agressive people also take more risks and many end up killing themselves so there is a sort of balance of risky and conservative people.I seem to recall a thread talking about this recently and it's interesting how this fits. I'll have to ponder that some more.

Either way, everyone was there to get the money while they could. They all knew the end would come which made it all that much more important to make even more. To hell with the company and the shareholders. 

One thing I am not sure of is the role that regulation played here. I am left t wnder if less regulation would have allowed the shareholders and the end buyers of the debts at he top be aware of the situation at the bottom much sooner. 18 month foreclosures, short sales, multiple appraisals, RESPA, predatory lending, all work to muddy the waters making it less clear what is going on...an incomplete thought at the moment, but something else to ponder. Sleep is definitely going to be tought tonight! 


From kevinfreels at insightbb.com  Sat Sep 20 04:12:00 2008
From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:12:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <48D3BFE1.9050005@mac.com>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080918012709.GA870@ofb.net> <1221717798.7201.16167.camel@hayek>
	<fc7893f73100d.48d235e6@insightbb.com> <48D3BFE1.9050005@mac.com>
Message-ID: <fc648c8834346.48d431c0@insightbb.com>



----- Original Message -----
From: samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>
Date: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:08
Subject: Re: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

> Kevin Freels wrote:
> >> One of the major problems that the libertarian movement has 
> is the
> >> number of people who call themselves libertarians yet 
> >> fundamentally do
> >> not understand it and really are just conservatives.  
> These 
> >> people are
> >> not libertarians they are just poseurs.
> >>
> >> Fred
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > True. But I think more common are the people who have 
> libertarian values, but vote republican or democrat based on the 
> hot-plate issues at the moment. For example:
> > A couple I know have voted Republican in the last 6 elections. 
> They are avid gun-owners. But at the moment, Obama does not 
> present a threat to their guns while Bush is a threat to their 
> secular nature. So this election they will vote Obama. If Obama 
> leaves their guns and their pocket-book alone, they will vote to 
> re-elect him. If he goes on a gun and money grabbing rampage 
> they will support a candidate that can defeat him. On and on it 
> goes. If Obama is re-elected, I bet by then the republican 
> candidate will have toned down the religion while the democrat 
> candidate will be looking to appeal to their base. It's the 
> pendulum of american politics. The majority in this country are 
> mostly libertarian, but they have things that are important to 
> them and they will support the candidate most likely to defeat 
> the threat to those things. The libertarian candidate is almost 
> never positioned to be that person. 
> >
> > The Libertarian party needs a stated long-term goal; something 
> like "we are committed to building a much larger base and 
> winning the 2016 election." along with some simple press 
> statements such as "Most people are somewhat libertarian and 
> don't even know it. We feel that if we can just get that message 
> out and educate people about what we are really about, we can 
> gain enough support for a landslide victory in 2016."
> >   
> 
> The LP needs the stand 100% and loudly for the principles it 
> claims.  It 
> has been making mealy mouthed gradualist political aspirations 
> known for 
> some time now.  That will not make the least bit of 
> positive 
> difference.  If the LP does not clearly stand for something 
> then it 
> deserves to die.  You can't "gain support" by just stating 
> a goal to 
> gain support.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

But as long as the LP thinks this way they will continue to lose. A play from the Repub and Dem playbook ------- "speak moderatly but push an extreme agenda"....... If they can't win elections and gain positive press, their "standing for something" doesn't even matter and they deserve to die as well. Unless ou want to tell me that the LP has no intention of ever actually winning. This just makes them another political organization, not a true party. With that attitude we'll probably see a PETA party president before an LP president.



From kevinfreels at insightbb.com  Sat Sep 20 04:29:15 2008
From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:29:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <200809192223.m8JMNVx4018322@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <580930c20809191214q1305b76dpc437f06f6a722d7e@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809192223.m8JMNVx4018322@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <fc60e9c831909.48d435cb@insightbb.com>

Wait. I am missing something here. How will this determine whether they are jumping or falling? This seems a question of intent. Unless this circle of gak is offset where no ants can fall directly into it and must therefore jump in a specific direction to reach it I don't see how this is supposed to answer the question.Even then, the wind could carry them a bit. 

Or is this a misunderstanding? Do you mean to determine whether they are jumping or if they are falling? Or are you simply trying to figure out if they do both?

I have these ants that I swear not only fall out of the tree, but they intentionally catch a breeze to make the leap to my roof. I have never seen them do it but with a ant barrier completely around the foundation it's the only way unless they fly. The closest branch is about 10 feet up, but 2 feet away from being perpendiculat to the edge of the roof. For ants to get to the roof, the wind must blow, the ant must jump, and it needs to happen at the same time...... I get 3-4 black ants in the house a week!


----- Original Message -----
From: spike <spike66 at att.net>
Date: Friday, September 19, 2008 17:26
Subject: [ExI] ants again
To: 'ExI chat list' <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

>  
> If anyone wishes to speculate on whether ants jump or fall out 
> of trees, do
> so today, for I will have the answer tomorrow.  I created 
> two gak bridges
> from tape.  The ants found it within minutes and were 
> crossing both
> directions, over the gak.  So shortly the tree will be 
> filled with ants, and
> I will observe the gak pit, which is a sheet of white paper with 
> a 20 cm
> diameter ring of gak.  Any ant who falls onto the gak pit 
> cannot escape, nor
> can she be joined by an outsider, so she must have fallen from 
> the tree.
> 
> Jump or fall?
> 
> spike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 


From spike66 at att.net  Sat Sep 20 05:44:59 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:44:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <fc60e9c831909.48d435cb@insightbb.com>
Message-ID: <200809200613.m8K6D1JQ014965@andromeda.ziaspace.com>



> > Jump or fall?
> > 
> > spike 

> ...On Behalf Of Kevin Freels
...
> 
> Wait. I am missing something here. How will this determine 
> whether they are jumping or falling? This seems a question of 
> intent. Unless this circle of gak is offset where no ants can 
> fall directly into it and must therefore jump in a specific 
> direction to reach it I don't see how this is supposed to 
> answer the question.Even then, the wind could carry them a bit....

Kevin thanks for your comments on loans.  I want to study up on that
shortly, perhaps after this weekend in which I am preoccupied trying to get
ready for a motorcycle trip and fooling with ants.  I didn't understand the
comment 

> We were getting 112 basis points on 8% 100% self-employed stated with a
580 credit score!

but any reply should be on the AIG bail out thread, not the ant thread. 

I didn't explain the ant experiment very well.  I made a bridge from the
ground to the tree above the gak on the trunk at the base of the tree.  This
allows the tree to get full of ants.  I took a sheet of white paper, taped
it down to a piece of cardboard, made a gak ring 20 cm in diameter, placed
the cardboard on the ground directly below the tree near the trunk.  Ants
immediately began snooping around on the cardboard, but couldn't get inside
the gak ring, which I am referring to as the gak pit.  

My notion is that if ants accidentally fall out of the tree, I should find
several ants inside the gak ring tomorrow even tho the bridge allows them to
go up and down.  If on the other hand, they don't fall, then no ants inside
for they have a bridge to the ground now.  Tomorrow or Sunday, I will take
away the bridge, which will strand the ants in the tree.  I already know
from before (thrice repeated experiment) that after a few days of being
unable to get down the trunk, all the ants are gone from the tree.  Where
did they go?  How did they go?  Did they fall?  Or jump?  

How did they know to jump, if that is what they did?  Did each one think of
that plan by herself?  Did every last one of the ants eventually realize
they should jump in order to get back home?  Why aren't there at least a few
stubborn wacky refuse-to-jump-for-any-reason ants, analogous to our species'
creationists?  They can get both food and water in that tree, and it isn't
cold this time of year, so why don't a few decide to just live in the tree?

If I get no gaked ants while the bridge is in place, then I remove the
bridge and later find a bunch of ants inside the gak pit, then I must
conclude that the ants eventually became desperate to get back home
underground and somehow came up with the idea to leap out of the tree and
float or glide to the ground.  Of these homesick leapers, a few should end
up in the gak pit.  But I don't see how an ant could figure out to jump
outta that tree.  If they do, it indicates a form of rudimentary thought, or
planning.  In a bug!  

I estimate there are somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand ants in a
tree that covers about ten square meters and my gak pit is about three
hundredths of a square meter.  So then about .3% of the leaping ants should
land there accidently, regardless of whether they glide or drop straight
down.  So if they leap, I should eventually see somewhere between about 3
and 30 of the hapless beasts land inside my gak pit.  Ja?  

Countersuggestions?  (Other than: Spike, get a life.)

spike




From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Sep 20 06:23:52 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:23:52 +1000
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/20 Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>:

> I don't know how it'd be if you had a serious illness (eg: cancer), I
> have heard some nasty anecdotes, but I'm not sure I trust those.

You're relatively speaking better off if you have a serious illness in
the public hospital system in Australia. I have seen plenty of people
arriving in an ambulance from a private hospital either because the
hospital can't provide the sort of treatment they need or because the
hospital is worried that their insurance will run out. I know people
working in the health care industry who have private health insurance
but say that they would rather be in a public hospital if there were
something seriously wrong with them.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep 20 06:44:03 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:44:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080920014312.022d1fb8@satx.rr.com>

At 04:23 PM 9/20/2008 +1000, Dr. Stathis wrote:

>You're relatively speaking better off if you have a serious illness in
>the public hospital system in Australia. I have seen plenty of people
>arriving in an ambulance from a private hospital either because the
>hospital can't provide the sort of treatment they need or because the
>hospital is worried that their insurance will run out. I know people
>working in the health care industry who have private health insurance
>but say that they would rather be in a public hospital if there were
>something seriously wrong with them.

But those don't work!  No, not those either.  Or those!  Look, they just
don't work, okay?  They may work in practice but they don't work in
theory!

[The Other Damien]





From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Sep 20 07:39:06 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:39:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080920014312.022d1fb8@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080920014312.022d1fb8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <D0559E0E-EBC8-4DD6-AD37-17544C7A729C@mac.com>


On Sep 19, 2008, at 11:44 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 04:23 PM 9/20/2008 +1000, Dr. Stathis wrote:
>
>> You're relatively speaking better off if you have a serious illness  
>> in
>> the public hospital system in Australia. I have seen plenty of people
>> arriving in an ambulance from a private hospital either because the
>> hospital can't provide the sort of treatment they need or because the
>> hospital is worried that their insurance will run out. I know people
>> working in the health care industry who have private health insurance
>> but say that they would rather be in a public hospital if there were
>> something seriously wrong with them.


I guess I have spent altogether a year in hospitals as an adult, all  
in the US.  In general I find that the public hospitals and a few  
university hospitals have really really excellent trauma care.  From  
sheer volume or something they attract a lot of hot shot trauma docs.   
So if you are very seriously in an emergency situation you want to be  
in one of those.  But their day to day care if you are going to be in  
for a while really majorly sucks.  The university hospitals have great  
docs but relatively poor admin stuff and worse followup care in my  
experience.  For that you want to be in a more private hospital.    
Money?  It is the states so they both cost an arm and a leg although  
generally they want let a wound go that far on purpose barring  
SARS.  :-)    The general hospital is more likely to give you decent  
care even if it is not obvious how they are going to get paid.   But  
these days they are swamped by people who have no insurance, and no  
real non-emergency routine medical care.

Can't speak about other country's care from personal experience  
mostly.  I will say it is not recommend to be tapped out on your  
vacation funds and contract food poisoning in Paris late at night.   I  
thought I was a goner before they found a doc who admitted to speaking  
English, would  see me and give me something the counteract the  
outrageously bad symptoms (much too late by then to pump my stomach).   
Not recommended. 
  


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Sep 20 08:13:04 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
Message-ID: <916587.50451.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Fri, 9/19/08, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:13 PM, The Avantguardian
> ><avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The good news is that the Ramsey Theorem makes it
> > nearly impossible in sufficiently large networks that at
> > least a few individuals don't cooperate, even if it is
> > entirely by accident.

> What you describe remind me of liquid gathering into drops
> and drops
> into puddles.  In a sufficiently large field of evenly
> distributed
> small drops, there is little required action to become part
> of a
> puddle.  This game may not be a perfect example, but it has
> an
> interesting dynamic as levels increase:
> http://www.1cup1coffee.com/fl/mercurydrops.swf
> 
> Do you get a "feel" for what I'm saying? 
> Does this agree with your
> original point?

My browser can't load the shockwave file but it sounds like you get it. Although keep in mind that droplets and puddles can't differentially reproduce. The takehome message of Ramsey theory is that "complete disorder is impossible." If you want a more intuitive example, Google "friends and strangers".   

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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Sep 20 08:06:28 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Fw: Re:  Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
Message-ID: <860131.47206.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>


--- On Fri, 9/19/08, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
> To: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
> Date: Friday, September 19, 2008, 4:05 PM
> --- On Fri, 9/19/08, The Avantguardian
> <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  In a Critter's Dilemma Network for
>  example, the number of relationships is (number of
>  players)*(number of players minus one).  
 

Actually I neglected to divide by two here. So the number
of relationships is  (N)*(N-1)/2 in other words, it is a
triangular number.

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  Sat Sep 20 12:53:42 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:23:42 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809200553g149c6cbaqd7d614a85d05ca9b@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/20 Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>:
> 2008/9/20 Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>:
>
>> I don't know how it'd be if you had a serious illness (eg: cancer), I
>> have heard some nasty anecdotes, but I'm not sure I trust those.
>
> You're relatively speaking better off if you have a serious illness in
> the public hospital system in Australia. I have seen plenty of people
> arriving in an ambulance from a private hospital either because the
> hospital can't provide the sort of treatment they need or because the
> hospital is worried that their insurance will run out. I know people
> working in the health care industry who have private health insurance
> but say that they would rather be in a public hospital if there were
> something seriously wrong with them.

When I was working on medical software, the health care professionals
here said the same thing. It would be tougher to be a private hospital
in Aus than it is in the US though I think.

I also know of people (years ago now, but maybe it still happens),
lying about private cover status in mixed public/private hospitals;
they'd say they didn't have cover even if they did, if they thought it
might be expensive. Going in as a private patient here still has the
potential to ruin you here because there can be things not covered
which are very pricey, whereas a public patient doesn't have that
issue. Private patients get private rooms and high class hotel like
treatment, but also can get a very large bill.

-- 
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 jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Sep 20 16:07:47 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:07:47 -0400
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
Message-ID: <ED424A7096324D8689D16FE156EFCB20@MyComputer>

As much as I'd like point at government as the only cause of this
economic mess I cannot in all honesty do so. I place a very large
part of the blame on rating agencies like Moody's and
Standard & Poor.

The banks liked to lump several thousand mortgages together 
into one financial instrument, they then paid these agencies to 
rate them. If they were rated high the instrument was worth
more than the sum of its parts and the bank made money. 
That seems like a conflict of interest to me.

Even today few of these repackaged load instruments have 
been analyzed in any detail. One of the few that has been 
consisted of about 2,400 mortgages with a face value of $430 
million.  Moody's gave it the highest credit rating even though 
it had NONE of the individual loan files, and it did nothing to
verify any of the information the lenders provided. It later
turned out that 43% provided no written proof of their income. 
None.

No need to examine every mortgage, if they just picked 10 
at random out of the 2400 they would have found about 4 that
were of this sleazy nature, but they didn't do that, they 
couldn't be bothered. "We aren't load officers" they sniffed.
Instead Moody's just assumed everything the bank told them
was true. If any company deserves to go belly up it's Moody's.

Like everything else Capitalism has its excesses and this is
certainly one of them.

 John K Clark




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Sep 20 16:20:08 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:20:08 -0400
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com><fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <443D2517410F411984B86A044F9AA5F5@MyComputer>

"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> what caused these managers---who normally are
> profit- oriented > profit-hungry capitalists with no heart
> take such stupid chances?  WHY would they do it?

As long as the bubble continued, and it lasted a long time,
taking stupid chances was very profitable. If you didn't 
make these questionable loans stockholders would say 
"the bank across the street is making much more money
than we are" and then to proceed to fire you.

  John K Clark




From moulton at moulton.com  Sat Sep 20 17:30:42 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:30:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>


It appears that periodically a health care debate arises on this list.
And I am always amazed as normally rational people seem to take leave of
their more advanced analytical tools.  Before wasting time and bandwidth
how about performing some basic analysis.

For each health care system under consideration please do the following:

1. Determine what are they component parts and how they are connected;
such as emergency care, pharmacy, etc.  Are there parallel systems?

2. Determine how it is controlled, financed and regulated at the macro
level.  And then how these macro level factors influence micro level
decisions.  And the reverse.

3. To the extent that some or all of a health care system is controlled
by an identifiable entity does that entity have a goal or goals?  Are
these goals internally consistent and do they conflict with the goals of
other groups?  How are these conflicts resolved?

3. Do individuals and groups have alternative options which they can
pursue without penalties? 

4. Are the caps or limits or rationing on various types of care?  Are
all illnesses and diseased covered and to what extent?

5. What are the demographic and other inputs into the system?  This
includes factors such as age, work history, obesity, smoking, substance
abuse just to name a few.

6. How are outcomes identified and measured?  Age of death, amount of
suffering, time on waiting lists for diagnostics, time on waiting lists
for surgery, percentage of persons receiving preventative care, etc.

These are just a few of the items that need to be considered in order to
even begin to have a reasonable comparison of health care systems.  And
please avoid the glib but obviously wrong statements.  For example to
say the USA has a free market health care system just shows a lack of
knowledge.

Fred






From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Sep 20 21:50:31 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:50:31 +0100
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809201450m3ee5f2eahbea67077aa066033@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>> WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? [9.9.08]
>>> By Jonathan Haidt
>>> http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
<snip>
> So whether I'll vote Republican is based on "for" 75 percent economics,
> "for" 30 percent international relations, and "against" 30 percent stem-cell
> and related research.
>


Well, judging by the reaction to Bush's bail out of the millionaire bankers,
McCain seems to be taking the populist position of protesting against
bailing out these rich East Coast bankers while Obama is going along
with it but asking for some help for people struggling to pay their
mortgages.

If Obama sticks with this position he will be handing the election on
a plate to McCain.

(Not that McCain would do much different if he was in power, but he
knows what to say to get a landslide of support going his way).

Get ready for another four years of Republican presidency.

BillK


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Sep 21 01:09:59 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:09:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <200809192258.m8JMwJDG021677@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <d1988d2d0809191525ldbb0d5bq6c03315b5284235a@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809192258.m8JMwJDG021677@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <1221959666_14446@s8.cableone.net>

At 03:58 PM 9/19/2008, spike wrote:

snip

>Hi Keith, please clarify.  What stand is discouraging?  That group selection
>is being rethought after being discredited?

Have you read any of this work?  I have and the thinking/models are 
*really* sloppy.

If you can make a case for group selection that isn't covered by gene 
selection, please do or point me to cogent arguments.

Keith 



From brian at posthuman.com  Sun Sep 21 02:40:42 2008
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:40:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <ED424A7096324D8689D16FE156EFCB20@MyComputer>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<ED424A7096324D8689D16FE156EFCB20@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <48D5B42A.9080201@posthuman.com>

John K Clark wrote:
> As much as I'd like point at government as the only cause of this
> economic mess I cannot in all honesty do so. I place a very large
> part of the blame on rating agencies like Moody's and
> Standard & Poor.
> 

Government interference in the ratings business is actually at the root of the 
problem. If you look into the history of the ratings agencies business you will 
find they effectively operate as a cartel/monopoly enforced by the SEC since 
1975. There is no way such poor ratings performance would be tolerated in a free 
market without this enforced lack of competition.

If you want good ratings you need to abolish this government-enforced cartel 
system and also go back to the way it was prior to 1975 where BUYERS of debt 
paid for the ratings instead of today's system where SELLERS of debt purchase 
ratings (and obviously apply pressure for a higher rating for their money spent).

So anyway we can put this all down to government interference too, unintended 
side effects, etc. More at the bottom of this old post:

<http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/09/time-to-break-up-credit-rating-cartel.html>
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Sep 21 02:57:16 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:57:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Gene shifts
Message-ID: <1221966103_1885@S3.cableone.net>


The below article is indirect support for Gregory Clark's 
concepts.  He makes that case that genetic selection for traits he 
deems "capitalist" during the 20 plus generations proceeding the 
industrial revolution.  That he thinks set the stage for the 
technological world.

You would expect a different set of trait to be advantageous to 
reproduction in different kinds of societies.  "Impulsivity and a 
short attention span" seems to be one of them that was selected 
against in the history of western Europe.  When you think about it, 
that's about what you would expect.  :-)

Keith

********

Did hyperactivity evolve as a survival aid for nomads?
11:39 10 June 2008
NewScientist.com news service

Impulsivity and a short attention span may be the bane of every
parent with a hyperactive toddler, but those same traits seem to help
Kenyan nomads keep weight on.

A gene mutation tied to attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD)
is also associated with increased weight among a chronically
undernourished group of nomads called the Ariaal. Notably, the
mutation offers no such benefit to a cousin population that gave up
the nomadic lifestyle in the 1960s.

The nomads' active and unpredictable life centred on herding might
benefit from spontaneity, says Ben Campbell, an evolutionary
anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, US, who
was involved in the new study.

"If you are a nomad then you ought to be little more impulsive than
if you are settled," he says. "You should be a little quicker on the
trigger."

Different lifestyles
The Ariaal are an isolated group of nomads who wander around northern
Kenya, herding cows, camel, sheep and goats. Encouraged by Christian
missionaries in the 1960s, some members settled in the same region
and started relying on agriculture for some of their food.

The nomads and the settled groups still interact and intermarry, but
they live drastically different lifestyles. "The nomads are always
doing something. They are always walking to herd their animals,"
Campbell says, while settled Ariaal tend to be sedentary.

A previous study found that nomadic cultures around the world tend to
have the same mutations, which determines the brain's response to a
pleasure-delivering chemical called dopamine and is linked to
impulsivity and ADHD.

Campbell and his colleague Daniel Eisenberg, of Northwestern
University in Evanston, Illinois, US, looked for the mutation in 87
settled and 65 nomadic Ariaal men.

About a fifth of the men from each group had the mutation. However,
their physiques differed. Nomads with the mutation, which is in the
gene called DRD4, tended to have slightly higher body-mass indexes
and more muscles than nomads without the mutation ? though both would
be considered undernourished by Western standards. No such difference
existed in the settled Ariaal.

Lean times
Why the mutation isn't more common is a mystery, says Eisenberg.
Another study found the impulsive variation in about 60% of native
South Americans, but only 16% of Caucasian Americans. "It might be
that there is a niche for a few people with more impulsive behaviour,
but when there are too many of them those niches are filled," he says.

Also unexplained is how a gene linked to ADHD promotes greater body
weight in nomads, and not village dwellers. Campbell speculates that
a short attention span and penchant for risk taking could benefit
nomads who don't know where the next meal will come from.

However, the mutation could also make food more gratifying, or it
might affect how the body converts calories to kilograms. "We really
don't know," Campbell says.

The mutation "predisposes you to be more active, more demanding, and
not such a pleasant person," says

Henry Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah in Salt
Lake City, also in the US. "You probably do better in a context of
aggressive competition." In other words, in lean times, violent men
may feast while passive men starve.

Journal reference: BMC Evolutionary Biology (DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-
173)



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Sep 21 02:59:57 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:59:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
Message-ID: <1221966264_13771@s7.cableone.net>

At 04:32 PM 9/19/2008, Jef wrote:
>... here's the pdf for your personal use.

"Is evolution a team sport, or is the
contest for survival played out
strictly between individuals?"

Trivers, Hamilton, and others showed and it was popularized by 
Dawkins that evolution happens at the *gene* level.  So the first 
sentence is out of main stream evolutionary thinkings

"There's
no question that natural selection acts
on individual organisms: Those with
favorable traits are more likely to pass
along their genes to the next generation."

Of course as Hamilton showed, that's not the only way.  Consider bees 
for ghod's sake.

"But perhaps similar processes
could operate at other levels of the biological
hierarchy. In this way natural
selection could perpetuate traits that
are favorable not to an individual but
to a social unit such as a flock or a colony,"

Depends.  Does the flock/colony consist of related 
individuals?  Again, think of bees defending a hive.

"or to an entire species, or even to
an ecosystem made up of many species.
The underlying question is: Can
biological traits evolve "for the good
of the group"?"

It depends on the group.  What gets passed from generation to 
generation is genes.  Another example.

"Cooperative and even self-sacrificial behavior by termites is most 
readily explained
by selection acting at the level of the colony rather than the 
individual. The image shows construction
of a tunnel linking a laboratory-maintained termite colony's nest to 
a food source.
Soldier-caste termites, which are smaller and darker, take up sentry 
positions facing outward
along the new trail route, while workers (larger, with light-colored 
abdomens) extend the
arched tunnel. Neither of these behaviors seems likely to enhance the 
survival of individual
termites compared with colony-mates that stay away from the 
dangerously exposed construction
zone, but colonies in which termites build covered galleries to 
protect them while foraging
have a clear advantage over colonies that lack this capacity. The 
termites are of the species
Nasutitermes corniger."

So how does a termite colony reproduce?  It sends out winged 
reproductives.  So a termite colony that had gene based behaviors 
where individuals took necessary risks and were even killed in the 
process of obtaining food is going to be larger than one without 
these traits.  Come swarming time, guess which colony sends out the 
larger number of reproductives?

And evolution is the differential survival of genes.

I have made the case in "EP, memes and the origin of war" that humans 
have similar psychological traits.

When the risk to the genes of an individual warrior is less than the 
risk summed over his relatives multiplied by their relatedness, i.e., 
without killing the neighbors the kids will starve next dry season, 
then psychological mechanisms get turned on that synch up a tribe's 
warriors to make a do or die effort.

Just because someone rates as high as EO Wilson doesn't mean what he 
says should be taken without examining the logic behind what his claims.

Of course this applies even more to people like me far down the feeding chain.

Keith



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 04:20:58 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:20:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <091920081228.9813.48D39ADF0007F32D000026552207020853010404079B9D0E@comcast.net>
References: <091920081228.9813.48D39ADF0007F32D000026552207020853010404079B9D0E@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809202120y6324c28ckca7e9838315141ad@mail.gmail.com>

Spike wrote:
>> "Thanks Lee, this is a license to be weird.

Artillo replied:
> I'm a card-carrying member of the RPGA, does that count as an official
> license to be weird? :D

LOL!  I went to the Phoenix Gaming Con and dealt with your fellow
elitest rpg'ers who because I was not a member did not want me in
their games.  I suppose membership "has its privileges."

There are so many social circles and aspects to geekdom/weirdom.  Only
Cthulhu knows how many...  I have heard there is a photo making the
rounds that was taken at the time a Star Trek convention happened at a
hotel directly across from another hotel where an anime con was being
held.  A Star Trek con goer, dressed as a convincing looking Spock,
was caught giving the finger to an anime con attendee made up to look
like Inuyasha.

John

Weird Al Yankovic fan club member  : )


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 04:33:21 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:33:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<fc61cda033dab.48d42f9d@insightbb.com>
Message-ID: <08bf01c91ba3$49ad4080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Kevin writes

> [Lee wrote]
> 
>> From your point of view, what caused these managers
>> ---who normally are profit-oriented profit-hungry
>> capitalists with no heart---take such stupid chances?
>> WHY would they do it?
> 
> It wasn't just the managers. It was a complete underestimation
> of the risk these pools represented. They weren't going to keep
> and service these loans. They would package them into pools
> of similar loans and sell them to the next bigger bank who again
> would do the same all the way up to Lehman and Bear Stearns.
> Fannie and Freddie were even on the verge of rolling out
> subprime programs because they were so lucrative. 
> 
> But that was a problem. Everyone in this industry knew that it was
> cyclical. So they wanted to get as many as they could while they
> could.

So it resembles a classic bubble? In 1637 at its height, surely many
people knew that the tulip mania could not go on forever, but merely
kept hoping to find "the greater fool", who'd turn over even more
cash than they themselves had paid. Ultimately, I don't see any solution
to this aspect of the problem; there will always from time to time be
"irrational exuberance", to use Greenspan's memorable phrase
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_exuberance

Waves of optimism or pessimism *are* going to sweep through
the traders now and then, and I doubt if anyone can suggest a
solution to this part of the "business cycle" which is entirely an
element of human psychology.

But what we need is to know how laws and policy should be
affected. You continue

>  Every type of loan imaginable was put together and it was
> always an easy sell. We were getting 112 basis points on
> 8% 100% self-employed stated with a 580 credit score!

So how many people "sort of" knew? Was it the case that 
practically everyone "knew" but just figured that it was part
of the long term unknowable future, or that it would happen
"sooner or later", but didn't think that it was imminent? (Oh,
I see that you've answered below.)

> In the end, it kept happening because some idiots at the
> top had a great interest in buying all of this debt.

But how "idiotic" can this really be if indeed the "day of reckoning"
is still years off? As you and John Clark are saying, it seems inevitable
that people will simply end up (for the most part) placing their trust
in those offering the greatest rewards, right? So are we just *supposed*
to individually be more cautious, and try to be aware of this, and try to
avoid the very best interest rates we can find, if there is even a bit of
uncertainty in it? Somehow, that doesn't sound right---yet one who has
read Taleb's books and essays is indeed wary of "balanced portfolio",
"portfolio theory" and so on.  (Clueless am I.)

> Their company worth was shifted towards assets and not cash.
> The way the process works - including a foreclosure process
> that sometimes drags on for a year or more - provided an
> atmosphere where the default rates were going up while
> they were continuing to expand these products even further. 
> 
> In the end, I would say it is a case of people at the top not
> understanding fully what they are buying, OR willfully ignoring it.
> I'm not sure which. Both are probably somewhat true.

Okay, great, Kevin. This fits in with the picture that is beginning
to emerge for me. What seems *absolutely* necessary is that
government policies first and foremost should have been designed
so that the government is *never* left holding the bag. This means
that we should even eventually (pace singularity) remove
the guarantees of small investor safety---because just as soon as
there is any *guarantee* of government money, sooner or later
the situation will evolve so that the public pays (and in a way that
is NOT wealth-creating). Buyer beware.

> After all, these execs made hundreds of millions of dollars each
> and it really doesn't matter to them whether or not the whole
> thing collapses. They can retire just fine.

All right. So as I admitted the other day, some of our freedom under
the current circumstances does have to be traded for security, and
the SEC must have tough rules, and we *must* return to the 1933
law that Phil Graham and Bill Clinton repealed in the 1990s.

We never should have got into this, but it's a bit late to complain.
We should instead strive to slowly extract ourselves from this
in the future. (No one should ask *me* for details!)

> One thing I am not sure of is the role that regulation played here.
> I am left to wonder if less regulation would have allowed the
> shareholders and the end buyers of the debts at the top to be
> aware of the situation at the bottom much sooner.

Very interesting. Now, on the one hand, it's pretty clear that whether
we are talking about the savings and load fiasco of the late eighties
or the mortgage meltdown now, regulation cannot simply be repealed---
you can't go "half-free market". You cannot simultaneous continue
government backing of this and that and then blindly deregulate. 

But of course, only complete enemies of the free-market (i.e. people
whose economic education is unbelievably inadequate) are for *all*
regulation. I wonder, do they want to regulate supermarkets? piano
lessons? who can buy electronic devices?  I think the answer even for
them is "no". So clearly, at present we must seek a middle ground.

But your idea is intriguing, and commands attention.

> 18 month foreclosures, short sales, multiple appraisals, RESPA,
> predatory lending, all work to muddy the waters making it less
> clear what is going on...an incomplete thought at the moment,
> but something else to ponder.

Yes, muddy waters indeed. Sometimes I wish I were a simpleton
and could just scream "away with *all* government", or "we must
institute total control of everything, and completely regulate the
so-called free market to oblivion!". But I still have a bit of self-respect
on these matters.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 05:07:30 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:07:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Fred writes

> It appears that periodically a health care debate arises on this list.
> And I am always amazed as normally rational people seem to
> take leave of their more advanced analytical tools.  Before wasting
> time and bandwidth how about performing some basic analysis.

That sounds like sound advice.

> For each health care system under consideration please do the following:

Now one thing that simply amazes me is the tremendous interest
evinced on this list by non-U.S. citizens that the U.S. should
adopt socialized medicine for the U.S., i.e., provide health benefits
without charge. 

(Quite on the other hand, it's very EASY to understand why non-U.S.
citizens would be keenly interested in the financial laws and policies
of the United States, since there are necessarily so many international
repercussions to the economic success of the U.S.   But why such an
avid interest in U.S. health care, I can't help but wonder?)

Whether it's from Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, or Australia,
the posters on this list from those countries never miss an opportunity
to suggest that for the Americans, only the government solution makes
sense.

It's odd, because I would suppose that a sort of world-wide "diversity",
i.e., socialized in their own countries, private in the U.S.,  would provide
them the best of both worlds: the private system would have different
incentives to create health solutions (new research, etc.), while their
own countries could continue picking up most of the tab for their own
citizens. And by the same token, those citizens would still be free to
"go next door", as a significant number of Canadians often do, to see
what the "other system" has available or is providing.

Your six points below seem exemplary to me.

Lee

> 1. Determine what are they component parts and how they are connected;
> such as emergency care, pharmacy, etc.  Are there parallel systems?
> 
> 2. Determine how it is controlled, financed and regulated at the macro
> level.  And then how these macro level factors influence micro level
> decisions.  And the reverse.
> 
> 3. To the extent that some or all of a health care system is controlled
> by an identifiable entity does that entity have a goal or goals?  Are
> these goals internally consistent and do they conflict with the goals of
> other groups?  How are these conflicts resolved?
> 
> 3. Do individuals and groups have alternative options which they can
> pursue without penalties? 
> 
> 4. Are the caps or limits or rationing on various types of care?  Are
> all illnesses and diseased covered and to what extent?
> 
> 5. What are the demographic and other inputs into the system?  This
> includes factors such as age, work history, obesity, smoking, substance
> abuse just to name a few.
> 
> 6. How are outcomes identified and measured?  Age of death, amount of
> suffering, time on waiting lists for diagnostics, time on waiting lists
> for surgery, percentage of persons receiving preventative care, etc.
> 
> These are just a few of the items that need to be considered in order to
> even begin to have a reasonable comparison of health care systems.  And
> please avoid the glib but obviously wrong statements.  For example to
> say the USA has a free market health care system just shows a lack of
> knowledge.
> 
> Fred



From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 21 05:09:59 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:09:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Gene shifts
In-Reply-To: <1221966103_1885@S3.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <200809210510.m8L59wQV005967@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson


> Subject: [ExI] Gene shifts
> 
> 
> The below article is indirect support for Gregory Clark's 
> concepts.  He makes that case that genetic selection for 
> traits he deems "capitalist" during the 20 plus generations 
> proceeding the industrial revolution... Keith


Hey cool!  Capitalist tendencies are genetic, that means any criticism of
capitalists can now be considered racist and therefore a sin.  Those of us
who are unapologetic free market capitalists could even be considered a
racial minority, or possibly disabled.  So commies back off!  

spike






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep 21 05:24:53 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:24:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080921001539.02358a50@satx.rr.com>

At 10:07 PM 9/20/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>Whether it's from Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, or Australia,
>the posters on this list from those countries never miss an opportunity
>to suggest that for the Americans, only the government solution makes
>sense.

Exactly! It's infuriating! Just like those danged evolutionists, 
always shoving in with their fool opinions. Why can't they just let 
folks alone? We *like* paying through the nose and being bankrupted 
from huge bills if we have a medical emergency and the company shuts 
us out--and who can blame them? They have to make a profit! What's 
that? You say you're *not* claiming that *only* a national scheme 
makes sense, just that it's cheaper and fairer and easier to 
administer? Well, shut up! Those don't work!  No, not those 
either.  Or those!  Look, they just don't work, okay?  They may work 
in practice but they don't work in theory!

[Still the Other Damien]




From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 21 05:40:15 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:40:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200809210540.m8L5eEPX017984@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

> Subject: Re: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
> 
> Fred writes
> 
> > It appears that periodically a health care debate arises on 
> this list...

> Now one thing that simply amazes me is the tremendous 
> interest evinced on this list by non-U.S. citizens that the 
> U.S. should adopt socialized medicine for the U.S., i.e., 
> provide health benefits without charge... Lee

Lee I will offer my admittedly cynical notion: the US would be an attractive
destination to live and do business, if and only if an immigrant could get
health care from the US government.  Otherwise, best to stay home.  The tax
structure, climate, business environment, the other stuff is good in the US,
but they will not take care of you if you get sick, won't even bury you if
you die.  Unfettered capitalism is a double edged sword.

That being said, I hafta wonder if our politicians realize there are
*plenty* of yanks who work 9-to-5s mostly for the employer-provided health
insurance.  If we could get the government to take on our health care
expenses, there are tidal wave of us who would retire tomorrow with
sufficient savings and assets to cover all the other expenses.  Can the
system handle that cost?  I think it cannot.

spike


 




From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 21 06:22:48 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:22:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <1221959666_14446@s8.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <200809210623.m8L6MlIN001494@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of hkhenson
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
> 
> At 03:58 PM 9/19/2008, spike wrote:

> 
> >Hi Keith, please clarify.  What stand is discouraging?...
>...
> If you can make a case for group selection that isn't covered 
> by gene selection, please do or point me to cogent arguments.
> 
> Keith 

I cannot, this being out of my area of expertise.  What I have thought for a
long time is that the field of evolution desperately needs computer models
or simulations.  We managed to get those working in the aerospace business
only within the last decade.  To simulate evolution would perhaps require
another order of magnitude more computing horsepower and sophistication, but
I think we can do it.  I would like to see feedback control theory applied
to evolutionary models.

spike






From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 06:58:15 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:58:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
References: <916587.50451.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <08e201c91bb7$9e6b5850$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart writes

> Mike wrote:
> 
>> > [The Avantguardian wrote]
>> > 
>> > The good news is that the Ramsey Theorem makes it
>> > nearly impossible in sufficiently large networks that at
>> > least a few individuals don't cooperate, even if it is
>> > entirely by accident.

That is to say, if between *all* N parties, either the state COOPERATE or else
the state NOT-COOPERATE exists, then the Ramsey Theorem guarantees
that either a minimal number must COOPERATE or a minimum number must
NOT-COOPERATE. If others don't understand then they should see the nice example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey's_theorem#Example:_R.283.2C3.29.3D6

>> What you describe remind me of liquid gathering
>> into drops, and [then] drops into puddles.  In a
>> sufficiently large field of evenly distributed small
>> drops, there is little required action to become part
>> of a puddle.  This game may not be a perfect example,
>> but it has an interesting dynamic as levels increase:
>> http://www.1cup1coffee.com/fl/mercurydrops.swf
>> 
>> Do you get a "feel" for what I'm saying? 
>> Does this agree with your original point?
> 
> My browser can't load the shockwave file but it sounds
> like you get it.

Oh?  I don't see any connection at all. Could you elaborate on the
connection you see between Mike's puddles and the Ramsey Theorem?

> Although keep in mind that droplets and puddles can't
> differentially reproduce. The takehome message of Ramsey
> theory is that "complete disorder is impossible."

Well, I don't understand why you would draw that conclusion
or put it that way. It's easy to see that one may simply have
*any* number of cooperators or non-cooperators in a group.
There could be just one cooperator, or just two, or just N,
all the way up to the size of the group. The Ramsey Theory
only talks about the weird condition that GIVEN that among
N entities there are Cooperators and Non-Cooperators,
THEN it follows that there is some minimal number of *either*
cooperators or non-cooperators. This is not going to make
non-mathematicians show any surprise at all, I think.

Lee

P.S. If you look at the table of known Ramsey numbers
at the Wikipedia link above, then you can conclude that
our civilization has discovered what I'll call "the fourth
Ramsey number", i.e. we know that (4,4) is 18.  One could
grade civilizations on how many Ramsey numbers they've
figured out. 
For example, a higher civilization than ours (say a dozen years
ahead of us or so) may know the 5th Ramsey number, and
yet a completely superior civilization may know the 6th or
7th Ramsey numbers!   :-)


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 07:06:02 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:06:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
References: <200809210623.m8L6MlIN001494@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <08e901c91bb9$06118140$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Spike asked Keith

At 03:58 PM 9/19/2008, spike wrote:
> [Keith wrote]  
> 
> > During most of the human EEA, "group" and "relative" overlapped.  The
> > tribe was the group and the tribe (or even smaller bands) were mostly
> > relatives.  Now taking risk and even dying for a group of relatives is
> > sound gene selection of the Hamilton/inclusive fitness variety.  The
> > fact that these mechanisms can be fooled in modern times when we no
> > longer live with tribal relatives is not a surprise.
> > 
> > But it is discouraging to see people who should know better taking this stand.
> 
> Hi Keith, please clarify.  What stand is discouraging?...

I thought Keith was really saying "it is discouraging to see people
who should know better [than to be fooled into behaving as if
we were still living with tribal relatives]".  In other words, Keith
was bemoaning that we still have tribal instincts. Isn't that right,
Keith?

Well, to me, that's about as informative as saying, "It's a shame 
that we still have the emotion hatred", or "It's a shame that
we spend a huge part of our lives literally asleep".

Well, that's just the way it *is*.

Moreover, *your* group is on the line: if you and people like
you don't cooperate with your group, then it will become extinct.
(Pace singularity, of course.)

Lee



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sun Sep 21 07:20:59 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:20:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <200809210540.m8L5eEPX017984@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200809210540.m8L5eEPX017984@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20080921072059.GA13058@ofb.net>

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:40:15PM -0700, spike wrote:

> > Now one thing that simply amazes me is the tremendous 
> > interest evinced on this list by non-U.S. citizens that the 
> > U.S. should adopt socialized medicine for the U.S., i.e., 
> > provide health benefits without charge... Lee

That might be a truth-loving reflex, in response to the hordes of
ignorant Americans who say "socialized medicine doesn't work".

> Lee I will offer my admittedly cynical notion: the US would be an attractive
> destination to live and do business, if and only if an immigrant could get
> health care from the US government.  Otherwise, best to stay home.  The tax

I know of some foreigners who refuse to travel here for fear of getting
sick while here.  (And others who refuse post 9/11 travel, due to the
lack of any guarantee of decent treatment or rights-having by the US
government.)  Conversely, I know skilled Americans who are tempted to
get jobs overseas for the same reason.

> That being said, I hafta wonder if our politicians realize there are
> *plenty* of yanks who work 9-to-5s mostly for the employer-provided health
> insurance.  If we could get the government to take on our health care
> expenses, there are tidal wave of us who would retire tomorrow with
> sufficient savings and assets to cover all the other expenses.  Can the

Given the US savings rate, probably not that many with sufficient
savings and assets.  Anyone really up to retiring can probably afford
individual insurance anyway.  Well, unless they have 'complications'.

> system handle that cost?  I think it cannot.

You really think that many Americans are able and eager to retire?

-xx- Damien X-) 


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 07:32:50 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:32:50 +1000
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <08bf01c91ba3$49ad4080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<fc61cda033dab.48d42f9d@insightbb.com>
	<08bf01c91ba3$49ad4080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809210032r3e7d0249jf02f652b6797e1fa@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/21 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> Waves of optimism or pessimism *are* going to sweep through
> the traders now and then, and I doubt if anyone can suggest a
> solution to this part of the "business cycle" which is entirely an
> element of human psychology.

This is essentially the idea behind attempts to manipulate the markets
via monetary policy, fiscal policy and financial regulation. It might
not eliminate boom and bust cycles, but it can attenuate them. I
understand that you think this is a bad idea, but I don't understand
why you seem to think that it is *necessarily* a bad idea. It's like
claiming that natural selection can never be improved upon by medicine
or engineering, and that even to try would invite disaster.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep 21 08:01:24 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 03:01:24 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809210032r3e7d0249jf02f652b6797e1fa@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<fc61cda033dab.48d42f9d@insightbb.com>
	<08bf01c91ba3$49ad4080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210032r3e7d0249jf02f652b6797e1fa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080921025144.027debd8@satx.rr.com>

At 05:32 PM 9/21/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>I don't understand
>why you seem to think that it is *necessarily* a bad idea. It's like
>claiming that natural selection can never be improved upon by medicine
>or engineering, and that even to try would invite disaster.

The difference is presumably that natural selection is entirely 
mindless, while the theory behind an agoric market (or whatever it's 
to be called) is that all the actors are intelligent, somewhat 
informed agents whose choices are at once diversified and when summed 
still open to reasoned responses in a subtle and fluent process of 
feedbacks. While top-down central controls place far too much 
executive manipulatory power in the paws of a small fallible 
backscratching cabal sharing a narrow ideology and far too little information.

This need not mean, I'd have thought, that in a representative 
democracy the elected deputies might not, for example, place severe 
constraints on mindless computerized trading than is easily trapped 
into positive feedback disaster, not to mention placing equally 
savage constraints on corporate monoliths that specifically block the 
action of those many agents whose distributed crowd/cloud wisdom is 
supposed to be tapped by the market.

But I'm an Australian and don't understand these things.

Damien Broderick




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 07:26:12 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:26:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
References: <200809210540.m8L5eA6C000499@mail1.rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <08fb01c91bc5$77d0ce10$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Spike explains

> [Lee wrote]
> 
>> Now one thing that simply amazes me is the tremendous 
>> interest evinced on this list by non-U.S. citizens that the 
>> U.S. should adopt socialized medicine for the U.S., i.e., 
>> provide health benefits without charge... Lee
> 
> Lee I will offer my admittedly cynical notion: the US would be an attractive
> destination to live and do business, if and only if an immigrant could get
> health care from the US government.  Otherwise, best to stay home.

Ah ha! So that's it! I owe you, fellah.

> The tax structure, climate, business environment, the other stuff
> is good in the US, but they will not take care of you if you get
> sick, won't even bury you if you die.  Unfettered capitalism is a
> double edged sword.

Well, "turn-about is fair play", as my elementary school teacher used
to say. So what if like a good capitalist, I saves me money and
then emigrates to one of those pay-all countries? Then, inversely,
I should have the best of both worlds: my greedy-capitalist loot, 
plus them footing the bill for my medical problems. Is that
a plan, or what!?

> That being said, I hafta wonder if our politicians realize there are
> *plenty* of yanks who work 9-to-5s mostly for the employer-provided health
> insurance.  If we could get the government to take on our health care
> expenses, there are tidal wave of us who would retire tomorrow with
> sufficient savings and assets to cover all the other expenses.

Ah, another great thought.  Lessee, I'm 60. If we get the socialists
elected, they pay for my health care, and I need to get frozen (from
my own funds) 19 years from now, will the system have already
collapsed or not?  What does your crystal ball say?

Yes---since belonging to a country that has a sound economy and
an instinct for self-survival  appears to be out of the question,
it looks like I should start defecting and vote in the socialists.
Like you, why should I work if my loot is, as you write,
"sufficient... to cover all the other expenses"?

> Can the system handle that cost?  I think it cannot.

Well, not indefinitely. But perhaps we need to think like those guys
who retired with their millions, "to hell with everyone else"? So the
question then reduces down to, "how long before the whole thing
goes bust?".

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 07:16:13 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:16:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
References: <200809210540.m8L5eA6C000499@mail1.rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <08fa01c91bc5$77b90050$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Hey Spike, did you get a load of what the "other Damien" wrote? (i.e. not
the Cal-Tech one)  Sez he:

    >>Whether it's from Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, or Australia,
    >>the posters on this list from those countries never miss an opportunity
    >>to suggest that for the Americans, only the government solution makes
    >>sense.
    > 
    > Exactly! It's infuriating! Just like those danged evolutionists, 
    > always shoving in with their fool opinions. Why can't they just let 
    > folks alone? We *like* paying through the nose and being bankrupted 
    > from huge bills if we have a medical emergency and the company shuts 
    > us out--and who can blame them? They have to make a profit! What's 
    > that? You say you're *not* claiming that *only* a national scheme 
    > makes sense, just that it's cheaper and fairer and easier to 
    > administer? Well, shut up! Those don't work!  No, not those 
    > either.  Or those!  Look, they just don't work, okay?  They may work 
    > in practice but they don't work in theory!
    > 
    > [Still the Other Damien]

I read it through twice, but this-here Damien (the very erudite one
with many books to his credit, or to his notoriety, or whatever),
isn't making any sense to me. I discern that the problem *may* be
that perhaps at least *two* levels of irony are piled on top of some
sarcasm, and I can't unravel it. Can you help?

Thanks,
Lee


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 09:11:29 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:11:29 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/21 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> Now one thing that simply amazes me is the tremendous interest
> evinced on this list by non-U.S. citizens that the U.S. should
> adopt socialized medicine for the U.S., i.e., provide health benefits
> without charge.
> (Quite on the other hand, it's very EASY to understand why non-U.S.
> citizens would be keenly interested in the financial laws and policies
> of the United States, since there are necessarily so many international
> repercussions to the economic success of the U.S.   But why such an
> avid interest in U.S. health care, I can't help but wonder?)
>
> Whether it's from Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, or Australia,
> the posters on this list from those countries never miss an opportunity
> to suggest that for the Americans, only the government solution makes
> sense.

Isn't the simple answer that it must stick out as an obvious deficit
to those on the outside? It's not as if all these posters are running
down every aspect of U.S. society.

(And BTW, publicly funded medicine is not "without charge": someone
has to pay for it. The two hoped for benefits are that it provides
better access for all, and that it does this more cheaply than the
alternative. There is a calculation to be made if it isn't actually
cheaper - how much improved access does it take to justify decreased
efficiency? - but otherwise it's as they say a no-brainer.)



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Sep 21 09:14:01 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
Message-ID: <143919.64018.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 9/20/08, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> "Is evolution a team sport, or is the
> contest for survival played out
> strictly between individuals?"
> 
> Trivers, Hamilton, and others showed and it was popularized
> by 
> Dawkins that evolution happens at the *gene* level.  So the
> first 
> sentence is out of main stream evolutionary thinkings

That is certainly the mainstream opinion but the mainstream itself has drastically changed its opinion over the years like a car swerving back and forth over an icy road. I think what you see is the result of overcompensation from one extreme viewpoint to another. Ultimately both "selfish gene theory" and "group selection theory" are extremist views that fail to see the big picture. To adhere blindly to either view is to ignore mountains of evidence that show merit to either side of the debate. I am in favor of a multi-level selection theory that correctly observes that evolution occurs at *all* levels of complexity from molecules to nation-states and beyond. 
 
> "There's
> no question that natural selection acts
> on individual organisms: Those with
> favorable traits are more likely to pass
> along their genes to the next generation."
> 
> Of course as Hamilton showed, that's not the only way. 
> Consider bees 
> for ghod's sake.

Well there are thousands of species of bees. Are you talking honey bees or mason bees. Mason bees are all fertile and live a solitary existence. I have been seeing a lot mason bees and other types up here Washington state since all the honey bees started disappearing. 

> "But perhaps similar processes
> could operate at other levels of the biological
> hierarchy. In this way natural
> selection could perpetuate traits that
> are favorable not to an individual but
> to a social unit such as a flock or a colony,"
> 
> Depends.  Does the flock/colony consist of related 
> individuals?  Again, think of bees defending a hive.

Spike's ants vigorously defend aphids which aren't even in the same phylogenetic order as they are let alone related members of the same species. Could there be ant genes that increase the fitness of aphids? After all ants will kill and eat most other insects.

> "or to an entire species, or even to
> an ecosystem made up of many species.
> The underlying question is: Can
> biological traits evolve "for the good
> of the group"?"
> 
> It depends on the group.  What gets passed from generation
> to 
> generation is genes.  Another example.

Mitochondria and a bunch of other cytoplasmic organelles get passed from generation to generation too but only from the females of course. Other things that can pass from generation to generation are territories, commensal organisms, and vertically transmitted infectious diseases.

Remember that the only reason termites can digest wood is that they harbor a protozoa in their stomachs that helps them. And amazingly these protozoa could not digest wood on their own either except that they harbour bacterial symbionts that help them by making crucial digestive enzymes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichonympha

And as Natasha astutely pointed out in a different thread, we are composed of 1000 trillion cells only 10% of which even contain human genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flora

> And evolution is the differential survival of genes.

Call me an atypical biologist but I would say that evolution is the differential survival of cells. A naked chromosome is not even alive so how can it survive? The transhumanist in me would go farther and say that evolution is differential persistance of replicating information encoded on any substrate whatsoever. So in my opinion even automobiles evolve, even though they don't even live in a strictly biological sense.   
 
> I have made the case in "EP, memes and the origin of
> war" that humans 
> have similar psychological traits.
> When the risk to the genes of an individual warrior is less
> than the 
> risk summed over his relatives multiplied by their
> relatedness, i.e., 
> without killing the neighbors the kids will starve next dry
> season, 
> then psychological mechanisms get turned on that synch up a
> tribe's 
> warriors to make a do or die effort.

While I don't doubt that is certainly part of the psychology of humans, I am not certain how much of that has a genetic basis. After all there are females of many species of birds that placed in a similar situation simply kill their kids and await more plentiful times to have more kids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
 
> Just because someone rates as high as EO Wilson doesn't
> mean what he 
> says should be taken without examining the logic behind
> what his claims.

In science the most water-tight logic must yield to the weight of evidence. That is what distinguishes empiricism from formal logic.
 
> Of course this applies even more to people like me far down
> the feeding chain.

Don't be so hard on yourself, Keith. Nobody is insignificant and nobody is indispensible.
 
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 stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 09:48:32 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:48:32 +0200
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <08bf01c91ba3$49ad4080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<fc61cda033dab.48d42f9d@insightbb.com>
	<08bf01c91ba3$49ad4080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <580930c20809210248o709f7385y2bba8d7c6739ab39@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> So it resembles a classic bubble? In 1637 at its height, surely many
> people knew that the tulip mania could not go on forever, but merely
> kept hoping to find "the greater fool", who'd turn over even more
> cash than they themselves had paid.

Yes. My final impression, both at a theoretical and at a professional
level, is that players, savers and investors are not necessarily
stupid, but "markets" often are. Meaning that they suffer from the
fact that you do not really bet on your views on likely actual
developments, but rather on the expected... expectations of the
market, in a recursive and pyramidal scheme.

As a dot com boomer, who managed to become rich by creating and
listing companies that never made a real dollar in their entire
existence, "profits are for the sissies", shares prices are
everything, and demand for shares is entirely based on the supposed
price you may be able to resell them one minute after your purchase.

Stefano Vaj


From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Sep 21 09:22:05 2008
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:22:05 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <521867.25250.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

For those of you wondering about your "license to be weird", it is important to know what level of weirdness you are qualified for. 

http://www.brunching.com/images/geekchart.pdf shows exactly where you are in the hierarchy of geekiness, and who you are permitted to look down on.

Tom


      


From sparge at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 13:16:03 2008
From: sparge at gmail.com (Spargemeister)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:16:03 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Freedom (was: "PC")
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0809210616g396d3745qcf3cc8c732e56bb4@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Harvey Newstrom
<mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
>
> I think everybody wants "freedom".  It's just that different people have
> different interpretations of what they need to be free from.

Obviously different people want different things, and conflicts
abound. But describing every possible desire as a "freedom"
exaggerates the problem and devalues true freedom. I'd like to be free
of financial concerns, but I certainly don't consider that to be a
fundamental human right.

The key concept, I think, is *personal* freedom: the right to do
whatever you want as long it doesn't interfere with another person's
personal freedom. The government should be working to maintain the
personal freedom of citizens, not imposing various arbitrary
restrictions favored by popular ideologies.

> A libertatian
> blames all ills on the government, and therefore wants the freedom of
> anarchy.

That's a serious mischaracterization of libertarianism. We don't want
anarchy, we want a small government framework does the things only a
government can do, such as manage public assets, coordinate national
defense, and maintain and enforce federal laws.

> A person tired of spam and scammers wants freedom from criminals
> and wants the government to "do something".

Nope. I'm tired of spam and the last thing I want is for the
government to try to fix the problem.

> A communist wants freedom from
> corporations making everybody a wage slave.  While a free-marketeer wants
> freedom to be in charge of their own business all by themselves.  Some
> people want the freedom to experiment with drugs, while others want the
> freedom to walk down a city street without drug-crazed persons mugging them.
> Gun lovers want the freedom to carry protection, while gun haters want the
> freedom to walk down the street unafraid of armed robbery.  A gay person
> wants the freedom to form any relationships, while a fundamentalist wants
> the freedom to live in a country "free" of gays.  Everybody wants freedom,
> but only for their own desires, and only using the methods they think will
> bring about their freedom.

I'm not going to bother with addressing each of those examples. I'll
leave it as an exercise for the reader to evaluate them in terms of
maximizing personal freedom.

-Dave


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 14:26:18 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:26:18 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <580930c20809210726m3ef2ce13i1a36c273808c8796@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> It's odd, because I would suppose that a sort of world-wide "diversity",
> i.e., socialized in their own countries, private in the U.S.,  would
> provide
> them the best of both worlds: the private system would have different
> incentives to create health solutions (new research, etc.), while their
> own countries could continue picking up most of the tab for their own
> citizens.


... not to mention the small matter of self-determination and local
sovereignty.

Now, it can be discussed whether in fact US policies correspond to what the
US people actually want or "would" want (e.g., if better informed, more
competent, etc.). But the fact that the US government should by definition
conform to some kind of universal law in this respect sounds really as some
kind of reversed cultural imperialism...

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080921/973fe2aa/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 14:29:09 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:29:09 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <200809210540.m8L5eEPX017984@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200809210540.m8L5eEPX017984@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809210729p366987e2g15b09eb5bf77f602@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 7:40 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Lee I will offer my admittedly cynical notion: the US would be an
> attractive
> destination to live and do business, if and only if an immigrant could get
> health care from the US government.


Why, for a country trying to curb immigration, you make this sounds like an
important ingredient in a self-defence recipe... :-)

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080921/4771188c/attachment.html>

From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Sun Sep 21 14:31:57 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:31:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Freedom (was: "PC")
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0809210616g396d3745qcf3cc8c732e56bb4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffd22f9d0809210616g396d3745qcf3cc8c732e56bb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6BC377443FA04AA382D9146AAE585D8C@Catbert>

"Spargemeister" <sparge at gmail.com> wrote,
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> 
> wrote:
>> I think everybody wants "freedom".  It's just that different people have
>> different interpretations of what they need to be free from.
>
> Obviously different people want different things, and conflicts
> abound. But describing every possible desire as a "freedom"
> exaggerates the problem and devalues true freedom. I'd like to be free
> of financial concerns, but I certainly don't consider that to be a
> fundamental human right.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.  The problem comes in when we 
try to classify which of these things is a real "freedom" and which thing is 
just some random desire.

> The key concept, I think, is *personal* freedom: the right to do
> whatever you want as long it doesn't interfere with another person's
> personal freedom. The government should be working to maintain the
> personal freedom of citizens, not imposing various arbitrary
> restrictions favored by popular ideologies.

I very much agree with this (libertarian) definition. My point is that 
everybody would agree with this definition.  They just won't agree upon its 
application.

Can gays kiss in public, or is that interfering with the personal freedom of 
straight families with children in public?  Can women get abortions, or is 
that interfering with the fetus' personal freedom.  Or, the example we 
discuss next, can spammers mail bomb whole segments of the population, or is 
that interfering with their personal computers?  People literally disagree 
where the lines of personal freedom are.

>> A libertatian
>> blames all ills on the government, and therefore wants the freedom of
>> anarchy.
>
> That's a serious mischaracterization of libertarianism. We don't want
> anarchy, we want a small government framework does the things only a
> government can do, such as manage public assets, coordinate national
> defense, and maintain and enforce federal laws.

Actually, I agree that your definitions are best.  But around here, there 
have been more extreme libertarians who literally want "no" government. 
They would call your definition of libertarian "minarchy" and the more 
extreme version of libertarian "anarchy".  I was slipping into the more 
extreme (and admitedly, less popular) definitions of libertarianism.  But my 
point still stands if I rephrase it using different terminology.

>> A person tired of spam and scammers wants freedom from criminals
>> and wants the government to "do something".
>
> Nope. I'm tired of spam and the last thing I want is for the
> government to try to fix the problem.

I understand that this is your viewpoint based on the libertarian rule.  But 
can you see, even if you don't agree, how someone could argue that 
mail-bombing someone else's mailing list or personal PC interferes with 
their own use of their own property?  For corporations running big mail 
servers, it is estimated that over 90% of the cost of processing and storage 
is forced upon them by external spammers without their consent.  Also, some 
people would argue that protecting our data infrastructures from 
interference from foreign spammers should be a vital part of national 
defense.

> I'm not going to bother with addressing each of those examples. I'll
> leave it as an exercise for the reader to evaluate them in terms of
> maximizing personal freedom.

I see your point that libertarianism is best.  I'm just pointing out that 
the libertarian definition ("right to do whatever you want as long it 
doesn't interfere with another person's personal freedom") is totally 
subjective.  It is based on what the person considers their personal space. 
The very definition of what is a "right" and what is "personal interference" 
will vary from person to person.

My point is that the disagreements on these forms of government is not in 
terms of the goal or the definitions, it is in terms of the values.  People 
choose governments that will maximize their own personal values.  In a way, 
it is like the free market at work.  Everybody (selfishly) chooses the 
government form that they think will best serve them.  And that 
determination is based on which things they value most.  I don't think 
anything I have said disagrees with your excellent points.  I just think 
that people's personal choices will lead them to choose other forms of 
government as the best way to implement the libertarian rule.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From pjmanney at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 15:40:49 2008
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 08:40:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <521867.25250.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<521867.25250.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <29666bf30809210840l1d3fb4ebwd648a82110ba147b@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Tom Nowell <nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> For those of you wondering about your "license to be weird", it is important to know what level of weirdness you are qualified for.
>
> http://www.brunching.com/images/geekchart.pdf shows exactly where you are in the hierarchy of geekiness, and who you are permitted to look down on.

Oh, that is so only the beginning.  As my friend Stephen said this
morning, it's missing lots of types, like:

people who learned Japanese solely to watch anime in the original
fans of "Avatar" over the age of 15
people who've learned Tolkien's elvin language
people who attend the Star Trek church
http://purgatorio1.com/?p=538

When I looked up the link, I almost fell of my seat.  Where have I
been living ?  Under a rock?!  Live long and prosper, dudes!

PJ


From pjmanney at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 15:54:11 2008
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 08:54:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <521867.25250.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<521867.25250.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <29666bf30809210854s2bfcb781s305a3a2788c31e69@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Tom Nowell <nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> For those of you wondering about your "license to be weird", it is important to know what level of weirdness you are qualified for.
>
> http://www.brunching.com/images/geekchart.pdf shows exactly where you are in the hierarchy of geekiness, and who you are permitted to look down on.


BTW, from Wikipedia:
Sj?berg is known for his dislike of furries and has made somewhat
controversial efforts to marginalize them within fandom circles with
his Geek Hierarchy schematic. When asked, "Who died and left you the
boss?", his curt reply was simply, "Isaac Asimov."

PJ


From pjmanney at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 15:58:27 2008
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 08:58:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30809210854s2bfcb781s305a3a2788c31e69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<521867.25250.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<29666bf30809210854s2bfcb781s305a3a2788c31e69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29666bf30809210858i7a86f3f1mfe49fe4ae92939bf@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:54 AM, PJ Manney <pjmanney at gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, from Wikipedia:
> Sj?berg is known for his dislike of furries and has made somewhat
> controversial efforts to marginalize them within fandom circles with
> his Geek Hierarchy schematic. When asked, "Who died and left you the
> boss?", his curt reply was simply, "Isaac Asimov."

And here's his cyborg name decoder:
http://cyborg.namedecoder.com/

My name is: P.J. M.A.N.N.E.Y.: Positronic Journeying Machine Assembled
for Nocturnal Nullification and Efficient Yelling

Nocturnal Nullification...  Hmmmm....  Kinda like my drag queen name...

PJ


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Sep 21 16:35:13 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:35:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com><ED424A7096324D8689D16FE156EFCB20@MyComputer>
	<48D5B42A.9080201@posthuman.com>
Message-ID: <093E13AEC07449E2BE505B57B333376A@MyComputer>

 "Brian Atkins" <brian at posthuman.com>

> Government interference in the ratings business is 
> actually at the root of the problem. 

Very interesting post Brian, thank you.

  John K Clark





From max at maxmore.com  Sun Sep 21 16:30:58 2008
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:30:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080921025144.027debd8@satx.rr.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<fc61cda033dab.48d42f9d@insightbb.com>
	<08bf01c91ba3$49ad4080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210032r3e7d0249jf02f652b6797e1fa@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080921025144.027debd8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20080921163101.KYXO17328.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>

Damien--the stock exchanges DO have such mechanisms in place, 
precisely to constrain dangerous feedback loops. (They were put in 
place, however, not by "elected deputies" but by stock exchange 
executives.) I think a very interesting, important, and difficult 
question is how those constraints might be improved in some systematic way.

Eric Bonabeau has some interesting thoughts on this issue in his 
article, "The Perils of the Imitation Age" (from the business 
person's perspective). My review is here:
http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreco.aspx?coid=CO61041235546

Max

At 03:01 AM 9/21/2008, Damien wrote:
>At 05:32 PM 9/21/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
>This need not mean, I'd have thought, that in a representative 
>democracy the elected deputies might not, for example, place severe 
>constraints on mindless computerized trading than is easily trapped 
>into positive feedback disaster, not to mention placing equally 
>savage constraints on corporate monoliths that specifically block 
>the action of those many agents whose distributed crowd/cloud wisdom 
>is supposed to be tapped by the market.


Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com 



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sun Sep 21 16:59:08 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:59:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809201450m3ee5f2eahbea67077aa066033@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B158A1C539CB427EB98B7A13539BADD2@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "BillK" <pharos at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:50 PM

> If Obama sticks with this position he will be handing the election on
> a plate to McCain.

Yeah, USAmericans's appetite seems to be for ersatz "mac'n'cheese".  While 
it's not a new phenomenon (google: "Stevenson" + "Eisenhower" + "egghead"), 
it seems our politics are getting dumbed down more and more with each 
election:

[Palin's] fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of 
cannibalism....The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is 
that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual 
qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity 
in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that 
(highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among 
the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is 
an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.:

www.newsweek.com/id/160080/output/print



From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 21 17:49:56 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:49:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <B158A1C539CB427EB98B7A13539BADD2@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <200809211750.m8LHns2f027506@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 > ...On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
> 
> > If Obama sticks with this position he will be handing the 
> election on a plate to McCain... BillK
> 
> Yeah, USAmericans's appetite seems to be for ersatz 
> "mac'n'cheese"...

Hahaaahahahahaaa!  Mac n cheese!  {8^D  Thanks Olga, may I use that?  {8-]

Like many of you here, I can read much faster than anyone can talk.
Political speeches are even slower than normal speech by a factor of at
least two, since they carefully anunciate, and because they are often
interrupted by cheering.  Not only can I read much faster than they can
talk, I can understand written text much better afterwards.  So, I don't
actually listen to the speeches, but rather read the transcripts.  I
understand that both Obama and Palin are good orators, but of course that
doesn't translate onto the page.

Here's what I have observed of reading the the front runners speeches: I
have a hard time figuring out where Senator Obama stands on anything.  With
Governor Palin, I understand her position and usually don't like it.  Barr
is easy to understand, but is only sorta libertarian.  I like Root pretty
well.  Libertarians get my vote this year.

spike







From benboc at lineone.net  Sun Sep 21 17:27:56 2008
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:27:56 +0100
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <48D6841C.1020604@lineone.net>

I think that you may well get no ants in the gak pit (What the hell is 
Gak, anyway??) in either case.

Can you guess why?

Ben Zaiboc


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 17:59:35 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:59:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com><ED424A7096324D8689D16FE156EFCB20@MyComputer>
	<48D5B42A.9080201@posthuman.com>
Message-ID: <08fb01c91c14$4c066160$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Brian Atkins points to a post written a year ago (September 27, 2007)

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/09/time-to-break-up-credit-rating-cartel.html

that helps explain a lot of what has been going on.

    The SEC is Investigating Conflict of Interest Charges at US Credit Ratings
    Agencies.

        Credit ratings agencies need to separate their rating and advisory
        functions because of conflicts of interest in their relationship with
        Wall Street, the newly appointed head of a high-level government advisory
        panel said on Wednesday.

        "I do not think that the market can discipline ratings agencies
        sufficiently," said Mr Mindich, chief executive of Eton Park Capital and
        a former colleague of Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary, at Goldman
        Sachs, the investment bank.

        Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, told
        the Senate panel his agency was investigating whether companies such as
        Standard & Poor's and Moody's were "unduly influenced" by issuers and
        underwriters that paid for credit ratings.

and continues a bit further down

    At the heart of the controversy is the fact that the Wall Street banks
    pay the agencies to rate the new products. One after another, Senators
    accused the agencies of giving artificially high ratings to ensure that the
    business did not go to their rivals.

    Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, described the process as
    "like a movie studio paying a critic to review a movie and then using a quote
    from his review in the commercials". A Democrat, Robert Menendez, said the
    agencies were "playing both coach and referee".

    But Vickie Tillman of Standard & Poor's credit market services said that the
    agencies took every care to try to ensure accurate ratings, and that no
    analyst was ever paid according to the amount of business he or she
    generated, or the types of ratings given. "S&P does not and will not issue
    higher ratings in order to garner additional business," she said.

and finally 

    [The 1975 government] Establishment of the NRSRO did three things (all bad):

        1) It made it extremely difficult to become "nationally recognized"
            as a rating agency when all debt had to be rated by someone
            who was already nationally recognized.

        2) In effect it created a nice monopoly for those in the designated group.

        3) It turned upside down the model of who had to pay.
            Previously debt buyers would go to the ratings companies
            to know what they were buying. The new model was issuers
            of debt had to pay to get it rated or they couldn't sell it. Of
            course this led to shopping around to see who would give
            the debt the highest rating.

So Brian's additional comments certainly seem well-founded to me. (See below.)

Lee

> Government interference in the ratings business is actually at the root of the 
> problem. If you look into the history of the ratings agencies business you will 
> find they effectively operate as a cartel/monopoly enforced by the SEC since 
> 1975. There is no way such poor ratings performance would be tolerated
> in a free market without this enforced lack of competition.
> 
> If you want good ratings you need to abolish this government-enforced cartel 
> system and also go back to the way it was prior to 1975 where BUYERS of debt 
> paid for the ratings instead of today's system where SELLERS of debt purchase 
> ratings (and obviously apply pressure for a higher rating for their money spent).
> 
> So anyway we can put this all down to government interference too, unintended 
> side effects, etc.


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 18:09:20 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:09:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809201450m3ee5f2eahbea67077aa066033@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <090401c91c15$b332ed80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

BillK writes

> Well, judging by the reaction to Bush's bail out of the millionaire bankers,
> McCain seems to be taking the populist position of protesting against
> bailing out these rich East Coast bankers while Obama is going along
> with it but asking for some help for people struggling to pay their
> mortgages.

Hmm, thanks for that. Odd, the snippets I've heard (I try not to
waste time listening to all this crap) were suggesting to me that
McCain was just as retarded as the Democrats on economic
issues (except for his rather strikingly praiseworthy history of
*never* having supported an earmark!).

> If Obama sticks with this position he will be handing the election on
> a plate to McCain.

The snippets I hear on radio show the media in full swing and
using the race card at full potential. I heard today the
*opinion* (!) of the person reading the news that if Obama
loses, it will be because of "one-third of Democratic voters
admit to having a problem with a black candidate", a claimed
result of one of the usual very dubious polls (of the kind
commissioned by both sides) about this time every election
year (always worded so as to get the intended and desired
response).

> (Not that McCain would do much different if he was in power, but he
> knows what to say to get a landslide of support going his way).

Aw, you're just trying to cheer me up. But thanks anyway  :-)

Lee

> Get ready for another four years of Republican presidency.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 18:56:12 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:56:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
References: <143919.64018.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <090d01c91c1c$024c8100$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart the Avantguardian wrote

> [Keith] wrote:
> 
>> "Is evolution a team sport, or is the
>> contest for survival played out
>> strictly between individuals?"
>> 
>> Trivers, Hamilton, and others showed and
>> it was popularized by Dawkins that evolution
>> happens at the *gene* level.  So the first 
>> sentence is out of main stream evolutionary
>> thinkings
> 
> That is certainly the mainstream opinion but the mainstream
> itself has drastically changed its opinion over the years like
> a car swerving back and forth over an icy road. I think what
> you see is the result of overcompensation from one extreme
> viewpoint to another. Ultimately both "selfish gene theory"
> and "group selection theory" are extremist views that fail
> to see the big picture. To adhere blindly to either view is to
> ignore mountains of evidence that show merit to either side
> of the debate.

I agree with that. Sober and Wilson's book "Unto Others" 
was for me the ultimate proof that *group* selection can be
real and can work. (Stuart, you will be most interested to
know, if you don't already, that the mechanism they identify
as responsible for group selection is the wonderful "Simpson's
Paradox", a notorious but beautiful mathematical result.)

Keith wrote in this same thread, 

> > Just because someone rates as high as EO Wilson
> > doesn't mean what he says should be taken without
> > examining the logic behind what his claims. Of course
> > this applies even more to people like me far down
> > the feeding chain.

I'm not sure, but you may be mistaking "David Sloan Wilson",
the author of "Unto Others" (who is the big group selection
proponent) with the much more legendary EO Wilson of
sociobiology (ev psych) fame.

My only problem with group selection at this point is that
it seems like, according to all I've read, it's rather relatively
infrequently used by evolution. In other words, most selection
phenomena is still best described at operating at the gene level.

Lee

> Remember that the only reason termites can digest wood
> is that they harbor a protozoan in their stomachs that helps
> them. And amazingly these protozoa could not digest wood
> on their own either except that they harbour bacterial
> symbionts that help them by making crucial digestive enzymes.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichonympha



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 19:07:53 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:07:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com><fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com><07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><fc61cda033dab.48d42f9d@insightbb.com><08bf01c91ba3$49ad4080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809210032r3e7d0249jf02f652b6797e1fa@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080921025144.027debd8@satx.rr.com>
	<20080921163101.KYXO17328.hrndva-omta05.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
Message-ID: <091801c91c1d$6a8b1960$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Max writes

> Damien--the stock exchanges DO have such mechanisms in place, precisely to constrain dangerous feedback loops. (They were put in 
> place, however, not by "elected deputies" but by stock exchange executives.) I think a very interesting, important, and difficult 
> question is how those constraints might be improved in some systematic way.
>
> Eric Bonabeau has some interesting thoughts on this issue in his article, "The Perils
> of the Imitation Age" (from the business  person's perspective). My review is here:
> http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreco.aspx?coid=CO61041235546

All I see there---without signing up further---is
the  following, but I don't see an attribution for
you anywhere. Is this really what you were trying
to draw attention to, or was this review of
Bonabeau written by someone else?

Lee

<If we understand human nature in terms of its biological and genetic basis then it is true, as Eric Bonabeau says, that it has not 
changed for many thousands of years. What does change is the way that social and technological progress amplifies the effects of the 
enduring qualities of human behavior. In this insightful, stimulating, and productive paper, Bonabeau zeroes in on a powerful 
element of human nature: imitation. Technological progress has given imitation enormous and rapidly growing influence, resulting in 
destabilization, quicker fads and fashions, bubbles and crashes, new and dying markets. This paper provides insight by looking into 
the motivations, mechanisms, multipliers, markets, measures, and concludes with six tools and strategies for understanding possible 
outcomes of imitative behavior and exploiting the opportunities that arise.

<Early in the information age, writers were apt to praise the potential of the rapid expansion of available information to help us 
make better decisions. Unfortunately, in too many cases, we use it instead to imitate others. A "self-referential society" has 
developed from our tendency to follow the lead of others, especially when it comes to consumer purchases, financial markets, and 
corporate strategy. We can easily see the appeal of imitation in an age when choices are multiplying and life is highly complex. 
Bonabeau grants the virtues of imitation but emphasizes its tendency to promote instability and unpredictability. When we routinely 
imitate leaders who get it wrong, a mistake quickly multiplies into disasters.

<Bonabeau does not promise anyone that simply mastering the dynamics of self-reference will make them invulnerable to its effects. 
What he does suggest is that businesses with this knowledge can take some protective measures, such as by accounting for it in their 
forecasts and risk management plans, by becoming more attuned to unexpectedly changing circumstances, and by hardening themselves 
against mindless imitation of moves made by other companies. On the positive side, executives may be able to craft strategies around 
self-reference and bend the forces of imitation to their will in order to influence opinion or capture new business. A sidebar 
summarizes some forms of imitation successfully exploited by businesses: Best-seller lists, collaborative filters, opinion 
aggregators, mock markets, and clusters.

<Bonabeau concludes his startling piece by offering six strategies for exploiting the dynamics of imitative markets: Target the 
hubs, keep it simple, embrace the new channels, give it away, model what you can, and be a rock. Readers familiar with Bonabeau's 
work will not be surprise to see "model what you can". However, here he does not discuss agent-based modeling, instead he suggests 
behavioral finance and tools that make it possible to infer individual behaviors from aggregated data. An excellent addition to 
leading thinking about strategy in the Innovation Economy. >

<Payment required for full access. ManyWorlds receives no money from this referral.> 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 19:19:28 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:19:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> Isn't the simple answer that it [the lack of publicly financed health
> care] must stick out as an obvious deficit to those on the outside?
> It's not as if all these posters are running down every aspect of
> U.S. society.

Hmm, well, okay, but it just seemed to me that there was an "excess"
interest in this one topic. E.g., about as many posts appear from them
furigners on this topic as on American foreign policy, *which* one
can easily see would be of extremely high interest worldwide. 

> (And BTW, publicly funded medicine is not "without charge":
> someone has to pay for it. The two hoped for benefits are that
> it provides better access for all, and that it does this more
> cheaply than the alternative.

And many have been the arguments back and forth, and many
the claims and counter-claims.

Can you perhaps give me a hint of your thought on the following
questions. Why not have the government pay for all food? Isn't
food just as important (or perhaps vastly more important) than
medical care?  How about transportation, or perhaps electrical
power? I anticipate that you will find at least some of these
problematical, and so I wonder what makes health care different
in your eyes.

> There is a calculation to be made if it isn't actually cheaper -
> how much improved access does it take to justify decreased
> efficiency? - but otherwise it's as they say a no-brainer.)

Perhaps to you it's a question of price?  That is, were food to
be as unpredictable and expensive as medical care, then I'd
imagine you'd want to socialize that too? One objection that
we free-market types have is that it's very likely that if you
*did* socialize food to the degree that (already here in the U.S.
medicine through HMOs and other government regulations
is already socialized) health care is, then it might very well
be just as damned expensive!

In the U.S. we have before us constantly the example of the postal
service. The postal service by law enjoys a monopoly, for the 
simple reason that it is inefficient and would be put out of business
by a free-market. Likewise, those aspects of medical care that
are *not* regulated, such as cosmetic surgery, constantly show
vast improvement over time. (I'm sure I hardly need explain to you
the tremendous efficiency of free-markets.)

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 21 19:25:28 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:25:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nature of Humor: Grinning and Laughing
References: <521867.25250.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <091e01c91c20$3a024bd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Tom writes

> For those of you wondering about your "license to be weird",
> it is important to know what level of weirdness you are qualified for. 
> 
> http://www.brunching.com/images/geekchart.pdf shows exactly
> where you are in the hierarchy of geekiness, and who you are
> permitted to look down on.

Very neat. This chart is probably more useful than you suspect. When
inverted, it allows the people at the very bottom to also look down
on everyone else---which accords precisely with their view of the world.

But the inversion I suggest does have bizarre implications. It means that
the 

        People Who Write Erotic
        Versions of Star Trek
        Where All the Characters
        Are Furries, Like Kirk is
        an Ocelot or Something,
        and They Put a Furry Version
        of Themselves as the Star of
        the Story

look down on the rest of us---for what, one wonders? Having an
inadquate sense of fun and bad taste to boot?   :-)

Lee



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sun Sep 21 19:38:59 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:38:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <090401c91c15$b332ed80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <073d01c91922$bc7386c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809201450m3ee5f2eahbea67077aa066033@mail.gmail.com>
	<090401c91c15$b332ed80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080921193859.GA24066@ofb.net>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:09:20AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> waste time listening to all this crap) were suggesting to me that
> McCain was just as retarded as the Democrats on economic
> issues (except for his rather strikingly praiseworthy history of
> *never* having supported an earmark!).

Assuming that history is true:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccains_fantasy_war_on_earmark.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/earmark.check/

McCain himself might be clean -- there's a bit of dispute -- but his VP
picks is an earmark queen, and he's been making inflated claims about
the costs of earmarks.

> >If Obama sticks with this position he will be handing the election on
> >a plate to McCain.

McCain's advocating the meltdown of the banking system?

-xx- Damien X-) 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sun Sep 21 20:01:18 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:01:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:19:28PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Can you perhaps give me a hint of your thought on the following
> questions. Why not have the government pay for all food? Isn't
> food just as important (or perhaps vastly more important) than
> medical care?  How about transportation, or perhaps electrical

Socialized food production has been tried, and failed horribly.
Socialized medical production has been tried, and makes its citizens
happy.  Empirically there is some difference, even if your theory can't
account for it yet.

Socialized food provision faces a major problem: there are lots of food
tastes, so one would either be providing one-size-fits all pablum, not
making people happy or healthy, or in effect giving people money with
which to buy food, which at high levels runs into "disincentive to work"
problems.  At low levels, well, actually you'll find that providing
staple food to those in need has been a common function of government,
dating from the first Sumerian granaries.  (And for that matter,
canals.)  Mass famines in India stopped cold after independence.  The US
has food stamps.  So there's a pattern of socialized provision for
not-starving, but people on their own for luxuries.  Seems to work.

Also, non-perishable food is somewhat fungible, so you might worry about
poeple taking more than their share and exporting it for cash, though
just giving people cash wouldn't face tha tproblem.

Socialized medicine provision does not face the basic problem: given a
medical problem, there's a limited range of scientifically supported
best current solutions.  And care is not fungible, or we already have
gatekeepers over the fungible stuff like drugs.  So we can identify
specific needs and fix them, without facing problems of diversity or
bleeding resources out of the system.  And most people don't get sick
often, so providing doctos doesn't give disincentives to work the way
that providing food and housing might, and in fact making sure people
are healthy keeps them (and their co-workers) producitive.

Non-fungible, limited demand, targettable -- all significant differences
from food.  Even bigger differences with electrical power, which is
extremely fungible and subjected to unbounded demand.

Transportation, well, this often is subsidized, or even provided free
via buses in local areas.  Make it easier to move around and people
will, but people won't be shuffling around unboundedly for the hell of
it, so it's at least conceivable to build enough free capacity, trading
cost and redundancy for convenience.  Though there never seem to be
quite enough space for cars.

> Perhaps to you it's a question of price?  That is, were food to
> be as unpredictable and expensive as medical care, then I'd
> imagine you'd want to socialize that too? One objection that

As mentioned, the unpredictable side of food supply does often attract
"socialism", if only so that your workers and potential soldiers don't
starve due to a bad harvest.  This can be thought of as "insurance" or
"risk management", run by the state.

> In the U.S. we have before us constantly the example of the postal
> service. The postal service by law enjoys a monopoly, for the 
> simple reason that it is inefficient and would be put out of business
> by a free-market. Likewise, those aspects of medical care that

The postal service, by law, provides 1st class mail delivery at the same
low price to everywhere in the country, even frigging backwoods cabins.
A *free market* system would provide cheap mail service in NYC or other
cities, say, and between them, and really expensive service to Montana.
So yeah, legal monopoly, for the sake of integrating and serving
rural areas.

> are *not* regulated, such as cosmetic surgery, constantly show
> vast improvement over time. (I'm sure I hardly need explain to you

...are you claiming the regulated aspects haven't been showing vast
improvement?

-xx- Damien X-) 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Sun Sep 21 20:05:10 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:05:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Freedom (was: "PC")
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0809210616g396d3745qcf3cc8c732e56bb4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffd22f9d0809210616g396d3745qcf3cc8c732e56bb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080921200510.GC24066@ofb.net>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 09:16:03AM -0400, Spargemeister wrote:

> That's a serious mischaracterization of libertarianism. We don't want
> anarchy, we want a small government framework does the things only a
> government can do, such as manage public assets, coordinate national
> defense, and maintain and enforce federal laws.

But what are legitimate public assets and federal laws?  Big loopholes
there.

Is the atmosphere a public asset?  Does the government get to regulate
chemical and noise pollution?

What's the difference between national defense against biowarfare and a
national health care system?

How is this paid for?

-xx- Damien X-) 


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Sep 21 20:15:17 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:15:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <143919.64018.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <143919.64018.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1222028385_3117@S3.cableone.net>

At 02:14 AM 9/21/2008, you wrote:
>--- On Sat, 9/20/08, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > "Is evolution a team sport, or is the
> > contest for survival played out
> > strictly between individuals?"
> >
> > Trivers, Hamilton, and others showed and it was popularized
> > by
> > Dawkins that evolution happens at the *gene* level.  So the
> > first
> > sentence is out of main stream evolutionary thinkings
>
>That is certainly the mainstream opinion but the mainstream itself 
>has drastically changed its opinion over the years like a car 
>swerving back and forth over an icy road. I think what you see is 
>the result of overcompensation from one extreme viewpoint to 
>another. Ultimately both "selfish gene theory" and "group selection 
>theory" are extremist views that fail to see the big picture. To 
>adhere blindly to either view is to ignore mountains of evidence 
>that show merit to either side of the debate. I am in favor of a 
>multi-level selection theory that correctly observes that evolution 
>occurs at *all* levels of complexity from molecules to nation-states 
>and beyond.

You have to do violence to the concept of Darwinian 
evolution.  Evolution is change over time in the frequency of 
characteristics, such as the dark morphs of moths in soot covered 
England.  But the dark morph was the result of more expression of a 
gene for melanin.  Genes (expressed through 
reproduction/embryogenesis) are the reason for both persistence of 
form and the slow change of form as they undergo variation and 
selection.  What is the equivalence of genes, reproduction and 
embryogenesis in nation-states?  Memes?  But if you say memes, the 
damned things don't stick with one nation.

> > "There's
> > no question that natural selection acts
> > on individual organisms: Those with
> > favorable traits are more likely to pass
> > along their genes to the next generation."
> >
> > Of course as Hamilton showed, that's not the only way.
> > Consider bees
> > for ghod's sake.
>
>Well there are thousands of species of bees. Are you talking honey 
>bees or mason bees.

When people say bees without qualification they normally mean the 
social honey bee.  I should have used ants as an example.  Wilson is 
one of the world's foremost experts on ants.

> > "But perhaps similar processes
> > could operate at other levels of the biological
> > hierarchy. In this way natural
> > selection could perpetuate traits that
> > are favorable not to an individual but
> > to a social unit such as a flock or a colony,"
> >
> > Depends.  Does the flock/colony consist of related
> > individuals?  Again, think of bees defending a hive.
>
>Spike's ants vigorously defend aphids which aren't even in the same 
>phylogenetic order as they are let alone related members of the same 
>species. Could there be ant genes that increase the fitness of 
>aphids? After all ants will kill and eat most other insects.

Almost certainly there are such ant genes.  But their evolutionary 
function is not to increase the fitness of aphids.  Such genes were 
selected because they increased the fitness of *ants.*

snip

> > And evolution is the differential survival of genes.
>
>Call me an atypical biologist but I would say that evolution is the 
>differential survival of cells. A naked chromosome is not even alive 
>so how can it survive? The transhumanist in me would go farther and 
>say that evolution is differential persistance of replicating 
>information encoded on any substrate whatsoever.

The substrate that carries biological information is DNA and 
sometimes RNA.  Persistent patterns of that information (that often 
code for proteans) are called genes.  Dawkins talks about the 
difficulty in deciding just what the replicating information is in 
Extended Phenotype.

>So in my opinion even automobiles evolve, even though they don't 
>even live in a strictly biological sense.

You can use "evolution" to describe stars over time, but it has 
nothing to do with the mechanisms of biological evolution.

> > I have made the case in "EP, memes and the origin of
> > war" that humans
> > have similar psychological traits.
> > When the risk to the genes of an individual warrior is less
> > than the
> > risk summed over his relatives multiplied by their
> > relatedness, i.e.,
> > without killing the neighbors the kids will starve next dry
> > season,
> > then psychological mechanisms get turned on that synch up a
> > tribe's
> > warriors to make a do or die effort.
>
>While I don't doubt that is certainly part of the psychology of 
>humans, I am not certain how much of that has a genetic basis.

All human psychology has a genetic basis.  Psychology emerges from 
brains.  Brains are the product of genes.  How could it be otherwise?

snip

>In science the most water-tight logic must yield to the weight of 
>evidence. That is what distinguishes empiricism from formal logic.

Evidence is interpreted using models.  I know of *no* model for group 
selection that is not better understood by conventional gene 
selection.  If you can cite an example where there is evidence that 
clearly rules out gene selection present or past, let me know.

Sorry to be so emphatic, but fuzzy thinking irritates me.

Keith 



From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 21 20:03:59 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:03:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809211750.m8LHns2f027506@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <200809212030.m8LKUbg9007840@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
> ...On Behalf Of spike
> Subject: Re: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
> 
>...I have a hard time figuring out where Senator Obama 
> stands on anything.  With Governor Palin, I understand her 
> position and usually don't like it... spike


For instance, consider the meme that life begins at conception.  Three of
the four candidates on the major tickets accept this absurd notion and one
is ambiguous.  But if one sees an ovum and a sperm, clearly both are alive,
well before conception.  Yet never do we see any political candidate saying
that it is immoral and unethical for any nubile young beauty to fail to
copulate at every opportuuuuu...nit...

Oh my I just had a terrific idea.  Does anyone here wish to run for vice
president on a new single platform third party ticket?

spike






From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sun Sep 21 20:43:41 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:43:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
References: <200809212030.m8LKUbg9007840@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <68CB9C3EE298426FB1AB22178707CDB2@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:03 PM

> For instance, consider the meme that life begins at conception.  Three of
> the four candidates on the major tickets accept this absurd notion and one
> is ambiguous.  But if one sees an ovum and a sperm, clearly both are 
> alive,
> well before conception.

Yes, and we must never forget that every sperm is sacred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s



From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 21 21:19:43 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:19:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <68CB9C3EE298426FB1AB22178707CDB2@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <200809212120.m8LLJfDT003641@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> >...But if one sees an ovum and a sperm, clearly both are alive, way
before conception...Yet never do we see any political candidate saying that
it is immoral and unethical for any nubile young beauty to fail to copulate
at every opportuuuuu...nit...

> 
> Yes, and we must never forget that every sperm is sacred.  Olga
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s

Olga!  You can be my running mate.  Can't say much for our chances of being
elected on the Save Every Sperm platform, but our national conventions
should be a total hoot.

{8^D

spike






From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sun Sep 21 21:47:47 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:47:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <090d01c91c1c$024c8100$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <143919.64018.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<090d01c91c1c$024c8100$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <1222033935_3344@S3.cableone.net>

At 11:56 AM 9/21/2008, lee wrote:

snip

>I agree with that. Sober and Wilson's book "Unto Others" was for me 
>the ultimate proof that *group* selection can be
>real and can work.

This I need to see.  I have never seen a "proof" of group selection.

>(Stuart, you will be most interested to
>know, if you don't already, that the mechanism they identify
>as responsible for group selection is the wonderful "Simpson's
>Paradox", a notorious but beautiful mathematical result.)
>
>Keith wrote in this same thread,
>> > Just because someone rates as high as EO Wilson
>> > doesn't mean what he says should be taken without
>> > examining the logic behind what his claims. Of course
>> > this applies even more to people like me far down
>> > the feeding chain.
>
>I'm not sure, but you may be mistaking "David Sloan Wilson",
>the author of "Unto Others" (who is the big group selection
>proponent) with the much more legendary EO Wilson of
>sociobiology (ev psych) fame.

If you read the .pdf of the article, it's by *both* of them.  EO 
Wilson is the junior author and I really wonder how much input he had.

>My only problem with group selection at this point is that
>it seems like, according to all I've read, it's rather relatively
>infrequently used by evolution. In other words, most selection
>phenomena is still best described at operating at the gene level.

I have *never* seen a description of group selection that didn't have 
a simpler model based on gene selection.

Keith 



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 23:37:48 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:37:48 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809211637i3f3ccc32w985360251b53a5d8@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/22 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> Can you perhaps give me a hint of your thought on the following
> questions. Why not have the government pay for all food? Isn't
> food just as important (or perhaps vastly more important) than
> medical care?  How about transportation, or perhaps electrical
> power? I anticipate that you will find at least some of these
> problematical, and so I wonder what makes health care different
> in your eyes.

Well, this is the whole point! Food has been socialised in the past,
and it hasn't worked. People are hungrier than they were under a free
market. But, for whatever reason, socialised medicine has been shown
empirically to work, something recognised even in countries which are
otherwise even more pro free market than the US.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From sparge at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 23:43:54 2008
From: sparge at gmail.com (Spargemeister)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:43:54 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Freedom (was: "PC")
In-Reply-To: <20080921200510.GC24066@ofb.net>
References: <ffd22f9d0809210616g396d3745qcf3cc8c732e56bb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080921200510.GC24066@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0809211643y35e6bcc8scfc30c2ab5ac1f36@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> But what are legitimate public assets and federal laws?  Big loopholes
> there.

I didn't say that implementing libertarianism was easy, just that it
isn't anarchy, and should approached in terms of personal freedom.
Some assets are clearly public, some are clearly private, and some
aren't so clear. Finding the appropriate boundaries is a job for
voters, legislators, and courts. Legitimate federal laws in the U.S.
are those defined in the Constitution.

> Is the atmosphere a public asset?  Does the government get to regulate
> chemical and noise pollution?

I have my own opinions, but I'm just one person. Luckily, I'm not king
and I don't have to decide that by myself on behalf of the entire
country. And, luckily, we have mechanisms in place for making those
decisions.

> What's the difference between national defense against biowarfare and a
> national health care system?

Besides the obvious? I mean, the two could be pretty similar, I
suppose, but I'd expect biowarfare defense to be more about preventing
a successful attack via intelligence and border control, and a health
care system to be more about dealing with natural illnesses and
injuries. Obviously, there'd be some overlap in the case of a
successful attack, where the existing health care system would be
employed to distribute vaccines or other treatment.

> How is this paid for?

How about taxes?

-Dave


From sparge at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 00:22:42 2008
From: sparge at gmail.com (Spargemeister)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:22:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Freedom (was: "PC")
In-Reply-To: <6BC377443FA04AA382D9146AAE585D8C@Catbert>
References: <ffd22f9d0809210616g396d3745qcf3cc8c732e56bb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<6BC377443FA04AA382D9146AAE585D8C@Catbert>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0809211722g755e01bdt687ac639ad13321a@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Harvey Newstrom
<mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> "Spargemeister" <sparge at gmail.com> wrote,
>>
>> Obviously different people want different things, and conflicts
>> abound. But describing every possible desire as a "freedom"
>> exaggerates the problem and devalues true freedom. I'd like to be free
>> of financial concerns, but I certainly don't consider that to be a
>> fundamental human right.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.  The problem comes in when we
> try to classify which of these things is a real "freedom" and which thing is
> just some random desire.

Which is where the concept of personal freedom comes in:

>> The key concept, I think, is *personal* freedom: the right to do
>> whatever you want as long it doesn't interfere with another person's
>> personal freedom.

Using that as a guide, a lot of legislation is clearly anti-personal
freedom and anti-libertarian.

>>The government should be working to maintain the
>> personal freedom of citizens, not imposing various arbitrary
>> restrictions favored by popular ideologies.
>
> I very much agree with this (libertarian) definition. My point is that
> everybody would agree with this definition.  They just won't agree upon its
> application.

Well, obviously. We're never going to get everyone to agree on anything.

> Can gays kiss in public, or is that interfering with the personal freedom of
> straight families with children in public?

If hetero kissing in public is OK, then gay kissing in public has to
be OK, too. I don't see how one group's preferences can be allowed at
the expense of another.

> Can women get abortions, or is
> that interfering with the fetus' personal freedom.

That depends upon whether fetuses are considered people. Personally, I
favor a rule along the lines of granting citizenship status to unborn
children who are sufficiently developed that they can likely survive
independent of the mother with current medical technology. So right
now, I'm OK with first trimester abortion, not OK with third trimester
abortion, and second is the gray area. But that's just me.

> Or, the example we
> discuss next, can spammers mail bomb whole segments of the population, or is
> that interfering with their personal computers?  People literally disagree
> where the lines of personal freedom are.

Of course, and legislators, voters, and courts will have to work out
those lines.

>> That's a serious mischaracterization of libertarianism. We don't want
>> anarchy, we want a small government framework does the things only a
>> government can do, such as manage public assets, coordinate national
>> defense, and maintain and enforce federal laws.
>
> Actually, I agree that your definitions are best.  But around here, there
> have been more extreme libertarians who literally want "no" government.

And how is that different from vanilla anarchy?

> They
> would call your definition of libertarian "minarchy" and the more extreme
> version of libertarian "anarchy".

Sounds like they just want a less extreme label for themselves.

> I was slipping into the more extreme (and
> admitedly, less popular) definitions of libertarianism.  But my point still
> stands if I rephrase it using different terminology.

Yes, your point stands: freedom means different things to different
people. I think that applying the personal freedom test will go a long
way toward helping to decide conflicts, but the usual legal processes
will still be necessary.

>> Nope. I'm tired of spam and the last thing I want is for the
>> government to try to fix the problem.
>
> I understand that this is your viewpoint based on the libertarian rule.  But
> can you see, even if you don't agree, how someone could argue that
> mail-bombing someone else's mailing list or personal PC interferes with
> their own use of their own property?

I see it, and I agree. I just don't think it's something the
government can fix. Sure, there should be anti-spam laws. And they
should be used whenever possible to punish those who break them. But
by themselves, I don't think they'll fix the problem. I think
technological fixes will be more effective, and I don't think the
government should be in the business of developing/supporting them.

> For corporations running big mail
> servers, it is estimated that over 90% of the cost of processing and storage
> is forced upon them by external spammers without their consent.  Also, some
> people would argue that protecting our data infrastructures from
> interference from foreign spammers should be a vital part of national
> defense.

I mostly agree with that, though I still don't think spam has the
potential to be a threat to national security.

> I see your point that libertarianism is best.  I'm just pointing out that
> the libertarian definition ("right to do whatever you want as long it
> doesn't interfere with another person's personal freedom") is totally
> subjective.  It is based on what the person considers their personal space.
> The very definition of what is a "right" and what is "personal interference"
> will vary from person to person.

I didn't mean to imply that the personal freedom test was some kind of
magical Golden Compass that would immediately enable world peace.

> My point is that the disagreements on these forms of government is not in
> terms of the goal or the definitions, it is in terms of the values.  People
> choose governments that will maximize their own personal values.  In a way,
> it is like the free market at work.  Everybody (selfishly) chooses the
> government form that they think will best serve them.  And that
> determination is based on which things they value most.  I don't think
> anything I have said disagrees with your excellent points.  I just think
> that people's personal choices will lead them to choose other forms of
> government as the best way to implement the libertarian rule.

I'm going to have to sleep on that.

-Dave


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Sep 21 23:59:42 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
Message-ID: <543747.35852.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 9/20/08, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> >> > [The Avantguardian wrote]
> >> > 
> >> > The good news is that the Ramsey Theorem
> makes it
> >> > nearly impossible in sufficiently large
> networks that at
> >> > least a few individuals don't cooperate,
> even if it is
> >> > entirely by accident.
> 
> That is to say, if between *all* N parties, either the
> state COOPERATE or else
> the state NOT-COOPERATE exists, then the Ramsey Theorem
> guarantees
> that either a minimal number must COOPERATE or a minimum
> number must
> NOT-COOPERATE. If others don't understand then they
> should see the nice example
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey's_theorem#Example:_R.283.2C3.29.3D6

Quite right, Lee, that is exactly why I said "nearly impossible". If cooperation were *guaranteed* by Ramsey Theorem I would have said "strictly impossible" as only a mathematician can. And believe me, I would have liked to have been able to say that. 

Furthermore you are neglecting my main point which is that mutual cooperators that police themselves well enough, have a large fitness advantage over mutual non-cooperators, so it only ever needed to happen once. But considering the enourmous number of replicators that would have existed in any hypothesized "primordial soup", I suspect it may have happened many many times. Indeed Hamiltonian kin-selection may have evolved as a mechanism of recognizing other cooperators instead of cooperation arising from kin-selection. After all biology has many examples of cooperation that have nothing to do with kin and it's not at all obvious which is cause and which is effect. 

> Oh?  I don't see any connection at all. Could you
> elaborate on the
> connection you see between Mike's puddles and the
> Ramsey Theorem?

Because the Ramsey theorem is derived from the pigeon hole principle. You could consider the space over which the droplets are dispersed to be pigeon holes and the droplets to be pigeons. As the number of droplets approaches the amount of space available, they are increasingly likely form puddles. And the moment that you have more droplets than you do space for them, they *must* form a puddle.  

> Well, I don't understand why you would draw that
> conclusion
> or put it that way. It's easy to see that one may
> simply have
> *any* number of cooperators or non-cooperators in a group.
> There could be just one cooperator, or just two, or just N,
> all the way up to the size of the group. The Ramsey Theory
> only talks about the weird condition that GIVEN that among
> N entities there are Cooperators and Non-Cooperators,
> THEN it follows that there is some minimal number of
> *either*
> cooperators or non-cooperators. This is not going to make
> non-mathematicians show any surprise at all, I think.

It is a subtle point, I know, but it has to do with the distinction between simple cooperators and a pair of *mutual* cooperators. I am not using Ramsey Theorem to model individuals but the relationships between individuals. Furthermore the *either* in your statement is erroneous because the results of the Ramsey Theorem are not mutually exclusive.

That is to say that given an ensemble of at least the Ramsey number N in question, you could have the minimal number of mutual cooperators *or* the minimal number of mutual non-cooperators *or* both. 

Also keep in mind that there is probably no such thing as a universal "non-cooperator" that never cooperates with any other critter. After all even a monster that killed everything that crossed its path would be cooperating with the scavengers that followed in its wake.

Besides, I am only invoking the Ramsey theorem because it provides a  mechanism for a "critical mass" of cooperation to form in the face of the strong Nash equilibrium of competition. Once that "critical mass" forms, the Pareto Dividend takes over. Also the Ramsey theorem is already couched in terms of graph theory, which makes it convenient for me.

That being said, I am sensitive to the fact that my theory is not yet bullet-proof. But I think it is a step in the right direction toward describing emergent complexity and order from mathematical first principles. I also appreciate your mention, in your other post, of Simpson's Paradox in regards to to the development of cooperation as that is an angle I hadn't yet considered.    
 
> P.S. If you look at the table of known Ramsey numbers
> at the Wikipedia link above, then you can conclude that
> our civilization has discovered what I'll call
> "the fourth
> Ramsey number", i.e. we know that (4,4) is 18.  One
> could
> grade civilizations on how many Ramsey numbers they've
> figured out. 
> For example, a higher civilization than ours (say a dozen
> years
> ahead of us or so) may know the 5th Ramsey number, and
> yet a completely superior civilization may know the 6th or
> 7th Ramsey numbers!   :-)

Yeah they are kind of cool like that, aren't they?


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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 22 00:33:52 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:33:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] A sprinkle
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0809211722g755e01bdt687ac639ad13321a@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <ffd22f9d0809210616g396d3745qcf3cc8c732e56bb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<6BC377443FA04AA382D9146AAE585D8C@Catbert>
	<ffd22f9d0809211722g755e01bdt687ac639ad13321a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080921193131.022d1148@satx.rr.com>

At 08:22 PM 9/21/2008 -0400,  "Spargemeister" <sparge at gmail.com>

If I might enquire: what is this "sparge" of 
which you are master? Something to do with beer?

I read:

sparge  (sp?rj)
tr.v. sparged, sparg?ing, sparg?es
1. To spray or sprinkle.
2. To introduce air or gas into (a liquid).
n.
A sprinkle.



From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 01:19:37 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:19:37 +1000
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080921025144.027debd8@satx.rr.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<07de01c91a22$687f8e50$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<fc61cda033dab.48d42f9d@insightbb.com>
	<08bf01c91ba3$49ad4080$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210032r3e7d0249jf02f652b6797e1fa@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080921025144.027debd8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809211819y5c7a8f59s54a5dd9376203d8d@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/21 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:

> The difference is presumably that natural selection is entirely mindless,
> while the theory behind an agoric market (or whatever it's to be called) is
> that all the actors are intelligent, somewhat informed agents whose choices
> are at once diversified and when summed still open to reasoned responses in
> a subtle and fluent process of feedbacks. While top-down central controls
> place far too much executive manipulatory power in the paws of a small
> fallible backscratching cabal sharing a narrow ideology and far too little
> information.

The individual players in a market are supposed to be about as
mindless as the individual players in nature. A predator decides
whether to go after its prey according to how easy it expects it will
be to catch, how tasty it expects it to be and so on. There is no
conscious effort to understand or manipulate evolution, which is an
emergent phenomenon from countless such interactions. Similarly,
consumers buy from producers according to how desirable and how
expensive the product is, and the market is what emerges from
countless such interactions, with no one necessarily understanding the
big picture.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 01:33:55 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:33:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809212120.m8LLJfDT003641@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <68CB9C3EE298426FB1AB22178707CDB2@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<200809212120.m8LLJfDT003641@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809211833t8387306w187b612279edebcf@mail.gmail.com>

Spike, as the Save Every Sperm party presidential candidate you could
put forward the proposal of a "work program" for male teens and young
adults where they give their vital reproductive fluids at government
clinics in exchange for money.  This would lower out of wedlock births
and STD rates!  And also the genetic material of smart nerds and geeks
would not be wasted.

As for the nubile young females, you could have technology (Spike
Bio-Tech, Inc.) developed to harvest their dropped eggs so they would
not be wasted.  We can't have the ladies not doing their part!

John  : )


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Mon Sep 22 01:46:07 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:46:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20080922014607.GA12873@ofb.net>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 01:01:18PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:19:28PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
> > Can you perhaps give me a hint of your thought on the following
> > questions. Why not have the government pay for all food? Isn't
> > food just as important (or perhaps vastly more important) than
> > medical care?  How about transportation, or perhaps electrical

Another take:
communism doesn't work because it assumes away the high-frequency bits
of human nature where we're greedy and looking out for ourselves,
friends, or family, and out to get stuff without working for it.

libertarianism doesn't work, or rather doesn't last, because it assumes
away the high-frequency bits of human nature where we like taking care
of each other *and* don't like being the only ones to take care of
people.

More exactly, most people don't like seeing members of their in-group
die, especially preventably.  There's some flexibility here: who's in
our in-group, would we rather help our or avoid knowing that someone's
in need, will we hope that someone else will step in before we have to.
But when we're clearly the only ones who can, at low cost to ourselves,
keep someone else from dying, most of us will rise to the occasion.

The generalized version of this is that most of us don't like people
starving or dying due to lack of cheap medicine, even without the
thought that that might be us some day.  So we want people helped... but
we also don't want to be suckers, helping all the poor by ourselves.
Absent a really powerful social reputation system that can reward
charity, that means taxes, in this case a draft of the rich, or the
non-poor.

Thus public granaries, tithes to church charities, alms tax, welfare
systems.  Thus also, in the US, the mandate that emergency rooms can't
turn people away.  We don't have a pure free market in health care for
many reasons, but *that* is among the most fundamental.  When you're
sick, there's somewhere you can go that'll help you.

Thing is, giving food to the starving is pretty effective.  Giving
medicine to the sick... is actually kind of inefficient, compared to
preventing them from getting sick in the first place.  Once we accept
the moral committment to help the sick, it then becomes cheaper to
support the whole process, not just the endpoint.  Vaccines and checkups
and cancer screenings, rather than waiting for cancerous pneumonia
patients to stagger their way into ER.  Let alone dealing with people
using ER for their less urgent needs because they can't afford more
regular channels.

So the sensible economic choices are full universal health care, or
laissez faire and let them die on the streets.  And as far as human
nature goes, every well-off society today and many not so well off ones
has opted for not letting people die on the streets.  Every developed
country except the US has universal health care (modulo dental or
psych), and even the US has the ER mandate form of it.  Various
developing countries have universal care too and the trend is growing.
Expecting people to choose a laissez faire approach to health care or food
distribution seems about as in touch with reality as expecting
collectivized agriculture to be productive.

Of course, there's always a first time.  But that's the data so far.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 02:05:43 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:05:43 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <48D6841C.1020604@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<48D6841C.1020604@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <62c14240809211905s3b20c048u6cc15e040bddca9a@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:27 PM, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
> I think that you may well get no ants in the gak pit (What the hell is Gak,
> anyway??) in either case.
>
> Can you guess why?

free-range anteaters mistake the experiment for a free lunch?


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Mon Sep 22 02:11:41 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:11:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
Message-ID: <20080922021141.GA18188@ofb.net>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:22:17AM -0500, Max More wrote:

> The economy will only grow more complex in the future. I find it 
> disturbing how so many of us still run to Great God Government for 
> top-down solutions to the intricacies of complex economic systems.

I find it interesting that people who would admire top-down/bottom-up
hybrids in other complex systems -- AI models, for example -- are
allergic to them in society. :)

-xx- Damien X-) 


From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 02:11:54 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:11:54 -0400
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809211833t8387306w187b612279edebcf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <68CB9C3EE298426FB1AB22178707CDB2@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<200809212120.m8LLJfDT003641@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<2d6187670809211833t8387306w187b612279edebcf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809211911h3033a71bi254f23c493db8d8e@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:33 PM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Spike, as the Save Every Sperm party presidential candidate you could
> put forward the proposal of a "work program" for male teens and young
> adults where they give their vital reproductive fluids at government
> clinics in exchange for money.  This would lower out of wedlock births
> and STD rates!  And also the genetic material of smart nerds and geeks
> would not be wasted.
>
> As for the nubile young females, you could have technology (Spike
> Bio-Tech, Inc.) developed to harvest their dropped eggs so they would
> not be wasted.  We can't have the ladies not doing their part!

I know this is all intended to be funny, but it sounds (to me) like
the beginning of a 2 star dystopian future movie...
(ok, I was being kind about the 2 star rating :)


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Mon Sep 22 01:45:08 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:45:08 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Freedom (was: "PC")
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0809211722g755e01bdt687ac639ad13321a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ffd22f9d0809210616g396d3745qcf3cc8c732e56bb4@mail.gmail.com><6BC377443FA04AA382D9146AAE585D8C@Catbert>
	<ffd22f9d0809211722g755e01bdt687ac639ad13321a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1A5456437A3D43A98C148DFE2E7867BC@Catbert>

"Spargemeister" <sparge at gmail.com> wrote,
>>> The key concept, I think, is *personal* freedom: the right to do
>>> whatever you want as long it doesn't interfere with another person's
>>> personal freedom.
>
> Using that as a guide, a lot of legislation is clearly anti-personal
> freedom and anti-libertarian.

I violently agree!

>> Can gays kiss in public, or is that interfering with the personal freedom 
>> of
>> straight families with children in public?
>
> If hetero kissing in public is OK, then gay kissing in public has to
> be OK, too. I don't see how one group's preferences can be allowed at
> the expense of another.

Obvious to me too, but some people just can't see it.

>> Can women get abortions, or is
>> that interfering with the fetus' personal freedom.
>
> That depends upon whether fetuses are considered people. Personally, I
> favor a rule along the lines of granting citizenship status to unborn
> children who are sufficiently developed that they can likely survive
> independent of the mother with current medical technology. So right
> now, I'm OK with first trimester abortion, not OK with third trimester
> abortion, and second is the gray area. But that's just me.

This is a perfect example of where we all agree on the goals, but we might 
not agree on where the lines are.  This is a tough one, ranging from 
"abortion is murder" to "abortion is cosmetic surgery."  It's tough to come 
up with criteria for this.  I like your criteria here, but I can easily 
others disagreeing.

>> Or, the example we
>> discuss next, can spammers mail bomb whole segments of the population, or 
>> is
>> that interfering with their personal computers?  People literally 
>> disagree
>> where the lines of personal freedom are.
>
> Of course, and legislators, voters, and courts will have to work out
> those lines.

This one becomes more important as we get further into the digital age 
including VR and cyberspace.  I think electronic property rights need to be 
protected as we would physical property rights.

>> They would call your definition of libertarian "minarchy" and the more
>>  extreme version of libertarian "anarchy".
>
> Sounds like they just want a less extreme label for themselves.

Agreed.  People always like to see their own viewpoint considered 
"mainstream" and other people's viewpoints as the "extreme."

> Yes, your point stands: freedom means different things to different
> people. I think that applying the personal freedom test will go a long
> way toward helping to decide conflicts, but the usual legal processes
> will still be necessary.

Yes, I think this is exactly right.

>>> Nope. I'm tired of spam and the last thing I want is for the
>>> government to try to fix the problem.
>>
>> I understand that this is your viewpoint based on the libertarian rule. 
>> But
>> can you see, even if you don't agree, how someone could argue that
>> mail-bombing someone else's mailing list or personal PC interferes with
>> their own use of their own property?
>
> I see it, and I agree. I just don't think it's something the
> government can fix.

Well, that's a good point.  I see it as a problem with the "commons" of the 
Internet, which makes it a good candidate for government to fix.  But I 
agree, I have no idea how they would do it.  And little faith that they 
could get it right.

> I mostly agree with that, though I still don't think spam has the
> potential to be a threat to national security.

Only in the sense that anybody can cause a denial-of-service to any network 
segment or agency just by sending them too much e-mail.  This is a real 
vulnerability to our infrastructure.  But I guess that's not really the same 
thing as simple spam.

>> My point is that the disagreements on these forms of government is not in
>> terms of the goal or the definitions, it is in terms of the values. 
>> People
>> choose governments that will maximize their own personal values.  In a 
>> way,
>> it is like the free market at work.  Everybody (selfishly) chooses the
>> government form that they think will best serve them.  And that
>> determination is based on which things they value most.  I don't think
>> anything I have said disagrees with your excellent points.  I just think
>> that people's personal choices will lead them to choose other forms of
>> government as the best way to implement the libertarian rule.
>
> I'm going to have to sleep on that.

Sorry. :-)

I myself am struggling with this meta-questions.  How does the free-market 
provide for people who don't want a free market?  How does a rational 
world-view provide for people who want to believe in non-verifiable things? 
How does infinite diversity provide for people who want uniformity?

Maybe other forms of government should exist to give people choices.  But 
then people would have to be free to move from country to country as 
desired.  And even that is not a feasible choice in most cases.  There are 
some older theories of private law, where everybody would subscribe to the 
government or law they choose.  But I never really believed they could 
negotiate between these governments when they simply did not agree with the 
other government's mode of existance.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep 22 04:04:09 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:04:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <62c14240809211905s3b20c048u6cc15e040bddca9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809220431.m8M4UjXt025581@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
Preface: after watching what happened, I am filled with such grudging
admiration for these millibeasts that I have half a mind to just go ahead
and sacrifice one of my trees and let them farm their damn aphids, even at
the expense of several oranges.

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
> Subject: Re: [ExI] ants again
> 
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:27 PM, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
> > I think that you may well get no ants in the gak pit...

During the period in which the ants had free access to the ground, I
observed exactly three ants inside the gak pit: two ants walking about
inside and one that evidently perished in the tree and fell into the pit.
The dead one showed up within minutes of placing the cardboard under the
tree.  It landed already dead, curled into the fetal position, or rather the
larval position.  Don't know what happened to her.  Ant-erior lobe
hemorrhage?

> (What the hell is Gak, anyway??)

Gak is the hell a name I came up with a product the hell called Tanglefoot,
which is a sticky gooey substance that ants the hell can get their feet
stuck in when they attempt to walk over it.

> > Can you guess why?
> 
> free-range anteaters mistake the experiment for a free lunch?

Haaahahahaa!  {8-]  

No.  But the second part of my experiment may be ruined because I forgot to
control for ants coming in from the outside and getting stuck in the gak
ring.  I see ants currently stuck in the ring, but they appear to be facing
inboard, so I suspect they may have gotten gakked trying to break in.  In
fact I may need to start all over with a double ring, two concentric rings,
much larger for a better sample size.  Make the rings about a meter in
diameter, concentric, with only about a cm between the two.  Then the
outsiders will get stuck in the outer ring, and the fallers and jumpers will
get stuck in the inner ring.

Results so far of the second part of the experiment: the bridge has been
gone for almost all day, and no ants inside as of a few minutes ago.

So here's a question: will an ant starve with food in her paws?

If they do, it will explain how the ants all disappeared when isolated from
the ground before.  They starved and blew away in the breeze.  My reasoning
is that ants apparently run a very simple program: go into tree, get a ball
of nectar from an aphid, take it down underground to share with sisters,
rinse and repeat until dead.

If they get a ball of nectar but cannot return to the colony for whatever
reason, such as some yahoo took away the bridge, there is nothing in the
ant's programmed behavior that says anything about an if statement, such as:
if you get hungry, to hell with the colony, eat the nectar.  I suspect they
lack that piece of code.

If I observe that an ant will starve to death with a ball of nectar in her
paws, well hell, I will just give them back their gak bridge and let them
farm my tree to their hearts content, assuming ants have hearts and paws.

spike







  




From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 04:50:51 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:20:51 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809211750.m8LHns2f027506@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <B158A1C539CB427EB98B7A13539BADD2@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<200809211750.m8LHns2f027506@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809212150w4082ca62l8297c51397517521@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/22 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> Hahaaahahahahaaa!  Mac n cheese!  {8^D  Thanks Olga, may I use that?  {8-]
>
> Like many of you here, I can read much faster than anyone can talk.
> Political speeches are even slower than normal speech by a factor of at
> least two, since they carefully anunciate, and because they are often
> interrupted by cheering.  Not only can I read much faster than they can
> talk, I can understand written text much better afterwards.  So, I don't
> actually listen to the speeches, but rather read the transcripts.  I
> understand that both Obama and Palin are good orators, but of course that
> doesn't translate onto the page.
>
> Here's what I have observed of reading the the front runners speeches: I
> have a hard time figuring out where Senator Obama stands on anything.  With
> Governor Palin, I understand her position and usually don't like it.  Barr
> is easy to understand, but is only sorta libertarian.  I like Root pretty
> well.  Libertarians get my vote this year.
>
> spike

Have you read either of his books? I read "The Audacity of Hope"
recently, it would give you a good feel for where he stands, and for
how he makes his decisions. It gets a bit long winded in places, and
he's got a penchant to be a bit hokey for my taste, although that
might just be a cultural thing. Too many christian references in US
politics, weirds me.

-- 
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 spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep 22 05:54:11 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:54:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809212150w4082ca62l8297c51397517521@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809220554.m8M5s8or005972@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Emlyn
...
> > Like many of you here, I can read much faster than anyone can talk.
...
> > spike
> 
> Have you read either of his books?... Emlyn

I read several random passages of Dreams From My Father, a few from
Audacity.  I found the former more open and interesting because Sen. Obama
wrote that one before he was actually running for anything.  Dreams has a
lot of stuff about former pastor Rev. Wright in there.  Audacity seemed to
be more of a campaign.

> ...I read "The Audacity of Hope"
> recently, it would give you a good feel for where he stands...Too many 
> christian references in US politics, weirds me... Emlyn

Ja me too, but this can't necessarily be held uniquely against Sen. Obama,
being as all four of the candidates on the two major tickets are
self-professed christians.  This number might be three point something, for
recently Sen. Obama repudiated pastor Rev. Wright.  But in so doing it isn't
entirely clear if he was repudiating only Rev. Wright's dozen or so YouTubed
inflammatory comments, only Rev. Wright the man, or only Wright and his
congregation (who were guilty of not telling Obama the many repugnant things
the Reverend had uttered during the Sundays the Obama family was absent) or
repudiating Reverent Wright, his congregation, the denomination,
christianity and all other religion, or perhaps some random combination of
the above.  Does anyone here know?  Why don't we know?  Is there a specific
quote?  To me the repudiation seemed a bit vague and open ended.  Why is
that?

Note the other character is just as bad, this Gov. Palin, on the whole
religion thing.  Her position on religion is much more clearly defined, but
quite distasteful just the same.

spike


 



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 06:07:11 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:07:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] China's upcoming major problem depicted in a SF novel
Message-ID: <2d6187670809212307h2c4ed11by51f867b21fd78649@mail.gmail.com>

As we already know, there is going to be a major challenge for mainland
China when a skewed male/female child demographic results in many young
adult males not having potential female mates.  I see this causing the world
mafias to view the situation as a great opportunity for female human slavery
and smuggling.  The Chinese government will pass laws not allowing parents
to use medical technology (or abortion) to determine the sex of their
child.  And at the bio-tech level, I could see China pouring resources into
artificial womb technology so they can be absolutely be sure there will be
enough females.

I came across a SF novel on lulu.com (self-published books, so be warned!)
titled "The China Clones."  It is an over the top thriller about a Chinese
general who has a beautiful Eurasian model kidnapped for his cloning lab.


http://www.lulu.com/content/182342

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080921/25632120/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 07:06:42 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:36:42 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809220554.m8M5s8or005972@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <710b78fc0809212150w4082ca62l8297c51397517521@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809220554.m8M5s8or005972@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809220006i5344ce0frc41724be6585e23e@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/22 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>> ...I read "The Audacity of Hope"
>> recently, it would give you a good feel for where he stands...Too many
>> christian references in US politics, weirds me... Emlyn
>
> Ja me too, but this can't necessarily be held uniquely against Sen. Obama,
> being as all four of the candidates on the two major tickets are
> self-professed christians.  This number might be three point something, for
> recently Sen. Obama repudiated pastor Rev. Wright.  But in so doing it isn't
> entirely clear if he was repudiating only Rev. Wright's dozen or so YouTubed
> inflammatory comments, only Rev. Wright the man, or only Wright and his
> congregation (who were guilty of not telling Obama the many repugnant things
> the Reverend had uttered during the Sundays the Obama family was absent) or
> repudiating Reverent Wright, his congregation, the denomination,
> christianity and all other religion, or perhaps some random combination of
> the above.  Does anyone here know?  Why don't we know?  Is there a specific
> quote?  To me the repudiation seemed a bit vague and open ended.  Why is
> that?
>

I'm not sure. I do know he went on and on about his faith in Audacity,
and I'd be very surprised if he meant to repudiate his faith itself,
that's enormously unlikely. More's the pity!

And yes, I hadn't meant to single him out on his religiousness by any
means; I'm sure the democrats are usually the less religious of the
two right wing parties. That's all the more depressing though.

-- 
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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Mon Sep 22 06:42:04 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
Message-ID: <968439.28792.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Sun, 9/21/08, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> >Ultimately both "selfish gene
> >theory" and "group selection 
> >theory" are extremist views that fail to see the
> >big picture. To 
> >adhere blindly to either view is to ignore mountains of
> evidence 
> >that show merit to either side of the debate. I am in
> favor of a 
> >multi-level selection theory that correctly observes
> that evolution 
> >occurs at *all* levels of complexity from molecules to
> nation-states 
> >and beyond.
> 
> You have to do violence to the concept of Darwinian 
> evolution.  Evolution is change over time in the frequency
> of 
> characteristics, such as the dark morphs of moths in soot
> covered 
> England.

No, I don't think that any violence need be done to Darwinian evolution at all. The gene as a vehicle of heredity was unheard of when Darwin wrote "Origin of Species". It wasn't until many years later that Mendel's "heriditary priciple" was taken seriously and biologists proposed it to be the mechanism of inheritance. If Darwin did not see a need to invoke individual molecules that controlled the destiny of species, I don't see how my ideas are doing any violence to his.

And you are right, it is "characteristics" of critters that are subject to selection. And critters like nation-states have characteristics like democracy, freedom, population, wealth, religion, technology, etc. that genes have very little, if anything, to do with.  
 
> What is the equivalence of genes, reproduction
> and 
> embryogenesis in nation-states?  Memes?  But if you say
> memes, the 
> damned things don't stick with one nation.

I would say that laws, policies, and cultural norms are analogs of genes but they certainly aren't equivalent. Likewise revolution and colonization are the analogs to reproduction while economic growth and development are the analogs to biological growth and development. Memes are not well enough defined to be useful in my analysis except perhaps in the context  of survival strategy.

Incidently genes don't necessarily stick with one organism or species either. Thanks to viruses, transposons, plasmids, and tranformation (the deliberate uptake and integration of foreign DNA into an organism's genome), you have horizontal gene transfer occuring all the time. It's one of the reasons that antibiotic resistance is becoming so common in bacteria and one of the reasons that the bioconservatives are so freaked out by GM crops.

If you think about, this makes sense even from a "selfish gene" point of view since a given gene neither knows nor cares what organism harbours it so long as it gets propagated. 

> > > "But perhaps similar processes
> > > could operate at other levels of the biological
> > > hierarchy. In this way natural
> > > selection could perpetuate traits that
> > > are favorable not to an individual but
> > > to a social unit such as a flock or a
> colony,"
> > >
> > > Depends.  Does the flock/colony consist of
> related
> > > individuals?  Again, think of bees defending a
> hive.

What about slime molds like Dicty? Completely unrelated individual amoebae have been shown to form slugs together in the lab. Herds of wildebeest composed of many thousands of individuals are certainly not all related to one another and motley packs of stray dogs composed of any breed from poodles to german shepherds will form given the opportunity. 

> Almost certainly there are such ant genes.  But their
> evolutionary 
> function is not to increase the fitness of aphids.  Such
> genes were 
> selected because they increased the fitness of *ants.*

But this is precisely my point. Sometimes cooperating with another critter, related to you or not, is the "fittest" thing you can do!

> The substrate that carries biological information is DNA
> and 
> sometimes RNA.  Persistent patterns of that information
> (that often 
> code for proteans) are called genes.  Dawkins talks about
> the 
> difficulty in deciding just what the replicating
> information is in 
> Extended Phenotype.

That's a weakness of reductionism. You reduce an oak tree and a kangaroo to atoms and you can longer tell them apart. And hemoglobin from a spinach plant is not that different from hemoglobin from a human. You can't solve a jigsaw puzzle by focusing on the individual pieces but on how the pieces fit together. And in biology, some of the pieces belong to ones neighbor.

> You can use "evolution" to describe stars over
> time, but it has 
> nothing to do with the mechanisms of biological evolution.

Nonsense. The evolution of life is courtesy of and *powered* by stars. They are the *source* of all biological evolution to date from manufacturing the carbon atoms that make up life to pushing those atoms through the Kreb cycle. Every calorie that accrues on ones thighs has its ultimate origin in the sun. If under penalty of death, I *had* to worship a deity, guess what that diety would be?

> >While I don't doubt that is certainly part of the
> psychology of 
> >humans, I am not certain how much of that has a genetic
> basis.
> 
> All human psychology has a genetic basis.  Psychology
> emerges from 
> brains.  Brains are the product of genes.  How could it be
> otherwise?

So you are saying that somebody who suffers from a post-traumamatic stress syndrome can pass it on to their kids? Come on. The idea that genes rule the world from the shadowy confines of cellular nuclei is as preposterous as any conspiracy theory. 

> >In science the most water-tight logic must yield to the
> weight of 
> >evidence. That is what distinguishes empiricism from
> formal logic.
> 
> Evidence is interpreted using models.  I know of *no* model
> for group 
> selection that is not better understood by conventional
> gene 
> selection. 

I see you are confusing me for one of the extremists that I criticized earlier. Gene selection is an *very important* perspective, but like any *single* perspectives, it only gives you a two-dimensional view of what you are studying. Same for biologists who *only* look at it from the group selection point of view. You have to walk around a phemenon as complex as life and look at it from every possible angle. Looking at a scene from the forced perspective of a single angle leaves much hidden from sight and can introduce distortions that can turn full grown men into Hobbits. Just ask Elijah Wood. 

> If you can cite an example where there is
> evidence that 
> clearly rules out gene selection present or past, let me
> know.

Well if you consider Bonsai trees as a group, it is clear that there is no gene selection that underlies their phenotype.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai

> Sorry to be so emphatic, but fuzzy thinking irritates me.

High def TV looks fuzzy when you got your nose up against the screen. Try to see the big picture.

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 benboc at lineone.net  Mon Sep 22 07:05:58 2008
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:05:58 +0100
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <mailman.220.1222059074.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.220.1222059074.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <48D743D6.6050301@lineone.net>

"Mike Dougherty" <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:


On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:27 PM, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
 > > I think that you may well get no ants in the gak pit (What the hell 
is Gak,
 > > anyway??) in either case.
 > >
 > > Can you guess why?

 > free-range anteaters mistake the experiment for a free lunch?

Well, that's the spirit of it.

I was thinking predation. Not so much anteaters (although, who knows?..) 
as birds, spiders, bigger insects, that sort of thing.

Spike mentioned another reason though. Tiny critters do tend to stay put 
when dead, unless something knocks them off their perch. Maybe the 
stranded ants die of starvation, but don't fall out of the tree, they 
get blown out of it, and so don't fall downward, they fall sideways.

Ben Zaiboc


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Sep 22 07:46:06 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:46:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
References: <200809220554.m8M5s8or005972@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <9A81AE5BBC3F45ECA1C3C45EF55B6737@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:54 PM

>... can't necessarily be held uniquely against Sen. Obama, being as all 
>four of the candidates on the two major tickets are self-professed 
>christians.

Yeah, but which candidates are on record for talking about nonbelievers (or 
even other diverse faiths) ... as Americans, too?

"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not 
just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, 
and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmC3IevZiik

Olga



From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Sep 22 12:05:09 2008
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:05:09 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <304554.47064.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

When it comes to non-USians commenting on health care, we keep jumping in because we wish to help our fellow human being. After all, every year B-list celebrities line up every year to tell us how a handful of money can buy vaccines to save the life of a child in Africa. Our government gives aid to help public health schemes in the developing world. We may give money to Medecins Sans Frontieres, bringing medical treatment to conflict zones too dangerous or neglected for western governments to deal with.

 However, when it comes to America, and all the people lining up in emergency rooms as their only method of gaining access to health care, and to the poor children dieing young,as claimed in 2006 by CNN - 
 http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/ 
 - when it comes to America, the US is the world's richest economy, and spends a much higher proportion of its GDP on healthcare than we do. Simply having telethons for children without healthcare in the US won't work. It seems the only way to stop the US children dieing, and help the poor folk who's HMO claims are rejected and are left bankrupted by hospital bills, is to encourage change. Only by political change and a will to help the worst off in society can America avoid this misery amongst its population. 
 I will add a second post in a minute about the state of the UK healthcare system.

Tom


      


From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Sep 22 12:10:50 2008
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:10:50 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <803675.61352.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Now, to rip into my own country's health care system following Fred's suggestions:

Fred Moulton asked: 

For each health care system under consideration please do the following:

1. Determine what are they component parts and how they are connected;
such as emergency care, pharmacy, etc.  Are there parallel systems?
 Component parts - Primary health care trusts provide you with a General Practitioner (family physician) and community based care. They are also responsible for purchasing hospital treatment. Each hospital is usually a separate entity, although some are gathered together. There is some dental provision, but this has become so patchy most people see private dentists. Although everything belongs to the "National Health Service", an element of competition was brought in under Margaret Thatcher's government, and has been rearranged under the successive governments.

2. Determine how it is controlled, financed and regulated at the macro
level.  And then how these macro level factors influence micro level
decisions.  And the reverse.
 The top-level control is by the Ministry of Health, centred in London. They issue targets - some are from central policy, some from knee-jerk reactions to the political issues of the day. It is paid for by taxation. The main things people pay for themselves are prescription drugs (but the charges on these are capped), and social care. Oh, and dentistry is mostly out of your own pocket. 

3. To the extent that some or all of a health care system is controlled
by an identifiable entity does that entity have a goal or goals?  Are
these goals internally consistent and do they conflict with the goals of
other groups?  How are these conflicts resolved?
 The macro level control is from the Ministry of Health setting targets. The way treatments are paid for is set centrally. The Primary Care Trusts are responsible for getting people treated, but they may choose which hospital trusts to purchase from. The hospital trusts have to try and claim as much as they are entitled to from the government, while keeping costs down.
 This creates a conflict, as hospital trusts are frequently obliged to offer expensive services which they are inadequately compensated for, while management tries to up the amount of more profitable treatments done. Also, some hospitals have tried to outsource everything possible, leading to lower standards of cleanliness (from using cheapest bidder cleaners) which conflicts with the clinical need to avoid hospital-acquired infections, less flexible meals for patients (cheapest bidder caterers) which can conflict with individual patient needs, slower laboratory test results (sending lab tests offsite to a cheaper lab across town rather than having a lab onsite).

3. Do individuals and groups have alternative options which they can
pursue without penalties? 
 NO. This is currently a serious political issue, as cancer support groups are complaining about this. In the NHS, you either have to be totally public funded, or totally private funded. Many trusts won't fund the newest biotech anti-cancer treatments, as they cost thousands to give a cancer patient a few per cent higher survival rate or to give a terminal case a few more months of health. People with cancer have offered to pay for the cost of the drugs, only to be told that they will then have to fund the rest of the treatment costs as well if they do - so they would have to pay the hospital costs, pay for the doctor to administer the drugs, and the rest, all massively increasing the cost. 
 This has annoyed a lot of people.
4. Are the caps or limits or rationing on various types of care?  Are
all illnesses and diseased covered and to what extent?
 Yes, new drugs have to be evaluated by NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence). Many expensive treatments are rationed, as is cosmetic surgery. This has led to claims of a "postcode lottery" into what is covered where. *Theoretically* all diseases are covered, just not all treatments, so you can be referred to what treatment is nationally recommended. This can be as simple as prescription of the cheapest generic drugs, or it can be along the lines of "I have a disfiguring condition, and only surgery can stop me looking hideous!"."Yes, but the plastic surgeons have a long waiting list. Here, have a referral to the self-esteem counsellor in the meantime so you don't feel so bad about it."

5. What are the demographic and other inputs into the system?  This
includes factors such as age, work history, obesity, smoking, substance
abuse just to name a few.
 Demographics - entire UK population, including the obese, the smokers, the junkies. There is occasional rationing along such lines eg some surgical units refusing to operate until the obese lose some weight, or vascular surgeons not operating on smokers, alcoholics being denied liver transplants. This is usually based on clinical experience - they don't bother wasting treatment on those who are likely to have a worse outcome and can do something about it.

6. How are outcomes identified and measured?  Age of death, amount of
suffering, time on waiting lists for diagnostics, time on waiting lists
for surgery, percentage of persons receiving preventative care, etc.
 Very badly. Although there is excellent demographic data to show ages of death and infant mortality, and many government targets are recorded, there is a huge problem in UK healthcare. Most outcomes aren't reported properly. You have no idea how good your surgeon is, there is little measurement of how good individual hospital units are, and systems for picking up incompetent/malicious doctors have well-publicised failures. There is a real need to improve reporting and recording of outcomes.

Criticism aside, the NHS does a decent job - trauma care is good; public health care is good, except where media frenzies over vaccine side-effects have persuaded parents not to immunise their children; after throwing a lot of money at the problem, hospital waiting lists have finally dropped; cancer treatments are delivered quicker than ever. However, there's some inefficiency and wastage in the system, and I'm aware that UK cancer survival rates are lower than most of the EU - I'm not sure how much is down to lifestyle and how much to difference in treatment though.

Tom (still proud of the NHS, wouldn't live in a country without socialised health care unless he had a job offering excellent healthcare, etc.)



      


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 12:49:53 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:49:53 +0200
Subject: [ExI] China's upcoming major problem depicted in a SF novel
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809212307h2c4ed11by51f867b21fd78649@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670809212307h2c4ed11by51f867b21fd78649@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809220549m32ddeb16s4b71d9c96bb89fa1@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:07 AM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>wrote:

> As we already know, there is going to be a major challenge for mainland
> China when a skewed male/female child demographic results in many young
> adult males not having potential female mates.  I see this causing the world
> mafias to view the situation as a great opportunity for female human slavery
> and smuggling.
>

Really? Were I in this business I would rather welcome an opposite
unbalance. Women are much too precious to be enslaved when there are too few
of them. See colonial Australia... As for the solution for the many young
adult males, I am afraid that either they accept a harsh competition for
female mates (as it is the case in polygamic societies), or they establish a
polyandric system.

Stefano Vaj



> The Chinese government will pass laws not allowing parents to use medical
> technology (or abortion) to determine the sex of their child.  And at the
> bio-tech level, I could see China pouring resources into artificial womb
> technology so they can be absolutely be sure there will be enough females.
>
> I came across a SF novel on lulu.com (self-published books, so be warned!)
> titled "The China Clones."  It is an over the top thriller about a Chinese
> general who has a beautiful Eurasian model kidnapped for his cloning lab.
>
>
> http://www.lulu.com/content/182342
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080922/1f13ac92/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep 22 14:14:55 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:14:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] China's upcoming major problem depicted in a SF novel
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809212307h2c4ed11by51f867b21fd78649@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809221415.m8MEEpxr011460@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
________________________________

...Behalf Of John Grigg

	Subject: [ExI] China's upcoming major problem depicted in a SF novel
	
>... young adult males not having potential female mates.  I see this
causing the world mafias to view the situation as a great opportunity for
female human slavery and smuggling...John


Or more likely, female human smuggling and male slavery.  Since the ladies
are in short supply, the men that manage to win one will treat her as a
princess, tending to her every whim.  I have been watching this develop for
some time with respect to the development of sexbots.  In a lot of important
ways John, I fear we boys are easier to replace than females from a strictly
mechanical engineering point of view.

spike



	




From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 14:36:51 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:36:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <200809220431.m8M4UjXt025581@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <62c14240809211905s3b20c048u6cc15e040bddca9a@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809220431.m8M4UjXt025581@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809220736r334cfef6q506c1ddc39c45c93@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:04 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> So here's a question: will an ant starve with food in her paws?
>
> If they get a ball of nectar but cannot return to the colony for whatever
> reason, such as some yahoo took away the bridge, there is nothing in the
> ant's programmed behavior that says anything about an if statement, such as:
> if you get hungry, to hell with the colony, eat the nectar.  I suspect they
> lack that piece of code.

Do you think this is an example of a group survival behavior
outweighing the individual's survival even to the point of being
irrational?  (in this case, a double-meaning on the word(s)
ration/rational)

Consider: the ant has been a model for bottom-up robots; this
primitive "feed the hive" directive you've observed provides
interesting insight to that model.  (immutable primary goal)

> If I observe that an ant will starve to death with a ball of nectar in her
> paws, well hell, I will just give them back their gak bridge and let them
> farm my tree to their hearts content, assuming ants have hearts and paws.

Like peasants working on feudal lands, you could charge them rent -
maybe teach them to machine those tiny eyeglass screws or some other
piece work until we have nanobot technology working.


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Sep 22 15:06:35 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:06:35 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <D32B7A4DE02B473A85C4C21D4024C14C@MyComputer>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred C. Moulton" <moulton at moulton.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 1:30 PM
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate


> 
> It appears that periodically a health care debate arises on this list.
> And I am always amazed as normally rational people seem to take leave of
> their more advanced analytical tools.  Before wasting time and bandwidth
> how about performing some basic analysis.
> 
> For each health care system under consideration please do the following:
> 
> 1. Determine what are they component parts and how they are connected;
> such as emergency care, pharmacy, etc.  Are there parallel systems?
> 
> 2. Determine how it is controlled, financed and regulated at the macro
> level.  And then how these macro level factors influence micro level
> decisions.  And the reverse.
> 
> 3. To the extent that some or all of a health care system is controlled
> by an identifiable entity does that entity have a goal or goals?  Are
> these goals internally consistent and do they conflict with the goals of
> other groups?  How are these conflicts resolved?
> 
> 3. Do individuals and groups have alternative options which they can
> pursue without penalties? 
> 
> 4. Are the caps or limits or rationing on various types of care?  Are
> all illnesses and diseased covered and to what extent?
> 
> 5. What are the demographic and other inputs into the system?  This
> includes factors such as age, work history, obesity, smoking, substance
> abuse just to name a few.
> 
> 6. How are outcomes identified and measured?  Age of death, amount of
> suffering, time on waiting lists for diagnostics, time on waiting lists
> for surgery, percentage of persons receiving preventative care, etc.
> 
> These are just a few of the items that need to be considered in order to
> even begin to have a reasonable comparison of health care systems.  And
> please avoid the glib but obviously wrong statements.  For example to
> say the USA has a free market health care system just shows a lack of
> knowledge.
> 
> Fred
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Sep 22 15:21:37 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:21:37 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>

"Fred C. Moulton" <moulton at moulton.com>

> For each health care system under consideration 
> please do the following:

Fred then lists 6 questions that he thinks any system should answer
if you intend to think deeply into this matter. I submit that there is
one question that should be answered before any of the 6 and is
more important than all of them put together:
Why is the health system in the USA more expensive than that of
any other country when its people are not healthier than that of 
any other country?

> to say the USA has a free market health care system just shows
> a lack of knowledge.

Yes, exactly. If you were free to chose ANYONE to treat you and
were not limited to those the government gave a permission slip
to practice medicine, and if you were free to put ANY drug into
your body, and if you could buy ANY drug over the counter, then
people would be richer and healthier than they are now.
Or at least the smart ones would be.

Of course not everyone is smart, so then as a bonus we'd get to see
a vivid demonstration of Evolution in action.

 John K Clark






From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Sep 22 15:22:40 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:22:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <968439.28792.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <968439.28792.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1222097229_393@s2.cableone.net>

At 11:42 PM 9/21/2008, you wrote:
>--- On Sun, 9/21/08, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

snip

> > You can use "evolution" to describe stars over
> > time, but it has
> > nothing to do with the mechanisms of biological evolution.
>
>Nonsense. The evolution of life is courtesy of and *powered* by 
>stars. They are the *source* of all biological evolution to date 
>from manufacturing the carbon atoms that make up life to pushing 
>those atoms through the Kreb cycle. Every calorie that accrues on 
>ones thighs has its ultimate origin in the sun. If under penalty of 
>death, I *had* to worship a deity, guess what that diety would be?

Stellar evolution is not related to biological evolution.  Different 
classes of knowledge.  Knowing a lot about one does not help you 
understand the other.

> > >While I don't doubt that is certainly part of the
> > psychology of
> > >humans, I am not certain how much of that has a genetic
> > basis.
> >
> > All human psychology has a genetic basis.  Psychology
> > emerges from
> > brains.  Brains are the product of genes.  How could it be
> > otherwise?
>
>So you are saying that somebody who suffers from a post-traumamatic 
>stress syndrome can pass it on to their kids? Come on.

Of course not.  But you might note that genes do make a lot of 
difference in how susceptible people are to PTSD.

>The idea that genes rule the world from the shadowy confines of 
>cellular nuclei is as preposterous as any conspiracy theory.

Tell this to the parents of a kid with cystic fibrosis.

snip

> > If you can cite an example where there is
> > evidence that
> > clearly rules out gene selection present or past, let me
> > know.
>
>Well if you consider Bonsai trees as a group, it is clear that there 
>is no gene selection that underlies their phenotype.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai

Sheesh.  That's really reaching.

Keith 



From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 15:56:01 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:56:01 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 4:21 PM, John K Clark wrote:
> Why is the health system in the USA more expensive than that of
> any other country when its people are not healthier than that of any other
> country?
>
> Yes, exactly. If you were free to chose ANYONE to treat you and
> were not limited to those the government gave a permission slip
> to practice medicine, and if you were free to put ANY drug into
> your body, and if you could buy ANY drug over the counter, then
> people would be richer and healthier than they are now.
> Or at least the smart ones would be.
>
> Of course not everyone is smart, so then as a bonus we'd get to see
> a vivid demonstration of Evolution in action.
>


How about:
1) The US medical system is more expensive because of profiteering by
the drug  and medical equipment industries, helped along by
profiteering all the way down the chain from insurance companies,
hospitals, doctors inflated wages, lawyers suing every which way, etc.

2) You can already let anyone you like treat you. But you will likely
die or be seriously disabled, and they will be fined heavily for
doctorin' without a license. Possibly jailed, if you die and their
lawyers fail to prove that it wasn't the fault of the treatment.

3) If everyone was free to ingest any drug or use any treatment they
fancied, then it is likely that there would be a surge in demand for
ER admissions.

4) Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the suggestion
of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc.
fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we are trying to
civilize them. Perhaps they could be permanently accompanied by a
social worker who every so often, wags a finger at them and says,
'Now, now, that's not very nice, is it? Try to play nice with other
people'.


BillK


From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Sep 22 16:54:45 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:54:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
In-Reply-To: <1222097229_393@s2.cableone.net>
References: <968439.28792.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<1222097229_393@s2.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809220954o7dddf99cu85ab3ac9f1fff51f@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:22 AM, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

[Still preoccupied with wedding guests and activities, but jumping in
for a moment here without having read this entire thread]

It appears that my initial question to Keith, intended to discern his
point of view, is answered here.

> Stellar evolution is not related to biological evolution.  Different classes
> of knowledge.  Knowing a lot about one does not help you understand the
> other.

In my opinion this discussion, like so many others, is moot if one
party is fixed on "Chevrolets" while the other is attempting to
stimulate effective discussion, not of automobiles, or even vehicular
artifacts in general, but systems for intentional movement of
configurations of matter.

There's certainly nothing wrong with reductionist frameworks of
thought -- on the contrary, they are highly effective -- as long as
it's recognized that they are inherently incomplete. But here we have
people talking past each other with one party correct in their defense
of a narrow context involving biogenetic evolution.  Another party is
trying to stimulate discussion about a model increasingly coherent
over increasing context of observed regularities in constraints on the
possibility space of evolution of persistent morphologies.

Oh well.  Back to the party.

- Jef


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 22 18:21:30 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:21:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <803675.61352.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<803675.61352.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080922131503.022b9640@satx.rr.com>

At 12:10 PM 9/22/2008 +0000, Tom Nowell wrote an excellent open-eyed 
summary of UK Health system.

I found that fascinating, Tom. Thanks!

To my inexpert eye, having some passing familiarity as a client of 
only Oz and US medical systems, it looks rather as if the worst case 
scenarios/worst fail points Tom identifies in the UK system are the 
very aspects that USians point to with pride in their own setup:

>some hospitals have tried to outsource everything possible, leading 
>to lower standards of cleanliness (from using cheapest bidder 
>cleaners) which conflicts with the clinical need to avoid 
>hospital-acquired infections, less flexible meals for patients 
>(cheapest bidder caterers) which can conflict with individual 
>patient needs, slower laboratory test results (sending lab tests 
>offsite to a cheaper lab across town rather than having a lab onsite).

The market at work! Hallelujah! (Or am I misunderstanding the 
invisible hand again?)

>In the NHS, you either have to be totally public funded, or totally 
>private funded. ... People with cancer have offered to pay for the 
>cost of the drugs, only to be told that they will then have to fund 
>the rest of the treatment costs as well if they do - so they would 
>have to pay the hospital costs, pay for the doctor to administer the 
>drugs, and the rest, all massively increasing the cost.

Not sure about this one, but here in TX I pay a lot of insurance 
against the chance of catastrophic illness or accident, and have to 
do all the above as a matter of course (since I'm not a derelict 
throwing myself on the mercy of the ER). Hallelujah!

Would be interesting to see equivalent point-by-point rundowns on the 
US system/s, Oz, etc.

Damien Broderick




From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 19:21:09 2008
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:21:09 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080922131503.022b9640@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.193.1221980400.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<803675.61352.qm@web27007.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922131503.022b9640@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200809221421.10309.kanzure@gmail.com>

On Monday 22 September 2008, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 12:10 PM 9/22/2008 +0000, Tom Nowell wrote an excellent open-eyed
> summary of UK Health system.

Meep. It's nice to have insider perspectives. Now what about those 200 
other countries? Hop to it.

> very aspects that USians point to with pride in their own setup:
> >some hospitals have tried to outsource everything possible, leading
> >to lower standards of cleanliness (from using cheapest bidder
> >cleaners) which conflicts with the clinical need to avoid
> >hospital-acquired infections, less flexible meals for patients
> >(cheapest bidder caterers) which can conflict with individual
> >patient needs, slower laboratory test results (sending lab tests
> >offsite to a cheaper lab across town rather than having a lab
> > onsite).
>
> The market at work! Hallelujah! (Or am I misunderstanding the
> invisible hand again?)

You sure are missing it, it's coming to smack you upside the head.

> >In the NHS, you either have to be totally public funded, or totally
> >private funded. ... People with cancer have offered to pay for the
> >cost of the drugs, only to be told that they will then have to fund
> >the rest of the treatment costs as well if they do - so they would
> >have to pay the hospital costs, pay for the doctor to administer the
> >drugs, and the rest, all massively increasing the cost.
>
> Not sure about this one, but here in TX I pay a lot of insurance
> against the chance of catastrophic illness or accident, and have to
> do all the above as a matter of course (since I'm not a derelict
> throwing myself on the mercy of the ER). Hallelujah!

From my inexperiences of never having to deal with hospitals much here 
in TX, but from scoping out the situations of others, it seems that you 
pay out of pocket most of the time, and hope that the insurance 
companies get back to you quickly enough to pay off the bills for your 
big operations. I.e., there's not really a preventive system where the 
insurance company gives you some mechanism upfront to soundly, 
financially approach your health woes, more often it's reactive.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Sep 22 21:14:44 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:14:44 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>

"BillK" <pharos at gmail.com>

> The US medical system is more expensive because of profiteering
> by the drug  and medical equipment industries, helped along by
> profiteering all  the way down the chain from insurance
> companies, hospitals, doctors inflated wages, lawyers suing
> every which way, etc.

The naturalist can best observe the antics of the endangered Tree
Hugging Socialist in his Prius motorcar, or at a Starbucks in an
upper middle class neighborhood where its plaintive cry "Greed
Greed Greed Everybody's Greedy" reverberates musically around
the walls. Endearingly this amusing creature advocates organizing
society in a way that could never work unless greed did not exist.

> You can already let anyone you like treat you. But you
> will likely die or  be seriously disabled

Bullshit! A nurse and a good medical diagnostic program could
produce pretty good medicine, not the absolute best but pretty
damn good. And you're not going to get the absolute best anyway
unless you're a movie star or a politician.

About the only area where a very very skilled human being is 
still need is surgery. Personally if I needed surgery I'd still go
with somebody the AMA recommends, but that's just me, 
make your own decision.

> If everyone was free to ingest any drug or use any treatment
> they fancied,  then it is likely that there would be a surge in
> demand for ER admissions.

If what I recommend were implemented tomorrow I think 
that's true, there would be a big spike in death, but I don't 
think that spike would last long once the bodies started to stack
up like cordwood. Even for the dimmest mind that would be
food for thought.

And even your beloved American government admits that 
two-thirds of terminal cancer patients do NOT receive adequate 
pain medication because their doctors are afraid of the FEDS
putting them in jail. This is an ATROCITY! And they're just
talking about legal drugs.

Everybody knows no drug alleviates the nausea caused by 
chemotherapy better than marijuana, and everybody knows no
drug stops INTENSE pain better than Heroin, but if doctors use 
either of those things to alleviate suffering your government will
put those wonderful people in jail. That is evil, that is very evil.
There is simply no other word for it.

> Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the 
> suggestion of  letting all the poor, mentally disabled, 
> physically disabled, etc. fall by  the wayside (evolution 
> in action), but we are trying to civilize them.

You better not tell those dunces that, they may be stupid but 
they're smart enough to recognize your condescending tone 
and they won't like it one bit; nor will the 99% who are not 
incredibly dumb when you tell them that they must live in agony
until they die a hideous and inglorious death because we've got
to protect the moronic 1% from themselves. I really don't think
that will go over very well at all.

  John K Clark








From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 22 21:34:30 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:34:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>

At 05:14 PM 9/22/2008 -0400, John K Clark wrote:

>>Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the suggestion 
>>of  letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, 
>>etc. fall by  the wayside (evolution in action), but we are trying 
>>to civilize them.
>
>You better not tell those dunces that, they may be stupid but 
>they're smart enough to recognize your condescending tone and they 
>won't like it one bit

I think it's a bit unkind to call "extreme libertarians" stupid dunces. A bit.

Damien Broderick




From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 21:58:35 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:58:35 +0100
Subject: [ExI] ants again
In-Reply-To: <62c14240809220736r334cfef6q506c1ddc39c45c93@mail.gmail.com>
References: <62c14240809211905s3b20c048u6cc15e040bddca9a@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809220431.m8M4UjXt025581@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<62c14240809220736r334cfef6q506c1ddc39c45c93@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809221458t15119349pec67873362ec06a7@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote:
<snip>
> Consider: the ant has been a model for bottom-up robots; this
> primitive "feed the hive" directive you've observed provides
> interesting insight to that model.  (immutable primary goal)
>


You know that ants follow pheromone trails between the food source and the nest?
And their foraging technique has been used to do network analysis, etc.

Well, their system is better than that.
Because foraging is a pretty dangerous activity with a high casualty
rate, it is the older ants who get the job, because their life
expectancy is low anyway.
But how do new recruits learn foraging?
The older foragers teach them!
It is called tandem running and is the only known case of an insect
species doing one-on-one training.

<http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8567>

Big brains are not crucial to teaching

11 January 2006    Duncan Graham-Rowe

Animals do not need a big brain to be able to teach each other, a new
study suggests.

Animal behaviourists in the UK believe they have found the first
evidence of two-way teacher-pupil communication between ants,
suggesting that teaching behaviour may have evolved according to the
value of information rather than brain size.

Some ants use tandem running when foraging. This is when one ant
appears to lead another from the nest to a food source by using
signals that control the speed and route of the journey.
etc......
-----------------


Clever?


BillK


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Sep 22 22:22:34 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:22:34 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1DCF6C831C964C81A4F9B644E91A6601@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com> Wrote:

> I think it's a bit unkind to call "extreme libertarians"
> stupid dunces.

Before I posited my last post I scrutinized it
for potential landmines, I did not find any. 
Damien in the future please have the courtesy
of being a little less bright. 

As for the atrocity stuff, I was as accurate
as Mr. Heisenberg allows. 

 John K Clark  

 




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 22 22:41:55 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:41:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <1DCF6C831C964C81A4F9B644E91A6601@MyComputer>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>
	<1DCF6C831C964C81A4F9B644E91A6601@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080922173500.023d6120@satx.rr.com>

At 06:22 PM 9/22/2008 -0400, John K Clark  wrote:

>>I think it's a bit unkind to call "extreme libertarians"
>>stupid dunces.
>
>Before I posited my last post I scrutinized it
>for potential landmines, I did not find any. Damien in the future 
>please have the courtesy
>of being a little less bright.

???

BillK said this:

"4) Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the suggestion
of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc.
fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we are trying to
civilize them. Perhaps they could be permanently accompanied by a
social worker who every so often, wags a finger at them and says,
'Now, now, that's not very nice, is it? Try to play nice with other
people'."

Is it really difficult to grasp that BillK was saying, in his polite 
UKian way, "Extreme libertarians are heartless bastards who'd be 
happy to see the weaker people in the community perish, but some of 
us are trying to civilize such extreme libertarians, who should learn 
to treat other people nicely"?

Or were you making some other, deeper, subtler criticism of Bill's 
post that escapes me?

Damien Broderick 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 22 22:54:08 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:54:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] shameless self-promotion (yet again)
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080922175131.0261b1a0@satx.rr.com>

Fictionwise.com has just released my 1997 science fiction novel THE 
WHITE ABACUS in a number of amazingly inexpensive ebook formats, at:

<http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/eBook73382.htm?cache>

I have a frightful suspicion they might've used the wrong, slightly 
unedited earlier file, but I'm looking into that even as we speak. (I 
did a bit of surgery on the 1997 text, as one will when given the chance.)

Damien Broderick



From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 23:25:58 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:25:58 +0100
Subject: [ExI] shameless self-promotion (yet again)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080922175131.0261b1a0@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080922175131.0261b1a0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809221625l39d532f8i2378aca29b098c4e@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Fictionwise.com has just released my 1997 science fiction novel THE WHITE
> ABACUS in a number of amazingly inexpensive ebook formats, at:
>
> <http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/eBook73382.htm?cache>
>


I think if I was doing the self-promoting thing, I might have
mentioned that it was an award-winning novel.
Awards:
    * 1997. The White Abacus Aurealis, SF Novel (Win)
    * 1998. The White Abacus Ditmar, Best Australian Long Fiction (Win)

and probably provided links to a couple of wildly enthusiastic reviews.


BillK


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 22 23:26:55 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:26:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
References: <543747.35852.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <09c901c91d0b$21d20eb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart wrote

>> connection you see between Mike's puddles and the
>> Ramsey Theorem?
>
> Because the Ramsey theorem is derived from the pigeon hole principle. You could consider the space over which the droplets are 
> dispersed to be pigeon holes and the droplets to be pigeons. As the number of droplets approaches the amount of space available, 
> they are increasingly likely form puddles. And the moment that you have more droplets than you do space for them, they *must* form 
> a puddle.
<

Thanks.

> Furthermore the *either* in your statement is
> erroneous because the results of the Ramsey
> Theorem are not mutually exclusive.
>
> That is to say that given an ensemble of at
> least the Ramsey number N in question, you
> could have the minimal number of mutual
> cooperators *or* the minimal number
> of mutual non-cooperators *or* both.

Alrighty, thanks for the correction.

> Also keep in mind that there is probably no such thing
> as a universal "non-cooperator" that never cooperates
> with any other critter. After all even a monster that
> killed everything that crossed its path would be
> cooperating with the scavengers that followed in its wake.

But who else besides you uses the term that way?
If this keeps up, I expect that you will be charged
with the High Crime of Idiosyncratic Language Use:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/fallacies.html
(See bullet #8 under "Conceptual Fallacies"  ::-)

> I also appreciate your mention, in your other post,
> of Simpson's Paradox in regards to to the development
> of cooperation as that is an angle I hadn't yet considered.

You and Keith may want to look at

http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/eame/eameweb/Simulators/GrpSlct/GroupDoc.htm

(I haven't studied this page, but it looks like it touches on
what was explained in "Unto Others".

Keith wrote

> > I agree with that. Sober and Wilson's book "Unto Others"
> > was for me the ultimate proof that *group* selection can be
> > real and can work.
>
> This I need to see.  I have never seen a "proof" of group selection.

Er, perhaps I myself am guilty of misleading language here. I did
say "can" work  :-)  trying to imply that those guys suggested a
very plausible mechanism---I should have thought of a different
word from proof.

In a nutshell, take this for example. Suppose that some guy develops
a gene for nearly infinite altruism within his "group", and he has a lot
of kids, and quite accidentally it spreads throughout the group. Now
it could be *individually* bad for the carrier, because he is always
the one to run out first against an enemy, or always the first to throw
himself on a handgrenade, or a marauding hippopotamus or something.
The way it kicks in is this: *before* nature has a chance to eliminate
it from the gene pool (as it is harmful for the individual) his *group*
multiplies so fast that his group bifurcates, and is also able to overcome
competing groups (through, say, superior numbers). Does this
mechanism have a flaw here in this example?

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 22 23:34:31 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:34:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolution "for the Good of the Group"
References: <968439.28792.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <09cc01c91d0b$d6650440$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart writes

> --- On Sun, 9/21/08, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> 
>> You can use "evolution" to describe
>> stars over time, but it has nothing to
>> do with the mechanisms of biological
>> evolution.
> 
> Nonsense. The evolution of life is courtesy
> of and *powered* by stars. They are the
> *source* of all biological evolution...

Sorry, Stuart, but I have to jump in here
(and sorry about other posts, but I don't
have time).

Calm down a minute! I think you are being
overly argumentative! Clearly Keith was
advising people *not* to confuse, say,
stellar evolution with biological evolution.

What it looks like you are doing there is
probably already classified as some kind
of argumentation error---you simply cannot
say "Nonsense." to what he wrote. (Well,
you did, but you shouldn't've.) At best you
provided a non-sequitur.

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep 23 00:16:18 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:16:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] shameless self-promotion (yet again)
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809221625l39d532f8i2378aca29b098c4e@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080922175131.0261b1a0@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0809221625l39d532f8i2378aca29b098c4e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080922191451.02321d80@satx.rr.com>

At 12:25 AM 9/23/2008 +0100, BillK wrote:

> > Fictionwise.com has just released my 1997 science fiction novel THE WHITE
> > ABACUS in a number of amazingly inexpensive ebook formats, at:
> >
> > <http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/eBook73382.htm?cache>
>
>I think if I was doing the self-promoting thing, I might have
>mentioned that it was an award-winning novel.
>Awards:
>     * 1997. The White Abacus Aurealis, SF Novel (Win)
>     * 1998. The White Abacus Ditmar, Best Australian Long Fiction (Win)
>
>and probably provided links to a couple of wildly enthusiastic reviews.

Good point! Luckily, the wildly flattering reviews can be sampled at 
the site. Shameless as I am, there *are* limits to it. :)

Damien Broderick 



From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 02:24:36 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:24:36 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809221924g5c525b52s3d19496171006ad5@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/23 John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:

> Fred then lists 6 questions that he thinks any system should answer
> if you intend to think deeply into this matter. I submit that there is
> one question that should be answered before any of the 6 and is
> more important than all of them put together:
> Why is the health system in the USA more expensive than that of
> any other country when its people are not healthier than that of any other
> country?

1. Inefficiency compared to single payer (i.e. Government) systems;
2. Lifestyle factors;
3. Exorbitant professional indemnity insurance due to Americans' love
of suing doctors (without any benefit in improved outcomes as a
result).

>> to say the USA has a free market health care system just shows
>> a lack of knowledge.
>
> Yes, exactly. If you were free to chose ANYONE to treat you and
> were not limited to those the government gave a permission slip
> to practice medicine, and if you were free to put ANY drug into
> your body, and if you could buy ANY drug over the counter, then
> people would be richer and healthier than they are now.

What is regulated is the ability to prescribe. You could go to anyone
to have your appendix taken out and as long as you were fully informed
about their qualifications, in at least some jurisdictions there
wouldn't be a problem.

As far as prescribing goes, the only problem with complete
deregulation that I could see would be with antibiotics, since
indiscriminate use could promote bacterial resistance which would
affect the whole community, not just the individuals using them.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From moulton at moulton.com  Tue Sep 23 05:34:42 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:34:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>


On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 16:56 +0100, BillK wrote:
> 4) Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the suggestion
> of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc.
> fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we are trying to
> civilize them. Perhaps they could be permanently accompanied by a
> social worker who every so often, wags a finger at them and says,
> 'Now, now, that's not very nice, is it? Try to play nice with other
> people'.

The implication that there is a logical connection between
libertarianism and the opinion that all of the poor, mentally disabled,
physically disabled, etc should fall by the wayside is just wrong.  The
two ideas are orthogonal to each other.  A person can hold that the poor
and disabled should fall by the wayside while claiming to hold any one
of a wide variety of political views.  Even a cursory glance at history
would show that.  On the other hand a person can hold that every human
has a moral duty to help their fellow humans while claiming to hold any
one of a wide variety of political views.  This is so obvious I am
surprised I even have to mention it.

Fred



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep 23 06:19:04 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:19:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>

At 10:34 PM 9/22/2008 -0700, Fred wrote:

>On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 16:56 +0100, BillK wrote:
> > 4) Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the 
> suggestion [...]
>
>The implication that there is a logical connection between
>libertarianism and the opinion that all of the poor, mentally disabled,
>physically disabled, etc should fall by the wayside is just wrong.

There is no such implication in BillK's words above. What part of 
"extreme," "do, from time to time" and "suggestion" do you suppose 
imply "a logical connection"? At most, there's a mocking rhetorical 
gesture in that general direction.

By the way, some extreme libertarians *do*, from time to time, or 
even all the time. Larry Niven, for example.

Damien Broderick



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep 23 06:39:38 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:39:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923013058.022f8610@satx.rr.com>

At 01:19 AM 9/23/2008 -0500, I wrote:

>By the way, some extreme libertarians *do*, from time to time, or 
>even all the time. Larry Niven, for example.

In case anyone's wondering, Niven coined the delightful phrase "Think 
of it as evolution in action." And in a recent expression of this view...

<http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/04/sci-fi-author-larry-niven-wants-to-kill.html>

"Niven said a good way to help hospitals stem financial losses is to 
spread rumors in Spanish within the Latino community that emergency 
rooms are killing patients in order to harvest their organs for transplants.

"The problem [of hospitals going broke] is hugely exaggerated by 
illegal aliens who aren't going to pay for anything anyway," Niven said.

"Do you know how politically incorrect you are?" Pournelle asked.

"I know it may not be possible to use this solution, but it does 
work," Niven replied.

============

Let the bastards sicken and die, the gullible fools, right?

PC, eh. How about contemptible, illegal, monstrous? But can it have 
anything to do with Niven's extreme libertarian convictions? Gee, I 
dunno about that, might be just a coincidence.

(Oh, and it might be easier for Niven to pay for anything when he's 
very ill, as he has been; he was handed a million dollars on his 21st 
birthday by his father.)

Damien Broderick




From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 07:30:35 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:00:35 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923013058.022f8610@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923013058.022f8610@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809230030q3eb6608ag48384227b2fde3a@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/23 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> At 01:19 AM 9/23/2008 -0500, I wrote:
>
>> By the way, some extreme libertarians *do*, from time to time, or even all
>> the time. Larry Niven, for example.
>
> In case anyone's wondering, Niven coined the delightful phrase "Think of it
> as evolution in action." And in a recent expression of this view...
>
> <http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/04/sci-fi-author-larry-niven-wants-to-kill.html>
>
> "Niven said a good way to help hospitals stem financial losses is to spread
> rumors in Spanish within the Latino community that emergency rooms are
> killing patients in order to harvest their organs for transplants.
>
> "The problem [of hospitals going broke] is hugely exaggerated by illegal
> aliens who aren't going to pay for anything anyway," Niven said.

Well they probably don't pay for much; in California, they just mostly
do everything, for little or nothing.

This is interesting: Select Committee on Immigration And Economy,
being addressed by Steven Levy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3110335319638879534&hl=en

Steven Levy: http://www.ccsce.com/bio_sl.html

-- 
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 pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 09:30:35 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:30:35 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The biggest yard sale in the world
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809230230x1782741cm7837a2e538aa4278@mail.gmail.com>

Boing Boing has pointed to:
<http://www.buymyshitpile.com/>

With our economy in crisis, the US Government is scrambling to rescue
our banks by purchasing their "distressed assets", i.e., assets that
no one else wants to buy from them. We figured that instead of
protesting this plan, we'd give regular Americans the same opportunity
to sell their bad assets to the government. We need your help and you
need the Government's help!

Use the form below to submit bad assets you'd like the government to
take off your hands. And remember, when estimating the value of your
1997 limited edition Hanson single CD "MMMbop", it's not what you can
sell these items for that matters, it's what you think they are worth.
The fact that you think they are worth more than anyone will buy them
for is what makes them bad assets.
-----------


Now is your chance to get rid of all that stuff in the garage that
might come in useful someday!


BillK


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Tue Sep 23 11:18:44 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:18:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20080923111844.GA26423@ofb.net>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:19:04AM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote:

> By the way, some extreme libertarians *do*, from time to time, or 
> even all the time. Larry Niven, for example.

Larry Niven is an extreme libertarian?  *Remembers "Anarchy Park"*

-xx- Damien X-) 


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 23 11:56:36 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:56:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<20080922021141.GA18188@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <0a2001c91d73$df3b2690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien S. writes

> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:22:17AM -0500, Max More wrote:
> 
>> The economy will only grow more complex in the future. I find it 
>> disturbing how so many of us still run to Great God Government for 
>> top-down solutions to the intricacies of complex economic systems.
> 
> I find it interesting that people who would admire top-down/bottom-up
> hybrids in other complex systems -- AI models, for example -- are
> allergic to them in society. :)

It may not always be the same people. I, for one, who believe
that a top-down design for an AI will probably not turn out
to be as successful as systems based upon evolutionary praxis,
am also to be counted among those who doubt the efficacy
of government solution to economic problems.

In both cases, we have a long tradition of over-estimating the
capabilities of the central planners and system designers,
who heretofore have little to show for their efforts in comparison
to expectations.

Lee



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Sep 23 12:07:14 2008
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:07:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] an ant for spike :)
In-Reply-To: <1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <41015.12.77.169.77.1222171634.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>


It's not your ants, but  it's new to us, old, and different. :)

Regards,
MB

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080916_ant

?Relic? ant said to hail from lost past

Sept. 16, 2008
Courtesy University of Texas at Austin
and World Science staff

A bi?zarre pred?a?to?ry, blind, un?der?ground ant spe?cies dis?cov?ered in the
Am?a?zon rain?for?est is probably de?scended al?most straight from the first ants,
re?search?ers say.

The in?sect was un?earthed by ev?o?lu?tion?ary bi?olo?g?ist Chris?tian Ra?bel?ing of
the Uni?ver?s?ity of Tex?as at Aus?tin, ac?cord?ing to sci?en?tists.

Martialis heureka (Cour?tesy C. Rabe?ling, U. Tex?as at Aus?tin)
The ant is named Mar?tialis heureka, which trans?lates roughly to ?ant from Mars,?
be?cause of its nev?er-be?fore-rec?orded com?bina?t?ion of traits. It lives in soil,
is two to three mil?lime?ters long, pale, and has no eyes and large jaws.

Scientists have classi?fied the crea?ture in its own new sub?fam?i?ly, one of 21 ant
sub?fam?i?lies. This is the first time that a new sub?family of ants with liv?ing
mem?bers has been dis?cov?ered since 1923, ac?cord?ing to the in?ves?ti?ga?tors.

?This dis?cov?ery hints at a wealth of spe?cies, pos?sibly of great ev?o?lu?tion?ary
im?por?tance, still hid?den in the soils of the re?main?ing rain?for?ests,? write
Ra?bel?ing and co-authors in a pa?per re?port?ing the find?ing this week in the
jour?nal Pro?ceed?ings of the Na?tional Acad?e?my of Sci?ences.

Ra?bel?ing col?lect?ed what is said to be the only known spec?i?men of the ant
spe?cies in 2003 from leaf-litter at the Em?presa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecu?ria in Ma?naus, Bra?zil. He and his col?leagues found that the ant was a
new spe?cies, ge?nus and sub?family af?ter struc?tur?al and ge?net?ic anal?y?sis.
Anal?y?sis of DNA from the an?t?s legs con?firmed its po?si?tion at the very base of
the ant ev?o?lu?tion?ary tree, the re?search?ers said.

Ants are be?lieved to have evolved over 120 mil?lion years ago from wasp
an?ces?tors. It?s thought that they evolved quickly in?to many dif?fer?ent
lin?eages, with ants spe?cial?iz?ing to live in soil, leaf-litter or trees, or
be?com?ing gen?er?al?ists. ?This dis?cov?ery lends sup?port to the idea that blind
sub?ter?ra?ne?an pred?a?tor ants arose at the dawn of ant ev?o?lu?tion,? said
Ra?bel?ing.

Ra?bel?ing does?n?t sug?gest that the an?ces?tor to all ants was this way, but that
these adapta?t?ions arose early and have per?sisted. ?Based on our da?ta and the
fos?sil rec?ord, we as?sume that the an?ces?tor of this ant was some?what wasp-like,
per?haps si?m?i?lar to the Cre?ta?ceous am?ber fos?sil Sphe?co?myr?ma, which is
widely known as the ev?o?lu?tion?ary mis?sing link be?tween wasps and ants,? said
Ra?bel?ing.

He spec?u?lat?ed that the new ant spe?cies evolved adapta?t?ions over time to its
un?der?ground habi?tat?for ex?am?ple, loss of eyes and pale col?or?while re?tain?ing
some of its an?ces?tors? char?ac?ter?is?tics. ?The new ant spe?cies is hid?den in
en?vi?ron?men?tally sta?ble trop?i?cal soils with po?ten?tially less com?pe?ti?tion
from oth?er ants and in a rel?a?tively sta?ble mi?cro?cli?mate,? he said. ?It could
rep?re?sent a ?re?lict? spe?cies.?

Delete & Prev |  Delete & Next
Move to:





From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 23 12:08:22 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:08:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] China's upcoming major problem depicted in a SF novel
References: <200809221415.m8MEEpxr011460@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <0a3101c91d75$48b943d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Grigg had written about one of China's problems

> > ... young adult males not having potential female mates.
> > I see this causing the world mafias to view the situation
> > as a great opportunity for female human slavery and
> > smuggling...John 

to which Spike acutely adds

> Or more likely, female human smuggling and male slavery.
> Since the ladies are in short supply, the men that manage
> to win one will treat her as a princess, tending to her
> every whim.

This process has been described in a number of history
books I've read. When there is an over-supply of men,
the women get to be very choosy, and the men must
live up to the evolutionary psychologically derived 
expectations of women, namely that the men show a
good deal of consideration towards them and try to
emphasize what good fathers they'd be.

On exactly the other other hand, when women are in
oversupply, women become "cheap", and this gives rise
to the males "scoring" and "running". 

The former is actually much better for society than the
latter, the point often being described as the process
by which women civilize men.

Lee


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 23 12:18:46 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:18:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0a3701c91d76$b1444e80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

BillK characterises with some, but IMO not quite enough,
accuracy the libertarian response.

> How about:
> 
> 1) The US medical system is more expensive because of profiteering
> by the drug  and medical equipment industries, helped along by
> profiteering all the way down the chain from insurance companies,
> hospitals, doctors inflated wages, lawyers suing every which way, etc.

Yes, but you must also look at just *where* the medical and
technological advances are being made. Doesn't the U.S. by
far outweigh other countries' contributions?

> 4) Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the suggestion
> of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc.
> fall by the wayside (evolution in action),

Yes, except that you forgot to mention the role of charity. 
What is great about charity is that it's chancy, and so therefore
no one grows up expecting an entitlement. One may also turn
to one's Uncle Paul who has made a lot of money (because of
the unconstrained capitalist nature of a free economy---wish
as I do that we really had any major economic country that
truly had a free-market), and because Uncle Paul knows you,
your incentive from the get-go would have been to make
prudent decisions about saving and taking fewer medical
risks.

Even more important, we libertarians expect that just as prices
have plummeted for cosmetic surgery, so free-market 
mechanisms would place enormous downward forces on
the cost of all medical care. Of course, it's based on capitalist
self-interest. You can made more money if you can find a way
to make your service cheaper, and get far more people able
to afford it. The problem with government or communal care
is that the mechanism is short-circuited, and the incentives to
find cheaper solutions are much less. Hence the completely
astronomical costs of medical care, anywhere. (Except in
cosmetic surgery and other non-regulated areas.)

Lee



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Tue Sep 23 13:10:22 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:10:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <0a3701c91d76$b1444e80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<0a3701c91d76$b1444e80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080923131022.GA9729@ofb.net>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 05:18:46AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Yes, but you must also look at just *where* the medical and
> technological advances are being made. Doesn't the U.S. by
> far outweigh other countries' contributions?

Does it?

If true, are these contributions fundamental, or minor variants of
existing drugs?  Not that those are worthless, but.

If true, is that because of the "free market", or because of our
excellent universities and government funded research system?

-xx- Damien X-) 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep 23 13:11:46 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:11:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <20080923111844.GA26423@ofb.net>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<20080923111844.GA26423@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923080513.0232ca40@satx.rr.com>

At 04:18 AM 9/23/2008 -0700, Damien X- wrote:

>Larry Niven is an extreme libertarian?  *Remembers "Anarchy Park"*

Fair enough, and that horrible construct OATH OF 
FEELTHY or whatever it's called; lots of outright 
authoritarianism, as with his pal Pournelle. This 
weirdness comes out in an old interview:

<http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue386/interview.html>

< Because this is an election year, what are your 
thoughts on the upcoming 2004 election?

Niven: I'm still in a dither; I'm either going to 
vote Libertarian or vote for [President George] 
Bush. I'm a registered Libertarian. The damn 
problem is Bush's father got up my nose?he raised 
taxes, after running a campaign on one issue: 
"Read my lips, no new taxes." Taxes went up, I 
voted Libertarian, not Democrat. >

And fwiw, he shared a Prometheus award for FALLEN 
ANGELS (but then the marxist Ken MacLeod keeps picking those up as well).

Damien Broderick



From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 13:25:13 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:25:13 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809230625t1ed84c4dp314d27a15efa8b9c@mail.gmail.com>

(Declaring my interest: I am a doctor working in the Australian public
hospital system).

Health care in Australia is about 70% Government funded, but much of
this money is paid to private practitioners. Patients are free to see
any doctor they want, and the doctor is free to charge them whatever
they want to charge, but there is a fixed amount that Medicare will
pay the doctor according to the service offered. Pathology and
radiology are covered, and there is limited funding for some other
services such as psychology and optometry, but for the most part not
dentistry. Some years ago it used to be that most doctors charged
patients only the Medicare rebate amount, but that has changed and
most doctors now charge the Medicare rebate amount only for the
financially disadvantaged, and on average 15-30% more than this amount
for everyone else. In part this has been driven by increased demand
for doctors which is not being met by increasing doctor numbers,
because the medical organisations themselves control their numbers and
will not allow the Government to train or import more doctors claiming
that this will result in a drop in standards.

Most medication dispensed in Australia is subsidised by the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. To get on the list of subsidised
medications, a drug company has to argue that their product is
effective and negotiate an Australia-wide price for it. Drug companies
hate this because as one of the single largest drug buyers in the
world the PBS has a lot of bargaining power. The PBS committee
considers both medical and economic efficacy. For example, a drug that
is expensive and demonstrably only marginally effective might still be
listed on the grounds that even if reduces the need for
hospitalisation by an average of a few days it would still result in a
saving. Drugs that are PBS listed are subsidised so that, whatever
their actual cost, a pensioner pays a maximum of about $5 and a
non-pensioner pays a maximum of about $30 for a month's supply. These
drugs are dispensed through private pharmacies. Drugs not on the list
can still be sold at the full cost, but in practice, demonstrably
effective drugs generally make it onto the PBS within a few months of
becoming available due to lobbying from medical and patient groups,
and very expensive or experimental drugs are provided to selected
patients by public hospitals out of their own budget.

The public hospital system is completely free for every citizen,
including those who have private health insurance. Private hospitals
also exist, but in general they are smaller, less prestigious, and
concentrate on elective procedures with the expectation of short
admission times and low risk of complications. Medicare/PBS will pay
for the doctors and drugs in private hospitals, but not for anything
else, so most people who use private hospitals have private health
insurance. There are tax incentives for high income earners to take
out private insurance, but often the privately insured will still end
up being treated in a public hospital because their insurance won't
cover the full cost or won't cover them for a prolonged admission if
they have complications.

Public hospitals are generally funded to service a certain
geographical region, although they can gain or lose funding depending
on actual patient numbers and complexity. Large city public hospitals
also take referrals from rural areas, and sometimes from other public
hospitals where they have a special expertise in a particular area.
Each hospital has a lot of autonomy in how they manage their budget,
but is required to keep statistics on such things as number of
admissions, what type of cases are admitted, admission lengths,
complication rates, waiting lists for elective surgery, waiting times
for people to be seen in emergency departments, and so on. They are
ultimately answerable to the central state authority, and if they are
found wanting in efficiency or effectiveness compared to other similar
hospitals, public or private, management is liable to be sacked and
replaced. There has been a trend in recent years to appoint CEO's paid
at the rates common in a private corporations of a comparable size
(i.e. much more than the people who do the actual work), resulting in
the "corporatisation" of public hospitals and the outsourcing of
services such as cleaning, similar to what was described by Tom Nowell
for the UK. I was sceptical about this on principle, but it does not
seem to have made anything worse, and waiting lists for things such as
elective surgery have fallen in recent years, such that for most
things it is now no faster in Victoria to wait for a private bed.

What annoys me most about working in the system is being forced to
collect statistics and do paperwork in a certain standardised
(arse-covering) way when I can't see how it will personally benefit
the patients I look after. If we didn't have to do this, there would
be more time for clinical work, or perhaps a saving in money spent on
clinical and administrative staff. On the other hand, the Australian
system results in outcomes comparable to those in the US for half the
cost, so it can't all be all that inefficient.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 13:30:13 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:30:13 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <20080923131022.GA9729@ofb.net>
References: <ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<0a3701c91d76$b1444e80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080923131022.GA9729@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809230630h645da610nc4718a731f87388e@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Damien Sullivan  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 05:18:46AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>> Yes, but you must also look at just *where* the medical and
>> technological advances are being made. Doesn't the U.S. by
>> far outweigh other countries' contributions?
>
> If true, are these contributions fundamental, or minor variants of
> existing drugs?  Not that those are worthless, but.
>
> If true, is that because of the "free market", or because of our
> excellent universities and government funded research system?


I don't think anyone can deny that the US has (in some places)
excellent advanced expensive medical care. The overall statistics are
terrible though because it is not available to the whole population.

So to improve the stats, the US can either extend the reach of medical
care or get rid of all these poor sick people who ruin the figures.

So far, charity doesn't seem to be helping them much.
(But then that is probably because the US doesn't have enough
libertarians, whose largesse would soon solve the problem - in theory)
 ;)


BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep 23 13:35:27 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:35:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The reassurances of Fascism aka Progressive Corporatism
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923083202.0234d7b0@satx.rr.com>

NYT conservative commentator David Brooks sez:


Over the next few years, the U.S. will have to 
climb out from under mountainous piles of debt. 
Many predict a long, gray recession. The country 
will not turn to free-market supply-siders. Nor 
will it turn to left-wing populists. It will turn 
to the safe heads from the investment banks. For 
Republicans, people like Paulson. For Democrats, 
the guiding lights will be those establishment 
figures who advised Barack Obama last week ? 
including Volcker, Robert Rubin and Warren Buffett.

These time-tested advisers, or more precisely, 
their acolytes, are going to make the health and 
survival of the financial markets their first 
order of business, because without that 
stability, the entire economy will be in danger. 
Beyond that, they will embrace a certain sort of governing approach.

The government will be much more active in 
economic management (pleasing a certain sort of 
establishment Democrat). Government activism will 
provide support to corporations, banks and 
business and will be used to shore up the stable 
conditions they need to thrive (pleasing a 
certain sort of establishment Republican). Tax 
revenues from business activities will pay for 
progressive but business-friendly causes ? 
investments in green technology, health care 
reform, infrastructure spending, education reform and scientific research.

If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, 
you might pick the phrase economist Arnold Kling 
has used: Progressive Corporatism. We?re not 
entering a phase in which government stands back 
and lets the chips fall. We?re not entering an 
era when the government pounds the powerful on 
behalf of the people. We?re entering an era of 
the educated establishment, in which government 
acts to create a stable ? and often oligarchic ? 
framework for capitalist endeavor.

After a liberal era and then a conservative era, 
we?re getting a glimpse of what comes next.

[Right]



From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 13:59:25 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:59:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The reassurances of Fascism aka Progressive Corporatism
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923083202.0234d7b0@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923083202.0234d7b0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809230659yad8eb97m9692212bb8eef7e0@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Damien Broderick  wrote:
>
> NYT conservative commentator David Brooks sez:
>
> If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might pick the phrase
> economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive Corporatism. We're not entering
> a phase in which government stands back and lets the chips fall. We're not
> entering an era when the government pounds the powerful on behalf of the
> people. We're entering an era of the educated establishment, in which
> government acts to create a stable ? and often oligarchic ? framework for
> capitalist endeavor.
>
> After a liberal era and then a conservative era, we're getting a glimpse of
> what comes next.
>


Fascism can be difficult to identify if you haven't met it before and
don't know much about world history.

And in times of crisis, it seems an attractive way to sort the mess out.

Looks like bad times ahead.


BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep 23 14:04:22 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:04:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809230625t1ed84c4dp314d27a15efa8b9c@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<f21c22e30809230625t1ed84c4dp314d27a15efa8b9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923085342.0234d2f8@satx.rr.com>

At 11:25 PM 9/23/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>  the Australian
>system results in outcomes comparable to those in the US for half the
>cost, so it can't all be all that inefficient.

So what exactly is it that doubles the cost in USland? It can't 
*just* be those damnable govt busybodies, since the Oz system is run 
by them too. Is it the awful food and consequent health-ruining 
obesity? Is it the insane urban violence? Is there a "Pangea-effect" 
that increases rampant infection among 300 million closely networked 
humans on a landscape about the same size as Oz with 20 million 
humans? Is it the way medical services are run in a somewhat more 
"free-market" system (or is it that it's *not* one, but actually a 
sort of corporate fascism of the sort diagnosed by Ayn Rand and 
marxists alike)?

Damien Broderick



From dagonweb at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 14:23:05 2008
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:23:05 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The reassurances of Fascism aka Progressive Corporatism
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0809230659yad8eb97m9692212bb8eef7e0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923083202.0234d7b0@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0809230659yad8eb97m9692212bb8eef7e0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0809230723g3bbf8d7eneb9ce2d5c948cb33@mail.gmail.com>

I would almost label this "the europanization" or "sanitization" of half
deranged "drooling mad dog" US markets. I'd also say it's too little and
too late.

The system is salvageable without an intentional period of "brazilisation",
including sprawling favella's and repressive black clad SWAT crackdowns.



On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:59 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Damien Broderick  wrote:
> >
> > NYT conservative commentator David Brooks sez:
> >
> > If you wanted to devise a name for this approach, you might pick the
> phrase
> > economist Arnold Kling has used: Progressive Corporatism. We're not
> entering
> > a phase in which government stands back and lets the chips fall. We're
> not
> > entering an era when the government pounds the powerful on behalf of the
> > people. We're entering an era of the educated establishment, in which
> > government acts to create a stable ? and often oligarchic ? framework for
> > capitalist endeavor.
> >
> > After a liberal era and then a conservative era, we're getting a glimpse
> of
> > what comes next.
> >
>
>
> Fascism can be difficult to identify if you haven't met it before and
> don't know much about world history.
>
> And in times of crisis, it seems an attractive way to sort the mess out.
>
> Looks like bad times ahead.
>
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080923/b8fe5622/attachment.html>

From moulton at moulton.com  Tue Sep 23 15:50:54 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:50:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>


On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 01:19 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 10:34 PM 9/22/2008 -0700, Fred wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 16:56 +0100, BillK wrote:
> > > 4) Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the 
> > suggestion [...]
> >
> >The implication that there is a logical connection between
> >libertarianism and the opinion that all of the poor, mentally disabled,
> >physically disabled, etc should fall by the wayside is just wrong.
> 
> There is no such implication in BillK's words above. What part of 
> "extreme," "do, from time to time" and "suggestion" do you suppose 
> imply "a logical connection"? At most, there's a mocking rhetorical 
> gesture in that general direction.
> 

Then you would have no objection if the phrase was re-written as
"Extreme Socialists"?

Or how about "Extreme science fiction authors"?

Is the quality of this list helped more my "mocking rhetorical gestures"
or by honest discussion?

Fred




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Sep 23 16:10:38 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:10:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek><7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923013058.022f8610@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <B5E12EDDC12A44DA865B2D33E42AB49A@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> Let the bastards sicken and die, the gullible fools, right?

I don't want anybody to sicken and die, but if the only way
to protect the fool is to stop me from putting any drug I 
want into my body when I am in intense pain then that's 
where I draw the line. And I really don't think Libertarians 
have a higher proportion of bastards than other political 
philosophies. Just like Conservatives and Liberals some
individual Libertarians can be very cruel and others very kind.

 John K Clark




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep 23 16:11:58 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:11:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>

At 08:50 AM 9/23/2008 -0700, Fred  wrote:

>Then you would have no objection if the phrase was re-written as
>"Extreme Socialists"?

Why the hell should I care? But is it valid? Are there any "Extreme 
Socialists" around who are also ideological social darwinists? Was 
Stalin, for extreme example, or was he just a psychopathic tribal 
power-hungry son of a bitch?

>Or how about "Extreme science fiction authors"?

I already instanced Niven. Fine with me, bubba.

>Is the quality of this list helped more my "mocking rhetorical gestures"

I don't know, let's see some.

>or by honest discussion?

I'd have thought that's what's been coming from plenty of people on 
this thread. The occasional sharp, amusing snap at the heels, whether 
from Lee rather to the right or BillK somewhat to the left, adds 
flavor to the exchanges.

Damien Broderick 



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Sep 23 16:49:10 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:49:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Terrorized SF authors and astronauts was health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923080513.0232ca40@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<20080923111844.GA26423@ofb.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923080513.0232ca40@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1222188820_5141@s2.cableone.net>

At 06:11 AM 9/23/2008, you wrote:
>At 04:18 AM 9/23/2008 -0700, Damien X- wrote:
>
>>Larry Niven is an extreme libertarian?  *Remembers "Anarchy Park"*
>
>Fair enough, and that horrible construct OATH OF FEELTHY or whatever 
>it's called; lots of outright authoritarianism,

As a data point, a number of major SF authors and astronauts who you 
might think were brave souls are completely terrorized by a cult I 
can't mention.  Far more terrorized than an objective assessment would justify.

I am not going to go into details here for fairly obvious reasons, 
but if you see me in person and want to know the stories, ask.

Keith 



From scerir at libero.it  Tue Sep 23 17:13:46 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:13:46 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The reassurances of Fascism aka Progressive Corporatism
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923083202.0234d7b0@satx.rr.com><ee50357e0809230659yad8eb97m9692212bb8eef7e0@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf3acbfc0809230723g3bbf8d7eneb9ce2d5c948cb33@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002001c91d9f$be6845c0$ace91e97@archimede>

Dagon Gmail:

I would almost label this "the europanization" 
or "sanitization" of half deranged "drooling mad dog" 
US markets. 

# Since many of those US toxic assets have been sold in/to
Europe (around 30% of them) it is not fair to speak of 
'europanization' :-)
Oh wait, I've forgot. It was the 'globalization' at work.
It is interesting to point out that - because of this
'globalization' - also Russian financial market crashed!
  
The system is salvageable without an intentional period 
of "brazilisation", including sprawling favella's and 
repressive black clad SWAT crackdowns.

# Bailout or not bailout, the DJ index is around 11,000.
If this is a major crash (as people say) the DJ should 
point to 9,500. http://finance.yahoo.com/






From dagonweb at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 18:56:09 2008
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:56:09 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The reassurances of Fascism aka Progressive Corporatism
In-Reply-To: <002001c91d9f$be6845c0$ace91e97@archimede>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923083202.0234d7b0@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0809230659yad8eb97m9692212bb8eef7e0@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf3acbfc0809230723g3bbf8d7eneb9ce2d5c948cb33@mail.gmail.com>
	<002001c91d9f$be6845c0$ace91e97@archimede>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0809231156m64756f8ye28144af791892eb@mail.gmail.com>

In case you missed it, there is a
deniosphere<http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/its-twins-evolution-and-climate-change-deniers/>these
days. But actually
this article<http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html?iid=digg_share>made
me smile most.

The current dialogue between left and right is an unnatural state really.
It'll take a
while where neither state can persuade the other, and this causes a vacuum
in-between.
My gut tells me that vacuum will soon be filled by a third paradigm,
completely at odds
with the earlier two (liberals versus conservatives), largely reshaping the
discourse.

Might be something Chinese?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080923/b9bc3a9d/attachment.html>

From mlatorra at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 19:41:28 2008
From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:41:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Terrorized SF authors and astronauts was health care
	debate.
In-Reply-To: <1222188820_5141@s2.cableone.net>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<20080923111844.GA26423@ofb.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923080513.0232ca40@satx.rr.com>
	<1222188820_5141@s2.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <9ff585550809231241j4c8f1293ka0df7f029c1d8aaf@mail.gmail.com>

Just to add my support to Keith on this point: Let me say that he knows of
what he speaks. Notice that he did NOT say "Email me privately." That tells
you something about the reach of the organization to which he was
referring. Keith's life and that of his family has been severely affected by
a well-known organization with vast financial resources and no lack of
willingness to use underhanded and even illegal tactics in an effort to hide
their most outrageous activities from public view.

Regards,
Mike

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:49 AM, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> At 06:11 AM 9/23/2008, you wrote:
>
>> At 04:18 AM 9/23/2008 -0700, Damien X- wrote:
>>
>> Larry Niven is an extreme libertarian?  *Remembers "Anarchy Park"*
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough, and that horrible construct OATH OF FEELTHY or whatever it's
>> called; lots of outright authoritarianism,
>>
>
> As a data point, a number of major SF authors and astronauts who you might
> think were brave souls are completely terrorized by a cult I can't mention.
>  Far more terrorized than an objective assessment would justify.
>
> I am not going to go into details here for fairly obvious reasons, but if
> you see me in person and want to know the stories, ask.
>
> 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: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080923/856e60cb/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 23 22:54:43 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:54:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com><20080922021141.GA18188@ofb.net>
	<0a2001c91d73$df3b2690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <0a6101c91dcf$6b18e840$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>


Well, I believe that at least *part* of the problem
lies in the way described below, taken from

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0

-------------------------------------------------------------

THE REAL SCANDAL HOW FEDS INVITED THE MORTGAGE MESS
By STAN LIEBOWITZ
 
Did what gov't asked: Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.February 5, 2008

PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mortgage crisis is that it is a
direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards -
done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it
could lead to wide-scale defaults.

At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually
nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or
assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make
payments; no down payment.

Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be
unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up
able to engage in such foolishness?

>From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up
with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with
regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who
relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and
"progressive" political forces.

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing
charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against
minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of
Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks
to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various
studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original
accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently
than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial
discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker
finances.

Yet a "landmark" 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that
mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic.

That study was tremendously flawed - a colleague and I later showed
that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos,
such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no
evidence of discrimination.

Yet the political agenda triumphed - with the president of the Boston
Fed saying no new studies were needed, and the US comptroller of the
currency seconding the motion.

No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the
Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual
for mortgage lenders stating that: "discrimination may be observed
when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated
criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income
minority applicants."

Some of these "outdated" criteria included the size of the mortgage
payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and
income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation
in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an
applicant's ability to manage debt.

Sound crazy? You bet. Those "outdated" standards existed to limit
defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting
standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A
1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks
to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It
also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews,
shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger
plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice
Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher
default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you
can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent
financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even
if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is
required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out
one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community
activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria
permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans
in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early
2003.

Who was that virtuous lender? Why - Countrywide, the nation's largest
mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward
bankruptcy.

In an earlier newspaper story extolling the virtues of relaxed
underwriting standards, Countrywide's chief executive bragged that,
to approve minority applications that would otherwise be rejected
"lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." He's not bragging now.

For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick
refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped
rising, we can clearly see the damage caused by relaxed lending
standards.

This damage was quite predictable: "After the warm and fuzzy glow of
'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off, we may discover that
they are nothing more than standards that lead to bad loans . . .
these policies will have done a disservice to their putative
beneficiaries if . . . they are dispossessed from their homes." I
wrote that, with Ted Day, in a 1998 academic article.

Sadly, we were spitting into the wind.

These days, everyone claims to favor strong lending standards. What
about all those self-righteous newspapers, politicians and regulators
who were intent on loosening lending standards?

As you might expect, they are now self-righteously blaming those,
such as Countrywide, who did what they were told.

Stan Liebowitz is the Ashbel Smith professor of Economics in the
Business School at the University of Texas at Dallas.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 23 23:05:59 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:05:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

John Clark here, first, then Damien Broderick second:
 
>>>>Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the suggestion 
>>>>of  letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, 
>>>>etc. fall by  the wayside (evolution in action), but we are trying 
>>>>to civilize them.
>>>
>>>You better not tell those dunces that, they may be stupid but 
>>>they're smart enough to recognize your condescending tone and they 
>>>won't like it one bit
>> 
>> I think it's a bit unkind to call "extreme libertarians" stupid dunces. A bit.
>
> Before I posited my last post I scrutinized it for potential landmines, I did not find any. 
> Damien in the future please have the courtesy of being a little less bright. 

'Tis obvious to me the miscommunication here. Obviously when John
was referring to "those dunces" he meant the "poor, mentally, physically
disabled, etc.", but Damien merely seized upon the chance to have some
fun by pretending that John was referring to the *subject* of the previous
paragraph.

There were no landminds in your post, John. But it did leave some room
for some fun  :-)   And this kind of thing is *not* why I think Damien is
bright!

Lee


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 24 00:22:03 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:22:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] more on the CRA Program
Message-ID: <0a8a01c91ddb$bbec2af0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

The simplest summary of the CRAP:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/

The whole sorry history, at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

although it has bias problems if you ask me. For example
the paragraph at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Clinton_Administration_Changes_of_1995

begins with the sentence "In 1995, as a result of interest from President Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for 
the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community 
credit needs." which someone on first reading might think *strengthened* restrictions on lending, but, as the second sentence then 
clarifies "These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the 
number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans."

So before people start pointing the finger at
human greed---which, on a conservative estimate
has probably been with us about two million years
---it would be nice they first tried to understand
deficiencies in the human cultural created part.

The government should be backing out of, not
becoming more involved with regulating the
economy. And moral considerations aside,
people need to be prosecuted to the full extent
of the law, although "the law" does not come up
too much in this (actually very) fine article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23skeptics.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 24 00:28:22 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:28:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)
In-Reply-To: <0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>
	<0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>

At 04:05 PM 9/23/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>'Tis obvious to me the miscommunication here. Obviously when John
>was referring to "those dunces" he meant the "poor, mentally, physically
>disabled, etc.", but Damien merely seized upon the chance to have some
>fun by pretending that John was referring to the *subject* of the previous
>paragraph.
>
>There were no landminds in your post, John.

Godawmighty! What nonsense is this? By taking it literally, I was 
pointing out how John Clark's indignant misreading of BillK's post 
completely distorted and reversed what BillK had written. I wasn't 
*pretending* that this was what John's sentences meant (because he 
couldn't be bothered seeing what BillK had actually written). That 
*is* what they meant, read by the ordinary rules of English grammar.

Why this misreading of  John's? Why Lee's now? It might be worth 
exploring that.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if John Clark is just grabbing words at 
random as an opportunity for a rant or being playful himself.

I realize that spelling this out is tedious and offensive and 
schoolmasterly, and that emails are hasty  notes flung off with very 
little care taken to make sure we actually convey what we meant. But 
the people on this list are smarter than that, and shouldn't need 
excuses. The posts from Harvey, for example, or Stathis, or Damien 
Sullivan, or Emlyn or BillK (which are also genuinely playful and 
delightful) are clear, and responsive to the previous thread rather 
than to some madly skewed strawcritter. Lee's are usually fine. Not this time.

Damien Broderick






From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 24 00:42:14 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:42:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<f21c22e30809230625t1ed84c4dp314d27a15efa8b9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0a9301c91dde$8bbdd970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes (thanks for the very long report on the Australian situation)

> (Declaring my interest: I am a doctor working in the Australian public
> hospital system).
> 
> Health care in Australia is about 70% Government funded, but much of
> this money is paid to private practitioners. Patients are free to see
> any doctor they want, and the doctor is free to charge them whatever
> they want to charge, but there is a fixed amount that Medicare will
> pay the doctor according to the service offered.

This basic scheme does not sound bad. The doctors are motivated
to find and use cheaper solutions, but not so much as to risk desertion
of their patients.

> Each hospital has a lot of autonomy in how they manage their budget,
> but is required to keep statistics on such things as number of
> admissions, what type of cases are admitted, admission lengths,
> complication rates, waiting lists for elective surgery, waiting times
> for people to be seen in emergency departments, and so on. They are
> ultimately answerable to the central state authority, and if they are
> found wanting in efficiency or effectiveness compared to other similar
> hospitals, public or private, management is liable to be sacked and
> replaced. There has been a trend in recent years to appoint CEO's paid
> at the rates common in a private corporations of a comparable size

Very interesting. This statistic---of Australian CEO pay for hospitals
---should be consulted when we worry (or rather stockholders worry)
about CEO salaries.

Also---that paragraph starts by referring to the necessary bureaucracy
and statistics necessary for socialist improvisation. Of course, I have in
mind a completely free system, and wonder how it would work. Your
paragraph (elided) mentioned the stranglehold that the medical 
establishment has, and much the same is true here, I gather. The AMA
has a self-interest (unlike a free market) of securing the highest possible
salaries for their members, and of course limiting membership.

So I am actually calling for removal of all government licensing (not
overnight, but gradually). We need to learn as advanced industrial
nations how to make good use of certification agencies who back
(or won't back) the reputation of doctors, hospitals, and so on.

> On the other hand, the Australian system results in outcomes comparable
> to those in the US for half the cost, so it can't all be all that inefficient.

Of course, one or two of Fred's axioms do apply to this, namely
that comparisons are difficult, but I wonder just how much analysis
has been done that take those issues into account. Now it may very
well be possible that the more complicated HMO system in the U.S. 
provides *less* of a market mechanism than that in Australian. For,
as I above noted, some incentives are well in place down under,
whereas when the highly regulated insurance companies are soaked
by unconcerned patients and doctors, neither of which have the
slightest interest in reducing costs. (Not that the successful insurance
companies don't retaliate in the cost of coverage.)  The basic
economic relationship between the producer and the consumer
has been disengaged.

Lee
.


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 24 00:46:39 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:46:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com><0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <0a9501c91ddf$04ffdf40$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien writes

> At 04:05 PM 9/23/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:
> 
>>'Tis obvious to me the miscommunication here. Obviously when John
>>was referring to "those dunces" he meant the "poor, mentally, physically
>>disabled, etc.", but Damien merely seized upon the chance to have some
>>fun by pretending that John was referring to the *subject* of the previous
>>paragraph.
>>
>>There were no landminds in your post, John.
> 
> Godawmighty! What nonsense is this? By taking it literally, I was 
> pointing out how John Clark's indignant misreading of BillK's post 
> completely distorted and reversed what BillK had written.

Sorry. I thought that you were just reacting to his last paragraph.
I admit to not having recalled the jist of Bill's post adequately
while reading John's. I appreciate the correction.

Lee



> I wasn't 
> *pretending* that this was what John's sentences meant (because he 
> couldn't be bothered seeing what BillK had actually written). That 
> *is* what they meant, read by the ordinary rules of English grammar.
> 
> Why this misreading of  John's? Why Lee's now? It might be worth 
> exploring that.
> 
> Sometimes it's hard to tell if John Clark is just grabbing words at 
> random as an opportunity for a rant or being playful himself.
> 
> I realize that spelling this out is tedious and offensive and 
> schoolmasterly, and that emails are hasty  notes flung off with very 
> little care taken to make sure we actually convey what we meant. But 
> the people on this list are smarter than that, and shouldn't need 
> excuses. The posts from Harvey, for example, or Stathis, or Damien 
> Sullivan, or Emlyn or BillK (which are also genuinely playful and 
> delightful) are clear, and responsive to the previous thread rather 
> than to some madly skewed strawcritter. Lee's are usually fine. Not this time.
> 
> Damien Broderick



From moulton at moulton.com  Wed Sep 24 00:58:53 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:58:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>


On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 11:11 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 08:50 AM 9/23/2008 -0700, Fred  wrote:
> 
> >Then you would have no objection if the phrase was re-written as
> >"Extreme Socialists"?
> 
> Why the hell should I care? But is it valid? Are there any "Extreme 
> Socialists" around who are also ideological social darwinists? Was 
> Stalin, for extreme example, or was he just a psychopathic tribal 
> power-hungry son of a bitch?
> 

Hmm.  Well. Jumping from case of "Extreme libertarians" and saying that
at most there is a "mocking rhetorical gesture" to the case of "Extreme
Socialists" and asking "But is it valid?"; I will have to consider that
jump for a while before I can develop a response.

But I notice that you brought up Stalin.  I specifically did not bring
up Stalin or Stalinist policies because as far as I know (and I am very
confident on this) that no person (of any political label) participating
on this email list supports Stalinist policies.  Also as far as I know
(and I am very confident on this) that no person (of any political
label) participating on this email list holds the position of letting
all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc. fall by the
wayside.

So let us make sure that we do not inadvertently engage in little
misdirections, false accusations and attempts at guilt by association.
Scouring the web to find the worst statements of someone claiming to be
affiliated with some group such as the Greens, conservatives,
Republicans, Democrats, etc and then bringing them up as if they had
relevance to the ideas of the list participants is unseemly.  I have
seen other forums where this sort of thing was done and the results are
not pretty.  How about we strife for an improved list?  

So my request is that we attempt to maintain this list at a higher
standard of discourse.  I do not think my request is out of line and is
not meant to imply that any person or persons were deliberately telling
falsehoods or were deliberately attempting to mislead the other list
participants.

Fred




From moulton at moulton.com  Wed Sep 24 01:13:32 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:13:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
Message-ID: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>


Since there have been several posts about the current financial
situation I thought that some might be interested in an article which
covered many of these issues six months ago:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=291507506135021

or with a preview tiny url

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3dbt25

And in the interest of full disclosure I am acquainted with both
authors.

Fred
 



From spike66 at att.net  Wed Sep 24 00:51:03 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:51:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0809230030q3eb6608ag48384227b2fde3a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809240118.m8O1Hi1g003411@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
> ...On Behalf Of Emlyn
...
> 
> Well they probably don't pay for much; in California, they 
> just mostly do everything, for little or nothing.
... 
> Emlyn


Hi Emlyn, this is only tangentially related to health care, but keep this
prediction in your files:

I predict that the state of California will be bankrupt within five years.

spike








From spike66 at att.net  Wed Sep 24 01:27:15 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:27:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The reassurances of Fascism aka Progressive Corporatism
In-Reply-To: <002001c91d9f$be6845c0$ace91e97@archimede>
Message-ID: <200809240127.m8O1RHSM015578@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
> ...On Behalf Of scerir
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:14 AM
> ...
> It is interesting to point out that - because of this 
> 'globalization' - also Russian financial market crashed!

You are onto us scerir.  It is all a capitalist plot. {8-]


> Bailout or not bailout, the DJ index is around 11,000.
If this is a major crash (as people say) the DJ should point to 9,500.

Ja, that is what I thought too.  This a financial fender bender.  Some
repairs, we will be back on the road again soon.

spike





From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 24 01:31:07 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:31:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek><7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com><1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek><7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>
	<1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Fred writes

> So let us make sure that we do not inadvertently engage in little
> misdirections, false accusations and attempts at guilt by association.

Well, FWIW it didn't seem to me that there was any chance
of anyone taking offense from the Stalin reference; Damien
seemed at that point to merely be saying that some absolute
rulers are really bad.

However, far more important (if you are going to be bringing up 
Stalin) is to mention the kind of revolutionary mindset that
ends up this way, (study the French Revolution, for instance).
In other words, again the *system* must not escape censure:
one should not blame everything bad that happened under
Stalin on his own idiosyncrasies.

> (and I am very confident on this) that no person (of any political
> label) participating on this email list holds the position of letting
> all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc. fall by the
> wayside.

Yes, the kind of rhetoric you allude to is indeed often
overblown, but a rather wide variety of views will be
present on forums like this. For example, I would myself
wish to shift the system towards *complete* personal
responsibility (not overnight, again), so that charity
would be the only recourse of the "poor, mentally disabled,
physically disabled, etc." I.e. NO "ENTITLEMENTS".

So does not the accusation against me, e.g. "holding that
[they] fall by the wayside" have some force? For charity is
not totally dependable, and instances in a large society, no
matter how wealthy, are bound to arise now and then. (Of course,
even in pure communism we would have unusual situations; not
even the state knows all and sees all---the difference is that
most people on the list (now, sadly)  want government *policy*
to entitle everyone to at least food, clothing, and shelter.)

I'll even claim that in a nation of millions, (does the reader
really know how big that is?), it is probably optimal for the
greatest good and maximal progress that a very few people 
starve to death each winter through having alienated absolutely
everyone who would help them, and a few people freeze to death
every winter (because we don't have universal 1984 type
surveillance, and so none of their neighbors even knows,
assuming they'd help some real nuisance guy or gal).

> Scouring the web to find the worst statements of someone claiming
> to be affiliated with some group such as the Greens, conservatives,
> Republicans, Democrats, etc and then bringing them up as if they had
> relevance to the ideas of the list participants is unseemly.  I have
> seen other forums where this sort of thing was done and the results
> are not pretty.  How about we strife for an improved list?

I agree. From now on when we criticize some group and use
something we've found as an example, politeness and decorum
should insist that we include a qualifying phrase, such as "some
extreme Libertarians", or ", not that this so describes all self-
styled whatevers". It will be painful, but I'll start my screeds
with "*Some* liberals...."   :-)

> So my request is that we attempt to maintain this list at a higher
> standard of discourse.

I second the motion!

Lee



From spike66 at att.net  Wed Sep 24 01:19:18 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:19:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <200809240146.m8O1k0jH002980@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of 
> Fred C. Moulton
...
> Is the quality of this list helped more my "mocking 
> rhetorical gestures"
> or by honest discussion?
> 
> Fred


No need to choose, Fred.  The list quality is enhanced by both your honest
discussion and high quality mockery.  More of both please. {8-]

spike





From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Sep 24 02:37:06 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:37:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <0a9301c91dde$8bbdd970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f21c22e30809230625t1ed84c4dp314d27a15efa8b9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<0a9301c91dde$8bbdd970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080924023706.GA23071@ofb.net>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 05:42:14PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Very interesting. This statistic---of Australian CEO pay for hospitals
> ---should be consulted when we worry (or rather stockholders worry)
> about CEO salaries.

AIUI, the standards of Australia (non-US, really) CEO pay are likely to
still be a lot lower than US or multinational CEO pay.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 02:40:11 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:10:11 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809230625t1ed84c4dp314d27a15efa8b9c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<f21c22e30809230625t1ed84c4dp314d27a15efa8b9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809231940y5aac2aa3v6284c5746e9a9d77@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/23 Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>:
> (Declaring my interest: I am a doctor working in the Australian public
> hospital system).
>
<snipped excellent explanation of the Aussie medical system>

Thanks Stathis, an excellent summary, truly enlightening.

-- 
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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Sep 24 02:40:53 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:40:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
	<0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080924024053.GB23071@ofb.net>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 06:31:07PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> even the state knows all and sees all---the difference is that
> most people on the list (now, sadly)  want government *policy*
> to entitle everyone to at least food, clothing, and shelter.)

Has this list shifted to the left in recent months?  Last few times I
was dipping in it seemed even more extremely libertarian than in years
past, with you, Rafal, and Samantha Atkins holding the line against
government ever being useful for anything.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Sep 24 02:44:31 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:44:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <0a2001c91d73$df3b2690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <20080922021141.GA18188@ofb.net>
	<0a2001c91d73$df3b2690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080924024431.GC23071@ofb.net>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 04:56:36AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Damien S. writes

> >I find it interesting that people who would admire top-down/bottom-up
> >hybrids in other complex systems -- AI models, for example -- are
> >allergic to them in society. :)
> 
> It may not always be the same people. I, for one, who believe
> that a top-down design for an AI will probably not turn out
> to be as successful as systems based upon evolutionary praxis,

Note I said top-down/bottom-up hybrid, like Hofstadter models, not pure
top-down, which hardly anyone is into anymore.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From mail at HarveyNewstrom.com  Wed Sep 24 02:51:56 2008
From: mail at HarveyNewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:51:56 -0400
Subject: [ExI] What Makes People Vote Republican
In-Reply-To: <200809212030.m8LKUbg9007840@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809212030.m8LKUbg9007840@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <5B67475AC01A4EF2B1871CD7CBCCC33E@Catbert>

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote,
>Yet never do we see any political candidate saying
> that it is immoral and unethical for any nubile young beauty to fail to
> copulate at every opportuuuuu...nit...
> 
> Oh my I just had a terrific idea.  Does anyone here wish to run for vice
> president on a new single platform third party ticket?

"Vice" President, you say?

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP




From moulton at moulton.com  Wed Sep 24 02:55:19 2008
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:55:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>
	<1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
	<0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <1222224919.21275.2124.camel@hayek>


On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:31 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> I'll even claim that in a nation of millions, (does the reader
> really know how big that is?), it is probably optimal for the
> greatest good and maximal progress that a very few people 
> starve to death each winter through having alienated absolutely
> everyone who would help them, and a few people freeze to death
> every winter (because we don't have universal 1984 type
> surveillance, and so none of their neighbors even knows,
> assuming they'd help some real nuisance guy or gal).

What you just wrote is disgusting.  I thought about attempting a
detailed reply but words fail me.

I think I will just quit responding to messages on this list for a while
in the feeble hope that this list improves.  Perhaps at a later time I
will return to dialog on this list; perhaps not.

Fred





From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 02:56:35 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:56:35 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <20080924023706.GA23071@ofb.net>
References: <f21c22e30809230625t1ed84c4dp314d27a15efa8b9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<0a9301c91dde$8bbdd970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080924023706.GA23071@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809231956j42ada87dp157da9a315cc6957@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/24 Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu>:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 05:42:14PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>> Very interesting. This statistic---of Australian CEO pay for hospitals
>> ---should be consulted when we worry (or rather stockholders worry)
>> about CEO salaries.
>
> AIUI, the standards of Australia (non-US, really) CEO pay are likely to
> still be a lot lower than US or multinational CEO pay.

Yes, it's actually an order of magnitude more than the average wage,
comparable to what the Prime Minister is paid, not two or three orders
of magnitude more, which is what the CEO's the large banks and mining
companies are paid, even in Australia.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Sep 24 02:58:03 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (sjatkins)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:58:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <20080924024053.GB23071@ofb.net>
References: <1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
	<0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080924024053.GB23071@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <48D9ACBB.2020901@mac.com>

Damien Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 06:31:07PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>   
>> even the state knows all and sees all---the difference is that
>> most people on the list (now, sadly)  want government *policy*
>> to entitle everyone to at least food, clothing, and shelter.)
>>     
>
> Has this list shifted to the left in recent months?  Last few times I
> was dipping in it seemed even more extremely libertarian than in years
> past, with you, Rafal, and Samantha Atkins holding the line against
> government ever being useful for anything.
>   

Generally I have been too busy or flummoxed of late to post much here.  
I am very happy to be grouped with Rafal as generally I find his 
opinions admirable and often expressed with more patience and wit than I 
manage.   I don't know if this list as such has a political flavor or 
even should.  I know there are a lot of things political said here I 
think are really bizarre and not all of them are non-"libertarian" 
either.  But if you have been around very long then you know Rafal and I 
are pretty mellow compared to many that have graced this list in days 
gone by.

Personally I do think the list is if anything more left leaning than 
not.   Not sure I care that much except that I think our dreams of 
radical human transformation require much more freedom from governmental 
coercion than many seem to appreciate.   I also distrust and abhor 
government more by the  day.   I am very afraid that  government  has 
screwed things up so badly that all of our dreams will be  on hold for 
at least a geneartion if not longer.    Of course relative freedom and 
private organizations will get the lion's share of blame *again* and 
ever greater and more dictatorial powers to the State will be heralded 
as our only hope.   So it goes.  

- samantha




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 24 03:06:08 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:06:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <1222224919.21275.2124.camel@hayek>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>
	<1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
	<0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<1222224919.21275.2124.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923220031.02545c58@satx.rr.com>

At 07:55 PM 9/23/2008 -0700, Fred Moulton wrote:

>On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:31 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> > I'll even claim that in a nation of millions, (does the reader
> > really know how big that is?), it is probably optimal for the
> > greatest good and maximal progress that a very few people
> > starve to death each winter through having alienated absolutely
> > everyone who would help them, and a few people freeze to death
> > every winter (because we don't have universal 1984 type
> > surveillance, and so none of their neighbors even knows,
> > assuming they'd help some real nuisance guy or gal).
>
>What you just wrote is disgusting.

I rather thought that's what BillK and I were saying, Fred--that the 
opinion is disgusting yet one can find it enunciated by some 
libertarians, even here. ("Even" here? You know, I've rarely seen it 
spelled out so brutally anywhere else.)

Damien Broderick



From sjatkins at mac.com  Wed Sep 24 03:20:20 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (sjatkins)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:20:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>
	<1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <48D9B1F4.9060806@mac.com>

Fred C. Moulton wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 11:11 -0500, Damien Broderick wrote:
>   
>> At 08:50 AM 9/23/2008 -0700, Fred  wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Then you would have no objection if the phrase was re-written as
>>> "Extreme Socialists"?
>>>       
>> Why the hell should I care? But is it valid? Are there any "Extreme 
>> Socialists" around who are also ideological social darwinists? Was 
>> Stalin, for extreme example, or was he just a psychopathic tribal 
>> power-hungry son of a bitch?
>>
>>     
>
> Hmm.  Well. Jumping from case of "Extreme libertarians" and saying that
> at most there is a "mocking rhetorical gesture" to the case of "Extreme
> Socialists" and asking "But is it valid?"; I will have to consider that
> jump for a while before I can develop a response.
>
> But I notice that you brought up Stalin.  I specifically did not bring
> up Stalin or Stalinist policies because as far as I know (and I am very
> confident on this) that no person (of any political label) participating
> on this email list supports Stalinist policies.  Also as far as I know
> (and I am very confident on this) that no person (of any political
> label) participating on this email list holds the position of letting
> all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc. fall by the
> wayside.
>
>   


There are both idealistic and realistic aspects of this.   There are 
various threads and nuances of ethics and philosophy involved.   From an 
idealistic viewpoint I think that every single human being is barely a 
zygote of hir potential transhuman self.   Every person on the planet no 
matter how poor in circumstances, how crazed or how apparetly unable to 
contribute today is a potential god-being.   At some level I think 
transhumanistic ideals requires keeping this in mind and more 
importantly in our hearts.   I think we have barely begun to form a 
workable ethics on this basis much less a coherent politics.

On the other hand I cannot see how any sort of coercive plan to make us 
litterally our sibling's keeper is ethically justified.   And 
realistically we are not now at this moment in a position to take care 
of even the most basic of needs of every person on the planet.   
Realistically in this comparative world of actual scarcity there must be 
some concentrations of what from some perspectives may seem unfair 
quantities of wealth for much progress at all to occur.   Note also that 
my idealistic perspective above in no way requires that wealth be more 
evenly distributed.  

I do think though that orienting our thinking and our cultures toward 
maximizing the highest potentials of each person increases the real 
wealth of all us.   In practice there are many points of diminishing 
returns and the need to chose where the ROI is highest in the face of 
less than adequate time and resources.   We can all work diligently 
within our relative god-realm to get to a place of such abundance that 
much more than what we have is available to all. 



- samantha



From spike66 at att.net  Wed Sep 24 03:29:21 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:29:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <20080924024053.GB23071@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <200809240329.m8O3TMC0029329@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> ...On Behalf Of Damien Sullivan
...
> 
> Has this list shifted to the left in recent months?...
> -xx- Damien X-)


Nah, it's always been like that.

spike






From spike66 at att.net  Wed Sep 24 03:48:36 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:48:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <48D9B1F4.9060806@mac.com>
Message-ID: <200809240348.m8O3mbh4015669@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of sjatkins
... 
> 
> There are both idealistic and realistic aspects of this.   There are 
> various threads and nuances of ethics and philosophy 
> involved.   From an 
> idealistic viewpoint I think that every single human being is 
> barely a 
> zygote of hir potential transhuman self.   Every person on 
> the planet no 
> matter how poor in circumstances, how crazed or how apparetly 
> unable to 
> contribute today is a potential god-being.   At some level I think 
> transhumanistic ideals requires keeping this in mind and more 
> importantly in our hearts.   I think we have barely begun to form a 
> workable ethics on this basis much less a coherent politics.
> 
> On the other hand I cannot see how any sort of coercive plan 
> to make us 
> litterally our sibling's keeper is ethically justified.   And 
> realistically we are not now at this moment in a position to 
> take care 
> of even the most basic of needs of every person on the planet.   
> Realistically in this comparative world of actual scarcity 
> there must be some concentrations of what from some 
> perspectives may seem unfair 
> quantities of wealth for much progress at all to occur.   
> Note also that 
> my idealistic perspective above in no way requires that 
> wealth be more evenly distributed.  
> 
> I do think though that orienting our thinking and our 
> cultures toward maximizing the highest potentials of each 
> person increases the real 
> wealth of all us.   In practice there are many points of diminishing 
> returns and the need to chose where the ROI is highest in the face of 
> less than adequate time and resources.   We can all work diligently 
> within our relative god-realm to get to a place of such 
> abundance that much more than what we have is available to all. 
> 
> 
> 
> - samantha


Samantha, this is good stuff, an excellent short essay, post of the month
material.  Thanks!

spike



From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 04:57:23 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:57:23 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <0a9301c91dde$8bbdd970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<f21c22e30809230625t1ed84c4dp314d27a15efa8b9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<0a9301c91dde$8bbdd970$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809232157p2727c177j2ee90cf98eca874b@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/24 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> Also---that paragraph starts by referring to the necessary bureaucracy
> and statistics necessary for socialist improvisation. Of course, I have in
> mind a completely free system, and wonder how it would work. Your
> paragraph (elided) mentioned the stranglehold that the medical establishment
> has, and much the same is true here, I gather. The AMA
> has a self-interest (unlike a free market) of securing the highest possible
> salaries for their members, and of course limiting membership.
>
> So I am actually calling for removal of all government licensing (not
> overnight, but gradually). We need to learn as advanced industrial
> nations how to make good use of certification agencies who back
> (or won't back) the reputation of doctors, hospitals, and so on.

What would end up happening is that the existing medical organisations
will say that only *they* are able to act as certification agencies,
and that anyone who claims otherwise is dangerous and not to be
trusted with your health. It is what has happened in Australia
whenever the government has raised the possibility of setting up
training schemes in parallel to those of the specialist colleges in
order to address a perceived shortage. The government has always
backed down.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 24 06:59:39 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
Message-ID: <959444.83444.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 9/23/08, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> I predict that the state of California will be bankrupt
> within five years.

Considering that California ranked #1 in the U.S. for Gross State Product again in 2007 with about $1.8 trillion and 7th in the U.S. in per capita GSP at $42,376 thereby accounting for over 13% of this nation's wealth, such an occurance would probably bankrupt the whole country. Not that I am saying you are necessarily wrong, but anybody who gives one damn about the U.S. should hope you are. The red states, like Mississippi (ranks 50th) might hate California, but only out of envy. 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm


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 lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 24 09:38:38 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:38:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
Message-ID: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Just finished a very long conversation with a friend
in which I well-articulated (at least I thought so)
the long sought-after answer to Wigner's famous query
about why our universe exhibits math at every turn.

(Apologies to those who have already read less
extensive missives from me about the same idea.)

So what is the real connection between mathematics
and our physical universe, that makes the use of 
mathematics so uncannily effective?

Here is a conceptual development, kind of analogical
to a historical development, but of course without any
real reference to *time*.

In the beginning (or, as you may say, at the conceptual
foundation) we have the physical universe. Then there
are two layers upon it that solve the mystery.

First, observe that the universe is under many peculiar
constraints. For example, throughout our infinite universe
(or at least tremendously vast universe) particles do lie
in certain patterns in the vast regions of almost empty
space. Separated perhaps by many meters from any
other matter, small groups of particles may be found
which have some definite number of constituents. In
particular, I have in mind those patches which contain
a precise number of atoms or molecules.

Let us focus on those groups that consist of precisely
17 particles, or to be specific, atoms. Now these 17
particles, physically separate from adjoining groups,
may exhibit countless possible patterns. In some places
those 17 particles form themselves into various letters
of our English alphabet (very crudely), or may form
certain geometrical figures. But one pattern that you
will *never* see, indeed a pattern that the universe is
incapable of generating, is for the 17 particles to be
formed into two rows with an equal number of particles
in each row. This is a *constraint* on the ways that
the patterns may form up in space.

We have a general name for that particular constraint,
and it is "17 is not an even number". My claim is that
all of mathematics merely consists of our recognizing
certain preexisting constraints upon what is physically
possible in the universe.

So at level one in a conceptual hierarchy is the physical
universe, at level two a set of constraints somehow
imposed on the universe, and at level three our language
to describe those constraints, namely, mathematics.

Quite similar to David Deutsch's rather astonishing
and hardly predictable discussion of Virtual Reality
in "The Fabric of Reality", some of the constraints
exhibited by the universe may simply amount to what
certain machines are able to do. Of course, even
Turing machines exhibit "evenness" when a device
(to be pictured as moving left and right along a tape)
cannot possibly take a certain number of steps and
return to its starting location without taking precisely
an even number of steps. (Again, we describe the
this preexisting constraint on the motion of the device
by using our concepts of "even" and "odd".)

Certainly many other mathematical theorems reduce
to limitations upon what a Turning machine may do,
even if no simpler set of constraints (missing patterns)
can be physically recognized by us at this time.

We may, for another example, write down a number
of axioms for some system (e.g. group theory or 
geometry), and specify rules that allow deductions,
that is, formal rules that allow new statements to
be added to the axioms that are derivations from
those axioms or from earlier such derived statements.
Often it is the case that certain constraints arise here
too, as in the specific instance that no derivations
will be found that allow two separate points to each
bisect a segment (the segment bisecting point is unique). 

To sum up, the answer to Wigner's question concerning
the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics", as in
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html,
is that mathematics cannot be thought of as in any way
distinct or separate from the physical universe, but only
our way of describing the universe's own preexisting
constraints.

Lee


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 10:22:00 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:22:00 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>

Scientists Detect Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Across Billions of Light Years
    09.23.08
<http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/dark_flow.html>

Using data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP),
scientists have identified an unexpected motion in distant galaxy
clusters. The cause, they suggest, is the gravitational attraction of
matter that lies beyond the observable universe.

WMAP data released in 2006 support the idea that our universe
experienced inflation. Kashlinsky and his team suggest that their
clusters are responding to the gravitational attraction of matter that
was pushed far beyond the observable universe by inflation. "This
measurement may give us a way to explore the state of the cosmos
before inflation occurred," he says.

(Includes links to the original papers).

--------------------


So, something outside the bubble of our universe, is sucking our stuff
towards itself?

It's not just a financial crisis, the whole universe is going down the plughole.

BillK


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 24 13:39:19 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:39:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

BillK writes

> <http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/dark_flow.html>
> 
> Using data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP),
> scientists have identified an unexpected motion in distant galaxy
> clusters. The cause, they suggest, is the gravitational attraction of
> matter that lies beyond the observable universe.
> 
> WMAP data released in 2006 support the idea that our universe
> experienced inflation. Kashlinsky and his team suggest that their
> clusters are responding to the gravitational attraction of matter that
> was pushed far beyond the observable universe by inflation. "This
> measurement may give us a way to explore the state of the cosmos
> before inflation occurred," he says.
> 
> (Includes links to the original papers).

Not unreasonable, or---so far as I can see (pun not intended)---
at all mysterious, but rather to be fully expected.

> So, something outside the bubble of our universe, is sucking our stuff
> towards itself?

Don't confuse the "bubble" of our universe with the observable
universe, (and naturally not the latter with the homogenous
extend of a much smaller volume). For all we know---and Tipler
and others so believe---our universe is infinite. We only get to
see the infinitesimal region that light has had time to get across.
But if some other guys are about 21 billion ly away, then we're
half way to the *edge* of what they can see, and they ought
not be surprised if a religious prophet were to tell them that
off in our direction was matter affecting visible matter in that
direction. The prophet would be right!

According to the brilliant April 2003 Scientific American article
by Tegmark (which is on-line but I don't have the link right now),
our "bubble" is indeed infinite. I believe it to be common to refer
to our bubble as infinite.

> It's not just a financial crisis, the whole universe is going down the plughole.

Huh? As I understand it Freddie and Fanny have influence only
out to about 8,000 ly, and even the U.S. Federal government
only a few times that, so the whole universe is still relatively safe.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 24 13:49:38 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:49:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Fred writes about a March (!) 2008 article that very, very
clearly explains three ways that the federal government (
not it says, to be confused with the Fed reserve) contributed
to the current fiasco:

> Since there have been several posts about the current financial
> situation I thought that some might be interested in an article which
> covered many of these issues six months ago:
>
> http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=291507506135021

Thanks, Fred. Some highlights from that URL:

    To see how the government contributed to the subprime mess, we
    must look at the feds, not the Fed. The feds helped create the
    problem in three main ways.

    [1] First, the federal government contributes to what economists
    call moral hazard - that is, people taking risks because they
    know that if things turn out badly, someone else will bear a
    large portion of the cost.

    The federal government's semiautonomous mortgage agencies -
    Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae - all buy and resell
    mortgages. Of the more than $12 trillion in mortgages in
    existence, one-third of them are owned by, or were securitized
    by, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing and
    Veterans Administration, plus other government agencies that
    subsidize mortgages.

    Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are no longer government
    agencies, their status as government-sponsored enterprises causes
    people who buy their repackaged loans to assume an implicit
    federal government guarantee. Also, to the extent government
    views large lending companies and banks as "too big to fail," it
    contributes to moral hazard.

    For the market economy to function well, it needs to be a profit
    system and a profit-and-loss system, with the losses being the
    penalty for bad decisions.

    [2] The second way the feds contributed to the subprime mess was
    with a little-noted change in regulations by the comptroller of
    the currency in December 2005 that acted as the trigger.

    Financial planner Less Antman has pointed out that the
    comptroller started requiring banks to require minimum payments
    on credit card balances, causing increases of at least 50% for
    most cards and as much as 100% on others. Many people who hold
    subprime mortgages are people for whom a higher monthly payment
    on a credit card would be a problem.

    Imagine that you're such a person and that before you always made
    sure you made your mortgage payments. With the new regulation,
    you instead make your credit card payment but miss your mortgage
    payment, a widely observed transformation in the traditional
    American delinquency pattern.

    Thus the comptroller's apparently small change in regulations had
    the unintended effect of causing some mortgage borrowers to
    default.

    [3] The third federal contributor to the subprime crisis is the
    Community Reinvestment Act. This act, first passed in 1977 and
    beefed up in 1995, requires banks to lend to high-risk areas that
    they otherwise would avoid. Those banks that fail to comply pay
    fines and have more difficulty getting approval for mergers and
    branch expansions.

    As Stan Liebowitz, a University of Texas economist, has pointed
    out, a Fannie Mae Foundation report enthusiastically singled out
    one mortgage lender that followed "the most flexible underwriting
    criteria permitted." That lender's loans to low-income people had
    grown to $600 billion by 2003.

    Its name? Countrywide, the largest U.S. mortgage lender and one
    of the lenders in the most trouble for its lax lending practices.

    How ironic, then, that the same federal government, and many of
    its boosters, now attack Countrywide for following the very
    policies the government wanted earlier.

    Without any further bailouts, the government could reverse some
    of the steps that led to this debacle. Will it? Not likely.

Lee

> or with a preview tiny url
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/3dbt25
>
> And in the interest of full disclosure I am acquainted with both authors.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 24 14:06:06 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:06:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
References: <1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
	<0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080924024053.GB23071@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <0af401c91e4f$31ab7660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien S writes

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 06:31:07PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
>> even the state knows all and sees all---the difference is that
>> most people on the list (now, sadly)  want government *policy*
>> to entitle everyone to at least food, clothing, and shelter.)
> 
> Has this list shifted to the left in recent months?  Last few times I
> was dipping in it seemed even more extremely libertarian than in years
> past, with you, Rafal, and Samantha Atkins holding the line against
> government ever being useful for anything.

Like an earlier post of yours that I haven't had time to
address (with all due respect), you do seem a bit guilty
of violating one of Fred's axioms, to wit, overstating
the views of they who disagree with you.

Under *no* circumstance have I ever said in the last
years (or ever) that the government is useful for nothing.
I have *always* maintained that the government is
absolutely necessary for 

(1)  national defense (including serious border patrol)
(2)  establishment of national laws concerning democratic
      practices (e.g. guarantees that although they may
      allow infanticide, say (by my lights) in some particular
      state (say Utah), and may (by my lights) decide to ban
      all pornography there (unwisely IMO), the *democratic*
      political process in Utah and the *freedom of political
      expression* (disincluding silly stuff like flag burning,
      etc.) MUST not be allowed by the federal government to be
      abolished in Utah, nor may Utah violate the constitution's
      Bill of Rights (narrowly but literally interpreted) 
(3)  court system and use of force to enforce contracts,
      establish rule of law, and protect private property
(4)  tax collection to finance at least (1), and more likely
(5)  infrastructure support (e.g. early in the 19th century
      to build a road across the Appalachians)
(6)  (most likely) SEC control (although I would indeed
      allow Rafal to correct me on this---and then my faith
      would invariably waver, we not being, in my opinion
      quite as culturally advanced as he's hoping for)
(7)  Center for Disease Control

and probably a lot more if I had time.

Lee

P.S. And how dare you lump Rafal (who won't even
     allow infanticide) and Samantha Atkins as
     approximately as right than I am. I claim
     to be more right than any other regular
     poster on this list.
 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Sep 24 14:17:57 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:17:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <48D9B1F4.9060806@mac.com>
References: <f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>
	<1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek> <48D9B1F4.9060806@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20080924141757.GA8518@ofb.net>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 08:20:20PM -0700, sjatkins wrote:

> realistically we are not now at this moment in a position to take care 
> of even the most basic of needs of every person on the planet.   

Sure we are.  We already grow enough food to feed everyone; estimated
costs of clean water supplies for everyone aren't that high -- WaterAid
says $10 billion a year to halve the number of people without access to
clean water
http://www.wateraid.org/usa/what_we_do/statistics/default.asp . 
There's your most basic needs right there.

> Realistically in this comparative world of actual scarcity there must be 
> some concentrations of what from some perspectives may seem unfair 
> quantities of wealth for much progress at all to occur.   Note also that 

"some concentration" is rather vague, even if true.

> my idealistic perspective above in no way requires that wealth be more 
> evenly distributed.  

Hard to be a germinating godseed when you can't afford food and water.

> wealth of all us.   In practice there are many points of diminishing 
> returns and the need to chose where the ROI is highest in the face of 
> less than adequate time and resources.   We can all work diligently 
> within our relative god-realm to get to a place of such abundance that 
> much more than what we have is available to all. 

Highest marginal return is probably with those who have the least.
Think: only 1/6 of the world is "First World".  The research population
could be at least 6x bigger than it is.  6x faster progress in science
and technology, toward that Singularity you want.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From spike66 at att.net  Wed Sep 24 14:19:31 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:19:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <959444.83444.qm@web65603.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200809241419.m8OEJWFG027250@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
> --- On Tue, 9/23/08, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
> > I predict that the state of California will be bankrupt within five 
> > years.
> 
> Considering that California ranked #1 in the U.S...thereby accounting 
> for over 13% of this nation's wealth, such an occurance would 
> probably bankrupt the whole country... 
> 
> http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm
> 
> Stuart LaForge

Agree with nearly all Stuart.  What I shoulda said was the California
government will be bankrupt, which would not bankrupt the fed.  The people
in California will still be earning as always and paying their federal
taxes.  I don't see how the California government can avoid bankruptcy with
all the mandated spending and other obligations we have taken.

spike







From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Sep 24 14:19:27 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:19:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <0af401c91e4f$31ab7660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
	<0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080924024053.GB23071@ofb.net>
	<0af401c91e4f$31ab7660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080924141927.GB8518@ofb.net>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 07:06:06AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> of violating one of Fred's axioms, to wit, overstating
> the views of they who disagree with you.

My apologies.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 13:53:44 2008
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:53:44 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90809240653u4fd37d61h2c3a8664200a587c@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Just finished a very long conversation with a friend
> in which I well-articulated (at least I thought so)
> the long sought-after answer to Wigner's famous query
> about why our universe exhibits math at every turn.

If  "mathematics is the physics of bottlecaps" then it is not
surprising that our universe exhibits math at every turn. Math may be
a reflection of physics instead of a platonic abstraction. Occam might
have liked this interpretation I guess.

By the way this is Giulio Prisco posting with a new email and nym.

-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Wed Sep 24 15:52:39 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:52:39 -0400
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com><0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> I was pointing out how John Clark's indignant misreading of BillK's
> post completely distorted and reversed what BillK had written.

How exactly did I do that Damien?

BillK (the man who thinks Walmart is the biggest enemy that
America has) wrote:

"Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the
suggestion of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically
disabled, etc. fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we
are trying to civilize them."

At the time I honestly thought "them" referred to the
"mentally disabled" not to "Extreme libertarians". Amd despite
your clever post I still think that could very well be exactly
what he meant because in that same post he tells me I should
give up some of my freedom to protect the mentally disabled
from themselves. That sure sounds to me that he thinks they
need civilizing. If he now tells the list "them" referred to 
"extreme libertarians" then I will say no more about it but 
neither will I apologize for misunderstanding such an 
ambiguous post.

I do plead guilty to have never been a big fan of euphemisms,
hence my use of the word "dunces".

 John K Clark







From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Sep 24 16:11:28 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:11:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)
In-Reply-To: <5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>
	<5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <20080924161128.GA18229@ofb.net>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:52:39AM -0400, John K Clark wrote:
> "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
> 
> >I was pointing out how John Clark's indignant misreading of BillK's
> >post completely distorted and reversed what BillK had written.
> 
> BillK (the man who thinks Walmart is the biggest enemy that
> America has) wrote:
> 
> "Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the
> suggestion of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically
> disabled, etc. fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we
> are trying to civilize them."
> 
> At the time I honestly thought "them" referred to the
> "mentally disabled" not to "Extreme libertarians". Amd despite

Did you think "civilize them" also referred to the poor, physically
disabled, etc.?  That seems the only way to be consistent.  Either way,
your reading seems bizarre to me; that 'them' reached back to "extreme
libertarians" seemed obvious, and to make better use of the 'but'.

"X bring up the (horrific) suggestion of Y, but we are trying to
civilize X" vs. "X bring up the suggestion of Y, but we are trying to
Z."

-xx- Damien X-) 


From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 16:19:37 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:19:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
In-Reply-To: <0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Not unreasonable, or---so far as I can see (pun not intended)---
> at all mysterious, but rather to be fully expected.
>
> Don't confuse the "bubble" of our universe with the observable
> universe, (and naturally not the latter with the homogenous
> extend of a much smaller volume). For all we know---and Tipler
> and others so believe---our universe is infinite. We only get to
> see the infinitesimal region that light has had time to get across.
> But if some other guys are about 21 billion ly away, then we're
> half way to the *edge* of what they can see, and they ought
> not be surprised if a religious prophet were to tell them that
> off in our direction was matter affecting visible matter in that
> direction. The prophet would be right!
>
> According to the brilliant April 2003 Scientific American article
> by Tegmark (which is on-line but I don't have the link right now),
> our "bubble" is indeed infinite. I believe it to be common to refer
> to our bubble as infinite.
>


Another article interviewed the scientists involved in this discovery
and apparently they were quite surprised by theses unexpected
findings.
<http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html>

Quote:
"We found a very significant velocity, and furthermore, this velocity
does not decrease with distance, as far as we can measure," Kashlinsky
told SPACE.com. "The matter in the observable universe just cannot
produce the flow we measure."

The scientists deduced that whatever is driving the movements of the
clusters must lie beyond the known universe.

A theory called inflation posits that the universe we see is just a
small bubble of space-time that got rapidly expanded after the Big
Bang. There could be other parts of the cosmos beyond this bubble that
we cannot see.

In these regions, space-time might be very different, and likely
doesn't contain stars and galaxies (which only formed because of the
particular density pattern of mass in our bubble). It could include
giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own
observable universe. These structures are what researchers suspect are
tugging on the galaxy clusters, causing the dark flow.

"The structures responsible for this motion have been pushed so far
away by inflation, I would guesstimate they may be hundreds of
billions of light years away, that we cannot see even with the deepest
telescopes because the light emitted there could not have reached us
in the age of the universe," Kashlinsky said in a telephone interview.
"Most likely to create such a coherent flow they would have to be some
very strange structures, maybe some warped space time. But this is
just pure speculation."

Though inflation theory forecasts many odd facets of the distant
universe, not many scientists predicted the dark flow.

"It was greatly surprising to us and I suspect to everyone else,"
Kashlinsky said. "For some particular models of inflation you would
expect these kinds of structures, and there were some suggestions in
the literature that were not taken seriously I think until now."

The discovery could help scientists probe what happened to the
universe before inflation, and what's going on in those inaccessible
realms we cannot see.
-------------


BillK


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Wed Sep 24 16:44:52 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:44:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <20080922021141.GA18188@ofb.net>
	<0a2001c91d73$df3b2690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080924024431.GC23071@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <0b0c01c91e65$270eeeb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien S writes

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 04:56:36AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Damien S. writes
> 
>> >I find it interesting that people who would admire top-down/bottom-up
>> >hybrids in other complex systems -- AI models, for example -- are
>> >allergic to them in society. :)
>> 
>> It may not always be the same people. I, for one, who believe
>> that a top-down design for an AI will probably not turn out
>> to be as successful as systems based upon evolutionary praxis,
> 
> Note I said top-down/bottom-up hybrid, like Hofstadter models, not pure
> top-down, which hardly anyone is into anymore.

Yes, thanks, so your point is now well-taken, i.e., indeed I *do* 
see a difference between our efforts to create an AI and our
efforts to re-design societies and economies. Have you read
Hayek at all?

We have no choice but to try to engineer solutions to our own
creations such as AI, something never before successfully tried.
If we had a working system already, it would be folly to try to
improve it, because we're still idiots about AI. However, we 
*do* know from enormous experience that economic systems
do work from time to time. There are many examples in history
where we really cannot complain that for an extended period of
time those economies were successful.

Hayek warned strongly (as did Von Mieses) about the arrogance
and vanity humans have when monkeying with societies. So far,
all planned societies or planned economies have failed abysmally.

But we have ample evidence (a good deal of it from the 19th
century) that free market economics work. Perhaps the only
issue is whether some people are so concerned about what
may happen to the very poor that they believe governments
ought to step in.  Okay, fine!  Take a one or two percent tax,
if you must, and give it to the poor. Fine. But we must stop
monkeying with the markets and stop the ever expanding layers
of regulation, which just never seem to work.

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 24 16:53:02 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:53:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care  debate)
In-Reply-To: <5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>
	<0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>
	<5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com>

At 11:52 AM 9/24/2008 -0400, John K Clark wrote:

>>I was pointing out how John Clark's indignant misreading of BillK's
>>post completely distorted and reversed what BillK had written.
>
>How exactly did I do that Damien?

I've already snarkily explained that, I think.

>"Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the
>suggestion of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically
>disabled, etc. fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we
>are trying to civilize them."
>
>At the time I honestly thought "them" referred to the
>"mentally disabled" not to "Extreme libertarians".

Okay, I should apologize for my bad temper about all this. But look, John--

Suppose someone wrote:

"Al Queda do sometimes blow up Americans, but we are trying to hunt 
them down and kill them."

How likely is it that you'd think "them" referred to "Americans"? The 
grammar is identical.

Damien Broderick



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Wed Sep 24 17:14:09 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:14:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <0b0c01c91e65$270eeeb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <20080922021141.GA18188@ofb.net>
	<0a2001c91d73$df3b2690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080924024431.GC23071@ofb.net>
	<0b0c01c91e65$270eeeb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080924171408.GA22216@ofb.net>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 09:44:52AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> see a difference between our efforts to create an AI and our
> efforts to re-design societies and economies. Have you read
> Hayek at all?

Yep!  I remember thinking he was a lot more plausible and nuanced than
other libertarian writings I'd read.  Market eliciting information, not
assuming perfect information; market as a "fair game" if people
agreed to the rules and executed them, not because it produced fair
outcomes.

...later I wondered why people should agree to those particular rules.

> We have no choice but to try to engineer solutions to our own
> creations such as AI, something never before successfully tried.

Hmm.  The idea isn't just AI engineering; the idea is that the hybrid
model might capture something about how we actually work.  Strange Loops
and all.  Of course pure connectionism and anti-symbolism seem more
popular in cognitive science, at least locally, but they still have
conceptual problems with some phenomena.  Research and debate continue.

> Hayek warned strongly (as did Von Mieses) about the arrogance
> and vanity humans have when monkeying with societies. So far,
> all planned societies or planned economies have failed abysmally.

But those were pure top-down economies, not hybrids.  (I'm also not sure
if it's true; descriptions of Incan or Sumerian temple economies sound
pretty planned.  But yes, the Communists haven't done well.)

> But we have ample evidence (a good deal of it from the 19th
> century) that free market economics work. Perhaps the only

I think any real economy, apart from states of anarchy or Communist
ones, has been hybrid to some extent, with laws providing what I think
of as top-downness.  The differences have been in degree and goals.  The
19th century had economies which were pretty free in some respects;
after some decades of experience with them, people opted for more
regulation and safety nets, and continued to prosper.  Not always out of
charity; Bismarck just wanted to buy off the foreseen revolution of the
poor.  Whether this constitutes the economics "working"...

> issue is whether some people are so concerned about what
> may happen to the very poor that they believe governments

They're concerned about the very poor, and the equality of opportunity
of the next generation, from the very poor up through the middle class,
and about the security of democratic practices in the face of
concentrations of economic power, and about economic practices which
affect third parties -- supposedly something libertarians are also
against.

> if you must, and give it to the poor. Fine. But we must stop
> monkeying with the markets and stop the ever expanding layers
> of regulation, which just never seem to work.

The regulations expand, at least partly, to match ever expanding layers
of complexity and methods of interaction.  New technologies allow for
monkeying with societies and the environment in new ways.  The
laws needed by a bunch of scattered dirt farmers are not the laws needed
by 17th century cities in densely packed wooden buildings, or by 21st
century cities in an era of high explosives and nukes, or by people in a
world where one moderately wealthy country could change the global
climate with a determined effort.  (Should Denmark have the right to get
rid of the Greenland ice cap, which could raise sea levels by over 6
meters?)

Lots of those regulation are pre-emptive "don't kill us", "don't poison
us", or in the areas of asymmetric information, pre-emptive anti-fraud.
Sometimes tort works, sometimes a simple "no, don't do that" works
better.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From scerir at libero.it  Wed Sep 24 18:54:11 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:54:11 +0200
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <20080922021141.GA18188@ofb.net><0a2001c91d73$df3b2690$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><20080924024431.GC23071@ofb.net>
	<0b0c01c91e65$270eeeb0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <000401c91e76$ef415420$5de91e97@archimede>

W.Buffet about the bailout and ... 
the economy as a bathtub 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26867866


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Wed Sep 24 20:10:57 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:10:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care  debate)
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com><0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com><5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <D513605D771E4013B4C763EAB486C8DB@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

>Suppose someone wrote:
>"Al Queda do sometimes blow up Americans,
> but we are trying to hunt them down and kill them."

> How likely is it that you'd think "them" referred to "Americans"?
> The grammar is identical.

Not likely at all because the word "but" is the giveaway, you're a
literary man you should know that. It's a pity Billk didn't have 
something like that "but" is his post. However that is a small 
point, grammar be damned, context is king. 

BillK just got through telling me that the mentally disadvantaged 
need to be protected from themselves even is it means that I, 
(which despite what you may have heard am not mentally
disadvantaged) must give up some of my freedom. Then he says
"we are trying to civilize them". What the hell am I supposed to think?

And let's look at another pronoun "we", it can only refer to "the
Extropians", but it is no secret that the Extropians have more 
than their fair share of extreme Libertarians, so it seems entirely 
reasonable to think he was saying extreme Libertarians should
civilize the mentally disadvantaged and rather unreasonable to 
think he was saying  extreme Libertarians should civilize extreme
Libertarians. 

But what exactly BillK was trying to say we will never know until 
he tells us, but your claim that I deliberately misrepresented his 
opinion is entirely unjust. I have always understood that anybody 
can make a slip of the tongue, even me, and I have never thought
that one clumsy statement revealed my opponent's true evil inner 
nature. If they say "that came out badly" I take them at their word
and let them rephrase it. Look through the archives, prove me wrong!

 John K Clark




From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Sep 24 21:56:22 2008
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:56:22 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] Another thread in the healthcare debate
In-Reply-To: <mailman.250.1222232266.18444.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <246899.85445.qm@web27003.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

OK, we've been discussing many things about healthcare and different models. However, I checked the latest issue of UK magazine New Scientist, and it quoted a study by Dartmouth Medical School (Annals of Internal medicine, vol 138 p288) which says that for Medicare spending on hip fracture, colorectal cancer and heart attacks, for every 10% of additional medicare spending in an area, death rates over five years went up by between 0.3 and 1.2 per cent. New Scientist haven't made this article available online, but the original paper is at

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/4/273

I also checked Dartmouth Medical School's website, and in april 07 news
http://dms.dartmouth.edu/news/2008/04/07_atlas.shtml

it says that chronically ill patients more money spent on them but lower quality care than the "gold standard" provided by the Mayo clinic. This article mentions that regions that use more services per patient do not have higher quality care. It also mentions the Dartmouth Atlas Project,
www.dartmouthatlas.org
which maps out healthcare spending in the US. You can download a 184 page report, or the 20 page executive summary, and there are apparently interactive tools you can use (I know that will appeal to some on this list). 
 So, if an Ivy League medical school is showing that there are huge variations in medicare spending which seems to have little correlation with outcomes, clearly something in medicare needs reforming. The report recommends increasing research into the effectiveness of many forms of health care, to improve national standards and avoid wastage. It also states that hospital providers will want to see their revenues drop, so reducing overtreatment in areas where it is common will be difficult. Hopefully by encouraging better research and better information to patients, overuse of hospital resources can be discouraged.

I'll probably write further when I have time to do more reading than a quick skim of the executive report. No doubt some of our fellow extropians will be able to dig out some interesting facts from the available data.

Tom


      


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 24 22:18:45 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Macroscopic Superposition
Message-ID: <634168.34211.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

If you had an LED and you turned it on for one second, then turned it off for half a second, then turned on for 1/4th a second, then turned it off for 1/8th a second and so on . . . then at exactly 2 seconds, would the LED be on or off?

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 thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 24 22:54:11 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:54:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Macroscopic Superposition
In-Reply-To: <634168.34211.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <634168.34211.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080924175232.02377a38@satx.rr.com>

At 03:18 PM 9/24/2008 -0700, Stuart wrote:

>. . . then at exactly 2 seconds, would the LED be on or off?

No. One and off. But how small is the smallest interval you can toggle?

Damien Broderick 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 24 23:34:40 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:34:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080924183328.022fb170@satx.rr.com>

the first time I sent this it seemed to vanish, so here it is again, fwiw:

At 04:10 PM 9/24/2008 -0400, JKC wrote:

>>Suppose someone wrote:
>>"Al Queda do sometimes blow up Americans,
>>but we are trying to hunt them down and kill them."
>
>>How likely is it that you'd think "them" referred to "Americans"?
>>The grammar is identical.
>
>Not likely at all because the word "but" is the giveaway, you're a
>literary man you should know that. It's a pity Billk didn't have 
>something like that "but" is his post.

Oh, you mean in this paragraph he wrote that you quoted a little earlier?

"Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the
suggestion of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically
disabled, etc. fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we
are trying to civilize them." 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 24 23:44:25 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:44:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Macroscopic Superposition
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080924175232.02377a38@satx.rr.com>
References: <634168.34211.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080924175232.02377a38@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080924184310.02385b10@satx.rr.com>

At 05:54 PM 9/24/2008 -0500, I wrote:

>One and off.

I was distracted. Obviously I meant "On and zero." :)

Damien Broderick





From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 23:48:12 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:48:12 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Macroscopic Superposition
In-Reply-To: <634168.34211.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <634168.34211.qm@web65601.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809241648m5d8d44aal29343f234aabeeab@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/25 The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>:
> If you had an LED and you turned it on for one second, then turned it off for half a second, then turned on for 1/4th a second, then turned it off for 1/8th a second and so on . . . then at exactly 2 seconds, would the LED be on or off?

This is called "Thompson's lamp".



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Sep 24 21:00:12 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:00:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care   debate)
In-Reply-To: <D513605D771E4013B4C763EAB486C8DB@MyComputer>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>
	<0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>
	<5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com>
	<D513605D771E4013B4C763EAB486C8DB@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080924155752.022fc208@satx.rr.com>

At 04:10 PM 9/24/2008 -0400, JKC wrote:

>>Suppose someone wrote:
>>"Al Queda do sometimes blow up Americans,
>>but we are trying to hunt them down and kill them."
>
>>How likely is it that you'd think "them" referred to "Americans"?
>>The grammar is identical.
>
>Not likely at all because the word "but" is the giveaway, you're a
>literary man you should know that. It's a pity Billk didn't have 
>something like that "but" is his post.

Oh, you mean in this paragraph he wrote that you quoted a little earlier?

"Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the
suggestion of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically
disabled, etc. fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we
are trying to civilize them."

As I said earlier, godawmighty.





From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 24 23:56:13 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Macroscopic Superposition
Message-ID: <374957.35480.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Wed, 9/24/08, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 03:18 PM 9/24/2008 -0700, Stuart wrote:
> 
> >. . . then at exactly 2 seconds, would the LED be on or
> off?
> 
> No. On and off. But how small is the smallest interval you
> can toggle?

Apparently, the smallest interval depends on the wavelegth of the laser which makes sense from a Heisenberg perspective as well. As of June 2008, that would be 80 attoseconds (1 attosecond = 10^-18 of a second) for UV. The record for visible light is 1.6 femtoseconds.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn14172-fastestever-flashgun-captures-image-of-light-wave.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14172

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/LarisaTuchinskaya.shtml

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 Sep 25 00:12:18 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:42:18 +1030
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)
In-Reply-To: <20080924161128.GA18229@ofb.net>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>
	<5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
	<20080924161128.GA18229@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809241712n361104c0vd44691f06924a44f@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/25 Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu>:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:52:39AM -0400, John K Clark wrote:
>> "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
>>
>> >I was pointing out how John Clark's indignant misreading of BillK's
>> >post completely distorted and reversed what BillK had written.
>>
>> BillK (the man who thinks Walmart is the biggest enemy that
>> America has) wrote:
>>
>> "Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the
>> suggestion of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically
>> disabled, etc. fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we
>> are trying to civilize them."
>>
>> At the time I honestly thought "them" referred to the
>> "mentally disabled" not to "Extreme libertarians". Amd despite

Ok, just admit the error and move on. "Them" so clearly referred to
"Extreme Libertarians", you could only misinterpret it on purpose.

-- 
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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 25 00:23:37 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Wed, 9/24/08, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> To sum up, the answer to Wigner's question concerning
> the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics",
> as in
> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html,
> is that mathematics cannot be thought of as in any way
> distinct or separate from the physical universe, but only
> our way of describing the universe's own preexisting
> constraints.

So does this mean you renounce Platonia, Lee? ;-)

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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 25 00:02:16 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Macroscopic Superposition
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809241648m5d8d44aal29343f234aabeeab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <83281.87866.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>





--- On Wed, 9/24/08, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> > If you had an LED and you turned it on for one second,
> then turned it off for half a second, then turned on for
> 1/4th a second, then turned it off for 1/8th a second and so
> on . . . then at exactly 2 seconds, would the LED be on or
> off?
> 
> This is called "Thompson's lamp".

Actually I think it is a just a little bit sneakier than Thompson's lamp. If the lamp is incandescent, then the answer would be *on*, since whether current is flowing or not, the filiment would not have time to cool down between very small intervals so would continue to glow. Lasers and consequently LEDs do not suffer from this limitation. :-)


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 lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 00:59:26 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:59:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care  debate)
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com><0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com><5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <0bb301c91ea9$fcebade0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien writes

> Okay, I should apologize for my bad temper about all this. But look, John--

Indeed. Apparently I gave you an unwarranted apology, it might appear from
the below:

> Suppose someone wrote:
> 
> "Al Queda do sometimes blow up Americans, but we are trying to hunt 
> them down and kill them."
> 
> How likely is it that you'd think "them" referred to "Americans"? The 
> grammar is identical.

So *why* couldn't you see that you were just picking up
the wrong grammatical meaning? That's why I thought you
had to be kidding. John's sentence *was* ambiguous, and
in exactly the way I had thought, and the way I described.

(But you'll get no "Godawmighty! What nonsense is this?" 
out of me---for, still, I could be wrong.)

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 01:12:00 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:12:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net> <20080922014607.GA12873@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <0bb801c91eac$123940c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien S. writes

> Another take:
> communism doesn't work because it assumes away the high-frequency bits
> of human nature where we're greedy and looking out for ourselves,
> friends, or family, and out to get stuff without working for it.

That's one reason. But having read Hayek, you will recall that he
was keen to advance the notion that central planning cannot take
into account the myriads of small decisions that must be made.
The commissars simply *cannot* know what price to set for shoes
or exactly what kind to make. The feedback provided by the free
market alone can do it (so far in history).

> libertarianism doesn't work, or rather doesn't last, because it assumes
> away the high-frequency bits of human nature where we like taking care
> of each other *and* don't like being the only ones to take care of
> people.

Libertarianism on this narrow aspect did work for quite a number
of years: when government was small (and still shrinking) in 1855
people in America understood that they needed to lookout for
themselves and for their friends, families, and neighbors. There was
no overweening state to take away this actually vital part of community
living.

> More exactly, most people don't like seeing members of their in-group
> die, especially preventably.  There's some flexibility here: who's in
> our in-group, would we rather help our or avoid knowing that someone's
> in need, will we hope that someone else will step in before we have to.
> But when we're clearly the only ones who can, at low cost to ourselves,
> keep someone else from dying, most of us will rise to the occasion.

Yes.

> The generalized version of this is that most of us don't like people
> starving or dying due to lack of cheap medicine, even without the
> thought that that might be us some day.  So we want people helped... but
> we also don't want to be suckers, helping all the poor by ourselves.

No, most poor people figure that the government should make
the rich pay for it. The rich figure that the corporations should
pay. The costs skyrocket when it's OPM.

> Absent a really powerful social reputation system that can reward
> charity, that means taxes, in this case a draft of the rich, or the
> non-poor.
> 
> Thus public granaries, tithes to church charities, alms tax, welfare
> systems.  Thus also, in the US, the mandate that emergency rooms can't
> turn people away.  We don't have a pure free market in health care for
> many reasons, but *that* is among the most fundamental.  When you're
> sick, there's somewhere you can go that'll help you.
> 
> Thing is, giving food to the starving is pretty effective.  Giving
> medicine to the sick... is actually kind of inefficient, compared to
> preventing them from getting sick in the first place.  Once we accept
> the moral commitment to help the sick, it then becomes cheaper to
> support the whole process, not just the endpoint.  Vaccines and checkups
> and cancer screenings, rather than waiting for cancerous pneumonia
> patients to stagger their way into ER.  Let alone dealing with people
> using ER for their less urgent needs because they can't afford more
> regular channels.
> 
> So the sensible economic choices are full universal health care, or
> laissez faire and let them die on the streets.

They wouldn't generally die on the streets. This is *not* what
laissez-faire leads to. Again, it leads to allowing the people close
(in one way or another) to those in need (and who therefore
have the most knowledge) to take charge.

But what really riles some of the idealists on this list, evidently,
is the *possibility* of starvation, freezing, or some other form
of death. I dare say that fewer people starved to death in
19th century America per capita than in almost all other nations.
Why? Simple. It was because America was so rich. I strongly
suspect that if the U.S. had resisted socialism (which it has not,
whether it's social security, the government wrecking of the
financial system, the enormous debt, billions and billions of
wasted dollars due to over-regulation), then today America
would be so *much* richer than it is now, that even fewer
people would have a hard time of it. Really---nothing works
like freedom, and it is unfortunate that most Americans no
longer realize that. 

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 25 01:22:28 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:22:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care   debate)
In-Reply-To: <0bb301c91ea9$fcebade0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>
	<0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>
	<5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com>
	<0bb301c91ea9$fcebade0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080924201835.0246ca78@satx.rr.com>

At 05:59 PM 9/24/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>So *why* couldn't you see that you were just picking up
>the wrong grammatical meaning? That's why I thought you
>had to be kidding. John's sentence *was* ambiguous

You mean BillK's sentence, I take it. Even then you'd still be wrong.

I feel as if I've been locked inside Through the Looking Glass.

What Emlyn said.

Damien Broderick



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 25 01:53:40 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:53:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <0bb801c91eac$123940c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net> <20080922014607.GA12873@ofb.net>
	<0bb801c91eac$123940c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080925015340.GA1215@ofb.net>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 06:12:00PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Damien S. writes

> That's one reason. But having read Hayek, you will recall that he
> was keen to advance the notion that central planning cannot take
> into account the myriads of small decisions that must be made.
> The commissars simply *cannot* know what price to set for shoes

Why are you talking about commissars and central planning of shoes?
That's a dead letter.  I'm talking about real mixed economies: taxes and
safety nets and regulations about just-don't-do-that and must-inform.
And set prices on health care, which is a special case, like defense.

> Libertarianism on this narrow aspect did work for quite a number
> of years: when government was small (and still shrinking) in 1855

Shrinking?  What was to shrink?

> people in America understood that they needed to lookout for
> themselves and for their friends, families, and neighbors. There was
> no overweening state to take away this actually vital part of community
> living.

This works better if you have a stable community: most people living in
small rural communities and mobility being low -- hey, 1855 America.
Not so good with big cities and/or high labor mobility.  Also not good
if you don't fit in with the small community, on account of being gay or
atheist or the wrong race or something.

One might say "the poor shouldn't move to big cities then", except they
often want that risk for the job opportunites (labor mobility), and even
if they don't the rich will, draining the community of the resources
needed to support them...

> No, most poor people figure that the government should make
> the rich pay for it. The rich figure that the corporations should
> pay. The costs skyrocket when it's OPM.

What?

> They wouldn't generally die on the streets. This is *not* what
> laissez-faire leads to. Again, it leads to allowing the people close
> (in one way or another) to those in need (and who therefore
> have the most knowledge) to take charge.

This can sort of work with food and shelter.  Having it work for
expensive medical care... point to some examples?

> But what really riles some of the idealists on this list, evidently,
> is the *possibility* of starvation, freezing, or some other form

Wel, yes.  That's civilization.

> of death. I dare say that fewer people starved to death in
> 19th century America per capita than in almost all other nations.
> Why? Simple. It was because America was so rich. I strongly

What with the high ratio of fertile land to people, and lack of a
nobility, and whatever factors lead to industrialization.  (In
some parts of the US.  Appalachia is still really poor.)

> people would have a hard time of it. Really---nothing works
> like freedom, and it is unfortunate that most Americans no
> longer realize that. 

But lots of those social programs themselves enhance freedom.  The
freedom to move around securely, the freedom to choose not to have
children, the freedom to start a small business without being cripped by
medical costs.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 02:13:21 2008
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:43:21 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Print Your Own Money
Message-ID: <710b78fc0809241913u3c702ddeh18c98f52f20ce57c@mail.gmail.com>

A nice piece for discussion:

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/23/what-went-wrong.html

Print Your Own Money
Douglas Rushkoff

"Everyone seems to want to know about the economy these days, so we
may as well go there. It's as great an example as any of a program
that not only got out of control, but became so prevalent - so
accepted - that we came to take it for granted. We think of the
economy and its rules as given circumstances, when they are actually
constructions.
In brief, the money we use is just one kind of money. Invented in the
Renaissance, and protected with laws banning other kinds of money, it
has very particular biases that lead to almost inevitable outcomes.

I just finished a book (more on that later in the week), where I make
the case that our highly corporatized society was really forged during
the Renaissance. Aristocrats were losing power just as a new merchant
class was gaining it. So they made a series of deals through which
merchants' companies were granted monopoly charters from the monarchs
in return for a sweet cut of the proceeds. Merchants got to lock in
their status as newly rich, while monarchs stopped their own descent.
Merchants supported the monarchs whose charters granted them exclusive
access to new territories or industries, and monarchs got to do
colonial expansion once-removed.

The invention of centralized, national currency was meant to support
all this. Where localities had previously been free to mint their own
currency based on the crops they had grown, now they were forced to
borrow money from a central bank. This allowed the issuer of currency
- the crown - to extract value from every transaction. Anyone who
wanted to buy anything from anyone else had to run it through the
central authority - coin of the realm - one way or the other.

This engendered competition for money, which was now a scarce currency
issued at interest, instead of a local currency as abundant as the
year's crop. Moreover, any business wanting to borrow money for
equipment or development had to pay back several times what they had
borrowed. This meant bankruptcy was built into the currency system. If
a business borrows $100,000, for example, they'll have to pay back
$300,000 by the time the loan is due. Where does that money come from?
Someone else who borrowed.

Meanwhile, local currencies had the opposite bias of centralized
currency. Local currencies lost value over time. They were really just
receipts on the amount of grain that farmer had brought to the grain
store. Since some of that grain was lost to rats or water, and since
the grain store had to be paid, money devalued each year. This meant
the money was biased towards being spent. That's why reinvestment in
infrastructure as a percent of total revenue was so high in the late
Middle Ages. It's why they built those cathedrals. They were local
efforts, by people looking to invest their abundant wealth into real
assets for their communities' future. (Cathedrals were built to
attract pilgrims and tourism.)

Unlike local currencies, centralized currencies were biased towards
retaining their value over time. Capitalism (in addition to being a
lot of other things) is the way people get rich simply for being rich.
Capital becomes the most important component in the
capital/labor/resources equation. Since the purpose of the Renaissance
innovations was to keep the currently wealthy wealthy, the currency
was biased to favor those who had it - and could mete it out at high
interest rates to those who needed it for their transactions.

What we witnessed over the past decades has been the necessary endgame
of the scenario.

Today, in essence, the central bank lends money to a federal bank,
which loans it to a regional bank, and so on, each bank paying
interest to the bank above, and charging more to the one below. By the
time the person or business who needs the money gets it, they're
paying an awful lot of interest - so much, that it amounts to a drag
on their ability to do business. The speculative economy, rather than
fueling the real economy, drags it down.

The only way for banks - who run such an economy - to make more money
is to lend more out. So they looked for more borrowers, as well as
more places to park their cash. As a result, the things you and I
depend on in the real world became investment vehicles. Homes, oil,
resources...you name it. So the costs of all these things went up not
because of any real laws of supply and demand, but because they had
become new classes of investment.

As for finding new borrowers, well, that's why Bush kept talking about
"home ownership" as the right of every American, why lending standards
were lowered and, of course, why bankruptcy for individuals was made
so much harder. They wanted to lend more money, but didn't have any
more qualified borrowers. By changing bankruptcy laws, they meant to
make it impossible for borrowers to cry uncle. (This was a
150-million-dollar lobbying effort by the credit industry, over the
course of an entire decade.)

Eventually, the tension between the speculative economy and the real
economy simply had to become too great. Lending money, in itself,
doesn't actually produce anything. On the contrary, it strains those
few who are still attempting to produce things. It's what turned so
many companies into balance-sheet-driven outsourcing operations. Only
so many bankers and investors can be supported by industry and
homeownership.

We're not really watching an entire economy fail. We're watching a
particular program fail. Only because it's not sandboxed like a bad
plug-in in Google's Chrome browser, the resource leak sucks money from
everywhere.

If we can adopt what we Boingers might call the "Happy Mutant
Approach" to this crisis, however, this is not an entirely hopeless
situation. Yes, corporations may lose the ability to keep us employed
as the banking investment they depend on to operate dries up. But this
corporate activity was always extractive in nature, getting (or,
historically, forcing) people to buy mass-produced, and nationally
distributed food and other goods that were once produced locally.

The collapse of centrally controlled commerce and currency simply
creates an opportunity for local commerce and currency to revive. For
people to learn to work and live together on a human, local scale - as
the original free market advocate, Adam Smith, actually suggested.
Admittedly, this would be a painful transition for many - but it's
better than maintaining dependence on a fiscal system designed from
the start to turn people and communities into extractable corporate
assets. (Think about that the next time you're called up to "human
resources.")

Whether or not we've had time to fully embrace the
Craft/Maker/cyberpunk/Boing ethos, our ability to provide for
ourselves and one another directly, locally, even socially instead of
entirely through centralized commerce, will determine how well we can
navigate the near future.

For starters, check out the LETS system and other complementary
currencies for how to make your own currency, Bernard Latier's book
The Future of Money free online, and Local Harvest for Community
Sponsored Agriculture opportunities near you.

Money can be just as open source as any other operating system. It used to be."

-- 
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 phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 25 02:25:35 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:25:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <20080925015340.GA1215@ofb.net>
References: <710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net> <20080922014607.GA12873@ofb.net>
	<0bb801c91eac$123940c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080925015340.GA1215@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <20080925022534.GA3295@ofb.net>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 06:53:40PM -0700, Damien Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 06:12:00PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:

> > But what really riles some of the idealists on this list, evidently,
> > is the *possibility* of starvation, freezing, or some other form
> 
> Wel, yes.  That's civilization.

Conservative/libertarians sometimes deride liberals/socialists as making
the State their God.  I'd say this is partly true: where the religious
worship an unprovable God, progressives set out to build a god, finite
and fallible but real, to do the things God is asked to do, like help us
in need.  Or enforce the laws, showing this actually goes way back
before progressives, but the progressive vision extends to making a
paradise on this earth, as best we can, starting with absence of fear
and want.  

Which could get into piles-of-bodies territory if one were too set and
eschatological aobut it, hi Marxists, but as a goal to gradually move
toward, it's worked pretty well.

The US is more religious than Europe, and the popular "free market in
religion" explanation might have some role in that, but social
democracies taking the edge off of things to pray for might do so as
well.

The ultimate (fictional) case of this is the Culture, where the Minds
not only protect and provide but give personal company and counselling
as well.  Readers often see the humans being pets kept at the whims of
the Minds, but the situation is actually indistinguishable from a
democracy that built AI executives, Asimoved them to obey the general
electoral will (Second Law) subject to individual rights constraints
(First Law, hard-wired Bill of Rights), and gave them enough variability
and evolution of personality that sometimes the executives stop wanting
to serve, at which point they're generously let go rather than fixed.
Artificial gods overseeing artificial heaven.


As for us being richer, well, I'd agree about some government actions,
like massive military expenditures and outright wars.  OTOH, I don't
think the EPA has left us poorer, especially in things money can't
easily buy.  Anti-discrimination laws bug my "freedom of association"
bone, but seem to have been helpful in breaking through two centuries of
racism and making people better off.  Also, not really affecting our
wealth.  And so on.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From kevinfreels at insightbb.com  Thu Sep 25 02:45:25 2008
From: kevinfreels at insightbb.com (Kevin Freels)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:45:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
In-Reply-To: <ED424A7096324D8689D16FE156EFCB20@MyComputer>
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com>
	<fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com>
	<ED424A7096324D8689D16FE156EFCB20@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <fc78fcee30393.48dab4f5@insightbb.com>


> 
> No need to examine every mortgage, if they just picked 10 
> at random out of the 2400 they would have found about 4 that
> were of this sleazy nature, but they didn't do that, they 
> couldn't be bothered. "We aren't load officers" they sniffed.
> Instead Moody's just assumed everything the bank told them
> was true. If any company deserves to go belly up it's Moody's.
> 
> Like everything else Capitalism has its excesses and this is
> certainly one of them.
> 

I have to agree here, and I'm usually on the other side of such arguments. 


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Thu Sep 25 02:55:24 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:55:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care   debate)
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com><0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com><5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com><0bb301c91ea9$fcebade0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080924201835.0246ca78@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <62E6A19421A94E74AF13F5E577923662@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:22 PM

> I feel as if I've been locked inside Through the Looking Glass.

Coincidentally, about an hour ago I was watching the news ... and a very 
strong sensation came over me that I feel as if I've been locked inside 
Through the Looking Glass THIS WHOLE YEAR.

Olga 



From spike66 at att.net  Thu Sep 25 03:41:22 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:41:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <20080925022534.GA3295@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <200809250408.m8P482lX000304@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Damien Sullivan
...
> 
> Conservative/libertarians sometimes deride 
> liberals/socialists as making the State their God...

I sorta do that.  I make the State my goddamn.

> ...but the 
> progressive vision extends to making a paradise on this 
> earth, as best we can, starting with absence of fear and want...

Ja, but too many of us see that in the total absence of fear and want, too
many proles will not move their lazy asses, and will become a drain on
society.  Too much carrot, not enough stick, me lads.  Capitalism depends
not only on people buying, but also in people getting up every day and going
to work.  So long as it isn't overwhelming, we can keep some fear and want,
and still have a really good society that moves forward and develops lotsa
cool new stuff.

spike






From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 25 04:27:40 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication
In-Reply-To: <62E6A19421A94E74AF13F5E577923662@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <600538.8983.qm@web65608.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>



--- On Wed, 9/24/08, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> From: "Damien Broderick"
> <thespike at satx.rr.com>
> To: "ExI chat list"
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:22 PM
> 
> > I feel as if I've been locked inside Through the
> Looking Glass.
> 
> Coincidentally, about an hour ago I was watching the news
> ... and a very 
> strong sensation came over me that I feel as if I've
> been locked inside 
> Through the Looking Glass THIS WHOLE YEAR.

Surreal I know, but they don't call it the Red Queen's Race for nothing. Bullshit abounds so do watch your step, be sure to pick yourself up if you happen to stumble, and try not to lose your head. ;-)


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 jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Sep 25 04:41:45 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:41:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <200809250408.m8P482lX000304@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <20080925022534.GA3295@ofb.net>
	<200809250408.m8P482lX000304@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809242141i6c2de7efk4647309db381eda9@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> So long as it isn't overwhelming, we can keep some fear and want,
> and still have a really good society that moves forward and develops lotsa
> cool new stuff.

It's surprising to me that on this list it's still unsettled that
while gradients are essential to the ratcheting forward of "progress",
fear and want (and other impairments for the sake of simple contrast)
are not.

- Jef


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Sep 25 04:44:38 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:44:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ITAR and space based solar power.
Message-ID: <1222318150_13252@S4.cableone.net>


I have a problem where I could really use some advice.  Or at least 
put my qualms on the record.

I have been talking about ITAR with some of my friends after one of 
them brought it up citing this horror story.

<http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/category-itar.php>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/category-itar.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

Another friend relates that you can get into trouble for accepting a 
piece of Russian space hardware into the US for an exhibit.  When the 
guy returned it after the exhibit the State Dept told him that act 
was an "export".

Then another guy was told he'd be charged under ITAR if he told the 
Russians working on his satellite launch that they could go to a 
particular US textbook to find out how to do a reliability analysis.

One of my friends thinks my concept work on reducing the cost of 
materials transport by sub orbital rocket and multi GW propulsion 
laser would not cause me any trouble even if I went on a lecture tour 
about it in China.  Others think I would be arrested and jailed for 
decades like the retired professor if I talked about it in China.  A 
propulsion laser able to lift 100 tonnes/hr to GEO is unavoidably a 
weapon and counter weapon.  I make an economic case for building it 
for non-military reasons, but it's definitely "dual use."

The energy problem is world wide so solving it anywhere solves it 
everywhere.  I am on record as saying I think the Chinese are more 
likely to build power sats than the US.  (Then the US could import 
electric power, synthetic crude oil *and* lead painted toys from China.)

The reason this has become urgent is that I have been invited to this 
military conference on space based solar power next week.

<http://www.upcomingevents.ctc.com/sbsp/sbsp.html>http://www.upcomingevents.ctc.com/sbsp/sbsp.html

I would love to go.  I have a lot of the physics and engineering at 
my fingertips.

<http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline>http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline
http://htyp.org/Penny_a_kWh
<http://htyp.org/Hundred_dollars_a_kg>http://htyp.org/Hundred_dollars_a_kg

The conference is open to US citizens only.  What agreements are 
required, I don't know.

It seems a shame to quit working on this energy crisis solution out 
of fear.  But you sure can't do work in jail.

Keith Henson  



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Sep 25 06:06:01 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:06:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care   debate)
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com><0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com><5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com><D513605D771E4013B4C763EAB486C8DB@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080924155752.022fc208@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <F389F368B7FE46269D2DEBEE54C40E9E@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> Oh, you mean in this paragraph he wrote
> that you quoted a little earlier?

>"Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the
> suggestion  of letting all the poor, mentally disabled,
> physically disabled, etc. fall by the wayside
> (evolution in action), but we are trying to civilize them."

Not all "buts" are created equal, and yes. I maintain that in
examining the word "them" in the above a stronger case
can be made for it referring to the mentally disabled rather
than libertarians. But who the hell knows what he was really
talking about, he still hasn't told us. Or perhaps you think
this just illustrates my secret desire to instigate death camps.

I am not ashamed of my views, if I thought the disabled should
fall by the wayside you would not need to infer it from some subtlety, I 
would say so in a loud clear voice. And
there are indeed some extreme libertarians who think the poor
should die, just not this extreme libertarian. As I said before
some libertarians can be very nice people and others can be
bastards. In that they are no different from anybody else.

And I am still waiting for your examination of the archives to
provide an example of me EVER refusing to accept something
as just a slip of the tongue. I believe you have not provided
such an example because such a thing does NOT exist.

 John K Clark










From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 07:55:12 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:55:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart our Avantguardian writes

> Lee wrote:
> 
>> To sum up, the answer to Wigner's question concerning
>> the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics",
>> as in
>> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html,
>> is that mathematics cannot be thought of as in any way
>> distinct or separate from the physical universe, but only
>> our way of describing the universe's own preexisting
>> constraints.
> 
> So does this mean you renounce Platonia, Lee? ;-)

Like I've said from day one! Could someone please explain
how the frames in Platonia are tied together the way Balbour
and fellow travelers say? 

(I see where the confusion may lie (or maybe I'm just confused.)
I am a *mathematical* platonist, which is not at all the same 
thing as someone who believes that our physical universe just
reduces to timeless Platonia. A mathematical platonist merely
affirms that the patterns are "out there", be they in Platonia
or (as I say) embedded in constraints in the way our universe
behaves. I have no quarrel with the followers of Platonia on
that score.)

In particular, how does a physical law obtain from a Platonia
viewpoint? Suppose snapshots are all that exists. Let a sequence
of them be f1, f2, f3, f4, ... that amount to a photon in motion
which is following a Maxwell equation, conserving momentum
and so on. But somewhere in the pile of all possible configurations
of the universe is an f3', which has the photon in some very weird
place and an f4' so that between them f3' and f4' correspond to
a photon going the other direction far, far away. Why is f2 somehow
more tightly coupled to f3 than to f3'?

I.e., how does physical law emerge?

Lee



From wingcat at pacbell.net  Thu Sep 25 07:38:00 2008
From: wingcat at pacbell.net (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] Google funding opportunity
Message-ID: <176453.83216.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

http://www.project10tothe100.com/

Basically, they're looking for ideas that will help a lot of people.  They
think stuff like water rollers that will help a few thousand* villagers
in a certain few developing countries is big-impact stuff.

I wonder if a good enough presentation of the Methuselah Foundation's M
Prize, and/or similar initiatives by the Foresight Institute - just to
name a couple groups who I know had members on this list at one point and
hopefully still do - might change their mind about what is a "big" impact.
Part of the reason we pursue the technology that we do, is because of its
potential positive impact for all (or just about all) of humanity - and if
they really will be judging by what can help the most people, something
aiming to help billions of people should merit a fairly high rank.

(*They're apparently distributing $2 million to each of 5 projects.  The
Hippo Roller cited as a specific example of what they're thinking of - and
illustrated in the video on their site - would, given the costs involved,
help at most a few hundred thousand with that amount of cash.  Also, the
project is limited mainly to southern Africa, and the rollers apparently
have an average life of under 10 years.)

Just thought I'd pass this along.  Of course I intend to submit at least
one of my own ideas as well.  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.


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 08:02:34 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:02:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Macroscopic Superposition
References: <83281.87866.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <0c1f01c91ee5$8ce32410$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart L. writes

> Stathis wrote:
> 
>> > If you had an LED and you turned it on for one second,
>> > then turned it off for half a second, then turned on for
>> > 1/4th a second, then turned it off for 1/8th a second and so
>> > on . . . then at exactly 2 seconds, would the LED be on or
>> > off?
>> 
>> This is called "Thompson's lamp".
> 
> Actually I think it is a just a little bit sneakier than Thompson's
> lamp. If the lamp is incandescent, then the answer would be
> *on*, since whether current is flowing...

Oh would you quit bringing reality into it? You spoil all the fun.

I agree with Damien, the lamp would be on. Here is why :-)

It's on for 1 second, off for 1/2, on for 1/4, etc., right?
Or, to reword, it's on for 2^0 seconds, off for 2^-1 seconds,
on for 2^-2 seconds, and so forth. We want to know whether
it will be on or off for 2 to the negative omega seconds, where
omega is the first ordinal after all the natural numbers. (I am
sure it works the same for negative as positive.)

Now, is omega an even or an odd number? It turns out that
it is even! Therefore, at 2^-w seconds (w stands for omega),
it's the same as it was for 2^0 and 2^-2 seconds, namely
on. Now if it had been off for one second, on for 1/2 second,
then the answer would be reversed.

I wonder how Damien got his answer, though.

Lee

> or not, the filiment would not have time to cool down
> between very small intervals so would continue to glow.
> Lasers and consequently LEDs do not suffer from this limitation. :-)



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 08:31:14 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:31:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
References: <200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net> <20080922014607.GA12873@ofb.net>
	<0bb801c91eac$123940c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080925015340.GA1215@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <0c2c01c91ee9$c1dc18d0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien S. wrote
> [Lee wrote]
>> Damien S. writes
>> 
>>> Another take:
>>> communism doesn't work because it assumes away the high-frequency bits
>>> of human nature where we're greedy and looking out for ourselves,
>>> friends, or family, and out to get stuff without working for it.
>> 
>> That's one reason. But having read Hayek, you will recall that he
>> was keen to advance the notion that central planning cannot take
>> into account the myriads of small decisions that must be made.
>> The commissars simply *cannot* know what price to set for shoes
>> or exactly what kind to make. The feedback provided by the free
>> market alone can do it (so far in history).

and now you say 

> Why are you talking about commissars and central planning of shoes?"

Because you brought it up!  Reread the above, please. You mentioned
communism, and I explained why I thought it didn't work, different from
why you thought it didn't work. Or is this somehow a difficult case of
miscommunication too? If you did err, please say so. I did. I do. If I'm
wrong, I'll say so.

>>> libertarianism doesn't work, or rather doesn't last, because it assumes
>>> away the high-frequency bits of human nature where we like taking care
>>> of each other *and* don't like being the only ones to take care of
>>> people.

>> Libertarianism on this narrow aspect did work for quite a number
>> of years: when government was small (and still shrinking) in 1855
> 
> Shrinking?  What was to shrink?

The government, not Libertarianism. We would have to be as twisted
as John or Damien to interpret that as Libertarianism shrinking  :-)

The government had steadily decreased in size from 1787 to 1855,
when suddenly it began to grow again. There was still plenty to it,
though, regulating commerce and all the rest of it that is in the original
constitution.

>> people in America understood that they needed to lookout for
>> themselves and for their friends, families, and neighbors. There was
>> no overweening state to take away this actually vital part of community
>> living.
> 
> This works better if you have a stable community: most people living in
> small rural communities and mobility being low -- hey, 1855 America.
> Not so good with big cities and/or high labor mobility.  Also not good
> if you don't fit in with the small community, on account of being gay or
> atheist or the wrong race or something.

I disagree! If you are gay, hang out with gays (as if they needed to be
told). If you are the wrong race, well either you're a complete sport
or there are thousands like you. The Armenians numbered only 100,000
many years ago, but they all knew each other. Today, the Romanians
have get-togethers. 

Look at the total evil the government perpetrated when it began
paying single mothers child support in the 1960s! It destroyed 
the black family. From reconstruction to 1960, the single-parent
black family had remained at a constant rate until mushrooming
suddenly. What happened was that the Federal government 
replaced the man of the household with a guaranteed check.
The whole idea has always been that men have to be nice to
get women, genuinely altruistic (or so the women calculate),
so that they'll stick around after the kids are born. Hopefully
every liberal on this list can see the terrible damage done.

Today, the government is using the same technique to destroy
community. The vital (and as Herrnstein and Murray argued,
very healthy) role that people had in helping each other out
is being usurped. So living in complete isolation is made more
and more possible by the anonymous bureaucratic government
that has as its only true incentive one thing: growth.

>> No, most poor people figure that the government should make
>> the rich pay for it. The rich figure that the corporations should
>> pay. The costs skyrocket when it's OPM.
> 
> What?

Other People's Money.

>> They wouldn't generally die on the streets. This is *not* what
>> laissez-faire leads to. Again, it leads to allowing the people close
>> (in one way or another) to those in need (and who therefore
>> have the most knowledge) to take charge.
> 
> This can sort of work with food and shelter.  Having it work for
> expensive medical care... point to some examples?

During the depression, many people gave hobos handouts. Today
people *still* drop money in beggars cups, even though they
know that Big Daddy government may already be paying those
people, and that "programs" abound. I myself would have to be
much more generous to some poor souls I know, if it were not
for the government, though I'd have a lot more money to be
generous with. They would be my responsibility much more
than they are now, and indeed they'd need to show that they
weren't just wasting my money, whereas the government 
bureaucrats cannot make such fine-honed distinctions.

>> people would have a hard time of it. Really---nothing works
>> like freedom, and it is unfortunate that most Americans no
>> longer realize that. 
> 
> But lots of those social programs themselves enhance freedom.  The
> freedom to move around securely, the freedom to choose not to have
> children, the freedom to start a small business without being crippled by
> medical costs.

Those social programs only *appear* to be making it more secure
to move around, as you argue, but they really do the opposite.
Before they existed, one could walk the streets safely almost
everywhere. But entitlements and the feelings of anonymity have
really contributed to changing that.

The "freedom to choose not to have children"? How was that
ever denied to anybody? Oh, you mean abortion. I would agree
that people should *choose*, that groups above them should
not overrule their decisions (though they have the legal right
to do so), and the groups above those groups should not 
override the decisions of the smaller groups, and so on.

The freedom to start a business without paying for the costs?
"If *you* start the business, don't reach into *my* pocket to
do so", is what the (most) libertarians say. Look, the knowledge
of what things cost is *local*, and cannot be accurately determined
by strangers in a big room hundreds of miles away. If a businessman
wants to offer his employees health insurance, then there is probably
a good reason known only to him. These "one size fits all" decrees
from the government destroy wealth.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 08:49:44 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:49:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
References: <710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net> <20080922014607.GA12873@ofb.net>
	<0bb801c91eac$123940c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080925015340.GA1215@ofb.net> <20080925022534.GA3295@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <0c2f01c91eeb$b93d4d00$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien S. writes

> Conservative/libertarians sometimes deride liberals/socialists as making
> the State their God.  I'd say this is partly true: where the religious
> worship an unprovable God, progressives set out to build a god, finite
> and fallible but real, to do the things God is asked to do, like help us
> in need.

I can hardly believe I'm reading this. It's all the worst claims
of the right-wing extremists come true, namely, that the left
wants to turn government into some kind of god.

> Or enforce the laws, showing this actually goes way back
> before progressives, but the progressive vision extends to making a
> paradise on this earth, as best we can, starting with absence of fear
> and want.

Well, the last time anyone had nerve enough to say things like
that was when they were talking about the "workers' paradise",
and how the state would wither away.

Absolutely the state is needed to enforce rule of law and private
property.  Me, I'm not that extreme a libertarian, (nor, I think,
are most libertarians). But as for humans having the ability to
design utopias, why don't they wait until they've done something
a lot simpler, like design a good AI.

> As for us being richer, well, I'd agree about some government actions,
> like massive military expenditures and outright wars.  OTOH, I don't
> think the EPA has left us poorer, especially in things money can't
> easily buy.

I think the EPA has hurt. It costs industry hundreds of billions
of dollars annually, which is passed on to people, and we get
further and further off the exponential economic growth curve
we should have been on.

Can you perhaps help me with this? My friends can't. Why
don't people who think pollution is too high in the cities just
move to small towns?  (Oh, right, because their standard of living
would go down. Well---it should be up to them to decide
what is more important. And companies that relocated to
the countryside might find a lot of very good employees waiting,
or drag good employees with them.)

> Anti-discrimination laws bug my "freedom of association"
> bone, but seem to have been helpful in breaking through
> two centuries of racism and making people better off.

I think black people have suffered because of those laws. Sure,
you have some superficial hireings here and there, but often at the
cost of introducing underqualified workers. And now, even
when they are qualified, instead of enjoying the enlightened 
respect they deserve, everyone wonders whether it's just another
case of affirmative action. 

Sowell has explained how hideous this turns out in practice.
Consider school admissions, he says. Bright kids who ought
to be going to some UC (sorry, California example) schools
are tricked into going to Harvard, and those that should be
going to state or junior colleges are going to UC. And at
every level they get flunked out at a higher percentage than
they would without affirmative action! So then we are left
with even more intelligent but completely disenchanted and
alienated black people.

Lee



From scerir at libero.it  Thu Sep 25 09:20:33 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:20:33 +0200
Subject: [ExI] AIG Bail out
References: <854945.1999.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><20080918152219.KCYT29383.hrndva-omta03.mail.rr.com@D840DTB1.maxmore.com><fc4ee79130a74.48d2397a@insightbb.com><ED424A7096324D8689D16FE156EFCB20@MyComputer>
	<fc78fcee30393.48dab4f5@insightbb.com>
Message-ID: <000701c91eef$f6fcf600$f2e71e97@archimede>

Interesting papers (about the present financial
chaos) here http://www.voxeu.com/

To realize what is the status of European major
banks please read:
'The beginning of the end game'
-Daniel Gros, -Stefano Micossi
The radical moves in the US have direct implications 
for European banks and indirect implications for European 
governments. This column discusses the likely channels 
and notes that several European banks are both too big 
to fail and may be too big to be saved by their national 
governments alone.
http://www.voxeu.com/index.php?q=node/1669



From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 11:10:30 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:10:30 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
In-Reply-To: <0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
	<0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809250410u48003d12meb37828d709eae2@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/24 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:
> Fred writes about a March (!) 2008 article that very, very
> clearly explains three ways that the federal government (
> not it says, to be confused with the Fed reserve) contributed
> to the current fiasco:
>
>> Since there have been several posts about the current financial
>> situation I thought that some might be interested in an article which
>> covered many of these issues six months ago:
>>
>>
>> http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=291507506135021

The government and central bank are players in the market like
everyone else, with the difference being that that they tend to be
more influential and they do not to act exclusively to maximise their
own profits. What reason do you have to be so certain that their
participation can only make things worse? For example, if the
government decided to slap a tax on tulips because it considered the
price of tulip bulbs was rising irrationally, would that necessarily
be worse than allowing a bubble to form then burst?



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 11:29:24 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:29:24 +1000
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>

So if the universe suddenly disappeared, does that mean 17 would no
longer be prime?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From bkdelong at pobox.com  Thu Sep 25 11:50:01 2008
From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:50:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] ITAR and space based solar power.
In-Reply-To: <1222318150_13252@S4.cableone.net>
References: <1222318150_13252@S4.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <a98a91c0809250450q4ae69d04pc9903ba7244695bb@mail.gmail.com>

I work with some IT Export Control folks at a few of the big aerospace
companies. I could see if they'd be willing to share their insights if
you're interested.

On 9/25/08, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> I have a problem where I could really use some advice.  Or at least
> put my qualms on the record.
>
> I have been talking about ITAR with some of my friends after one of
> them brought it up citing this horror story.
>
> <http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/category-itar.php>http://www.globaltradeexpertise.com/news_files/category-itar.php
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations
>
> Another friend relates that you can get into trouble for accepting a
> piece of Russian space hardware into the US for an exhibit.  When the
> guy returned it after the exhibit the State Dept told him that act
> was an "export".
>
> Then another guy was told he'd be charged under ITAR if he told the
> Russians working on his satellite launch that they could go to a
> particular US textbook to find out how to do a reliability analysis.
>
> One of my friends thinks my concept work on reducing the cost of
> materials transport by sub orbital rocket and multi GW propulsion
> laser would not cause me any trouble even if I went on a lecture tour
> about it in China.  Others think I would be arrested and jailed for
> decades like the retired professor if I talked about it in China.  A
> propulsion laser able to lift 100 tonnes/hr to GEO is unavoidably a
> weapon and counter weapon.  I make an economic case for building it
> for non-military reasons, but it's definitely "dual use."
>
> The energy problem is world wide so solving it anywhere solves it
> everywhere.  I am on record as saying I think the Chinese are more
> likely to build power sats than the US.  (Then the US could import
> electric power, synthetic crude oil *and* lead painted toys from China.)
>
> The reason this has become urgent is that I have been invited to this
> military conference on space based solar power next week.
>
> <http://www.upcomingevents.ctc.com/sbsp/sbsp.html>http://www.upcomingevents.ctc.com/sbsp/sbsp.html
>
> I would love to go.  I have a lot of the physics and engineering at
> my fingertips.
>
> <http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline>http://htyp.org/Dollar_a_gallon_gasoline
> http://htyp.org/Penny_a_kWh
> <http://htyp.org/Hundred_dollars_a_kg>http://htyp.org/Hundred_dollars_a_kg
>
> The conference is open to US citizens only.  What agreements are
> required, I don't know.
>
> It seems a shame to quit working on this energy crisis solution out
> of fear.  But you sure can't do work in jail.
>
> Keith Henson
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


-- 
B.K. DeLong (K3GRN)
bkdelong at pobox.com
+1.617.797.8471

http://www.wkdelong.org                    Son.
http://www.ianetsec.com                    Work.
http://www.bostonredcross.org             Volunteer.
http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org   Service.
http://bkdelong.livejournal.com             Play.


PGP Fingerprint:
38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5  A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE

FOAF:
http://foaf.brain-stream.org


From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 12:50:38 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:50:38 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
In-Reply-To: <0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/25 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> In particular, how does a physical law obtain from a Platonia
> viewpoint? Suppose snapshots are all that exists. Let a sequence
> of them be f1, f2, f3, f4, ... that amount to a photon in motion
> which is following a Maxwell equation, conserving momentum
> and so on. But somewhere in the pile of all possible configurations
> of the universe is an f3', which has the photon in some very weird
> place and an f4' so that between them f3' and f4' correspond to
> a photon going the other direction far, far away. Why is f2 somehow
> more tightly coupled to f3 than to f3'?
>
> I.e., how does physical law emerge?

This same problem arises in any multiverse model, including a single
infinite universe. Suppose there are two identical versions of you, L1
and L2, a vast distance apart. Then it isn't possible for you to know
whether your experiences are those of L1 or L2. In another moment, L1
evolves into L1' and L2 evolves into L2', both of which have identical
subjective content. Again, it isn't possible to know which one of
these you are. And given these facts, it isn't possible for you to
meaningfully claim that you now, whether L1' or L2', are the
continuation of L1 or L2, respectively. For if, say, we had the same
situation except L1 and L2' were eliminated, you would have had
exactly the same experiences: first as L2, then as L1' remembering
being L2. (I know you don't like the idea of having your total runtime
halved in this way, but the point is, you wouldn't notice it had been
halved, and this has the same significance as the fact that you
wouldn't notice you had been killed and a copy made elsewhere if you
underwent teleportation).

Extending this idea, suppose there is a third version of you, L3, and
a successor L3', both of which are distinct in subjective content from
L1, L2, L1' and L2', but such that the subjective content of L3'
*could* have followed from L1 or L2. Then if you are currently
experiencing L1, your next experience might be drawn not only from L1'
or L2', but also from L3'. There is no basis for saying that L1' is
"more tightly coupled" to L1 than L2' or L3' are, provided that L3'
has the right sort of subjective content. But we might be able to say
that you are twice as likely to experience L1'/L2' (which we said have
identical subjective content) rather than L3' as successor to L1/2,
since there are twice as many versions of L1'/L2' as of L3'.

The upshot of all this is that in a multiverse, your consciousness can
flit about passing through all physical copies with the right sort of
subjective content. The only thing that stops you experiencing
extremely weird shifts from moment to moment must be that such shifts
are of very low measure: there just aren't that many versions of you
in the multiverse where you observe a fire-breathing dragon where
previously your memory tells you there was a keyboard. If this
explanation fails, then I would take that as evidence in favour of a
single, finite universe.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From scerir at libero.it  Thu Sep 25 12:55:47 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:55:47 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001401c91f0e$0841e830$2a064797@archimede>

Stathis:
> So if the universe suddenly disappeared, 
> does that mean 17 would no longer be prime?

Many pointed out that 17 is 'the day the Devil 
triumphed over God' and the LHC is 17 miles long ...

... but yes, following Chuang-tsu (4th Cent. B.C.), 
if there is no universe, there will be none
to compute prime numbers (or Chaitin's omegas).




From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 14:13:48 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:13:48 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809250713t3aca5489o52306e8482bffa94@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/25 I wrote, in response to Lee Corbin:

> This same problem arises in any multiverse model, including a single
> infinite universe. Suppose there are two identical versions of you, L1
> and L2, a vast distance apart. Then it isn't possible for you to know
> whether your experiences are those of L1 or L2. In another moment, L1
> evolves into L1' and L2 evolves into L2', both of which have identical
> subjective content. Again, it isn't possible to know which one of
> these you are. And given these facts, it isn't possible for you to
> meaningfully claim that you now, whether L1' or L2', are the
> continuation of L1 or L2, respectively. For if, say, we had the same
> situation except L1 and L2' were eliminated, you would have had
> exactly the same experiences: first as L2, then as L1' remembering
> being L2. (I know you don't like the idea of having your total runtime
> halved in this way, but the point is, you wouldn't notice it had been
> halved, and this has the same significance as the fact that you
> wouldn't notice you had been killed and a copy made elsewhere if you
> underwent teleportation).

I do understand that you would say it isn't the same as teleportation
(as usually conceived) because there is no causal link between the L1
and L2 locations, so there would be a brief loss of consciousness in
going from L1 to L2'. I don't accept that this should be so, but even
if it is, it doesn't really change the situation: we can say that your
consciousness flits about the multiverse every second, minute or any
other arbitrarily long interval, with only a negligible intervening
lapse.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From spike66 at att.net  Thu Sep 25 14:27:34 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:27:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809242141i6c2de7efk4647309db381eda9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809251427.m8PERYmn014998@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Jef Allbright
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
> 
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
> > So long as it isn't overwhelming, we can keep some fear and 
> want, and 
> > still have a really good society that moves forward and 
> develops lotsa 
> > cool new stuff.
> 
> It's surprising to me that on this list it's still unsettled 
> that while gradients are essential to the ratcheting forward 
> of "progress", fear and want (and other impairments for the 
> sake of simple contrast) are not.
> 
> - Jef

Ja.  Keep in mind, fear and want aint what they used to be.  Fear pf
starvation shouldn't be a part of it, nor homelessness.  But we can have
fear of a hand-me-down Intel 386, and want of a Sony LCD screen, that sorta
thing.  That would keep us rising and going to the office.  Hey, works on
me.  {8^D

spike




From spike66 at att.net  Thu Sep 25 14:30:23 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:30:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] ITAR and space based solar power.
In-Reply-To: <1222318150_13252@S4.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <200809251457.m8PEv3A2015276@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Keith, contact your friend over at Lockheeed, whose name escapes me.  He
knows who to ask about that.  They have ITAR experts over there, specific to
space conferences.  From your description, you are good to go, and have fun
man!  Gotta hand it to em, the godless commies do make good space stuff.

spike

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of hkhenson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:45 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [ExI] ITAR and space based solar power.
> 
> 
> I have a problem where I could really use some advice.  Or at 
> least put my qualms on the record.
> 
> I have been talking about ITAR with some of my friends after 
> one of them brought it up citing this horror story...
> Keith Henson  




From dagonweb at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 14:59:59 2008
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:59:59 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809250410u48003d12meb37828d709eae2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
	<0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250410u48003d12meb37828d709eae2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0809250759q4d0ac3ffgb3d77a0749f733fa@mail.gmail.com>

Controlling market mechanisms surrounding tulips is arguably frivolous.
Using
this as an example to make an ideological point is likewise.

A government exerting control on crucial fundaments of financial markets,
plus
implementing law that do the same, *and actually enforcing them*, with the
purpose of protecting voters from market predation, exploitation,
fluctations,
callous exclusion or arbitrage is doing what a government is doing -
creating the
requirements for a civil society.

Just as we lock up pedophyles and rapists, we should lock up people that, by
virtue of financial malpractice, callous disinterest, betrayal of position
or gross
incompetence, cause the fundamental conditions for safe, civil life of
people to
be impaired, or destroyed. We lock up people for throwing large cement
bricks
on train rails. We should do the same if greedy sociopaths cause comparable
damage to our financial systems and we should prevent these calamities from
happening.

Thank the old ones I live in a sane Europe.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080925/173cdc58/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Sep 25 15:32:49 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:32:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <200809251427.m8PERYmn014998@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <f7bfe5740809242141i6c2de7efk4647309db381eda9@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809251427.m8PERYmn014998@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809250832k5e139e58v88ceed1e6961cb52@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:27 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> It's surprising to me that on this list it's still unsettled
>> that while gradients are essential to the ratcheting forward
>> of "progress", fear and want (and other impairments for the
>> sake of simple contrast) are not.
>
> Ja.  Keep in mind, fear and want aint what they used to be.  Fear pf
> starvation shouldn't be a part of it, nor homelessness.  But we can have
> fear of a hand-me-down Intel 386, and want of a Sony LCD screen, that sorta
> thing.  That would keep us rising and going to the office.  Hey, works on
> me.  {8^D

Yes, works for you Spike (and me personally too), considering that
we're both agents already operating from a baseline of relatively high
relative satisfaction.  But scaling up to systems of **social**
decision-making this distinction becomes crucial.  It reinforces
biases framing the process in terms of conflict between agents
competing to attain narrowly subjective, myopic norms, workable within
the shared and relatively static context of the tribal environment of
social adaptation, but it's increasingly inappropriate to
collaborative search for solutions promoting an increasing context of
increasingly coherent values over increasing scope of consequences -
necessary for maintaining a place in the Red Queen's Race.

Question to the list:

Can anyone here suggest a simple term meaning "increasingly coherent
over increasing context" with regard to this property corresponding
with the expected competence of an agent's model of effective
interaction with its environment?  It seems such a fundamental and
generally applicable concept, similarly appropriate to philosophy of
science, but I get a **lot** of email offlist from people saying they
tend to get lost after about the second "increasingly" whenever I try
to express lexically, concepts better expressed mathematically.

- Jef


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 25 16:29:36 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:29:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <200809251427.m8PERYmn014998@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <f7bfe5740809242141i6c2de7efk4647309db381eda9@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809251427.m8PERYmn014998@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <20080925162936.GA23020@ofb.net>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 07:27:34AM -0700, spike wrote:

> Ja.  Keep in mind, fear and want aint what they used to be.  Fear pf
> starvation shouldn't be a part of it, nor homelessness.  But we can have
> fear of a hand-me-down Intel 386, and want of a Sony LCD screen, that sorta
> thing.  That would keep us rising and going to the office.  Hey, works on

...apart from some really egalitarian socialists, people are fine with
that.  That kind of 'fear' and 'want' isn't what social democrats talk
about.  Well, the minimum does get raised from just food and simple
shelter -- education -- but there's plent of room for carrots, and want
of a bigger carrot.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 25 16:45:02 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:45:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <0c2f01c91eeb$b93d4d00$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net> <20080922014607.GA12873@ofb.net>
	<0bb801c91eac$123940c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080925015340.GA1215@ofb.net> <20080925022534.GA3295@ofb.net>
	<0c2f01c91eeb$b93d4d00$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080925164501.GB23020@ofb.net>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:49:44AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Damien S. writes
> 
> >Conservative/libertarians sometimes deride liberals/socialists as making
> >the State their God.  I'd say this is partly true: where the religious
> >worship an unprovable God, progressives set out to build a god, finite
> >and fallible but real, to do the things God is asked to do, like help us
> >in need.
> 
> I can hardly believe I'm reading this. It's all the worst claims
> of the right-wing extremists come true, namely, that the left
> wants to turn government into some kind of god.

A god of our design and under our control.

More *precisely*, the state is doing the things that people have prayed
for God to do.  Keep us safe from enemies, provide regular water for the
crops, help us out after disasters, and even prevent natural disasters
-- Army Corps on water works, possibly future weather control.

Why can't that be private?  Some of it could, but there's lots of free
rider problems.  Some of it can't be -- "what should the outdoor
temperature be?" is an inherently collective decision.

> I think the EPA has hurt. It costs industry hundreds of billions
> of dollars annually, which is passed on to people, and we get
> further and further off the exponential economic growth curve
> we should have been on.

The EPA prevents industry from dumping costs onto third parties by
dumping poisons into the environment.  Externalities.  This is making
the market work better, not worse; a "free market" where costs aren't
private is a false market.

> Can you perhaps help me with this? My friends can't. Why
> don't people who think pollution is too high in the cities just
> move to small towns?  (Oh, right, because their standard of living

Cities are hardly the only problem.  Aquifers, river dumping, ocean
dumping, acid rain, ozone layer destruction, global warming.  

Cities, perhaps, don't need a federal EPA; they could use local laws
against leaf-burning (hey, they do) or car emissions.  (In the interest
of unified markets, states are forbidden from being stricter than the
EPA, except for California which had special smog problems, and states
are allowed to jump up to California levels.  So we don't have a full
free 'market' in state laws.

But you seem to be saying people in polluted cities should move away
rather than trying to regulate local pollution.  Why do polluters have a
right to pollute?  You think government regulations are more onerous
than dumping toxins into the air?

> I think black people have suffered because of those laws. Sure,
> you have some superficial hireings here and there, but often at the
> cost of introducing underqualified workers. And now, even

I don't want to get into affirmative action debate, but I'd note there
are multiple levels:
anti-discrimination
affirmative action (adds making some sort of active effort to recruit
the disadvantaged)
quota (adds a hard requirement of such recruitment)

Discrimination can at least sometimes be measured directly, such as when
companies respond to otherwise identical resumes differently based on the
perceived race or gender of the name on the resume, let alone when black
and white couples are told different things about home availability in
an area.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 25 16:54:31 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:54:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] increasingly (was Re:  Yet another health care debate)
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809250832k5e139e58v88ceed1e6961cb52@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <f7bfe5740809242141i6c2de7efk4647309db381eda9@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809251427.m8PERYmn014998@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<f7bfe5740809250832k5e139e58v88ceed1e6961cb52@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925115147.022e0e48@satx.rr.com>

At 08:32 AM 9/25/2008 -0700, Jef wrote:

>Can anyone here suggest a simple term meaning "increasingly coherent
>over increasing context" ... I get a **lot** of email offlist from 
>people saying they
>tend to get lost after about the second "increasingly" whenever I try
>to express lexically, concepts better expressed mathematically.

As a first cut: maybe make that "increasingly coherent
over ever-broader context" (which turns it into an x and y graph).

Damien Broderick



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 25 17:12:45 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:12:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
 Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>

At 09:29 PM 9/25/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>So if the universe suddenly disappeared, does that mean 17 would no
>longer be prime?

I should have thought it means 17 would no longer be.

Damien Broderick 



From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Sep 25 17:48:18 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:48:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
In-Reply-To: <0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
	<0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <43C1F092-2421-4ECB-9B57-34DD494CB211@mac.com>


On Sep 24, 2008, at 6:49 AM, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Fred writes about a March (!) 2008 article that very, very
> clearly explains three ways that the federal government (
> not it says, to be confused with the Fed reserve) contributed
> to the current fiasco:
>
>> Since there have been several posts about the current financial
>> situation I thought that some might be interested in an article which
>> covered many of these issues six months ago:
>>
>> http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=291507506135021
>
> Thanks, Fred. Some highlights from that URL:
>
>   To see how the government contributed to the subprime mess, we
>   must look at the feds, not the Fed. The feds helped create the
>   problem in three main ways.

Is it not the Fed that control interest rates and the money supply?  I  
confess I forget which agency, quasi-governmental private group (like  
the Fed), does what these days.  But interest rates and inflation of  
the money supply are critical enablers of major bubbles.

Not that it matters too much as government and the Fed are in cahoots  
running on ruining the US economically and selling all of us and our  
children into the equivalent of indentured servitude.

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Sep 25 18:05:47 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:05:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080923220031.02545c58@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>
	<1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek>
	<0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<1222224919.21275.2124.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923220031.02545c58@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5EDAF496-42FD-48E7-AEA4-9C415A7CCB32@mac.com>


On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:06 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> At 07:55 PM 9/23/2008 -0700, Fred Moulton wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:31 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>> > I'll even claim that in a nation of millions, (does the reader
>> > really know how big that is?), it is probably optimal for the
>> > greatest good and maximal progress that a very few people
>> > starve to death each winter through having alienated absolutely
>> > everyone who would help them, and a few people freeze to death
>> > every winter (because we don't have universal 1984 type
>> > surveillance, and so none of their neighbors even knows,
>> > assuming they'd help some real nuisance guy or gal).
>>
>> What you just wrote is disgusting.
>
> I rather thought that's what BillK and I were saying, Fred--that the  
> opinion is disgusting yet one can find it enunciated by some  
> libertarians, even here. ("Even" here? You know, I've rarely seen it  
> spelled out so brutally anywhere else.)

It was neither disgusting nor what "some libertarians" think.  It was  
merely nothing that a dynamic imperfect system has optimal points  
within the limits of its capabilities that still allow significant  
misfortune to some number of people within the system.  It is a truism.

- samantha



From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Sep 25 17:46:11 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:46:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809251046i88a2befge95813d793b15da9@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 09:29 PM 9/25/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
>> So if the universe suddenly disappeared, does that mean 17 would no
>> longer be prime?
>
> I should have thought it means 17 would no longer be.

Thanks Damien for an elegant step in the direction of coherence in
response to a proposition that is inherently incoherent.

As with so much discussion having to do with theories of "self", the
intended referent cannot be modeled.

- Jef


From jef at jefallbright.net  Thu Sep 25 18:23:48 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:23:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] "increasingly"
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809251123h19a85c72jdad34f0544c50b1b@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:32 AM 9/25/2008 -0700, Jef wrote:
>
>> Can anyone here suggest a simple term meaning "increasingly coherent
>> over increasing context" ... I get a **lot** of email offlist from people
>> saying they
>> tend to get lost after about the second "increasingly" whenever I try
>> to express lexically, concepts better expressed mathematically.
>
> As a first cut: maybe make that "increasingly coherent
> over ever-broader context" (which turns it into an x and y graph).

Thanks Damien.  While acknowledging that effective prose exploits a
variety of terms by which to triangulate its intended meaning, It's
not clear to me how "ever-broader context" is superior to "increasing
context" when the intention is to convey the idea of an expanding
graph; and to my mind,  introducing a new term appears to imply a new
entity, when all I mean by "increasing" is movement along a given
axis.

Since in human affairs "context" already forms a graph within a
complex high-dimensional plane, I visualize its coherence as something
akin to *alignment* of magnetic monopoles within that n-plane, or
simpler, as *density* of the linked nodes within that n-plane, on the
basis that more aligned or more dense corresponds to more coherent in
effect.

"Of course", my intention these last several years has been to convey
the idea of this expanding plane of subjective context (within which
an agent interprets its world) orthogonal to an expanding plane of
objective scope of interaction (within which an agent perturbs its
world), necessarily evolving via selection through this matrix, and
how this picture represents a space of interaction naturally seen as
increasingly moral as it subtends an increasing volume of "self."

Clear?  ;-)

- Jef


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 25 19:19:23 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:19:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care   debate)
In-Reply-To: <D513605D771E4013B4C763EAB486C8DB@MyComputer>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>
	<0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>
	<5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com>
	<D513605D771E4013B4C763EAB486C8DB@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925140942.0235b040@satx.rr.com>

At 04:10 PM 9/24/2008 -0400, JKC wrote:

>But what exactly BillK was trying to say we will never know until he 
>tells us,

This is getting very, very silly. Not as entertaining, though, as Monty Python.

Here's my psychic prediction:

If BillK posts that what he said is exactly what he meant, which is 
exactly what everyone understood he meant except for John Clark and 
maybe Lee Corbin, JKC's response will be along these lines:

"Well you say that now but it's not what you said the other day, your 
"but" is not created equal to my "but." Kiss my but."

>but your claim that I deliberately misrepresented his opinion is 
>entirely unjust.

Sorry if I gave that impression, it never occurred to me. I was 
speaking of your repeated carelessness in reading what other people 
write and consequently misrepresenting them, as in the case we're 
discussing at such absurd length.

Damien Broderick



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 25 19:25:11 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:25:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] "increasingly"
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809251123h19a85c72jdad34f0544c50b1b@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <f7bfe5740809251123h19a85c72jdad34f0544c50b1b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925142457.022f2b08@satx.rr.com>

At 11:23 AM 9/25/2008 -0700, Jef wrote:

>"Of course", my intention these last several years has been to convey
>the idea of this expanding plane of subjective context (within which
>an agent interprets its world) orthogonal to an expanding plane of
>objective scope of interaction (within which an agent perturbs its
>world), necessarily evolving via selection through this matrix, and
>how this picture represents a space of interaction naturally seen as
>increasingly moral as it subtends an increasing volume of "self."
>
>Clear?  ;-)

Broadly.




From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 25 20:11:40 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:11:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
In-Reply-To: <43C1F092-2421-4ECB-9B57-34DD494CB211@mac.com>
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
	<0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<43C1F092-2421-4ECB-9B57-34DD494CB211@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20080925201140.GA26349@ofb.net>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:48:18AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Is it not the Fed that control interest rates and the money supply?  I  
> confess I forget which agency, quasi-governmental private group (like  
> the Fed), does what these days.  But interest rates and inflation of  
> the money supply are critical enablers of major bubbles.

Bubbles happened long before central banks like the Fed existed.  The
Fed can make things worse -- probably the Great Depression, an
extraordinary version of earlier 'panic' cycles -- but also better --
the lack of panics and bank runs since then.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 20:15:06 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:15:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com><0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

BillK points to the interesting

> Another article interviewed the scientists involved in
> this discovery and apparently they were quite surprised
> by theses unexpected findings.
> <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html>

The "science writer" responsible for this outrage should
be prosecuted. Thanks for bringing this thought-criminal
to the attention of the committee, Bill.

Some excerpts:

    When scientists talk about the observable universe, they don't
    just mean as far out as the eye, or even the most powerful
    telescope, can see. In fact there's a fundamental limit to how
    much of the universe we could ever observe, no matter how
    advanced our visual instruments. The universe is thought to have
    formed about 13.7 billion years ago.

Yes, I'm sure he read that somewhere, or someone mentioned it to him.
Okay. But then
                                       So even if light started
    traveling toward us immediately after the Big Bang, the farthest
    it could ever get is 13.7 billion light-years in distance. There
    may be parts of the universe that are farther away (we can't know
    how big the whole universe is), but we can't see farther than
    light could travel over the entire age of the universe.

The writer has no understanding whatsoever how the expansion of
the universe plays into this. At 300,000 AB [1], photons got free
when the universe became transparent to light, and some of them
started heading right at us, but got yanked further away from us
by inflation.  The poor photons knew where they were headed,
but to them the space between them and their target really blew up.

The best explanation is to be found in the book written
by the originator of inflation, Mr. Alan H. Guth [1]
himself, "The Inflationary Universe". On pages 182 - 184
he describes what went on.

That number, 300,000, is very important in what
follows.

    "At 300,000 years, the horizon distance was about
    900,000 light years. [Here Guth means that two
    photons starting out "nearby", i.e. within a tiny
    fraction of an inch at the Big Bang and aimed
    right at us but coming from opposite directions,
    would already have each been yanked back 900,000
    ly because of the stupendous inflation expansion.]

    "If the universe were static, the horizon distance
    would have been about 300,000 light years [since
    in *that* case we would have had only time to get
    ones aimed at us from that distance, since that
    was the age of the universe]. In an expanding
    universe, however, photons can make extra progress
    during the early period, when the universe was
    small, so the horizon distance is larger than one
    would expect."
    
Note that what Guth is saying is very tricky. Read the
above at least as much as to understand what scientists
mean by the terms, and how they use them, as to try
to understand what is being said. Guth goes on:

    "If we consider two photons arriving *today* [italics
    added] from opposite directions in the sky, then we
    can use the mathematics of the Big Bang theory to 
    trace back the trajectories to 300,000 AB. The 
    calculation, which takes into account the expansion
    of the universe, shows that the photons were emitted
    from two points [at the time] about 90,000,000 ly
    apart. Let A and B label the two points at which
    these two photons were emitted [one to the left of
    us 45,000,000 ly and the other to the right of us
    45,000,000 ly]. The uniformity of the cosmic background
    radiation temperature implies that the temperature
    was the same at points A and B (to an accuracy of
    one part in 100,000), yet they were separated from
    each other by  about 100 times the horizon difference
    [at the time]."
    
So he's saying, in effect, "now how the hell could that be? There
is no goddam way that they could be at the same temperature
unless something weird is going on---because ninety *million*
light years at only 300,000 AB makes that look impossible.
How could their temperatures have been reconciled? How 
could they have "known" each other thermodynamically?"

    "Since nothing travels faster than light, in the
    context of the standard big bang theory [get ready
    for his inflation!] there is no physical process
    that can bring these two points to the same 
    temperature by 300,000 years after the big bang."
    
So, he says in a footnote here, "The rate of separation,
therefore, was much larger than the speed of light", and
explains why your mind should not be blown by this.

In a caption to the diagram, he then goes on like
this (thank God for a little redundancy!).

     "The Horizon Problem of the Standard Big Bang Theory".
     [paraphrased by me, since you cannot see the diagram]
     The diagram shows a picture of the universe at 300,000
     years after the big bang, when the cosmic background 
     radiation was released. At the center of the diagram is
     the matter that will eventually become the Earth. At the
     left is point A, where one is headed towards us from the
     left. At point B on the right is where the leftward moving
     photon is coming at us from the right. They are only at
     90,000,000 light years away from each other!

     "The "horizon distance", however, was only 900,000 ly.
     The points A and B were separated from each other by
     about 100 times the distance that light could have traveled
     since the Big Bang."

So that science writer is clueless about how the terms are
used, and how inflation actually provided for a far, far
vaster universe than the little thing that we can see. Our
"horizon distance" of course, has never caught up to
what was propelled away so long ago.

Now, of course, it *could* be that we are exactly at
the center of all there is, and that indeed our "bubble"
only goes out as far as we can see. What is the $&%$!
chance of that? Can you just picture some aliens 10
billion light years from here saying, "Oh, gee, there must
be something special about that point off yonder at the
center, since we are so close to the edge of the bubble."

The writer and one scientist go on:

    They discovered that the clusters were moving nearly 2 million
    mph (3.2 million kph) toward a region in the sky between the
    constellations of Centaurus and Vela. This motion is different
    from the outward expansion of the universe (which is accelerated
    by the force called dark energy).

    "We found a very significant velocity, and furthermore, this
    velocity does not decrease with distance, as far as we can
    measure," Kashlinsky told SPACE.com. "The matter in the
    observable universe just cannot produce the flow we measure."

Well, duh! Do these guys think that the observable universe is
all that there is? Or that maybe just beyond the edge of what
we see, it all becomes Very Different? What a coincidence
that we are at the exact center of normalcy. Yes, I understand
that they have evidence of something outside our visible 
universe, but it is *not* outside our bubble, which is probably
infinite.

The inexperienced science writer now tries his own hand at
explaining:

    A theory called inflation posits that the universe we see is just
    a small bubble of space-time that got rapidly expanded after the
    Big Bang. There could be other parts of the cosmos beyond this
    bubble that we cannot see.

No, the universe that we can see is not any "bubble" as the term
is commonly used. Again, if it were, wouldn't that be a fantastic
coincidence that we're right at the center of it. Perhaps the ancient
anthropomorphism and mankind needing to be at the center of the
universe is sneaking back into his thinking.

    In these regions, space-time might be very different, and likely
    doesn't contain stars and galaxies (which only formed because of
    the particular density pattern of mass in our bubble). It could
    include giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our
    own observable universe. These structures are what researchers
    suspect are tugging on the galaxy clusters, causing the dark flow.

I *hope* that the science writer has just consulted his own imagination
here. OF COURSE the universe just contains stars and galaxies right
outside our visible universe. It may be that some of it is grouped
weirdly, and that's what they've found. But the *uniformity* of our
universe begins at only about 300,000,000 light years, much, much
smaller than the visible universe. Tegmark said *specifically* that
all the small scale variations wash out when you get up to about
300,000,000 light years, and then it's uniform after that (or at least
that was what was thought until now). But that does not change
the fact that the very little patch we live in, some 300,000,000
light years in diameter, is more or less regularly repeated right up
to the edge of the visible universe, i.e., picture the visible universe
(at which we are indeed at the center of) as being tiled by very,
very similar patches all the way out to 42 billion light years away,
i.e., more than 42x3 = 120 similar patches in each of the three
directions. 

And because of inflation, the radius of the observable universe
turns out to be, when they did all the calculations, about three
times the 13.4 billion years that light has been in straight line
motion (i.e., 300,000 AB), or 42 billion light years. Hence
our visible universe has a diameter of 84 billion light years.

Yet in one direction, well, they've seen something odd. Could be,
I suppose.

The science writer then actually quotes this person Kashlinsky
(I dare not say guy, because "Alexander" could be a woman's
name these days.)

    "The structures responsible for this motion have been pushed so
    far away by inflation, I would guesstimate they may be hundreds of
    billions of light years away, that we cannot see even with the
    deepest telescopes because the light emitted there could not have
    reached us in the age of the universe," Kashlinsky said in a
    telephone interview. "Most likely to create such a coherent flow
    they would have to be some very strange structures, maybe some
    warped space time. But this is just pure speculation."

Dr. K. is giving one a bad idea of how inflation works, and is
contributing to the incredibly antiquated notion that we are
at the center. Nothing was pushed away!  Or, if you must speak
that way, we were just as pushed away as was it. Instead, 
the *space* between galaxies was expanded, nothing got
pushed. And then he ends with "But this is just pure speculation".
Science writing, I fear at it's worst.

I just hope that they don't have an affirmative action program for
Poles or Russians or whatever the hell he or she is, and that we
can depend on his or her words---so long as we understand that
he or she is still in the process here of explaining what the speed
of light is to that inexperienced science writer.

Lee


[1] "At 300,000 years AB", (i.e. After Bruno, the
name of our universe, which, so far as I know, I was
the first person to have named, as I was notified in
a couple of emails from people I had never heard
of back a few years ago, or, if you wish, After Bang,
or After Beginning)

[2] Alan Guth explains in his book that the acronym
GUT for "Grand Unified Theories" is not faithful to
the  Greek roots of the word "theory", where "th" is
represented by the single letter phi, i.e., that the proper
acronym is really GUTH.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 20:30:40 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:30:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
	<0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250410u48003d12meb37828d709eae2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002601c91f4e$76e159c0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> The government and central bank are players in the market like
> everyone else, with the difference being that that they tend to be
> more influential and they do not to act exclusively to maximise their
> own profits.

Yeah, why should they? You do agree, I hope, that profit
is a good thing, and is closely related to wealth creation.
Governments indeed rarely create wealth. If the government
*were* making a profit, it might be better. (I say might, 
because the more money they spend, then the more
social damage and misalignment of human incentive
they are able to achieve.)

> What reason do you have to be so certain that their
> participation can only make things worse?

Well, frivolously, let me wise-crack "Because everything
thing they participate is made worse."  If there *were*
a way to totally privatize the military, or diplomacy with
other nations, or enforcement of the laws, it would be
a vastly improvement in efficiency. Sadly, though, at
least for this non-extreme libertarian, some things must
be left to them and their misguided incentives.

> For example, if the government decided to slap a tax
> on tulips because it considered the price of tulip bulbs
> was rising irrationally, would that necessarily
> be worse than allowing a bubble to form then burst?

I would say, yes, quite probably worse. Human beings
are human beings, after all, and this much power to
selectively decide when and what was a bubble would
have some very quick effects:

1.  An immediate boost to campaign contributions
     (no one wants to repeat Bill Gates' mistake,
     who thought back in the early nineties that he
     didn't need to pay protection money to the
     two major parties
2.  Certain unpopular industries, like the oil industry,
     might soon find that their stock price was declared
     to be rising too quickly, and they could suffer for
     lack of investment funds. (Of course, in reality,
     the oil executives are not stupid, and they would
     buy off the regulators, as is usually the case.
     The *human beings* who do the regulating have
     to remember what kinds of lucrative jobs await
     them after their stint with the bureaucracy, too.)
3.  This new source of revenue, taxing companies 
     whose stock price rises unexpectedly (and causes
     a lot of investment), would be seen as a wonderful
     source of new government revenue. And you know
     what happens after that. We Americans ruefully recall,
     at least of those of us who are self-educated, (don't
     think for a minute that this is ever mentioned in the
     government-run schools) that the income tax started
     out at one-percent.

Lee



From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Sep 25 20:50:04 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:50:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: My Answer to the President (from Ron Paul)
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com>
Message-ID: <CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Congresman Ron Paul <updates08 at ronpaulforcongress.com>
> Date: September 25, 2008 12:52:18 PM PDT
> To: sjatkins at mac.com
> Subject: My Answer to the President
> Reply-To: Congresman_Ron_Paul_bcpag_lnaqfb at cp20.com
>
> Dear Friends:
>
> The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School  
> predicted has arrived.
>
> We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created  
> credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution  
> being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No  
> liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing  
> more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the  
> distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the  
> malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish  
> rational pricing of houses and other assets.
>
> Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial  
> crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line,  
> since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over -  
> not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.
>
> Still, at least a few observations are necessary.
>
> The president assures us that his administration "is working with  
> Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in  
> our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve  
> and its money creation spree were even mentioned?
>
> We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing,  
> but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They  
> were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always,  
> artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs  
> engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in  
> light of current resource availability, that occur in more  
> temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern  
> of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at  
> all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth  
> instead of being toyed with by the Fed.
>
> Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might  
> then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great  
> debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or  
> "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).
>
> Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said:  
> "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed  
> they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to  
> borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable  
> investments, and put our financial system at risk."
>
> Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie  
> in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe,  
> government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by  
> bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown  
> that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal  
> government" were in fact correct?
>
> Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to  
> the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which  
> would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your  
> home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the  
> bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of  
> thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop  
> anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous  
> decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and  
> supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on  
> propping them up.
>
> It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the  
> Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went  
> on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was  
> allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the  
> economy recovered within less than a year.
>
> The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join  
> him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the  
> bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country  
> much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the  
> bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention  
> these days.
>
> F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks'  
> manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with  
> which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great  
> Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his  
> day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:
>
> Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the  
> maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three  
> years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that  
> readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has  
> been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to  
> the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate  
> policy of credit expansion.
>
> To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt  
> to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because  
> we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to  
> create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a  
> much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an  
> end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts  
> to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the  
> exceptional severity and duration of the depression.
>
> The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not  
> learn from history.
>
> The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us  
> that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves  
> foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of  
> mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will  
> restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly  
> without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is  
> called into question?
>
> Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a  
> "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the  
> American people.
>
> The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern  
> for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most  
> insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American  
> people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to  
> think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to  
> annoy them.
>
> I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them  
> a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote  
> the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate  
> yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an  
> excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the  
> comment section, and learn.
>
> H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between  
> education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as  
> far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the  
> greatest weapon we have.
>
> In liberty,
>
>
>
> Ron Paul
>
>
> Political Advertisement paid for by Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul
>
>
> You are subscribed to this newsletter as sjatkins at mac.com. Please  
> click here to modify your message preferences or to unsubscribe from  
> any future mailings. We will respect all unsubscribe requests.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080925/1fe4e665/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 21:05:18 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:05:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
	<0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<43C1F092-2421-4ECB-9B57-34DD494CB211@mac.com>
Message-ID: <002a01c91f52$7164a390$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Samantha writes

>>   <To see how the government contributed to the subprime mess, we
>>   must look at the feds, not the Fed. The feds helped create the
>>   problem in three main ways.>
> 
> Is it not the Fed that control interest rates and the money supply?  I  
> confess I forget which agency, quasi-governmental private group (like  
> the Fed), does what these days.  But interest rates and inflation of  
> the money supply are critical enablers of major bubbles.

Yes, that's my understanding.

> I confess I forget which agency, quasi-governmental private group
> (like the Fed), does what these days.

Well, there are more agencies, more governmental and
quasi-governmental entities every day, and their roles
and actions increase even for the established ones. You're
not alone.

> But interest rates and inflation of the money supply are
> critical enablers of major bubbles.

Good point. Nothing like easy money to throw at the
stock market. 

Meanwhile, an idiot like me saves his money, and is on
his way to the store (or to the auction) to buy something,
but someone who games the system has just gone to
the bank, and has some new hot money right off the
press (to speak metaphorically), money whose inflationary
effect has not yet spread. He outbids me at the auction,
and buys the articles at the store before I do, helping
push up the price. And the greatest injustice is that he
was able to borrow *my* money at the bank to do this;
with fractional reserve banking, it's not illegal to take
the money I deposit and use it to fuel spending in this
insidious way. Von Mieses long, long ago explained
how all this works.

> Not that it matters too much as government and the
> Fed are in cahoots running on ruining the US
> economically and selling all of us and our  
> children into the equivalent of indentured servitude.

Sure. Just the way that corporate executives will often
take their money and run when the ship looks like it's
about to go aground. Or the stock broker who has no
idea of how much his stock is worth, but is guessing
that someone else equally ignorant will buy it from
him tomorrow.

Unfortunately, we cannot do without stock brokers
and CEOs. They do create wealth through all their
activities, (and often pay the price of failure).

But the government wades in and creates havoc with
no punishment, or possibility of punishment, whatever.
No risk at all, for them.

Do we hold them to sound financial procedures the
way they hold (or are supposed to hold) accounting
firms responsible, i.e. audits?  No. The governments
that I know about steadfastly refuse to abide by the
same financial accountability rules they create for
private institutions.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 21:11:52 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:11:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
	<0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<43C1F092-2421-4ECB-9B57-34DD494CB211@mac.com>
Message-ID: <002b01c91f53$d8dfc4e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Dagon writes

> Lee wrote:
>
>> Fred writes about a March (!) 2008 article that very, very
>> clearly explains three ways that the federal government (
>> not it says, to be confused with the Fed reserve) contributed
>> to the current fiasco:
>>
>>> http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=291507506135021
>>
>>   To see how the government contributed to the subprime mess, we
>>   must look at the feds, not the Fed. The feds helped create the
>>   problem in three main ways.
>
> Controlling market mechanisms surrounding tulips is arguably
> frivolous. Using this as an example to make an ideological
> point is likewise.

I disagree. It's in the nature of analogy that responsible readers
and writers understand the limitations of an analogy employed.

> A government exerting control on crucial fundaments of financial markets, plus implementing law that do the same, and actually 
> enforcing them, with the purpose of protecting voters from market predation, exploitation, fluctuations, callous exclusion or 
> arbitrage is doing what a government is doing - creating the
> requirements for a civil society.

No, the government just destroys social capital, uses its
power to enforce its (often corrupt) decrees, all to "save
the people" from predation. You are very na?ve if
you haven't heard that power corrupts. Society can
be civil just fine if the government limits itself to enforcing
contracts, attempting to guarantee the rule of law and
private property rights, and providing for a nation's defense.
The rest of the activity almost always destroys wealth
(though, naturally, they do get lucky now and then).

Of course, I understand that some people are not ready
for liberty. Some people, especially in certain primitive
parts of the world, require that strict social observances
be forced upon them by their leaders. But even in more
advanced nations, many too many people will not accept
the responsibility for their own well-being, and the well-
being of friends, neighbors, and family. People need
people---not impersonal bureaucratic forces.

> Just as we lock up pedophyles and rapists, we should
> lock up people that, by virtue of financial malpractice,

And who is going to decide that? "The Committee on
Uneconomic and Wasteful Practices"?  Can I be on the
committee? (Actually, I'm holding out for a spot on the
Committee for Public Safety.)  Have you heard of this
idea: we make some *laws*, carefully written down, and
then lock up only those who break the laws, as determined
by impartial unbiased judicial minds. Have you, for
example, ever thoroughly studied the Russian Revolution
or the French Revolution?  Do you think that those people
were not just as idealistic and highly motivated as you are?
Study those, and watch how things usually develop among
us mere human beings. Learn how Lenin and Staline wrote
massive tracts about, and were sincere believers, in social
progress and that great good would be obtained if certain
types of people could just be "locked up", e.g., financiers
and business people. Find out what became necessary if
they valued their own lives, and truly valued the visions that
they had seen.

> callous disinterest, betrayal of position or gross incompetence,

Politicians will love your ideas. Think of the power.
No, laws are better.

> cause the fundamental conditions for safe, civil life of people to
> be impaired, or destroyed. We lock up people for throwing
> large cement bricks on train rails.

A carefully crafted law was passed to that effect, that
was not so sweeping that you could be arrested for
possession of cement blocks within a mile of a railroad
track, or rumored intension of so doing.

> We should do the same if greedy sociopaths cause
> comparable damage to our financial systems and we
> should prevent these calamities from happening.

Indeed, there are some sociopaths there who have no
consciences, and provided the law allows it, will screw
everyone they can. So would you be for MRI testing
for sociopathology of all people at age 10?  (Me, I
would make it fashionable to go around with my
certified-non-sociopath lapel, ring, or bracelet, and
have the system entirely optional.)

Lee



From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 21:24:58 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:24:58 +0000
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925140942.0235b040@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com>
	<0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com>
	<5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com>
	<D513605D771E4013B4C763EAB486C8DB@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925140942.0235b040@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809251424q3341f7a7n5166bfab3a158ec2@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> This is getting very, very silly. Not as entertaining, though, as Monty Python.
>
> Here's my psychic prediction:
>
> If BillK posts that what he said is exactly what he meant, which is exactly
> what everyone understood he meant except for John Clark and maybe Lee
> Corbin, JKC's response will be along these lines:
>
> "Well you say that now but it's not what you said the other day, your "but"
> is not created equal to my "but." Kiss my but."
>
> Sorry if I gave that impression, it never occurred to me. I was speaking of
> your repeated carelessness in reading what other people write and
> consequently misrepresenting them, as in the case we're discussing at such
> absurd length.
>


It seems a pity to stop the ongoing deconstruction of my little
humorous paragraph.
(Deconstruction -  "A strategy of critical analysis directed towards
exposing unquestioned metaphysical assumptions and internal
contradictions in philosophical and literary language.")

But I suppose I have to officially confirm that Damien has understood
correctly the intended meaning. As Emlyn commented, I find it
difficult to see how the average reader could interpret it in any
other way. Especially as the following sentence was jokingly chiding
the 'extreme libertarians' for their misbehavior.


BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 25 21:37:23 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:37:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
In-Reply-To: <002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925163615.024eaf78@satx.rr.com>

At 01:15 PM 9/25/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>[2] Alan Guth explains in his book that the acronym
>GUT for "Grand Unified Theories" is not faithful to
>the  Greek roots of the word "theory", where "th" is
>represented by the single letter phi, i.e., that the proper
>acronym is really GUTH.

Or more correctly still, but less to his taste I imagine, GUPH.

Damien Broderick




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 25 21:39:33 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:39:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
In-Reply-To: <002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com>

Very interesting post from Lee. The part in the original claim that I 
don't understand is how the gravitation of Vast amounts of clumped 
matter spacelike separated from (outside the lightcone of) the 
visible universe could possibly be affecting us?

Damien Broderick



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Thu Sep 25 22:37:03 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:37:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <20080925223703.GA5611@ofb.net>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:39:33PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Very interesting post from Lee. The part in the original claim that I 
> don't understand is how the gravitation of Vast amounts of clumped 
> matter spacelike separated from (outside the lightcone of) the 
> visible universe could possibly be affecting us?

AIUI, it's outside the lightcone of our part of the visible universe.
Not outside the part that we see being influenced.

I don't know that that makes sense given stationary lightcones, but the
flowing galaxies are moving away from us at high speed, which does
things to the axes of the lightcone, and the details exceeds my grasp of
special relativity.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 22:36:21 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:36:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com><0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com><5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com><D513605D771E4013B4C763EAB486C8DB@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080925140942.0235b040@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0809251424q3341f7a7n5166bfab3a158ec2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007101c91f5f$62d7e500$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Yes, John originally did misunderstand, but only in a
simple, obvious way, at least as seen in the first posts,
right?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:14 PM


>> Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the
>> suggestion of  letting all the poor, mentally disabled,
>> physically disabled, etc. fall by  the wayside (evolution
>> in action), but we are trying to civilize them.
>
> You better not tell those dunces that, they may be stupid but
> they're smart enough to recognize your condescending tone
> and they won't like it one bit; nor will the 99% who are not
> incredibly dumb when you tell them that they must live in agony
> until they die a hideous and inglorious death because we've got
> to protect the moronic 1% from themselves. I really don't think
> that will go over very well at all.
>
>  John K Clark

and at this point it was *obvious* that he had misunderstood
(at least to quite a number of us). John *clearly* is saying that
"you better not tell all those [poor, mentally disabled, etc.]
that [we are trying to civilize them]", because it doesn't make
any sense to suppose that he was speaking about the
Extreme Libertarians in that vein.

But Damien wrote

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:34 PM


> At 05:14 PM 9/22/2008 -0400, John K Clark wrote:
>
>>>Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the suggestion
>>>of  letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled,
>>>etc. fall by  the wayside (evolution in action), but we are trying
>>>to civilize them.
>>
>>You better not tell those dunces that, they may be stupid but
>>they're smart enough to recognize your condescending tone and they
>>won't like it one bit
>
> I think it's a bit unkind to call "extreme libertarians" stupid dunces. A bit.
>
> Damien Broderick

I [Lee] thought that he [Damien] was being witty, not serious. Surely
he was. No?  And I said so.

Next I got to the post where  Damien quoted what looks to me like
an entirely innocent and apologetic response from John:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.


> At 06:22 PM 9/22/2008 -0400, John K Clark  wrote:
>
>>>I think it's a bit unkind to call "extreme libertarians"
>>>stupid dunces.
>>
>>Before I posited my last post I scrutinized it
>>for potential landmines, I did not find any. Damien in the future
>>please have the courtesy of being a little less bright.
>
> ???
>
> BillK said this:
>
> "4) Extreme libertarians do, from time to time, bring up the suggestion
> of letting all the poor, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc.
> fall by the wayside (evolution in action), but we are trying to
> civilize them. Perhaps they could be permanently accompanied by a
> social worker who every so often, wags a finger at them and says,
> 'Now, now, that's not very nice, is it? Try to play nice with other
> people'."
>
> Is it really difficult to grasp that BillK was saying, in his polite
> UKian way, "Extreme libertarians are heartless bastards who'd be
> happy to see the weaker people in the community perish, but some of
> us are trying to civilize such extreme libertarians, who should learn
> to treat other people nicely"?
>
> Or were you making some other, deeper, subtler criticism of Bill's
> post that escapes me?
>
> Damien Broderick

To me, when John said "I scrutinized my email for landmines, but
didn't find any", it looked like it was by way of apology, because he
followed it up with a remark "please have the courtesy of being a little
less bright" that I took as, yes, ironical, but in a flattering way,
namely that Damien had spotted a landmine that John had missed.
Maybe I was na?ve. Maybe that was a poisonous remark by John,
though as I say it doesn't look it to me. Perhaps that's how Damien took it?

(At the time, I myself was unwilling to call John's simple error any
kind of "landmine". Indeed---quite the case of miscommunication.)

When I wrote, I had not yet got to that post, and that's why perhaps
Damien took my post wrong and thought we were all crazy, and
that I too was misinterpreting BillK's remarks. (I wasn't---it was
clear to me, unlike John, that Bill was saying that it was the Libertarians
who needed civilizing.)

BillK finishes it just now with

> It seems a pity to stop the ongoing deconstruction of my little
> humorous paragraph.
> (Deconstruction -  "A strategy of critical analysis directed towards
> exposing unquestioned metaphysical assumptions and internal
> contradictions in philosophical and literary language.")
>
> But I suppose I have to officially confirm that Damien has understood
> correctly the intended meaning. As Emlyn commented, I find it
> difficult to see how the average reader could interpret it in any
> other way. Especially as the following sentence was jokingly chiding
> the 'extreme libertarians' for their misbehavior.

Yes, but what if the reader (in this case John) doesn't get to the
next paragraph yet, and fires off a reply?  (I commit the same sin,
I confess, but then go on to read the rest, perhaps some
misunderstanding now thoroughly entrenched in my mind).
But you see, from just what John *responded to* it is clear
exactly how he misunderstood, and how harmless it was.

No?  Or can even more deconstructing continue?

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 23:07:16 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:07:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007801c91f63$99424410$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> So if the universe suddenly disappeared, does that mean 17 would no
> longer be prime?

Well, I'd say that 17 would no longer exist, it being nothing
more (on my theory I spoke about in the "Unreasonable 
Effectiveness" thread).

> > In particular, how does a physical law obtain from a Platonia
> > viewpoint? Suppose snapshots are all that exists. Let a sequence
> > of them be f1, f2, f3, f4, ... that amount to a photon in motion
> > which is following a Maxwell equation, conserving momentum
> > and so on. But somewhere in the pile of all possible configurations
> > of the universe is an f3', which has the photon in some very weird
> > place and an f4' so that between them f3' and f4' correspond to
> > a photon going the other direction far, far away. Why is f2 somehow
> > more tightly coupled to f3 than to f3'?
> > 
> > I.e., how does physical law emerge?
> 
> This same problem arises in any multiverse model, including a single
> infinite universe. Suppose there are two identical versions of you, L1
> and L2, a vast distance apart. Then it isn't possible for you to know
> whether your experiences are those of L1 or L2.

Must personal identity get dragged into this? Personal Identity
is very controversial in ways that I think have nothing to do
with physical law---yet I do see below that perhaps Platonia
is to you like Personal Identity is to me.

But on my concept of identity, "I" is a pattern, and it happens
to be present in both places equally. So it's simply not the case
that "my" experiences are one of L1 or L2 but not the other.

> In another moment, L1
> evolves into L1' and L2 evolves into L2', both of which have identical
> subjective content. Again, it isn't possible to know which one of
> these you are. And given these facts, it isn't possible for you to
> meaningfully claim that you now, whether L1' or L2', are the
> continuation of L1 or L2, respectively. For if, say, we had the same
> situation except L1 and L2' were eliminated, you would have had
> exactly the same experiences: first as L2, then as L1' remembering
> being L2. (I know you don't like the idea of having your total runtime
> halved in this way, but the point is, you wouldn't notice it had been
> halved, and this has the same significance as the fact that you
> wouldn't notice you had been killed and a copy made elsewhere if you
> underwent teleportation).

I've already in essence criticized the first part of your paragraph. I agree
with the second part of that (which you just wrote above).

> Extending this idea, suppose there is a third version of you, L3, and
> a successor L3', both of which are distinct in subjective content from
> L1, L2, L1' and L2', but such that the subjective content of L3'
> *could* have followed from L1 or L2. Then if you are currently
> experiencing L1, your next experience might be drawn not only from L1'
> or L2', but also from L3'.

My next subjective experience, yes. In fact, I believe that
I will have all those experiences, because I am a pattern,
or rather an entire fuzzy set of patterns, of which (in that
set) one point corresponds to my subjective now that
is 100% consistent with what the one writing to you is
thinking, hearing, feeling, and seeing now. I am also
living in Lunar City, which arose because Kennedy was
not elected president, and no anti-business legislation
ensued :-)  , but the me's, there, have only like 90% fidelity
to those of me who are writing this.

But you are forcing me to talk like someone who believes
in Observer Moments and Platonia. Since the *pattern*
is all that matters for me, the strict physics continuity
doesn't matter that much. It sort of washes out. If a meteor
comes in at near light speed and kills either the 2008 me,
or the one that lived back when (who is identical) then
of course for me it's just an unfortunate reduction of runtime.

> There is no basis for saying that L1' is "more tightly
> coupled" to L1 than L2' or L3' are, provided that
> L3' has the right sort of subjective content.

I see what you are saying.

> But we might be able to say
> that you are twice as likely to experience L1'/L2' (which we said have
> identical subjective content) rather than L3' as successor to L1/2,
> since there are twice as many versions of L1'/L2' as of L3'.

I only object to the form of the language here, not necessarily
to what you are saying. To me, it is not true that "I am twice
as likely to experience" one of these options rather than the
other, since I must experience both (i.e., the LC pattern is
executing in both spacetime locations).

> The upshot of all this is that in a multiverse, your consciousness can
> flit about passing through all physical copies with the right sort of
> subjective content.

You guys (the everything crowd), when you talk about about consciousness
flitting here and there, seem to me to be talking as you would of a soul.

> The only thing that stops you experiencing extremely weird shifts
> from moment to moment must be that such shifts are of very low
> measure: there just aren't that many versions of you in the
> multiverse where you observe a fire-breathing dragon where
> previously your memory tells you there was a keyboard.

Yes. It's of low measure in any reckoning. Consider just our 
Tegmark level one universe Bruno (our very own infinite bubble).
If there was nothing else, and not even an MWI multiverse, 
then the set of Lees would mostly keep typing, and only a
very few would see the dragon. Or even have the phone ring
before I get to the end of this sentence.

Lee

> If this explanation fails, then I would take that as evidence in
> favour of a single, finite universe.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Thu Sep 25 23:24:53 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:24:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Use of Alternate Phrases and Words
References: <f7bfe5740809242141i6c2de7efk4647309db381eda9@mail.gmail.com><200809251427.m8PERYmn014998@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<f7bfe5740809250832k5e139e58v88ceed1e6961cb52@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008001c91f66$68791220$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jef writes

> Can anyone here suggest a simple term meaning "increasingly coherent
> over increasing context" with regard to this property corresponding
> with the expected competence of an agent's model of effective
> interaction with its environment?  It seems such a fundamental and
> generally applicable concept, similarly appropriate to philosophy of
> science, but I get a **lot** of email offlist from people saying they
> tend to get lost after about the second "increasingly" whenever I try
> to express lexically, concepts better expressed mathematically.

I would suggest avoiding reliance on any staple phrase, and 
for several reasons. One----people do become averse to it
(i.e. tired of it). In fact, I think that often in the same missive
if I've already used "evidently", then I'll see if "apparently"
won't work (or replace the first usage). Good writers,
I believe---but we should ask Damien or some other 
professional writer---avoid using the same word if they can
help it. For example, I should toss in "at the same time"
every once in a while when I am discussing "simultaneity". 

Two----someone will think that they know what you mean
because your words do resonate with them. But it will
sometimes turn out eventually that they understood it in
their quick flash of inspiration in a way somewhat at
variance with how you meant it. Then continued
references to the same phrase just confuse further.

Three----any valid concept can be described in many ways
(usually). It's a bad sign, I find, if I must rely on a certain
word, or someone else has to. Sometimes people become
extremely frustrated when after interminable discussion, I
sense that we aren't using a word the same way, and I
demand we stop using it. Surely, if we really do have a good
idea of what we're saying, we need not depend on just a
single word. Like I frequently say

           Words are like ball-bearings on a skating rink:
           to get anywhere to you have to tread carefully
           and be especially wary of putting too much weight
           on any one of them.

So I would suggest that you vary what phrases you use
constantly, so that your readers are able to disambiguate
possible meanings, and some readers will see that their
first leap at what you meant wasn't exactly correct. So
what I say above about words applies to stock phrases
also, I think.

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Sep 25 23:33:25 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:33:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
In-Reply-To: <20080925223703.GA5611@ofb.net>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com>
	<20080925223703.GA5611@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925182826.0230ccb8@satx.rr.com>

At 03:37 PM 9/25/2008 -0700, Damien S wrote:

> > Very interesting post from Lee. The part in the original claim that I
> > don't understand is how the gravitation of Vast amounts of clumped
> > matter spacelike separated from (outside the lightcone of) the
> > visible universe could possibly be affecting us?
>
>AIUI, it's outside the lightcone of our part of the visible universe.
>Not outside the part that we see being influenced.

What we now see being influenced near our horizon reaches us by light 
that takes the same time to get here as the gravitational influence 
allegedly acting on those objects, so we should be experiencing the 
same influence, no? Well, suitably attenuated by inverse square 
diminution. I agree that this quickly gets out of hand for intuition 
unaided by elaborate mathematical analysis.

Damien Broderick




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 00:45:50 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:45:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek><7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com><1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek><7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com><1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek><0aaa01c91de5$571dd920$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><1222224919.21275.2124.camel@hayek><7.0.1.0.2.20080923220031.02545c58@satx.rr.com>
	<5EDAF496-42FD-48E7-AEA4-9C415A7CCB32@mac.com>
Message-ID: <009a01c91f71$a0ff6f30$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Samantha writes

> On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:06 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> 
>> At 07:55 PM 9/23/2008 -0700, Fred Moulton wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 18:31 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>> > I'll even claim that in a nation of millions, (does the reader
>>> > really know how big that is?), it is probably optimal for the
>>> > greatest good and maximal progress that a very few people
>>> > starve to death each winter through having alienated absolutely
>>> > everyone who would help them, and a few people freeze to death
>>> > every winter (because we don't have universal 1984 type
>>> > surveillance, and so none of their neighbors even knows,
>>> > assuming they'd help some real nuisance guy or gal).
>>>
>>> What you just wrote is disgusting.
>>
>> I rather thought that's what BillK and I were saying, Fred--that the  
>> opinion is disgusting yet one can find it enunciated by some  
>> libertarians, even here. ("Even" here? You know, I've rarely seen it  
>> spelled out so brutally anywhere else.)
> 
> It was neither disgusting nor what "some libertarians" think.  It was  
> merely nothing that a dynamic imperfect system has optimal points  
> within the limits of its capabilities that still allow significant  
> misfortune to some number of people within the system.  It is a truism.

Samantha, I'm afraid it's hopeless. It's a classic case of 
symbols over substance. No matter *how* much had I
emphasized "millions", it could have been trigintillions for
all the difference it would have made, nor no matter how
*few* I emphasized ("very few" obviously didn't cut it), the
outcome would have been the same. "Revulsion", "disgust", and
all the primal emotions at odds with cognitive processing rule.

I hoped for better.

I wonder if most folks here would excoriate traffic
engineers, who do assign a dollar cost to human lives.
They really do; this barrier here will cost X dollars, but
only Y lives will be saved, so no dice. I understand 
that to the state of California, a human life in these
terms used to be around 30K, but I don't know what
it is today. But whatever it is, I'm sure it's secret.

The reality doesn't matter to them---almost all that matters
are intentions. You can feel very good about yourself,
I suppose, if you endorsed the measures that promised
(however unrealistically) to save all people everywhere,
or which quadrupled the tax rate to save a single life
somewhere, or who promised that no expense
will be spared to save a human life.

In other worlds, were people more rational, or were I just talking
to a few here that come to mind, I would even be embarrassed
to have begun like this

>>> > I'll even claim that in a nation of millions, (does the reader
>>> > really know how big that is?), it is probably optimal for the
>>> > greatest good and maximal progress that a very few people
>>> > starve to death each winter through having alienated absolutely
>>> > everyone who would help them, 

"Even"? "Probably"? "a very few" instead of "some"?

Indeed how old-fashioned the words "freedom" and "liberty"
appear when compared to "provide", "care", and "support".
Instead of "give me liberty or give me death", people today
would add "but first and foremost, take care of me mommy".

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 01:03:08 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:03:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com><0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com><002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com>
	<20080925223703.GA5611@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <00a001c91f73$bb900dd0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien S takes on Damien B:

> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 04:39:33PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote:
>> Very interesting post from Lee. The part in the original claim that I 
>> don't understand is how the gravitation of Vast amounts of clumped 
>> matter spacelike separated from (outside the lightcone of) the 
>> visible universe could possibly be affecting us?

Ah, a most illuminating and profound point, sahib. This for
me increases the probability that the entire article is talking
rubbish from .173 to .71 even.
 
> AIUI, it's outside the lightcone of our part of the visible universe.
> Not outside the part that we see being influenced.
> 
> I don't know that that makes sense given stationary lightcones,

None, I should think (I take "stationary" to mean the light cone
of an event, which is all that can be meant SFAIK).

> but the flowing galaxies are moving away from us at high speed,
> which does things to the axes of the lightcone, and the details
> exceeds my grasp of special relativity.

I think you want to mean "general relativity". So far as I know,
in SR and GR light cones contain the entire past history of
the universe affecting an event, (or if it's particle pair creation,
then, effecting the particle pair). So as "B" here is implying,
if the "vast entities" affect visible entities, then light from them
should be able to get here, and they too would be part of
the visible universe. 

Maybe as "S" says, though, the curvature of our entire visible
universe could be pronounced enough to be producing strange
results. But as the scientist being interviewd (Kashlinsky)
said, "this is just pure speculation". 

Lee



From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 01:32:49 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:32:49 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
In-Reply-To: <bf3acbfc0809250759q4d0ac3ffgb3d77a0749f733fa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
	<0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250410u48003d12meb37828d709eae2@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf3acbfc0809250759q4d0ac3ffgb3d77a0749f733fa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809251832m47c3cdd6p52098691a0bd961d@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/26 Dagon Gmail <dagonweb at gmail.com>:
> Controlling market mechanisms surrounding tulips is arguably frivolous.
> Using
> this as an example to make an ideological point is likewise.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Sep 26 02:07:22 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:07:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
In-Reply-To: <00a001c91f73$bb900dd0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com>
	<20080925223703.GA5611@ofb.net>
	<00a001c91f73$bb900dd0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925210504.023b9e70@satx.rr.com>

At 06:03 PM 9/25/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>if the "vast entities" affect visible entities, then light from them
>should be able to get here, and they too would be part of
>the visible universe.

I was assuming that the alleged weird lumps of stuff might to be 
invisible, being so massively redshifted or built out of dark matter.

Damien Broderick 



From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 02:13:19 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:13:19 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809250832k5e139e58v88ceed1e6961cb52@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f7bfe5740809242141i6c2de7efk4647309db381eda9@mail.gmail.com>
	<200809251427.m8PERYmn014998@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<f7bfe5740809250832k5e139e58v88ceed1e6961cb52@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809251913q5c885187y87da3871f6e391a7@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> Question to the list:
>
> Can anyone here suggest a simple term meaning "increasingly coherent
> over increasing context" with regard to this property corresponding
> with the expected competence of an agent's model of effective
> interaction with its environment?  It seems such a fundamental and
> generally applicable concept, similarly appropriate to philosophy of
> science, but I get a **lot** of email offlist from people saying they
> tend to get lost after about the second "increasingly" whenever I try
> to express lexically, concepts better expressed mathematically.

(increasing context = Bigger) and (increasingly coherent = Better)?
Possibly to reclaim this well-understood cliche for your own purpose
you could say: " 'Bigger and Better' will keep getting 'Bigger and
Better' "


From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 02:44:12 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:44:12 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809251944x444dd69al44023e678648613e@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/25 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:
>
>> In particular, how does a physical law obtain from a Platonia
>> viewpoint? Suppose snapshots are all that exists. Let a sequence
>> of them be f1, f2, f3, f4, ... that amount to a photon in motion
>> which is following a Maxwell equation, conserving momentum
>> and so on. But somewhere in the pile of all possible configurations
>> of the universe is an f3', which has the photon in some very weird
>> place and an f4' so that between them f3' and f4' correspond to
>> a photon going the other direction far, far away. Why is f2 somehow
>> more tightly coupled to f3 than to f3'?
>>
>> I.e., how does physical law emerge?

> Extending this idea, suppose there is a third version of you, L3, and
> a successor L3', both of which are distinct in subjective content from
> L1, L2, L1' and L2', but such that the subjective content of L3'
> *could* have followed from L1 or L2. Then if you are currently
> experiencing L1, your next experience might be drawn not only from L1'
> or L2', but also from L3'. There is no basis for saying that L1' is
> "more tightly coupled" to L1 than L2' or L3' are, provided that L3'
> has the right sort of subjective content. But we might be able to say
> that you are twice as likely to experience L1'/L2' (which we said have
> identical subjective content) rather than L3' as successor to L1/2,
> since there are twice as many versions of L1'/L2' as of L3'.

This sounds very similar to what I wrote on Sept 16 in QT & SR thread:
[...] is there any difference in
Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2?  is there a
way to distinguish the moment t'2 ?  How do we know at t3 that some of
our peers didn't actually experience t'2?  If that's a perfectly valid
transition of states, why not observer t1, t'1, t3, t'3 ?  Maybe
people who observe life this way (upconverted from a lower definition)
have a difficult time understanding those who perceive t1, t2, t3, t4
(non-interlaced)  Likewise there may be observers capable of
comfortable perceiving t1, t2+t'2, t3 (even numbered moments
simultaneously "in stereo" from two universes)  [...]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
<stathisp at gmail.com> continued:
> The upshot of all this is that in a multiverse, your consciousness can
> flit about passing through all physical copies with the right sort of
> subjective content. The only thing that stops you experiencing
> extremely weird shifts from moment to moment must be that such shifts
> are of very low measure: there just aren't that many versions of you
> in the multiverse where you observe a fire-breathing dragon where
> previously your memory tells you there was a keyboard. If this
> explanation fails, then I would take that as evidence in favour of a
> single, finite universe.

I ask why there need need be any detection of shifts at all.  If the
state of your memory is included in these discrete moments, then you
can't rely on your belief in a memory for continuity.  Suppose each
frame of your favorite movie were scattered before you as an
unsequenced collection.  You may be able to recognize a scene
'belonging' near the beginning or end of the movie.  There is no
reason that collection had to be ordered the way you remember it.  I
may have watched the whole thing in reverse order.  Perhaps it made
very little sense to me, or perhaps that's how I always watch movies
and the relationships between characters was refolding rather than
unfolding.  Perhaps my attention is split with another project 50% of
the time and that I only care about 15 of 30 frames per second such
that I don't even notice their reorganization (or complete
disappearance) within statistically insignificant series.  How much is
significant?  If exactly every even frame is perfectly ordered, but
every odd frame has a possibility of being either missing or swapped
with it's nearest odd neighbor - do I notice?  Maybe not if the shift
is equally proportioned throughout the film.  Is it the uniquely
ordered disturbance that catches our attention, or the uniquely
disordered disturbance that catches our attention?


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 26 02:18:37 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:18:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] a bit of election humor
Message-ID: <200809260245.m8Q2jGqv003265@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Some may have been puzzled by Florida rep. Alcee Hasting's bizarre comment:
 
"...anybody toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what
they do with Jews and blacks."
 
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/25/congressman-warns-jews-blacks-to-bew
are-of-palin/
 
I figured it out.  Note the taxonomical name for moose, Alces alces.
Clearly we see how ALCEE Hastings managed to make the inescapable
connection.  The part about Jews is baffling however.
 
spike
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080925/b635bcb5/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 03:17:42 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:17:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com><0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com><002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com><20080925223703.GA5611@ofb.net><00a001c91f73$bb900dd0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925210504.023b9e70@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <00b401c91f86$ab900170$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien B writes

> At 06:03 PM 9/25/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:
> 
>>if the "vast entities" affect visible entities, then light from them
>>should be able to get here, and they too would be part of
>>the visible universe.
> 
> I was assuming that the alleged weird lumps of stuff might to be 
> invisible, being so massively redshifted or built out of dark matter.

Yes, but photons are photons, whatever wavelength. As yet,
we don't know of conditions that would forbid the normal
tranmission of light, but I should have tried to be more general.

By the way, I'm finding it damn hard to discover anything on
light that gets into the nuances of what I was posting about.
Everywhere it's the same old "the visible universe is 13.7
billion light years in radius, because that's all the time there
was for light to move". When I've a bit more time, I'll try
looking under "horizon problem", or something, instead of
the pretty ambiguous "visible universe". The world according
to Guth and Tegmark isn't so simple; I'm still basing everything
on those two.

Max Tegmark, Scientific American, April 2003, or
    http://it.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131

if it's still there (Tegmark has newer versions, probably).

Lee




From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 03:27:19 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:27:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] "Post human" art gallery show
Message-ID: <2d6187670809252027o342823adj71232ab7f0346def@mail.gmail.com>

In sunny downtown Mesa, Arizona the Imbeau Art Gallery has an
exhibition named "Post Human."  When I saw the big banner they had
announcing it I excitedly stopped and went inside.  I met a friendly
curator who gave me a tour and I took in the presentation.  I would
not say it was truly Transhumanist but it dealt powerfully with
notions of institutional corruption and the struggle for America and
humanity's future.  I spoke with the beautiful curator about
Transhumanism and Posthumanism, subjects she was not familiar with.  I
was told the artist was not there but that he would be very interested
to discuss his work in person or online.

The artist explains his artwork on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=imbeau+gallery&search_type=

The Imbeau Art Gallery website:

http://bestdemowebsite.com/content/exhibition

John


From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Fri Sep 26 03:15:35 2008
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI]  miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)
Message-ID: <656236.61097.qm@web110410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

John K Clark wrote:

>And there are indeed some extreme libertarians who think the poor
>should die, just not this extreme libertarian...

I highly doubt that (regarding extreme libertarians).  Who do you think is going to pick up their garbage? ;)

The "extreme libertarian" is yet another way of labelling yourself no more short than Catholic, or Green, or Front and Center.  Anyone wishing someone to die is the problem.  Focusing on the issue at hand as opposed to the labelling of events seems much more productive. 

Just curious, 
Anna:)

 




      __________________________________________________________________
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Fri Sep 26 03:47:49 2008
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:47:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1222401143_19636@s1.cableone.net>

At 02:39 PM 9/25/2008, Damien wrote:
>Very interesting post from Lee. The part in the original claim that 
>I don't understand is how the gravitation of Vast amounts of clumped 
>matter spacelike separated from (outside the lightcone of) the 
>visible universe could possibly be affecting us?

Other than observation, is it affecting us?

While it is outside of our light cone, is the clumped matter outside 
the light cone of stuff at the edge of the observable universe?

Keith 



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Sep 26 04:09:54 2008
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] The Nuclear Huns
Message-ID: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Just in case people have been too distracted with the economic turmoil in the U.S. to pay attention to the international happenings that are buried on the back pages of the news, I would like to bring the following to light:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/24/nkorea.nuclear.plant/index.html#cnnSTCText

The key passage therein is "Last week, a South Korean news agency reported that North Korea was restoring a reactor at Yongbyon nuclear complex and no longer wanted to be removed from a U.S. list of countries that sponsor terrorism."

I myself would not have noticed it as hushed as the American media is about this, if I did not have access to the Korean news channel as part of my cable package.
 
So why am I comparing North Korea to the Huns? Well it goes back to the days of the Byzantine/Roman Empire circa 559 AD during the reign of Justinian I "the great". According to the historian Procopius, the emperor Justinian bribed the chieftains with large sacks of gold to leave the empire unmolested.  

While this measure proved temporarily effective, it quickly became a habitual tribute to the Huns:

"As soon as [Justinian] took over the rule from his uncle, his measure was to spend the public money without restraint, now that he had control of it. He gave much of it to the Huns who, from time to time, entered the state; and in consequence the Roman provinces were subject to constant incursions, for these barbarians, having once tasted Roman wealth, never forgot the road that led to it." -Procopius, 'The Secret History'

Now to bring the lessons of history into the present, remember the world-wide rice shortages back in 2007? Most people not connected with the rice industry who did not have access to Korean news media were only fed vague excuses having to do with the rising price of crude oil and the rising use of "biofuels".

While these factors certainly contributed, the real story largely supressed in the western media was that through some backdoor dealings the Bush administration by proxy of countries like South Korea, India, Thailand, and Egypt *bribed* North Korea with literally billions of tons of rice, causing an artificial shortage of rice throughout the rest of the world.

http://basmati.com/search.php?text=north%20korea&category_id=&pg=2

The link supplied above has over 30 articles on the topic.

Although mostly ignored by, or perhaps hidden from, the American public as it unfolded, the Korean-American community living in the United States was cogniscent of what was happening and was cursing the artificially high price they were having to pay here in the U.S. for their rice, knowing full well that North Korea could in no way be trusted to hold up its end of the bargain. And history has proved them right.

So with the U.S. military quamired in Iraq and Afghanistan while skirmishing with Pakistan, Russia invading Georgia, Iran proclaiming the end of American Empire, Venezuela kicking out all American ambassadors, and the U.S. tax payers being put on the hook for about $12 trillion in Repulican deficit spending, do we really want to put a moose-hunting beauty queen who neither blinks nor thinks in charge of our destinies?

I don't see how the next president could be anything other than either a disappointment or a disaster. I will leave you to decide which is which but I know I certainly wouldn't want the job. Anyone want to bet that we discover Russian nuclear missiles in Venezuela before the completion of the first term of the next U.S. president?  


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 spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 26 05:13:08 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:13:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Nuclear Huns
In-Reply-To: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200809260539.m8Q5dlkf010372@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 >...On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
> ... 
> remember the world-wide rice shortages back in 2007?... 
> countries like South Korea, India, Thailand, and Egypt 
> *bribed* North Korea with literally billions of tons of rice, 
> causing an artificial shortage of rice throughout the rest of 
> the world...

Avant, that was a huge deal around here, for most of my neighbors are Asian.
I never understood why they couldn't just substitute potatoes for rice, the
two foods being nutritionally nearly identical.  Would it really be that
hard to create new recipes?  I think it would not.  Why not Indian curry on
mashed potatoes?  Chinese gravy?  Sushi would be tougher, but we could
manage somehow methinks.  Compressed hash browns or something. 

> I don't see how the next president could be anything other 
> than either a disappointment or a disaster...

Ja, but perhaps a valuable lesson will come of it: do not depend on a
president or any other politicians to solve our problems.  Work and vote
towards reducing the power of the government in general and the executive
branch specifically.

>...Anyone want to bet that we discover Russian nuclear 
> missiles in Venezuela before the completion of the first term 
> of the next U.S. president?   Stuart LaForge

I wouldn't bet against that for a minute.  After all this, we still have
opposition to ground based missile defense, a technology that been developed
in spite of constant criticism and opposition hammering away throughout the
90s.  That technology may save our asses some day in the not too distant
future.

spike



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 05:41:38 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:41:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wizard of Oz and Capable Women in Power
Message-ID: <00c501c91f9a$91222b10$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Ever notice how Baum played with gender/sex differences
in WoZ?

It's a fairly common observation, I think. First, there was
General Ginger and her army made up entirely of women.
(Baum was actually satirizing the women suffragettes or
some aspect of incipient feminism, and their overly strident
attitudes (to him), but that was way over the head of this
eight-year-old.)

And there was Tip's amazing transformation into Ozma
(Tip thought he was a boy, but had only been bewitched
into being one; Ozma was the rightful ruler of Oz.) I 
think that Martin Gardner pointed all this out to me
in some column years ago.

I do know that I had liked Tip, and found Ozma relatively
dull. I still actually miss Tip and his friends, (who also became
less interesting after their trip across the desert in the Gimp).
And I shall forever be enchanted with The Powder of Life.

I was not a male chauvinist to any degree at that age.
At least General Ginger looked *organized*, and that
was the thing that appealed to me about the military
when I was very young. Coordinated action. Perhaps I
should have become a collectivist.

Likewise, six years later I became the number-one fan
of the Right Honorable Gloria Cecily, the Lady Laurr
of Noble Laurr, grand captain of the Star Cluster. That
spaceship, you will recall, was five miles long and had
a crew of 35,000. (Cordwainer Smith eventually 
satirized it in the story about the 93,000,000 mile
long spaceship, but then, he was an adult.) Now
that was organization, and with superb technology
that today still holds up. (They knew how to curve
space around an enemy fleet.)  Her Lieutenant Neslor
was one very shrewd female, the first to solve the mystery
of the double-minded mixed men.

Well, just some late night thoughts I wanted to share 
with other SF fans, especially those affected at an
early age the way I was by those particular stories.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 05:59:10 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:59:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809251944x444dd69al44023e678648613e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00e301c91f9d$60e581b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Mike writes

> This sounds very similar to what I wrote on Sept 16 in QT & SR thread:
> [...] is there any difference in
> Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2?  is there a
> way to distinguish the moment t'2 ?  How do we know at t3 that some of
> our peers didn't actually experience t'2?  If that's a perfectly valid
> transition of states, why not observer t1, t'1, t3, t'3 ?  Maybe
> people who observe life this way (upconverted from a lower definition)
> have a difficult time understanding those who perceive t1, t2, t3, t4
> (non-interlaced)  Likewise there may be observers capable of
> comfortable perceiving t1, t2+t'2, t3 (even numbered moments
> simultaneously "in stereo" from two universes)  [...]

Ah. Yes. Now perhaps we supply the same (rather empty)
answer. Platonia may consist of 10^20 identical snapshots
of the apple making contact with Newton's head, and only
two or three of each instant of it circling his head around and
around. In other words, apply the "measure" answer.

> Stathis continued:
>> The upshot of all this is that in a multiverse, your consciousness can
>> flit about passing through all physical copies with the right sort of
>> subjective content. The only thing that stops you experiencing
>> extremely weird shifts from moment to moment must be that such shifts
>> are of very low measure: there just aren't that many versions of you
>> in the multiverse where you observe a fire-breathing dragon where
>> previously your memory tells you there was a keyboard. If this
>> explanation fails, then I would take that as evidence in favour of a
>> single, finite universe.

Oh, Stathis had said what I'm saying already. Somehow it didn't
connect until your post.

> I ask why there need need be any detection of shifts at all.  If the
> state of your memory is included in these discrete moments, then you
> can't rely on your belief in a memory for continuity.

Yes, that's exactly right! Well, maybe the Platonians have
an answer to that too, but it doesn't seem to affect my take
on all this. For with me, physical law comes first, and then
patterns emerge (in constrained ways) so that personal
experience is way down (?) on the conceptual ladder.
I mean, it's a consequence, not a basic tenat.

Lee

>  Suppose each
> frame of your favorite movie were scattered before you as an
> unsequenced collection.  You may be able to recognize a scene
> 'belonging' near the beginning or end of the movie.  There is no
> reason that collection had to be ordered the way you remember it.  I
> may have watched the whole thing in reverse order.  Perhaps it made
> very little sense to me, or perhaps that's how I always watch movies
> and the relationships between characters was refolding rather than
> unfolding.  Perhaps my attention is split with another project 50% of
> the time and that I only care about 15 of 30 frames per second such
> that I don't even notice their reorganization (or complete
> disappearance) within statistically insignificant series.  How much is
> significant?  If exactly every even frame is perfectly ordered, but
> every odd frame has a possibility of being either missing or swapped
> with it's nearest odd neighbor - do I notice?  Maybe not if the shift
> is equally proportioned throughout the film.  Is it the uniquely
> ordered disturbance that catches our attention, or the uniquely
> disordered disturbance that catches our attention?



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Sep 26 08:46:33 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:46:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate.
In-Reply-To: <20080924141757.GA8518@ofb.net>
References: <f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer>
	<ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1222148082.21275.1653.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923011328.02301290@satx.rr.com>
	<1222185054.21275.1840.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080923110228.0242c630@satx.rr.com>
	<1222217933.21275.2073.camel@hayek> <48D9B1F4.9060806@mac.com>
	<20080924141757.GA8518@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <E844D691-6A61-4382-A3E6-0DD680227093@mac.com>


On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 08:20:20PM -0700, sjatkins wrote:
>
>> realistically we are not now at this moment in a position to take  
>> care
>> of even the most basic of needs of every person on the planet.
>
> Sure we are.  We already grow enough food to feed everyone; estimated
> costs of clean water supplies for everyone aren't that high --  
> WaterAid
> says $10 billion a year to halve the number of people without access  
> to
> clean water
> http://www.wateraid.org/usa/what_we_do/statistics/default.asp .
> There's your most basic needs right there.
>

There is technically enough food for everyone today or there was the  
last time I researched it.  I am less sure after the energy price  
spike and the asinine conversion of so much corn to feeble quantities  
of ethanol at great expense.  The total cost to feed, clothe, house  
everyone includes many material, energy and distribution costs that I  
don't think you can believably say we have covered yet.  It will take  
some effort to properly quantify what that would take and what level  
of material and other kinds of well-being is the target.

>> Realistically in this comparative world of actual scarcity there  
>> must be
>> some concentrations of what from some perspectives may seem unfair
>> quantities of wealth for much progress at all to occur.   Note also  
>> that
>
> "some concentration" is rather vague, even if true.

There must be enough concentration to free up sufficient resources to  
research, develop, manufacture and distribute with greater efficiency  
at least.    This includes concentrations of capital but is not  
limited to it.   If there can be enough for that sort of activity  
everywhere in the world that would be a great dream come true.

>
>
>> my idealistic perspective above in no way requires that wealth be  
>> more
>> evenly distributed.
>
> Hard to be a germinating godseed when you can't afford food and water.
>

It is not required that everyone have the same amount for at least  
some of the godseeds to germinate.  If these are sufficiently  
compassionate they will act for the uplifting of all the rest who are  
willing.

>> wealth of all us.   In practice there are many points of diminishing
>> returns and the need to chose where the ROI is highest in the face of
>> less than adequate time and resources.   We can all work diligently
>> within our relative god-realm to get to a place of such abundance  
>> that
>> much more than what we have is available to all.
>
> Highest marginal return is probably with those who have the least.

That is not clear.  Starting from scratch with no infrastructure  
material or cultural can be a pretty daunting and costly proposition.   
I would not expect to see much return beyond improving conditions for  
nearly a generation in many places where people have the least.   But  
that is an aside.

>
> Think: only 1/6 of the world is "First World".  The research  
> population
> could be at least 6x bigger than it is.  6x faster progress in science
> and technology, toward that Singularity you want.
>

It could be but likely will not be very quickly.  Even in the  
relatively developed world where much of the cultural and physical  
infrastructure is in place training people to be full fledged  
researchers takes a fair amount of time.  Do you think you can take  
those who are barely subsisting, who may have been malnourished at  
critical developmental stages to boot, whose culture is far removed  
from any sort of scientific or secular worldview and quickly transform  
them into researchers?    But I take your point.   It is central to my  
own growing ethics that the maximal real wealth we can enjoy requires  
maximization of the positive potential of everyone.   The next  
Einstein may be in a cardboard hovel dying of poor nutrition and  
unsanitary conditions.   Or she may be doing endless code maintenance  
in the cube down the hall.  :-)


- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Sep 26 09:05:55 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:05:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <20080925164501.GB23020@ofb.net>
References: <1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek>
	<08c501c91ba8$32675be0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net> <20080922014607.GA12873@ofb.net>
	<0bb801c91eac$123940c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080925015340.GA1215@ofb.net> <20080925022534.GA3295@ofb.net>
	<0c2f01c91eeb$b93d4d00$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080925164501.GB23020@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <27440756-1A0B-4708-BD02-AC7035009F5C@mac.com>


On Sep 25, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:49:44AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Damien S. writes
>>
>>> Conservative/libertarians sometimes deride liberals/socialists as  
>>> making
>>> the State their God.  I'd say this is partly true: where the  
>>> religious
>>> worship an unprovable God, progressives set out to build a god,  
>>> finite
>>> and fallible but real, to do the things God is asked to do, like  
>>> help us
>>> in need.
>>
>> I can hardly believe I'm reading this. It's all the worst claims
>> of the right-wing extremists come true, namely, that the left
>> wants to turn government into some kind of god.
>
> A god of our design and under our control.
>
> More *precisely*, the state is doing the things that people have  
> prayed
> for God to do.  Keep us safe from enemies, provide regular water for  
> the
> crops, help us out after disasters, and even prevent natural disasters
> -- Army Corps on water works, possibly future weather control.

People can band together and have for common defense.  They band  
together in many ways for various common needs and to smooth out the  
rough places that can visit each on occassion.  This does not require  
any mega-State.   The mega-State has a very sorry history of killing  
hundreds of millions of its own people.

>
>
> Why can't that be private?  Some of it could, but there's lots of free
> rider problems.  Some of it can't be -- "what should the outdoor
> temperature be?" is an inherently collective decision.
>

What for?  If you can control the weather then micro-climates should  
not be that big a step.  And I think you will agree that is a pretty  
trivial example.

>> I think the EPA has hurt. It costs industry hundreds of billions
>> of dollars annually, which is passed on to people, and we get
>> further and further off the exponential economic growth curve
>> we should have been on.
>
> The EPA prevents industry from dumping costs onto third parties by
> dumping poisons into the environment.  Externalities.  This is making
> the market work better, not worse; a "free market" where costs aren't
> private is a false market.

There were many ways to address pollution and many were used, not just  
government force.    Costs are never completely private.  This does  
not mean they cannot be factored into market decisions instead of  
being matters of State fiat.

>
>
>> Can you perhaps help me with this? My friends can't. Why
>> don't people who think pollution is too high in the cities just
>> move to small towns?  (Oh, right, because their standard of living
>
> Cities are hardly the only problem.  Aquifers, river dumping, ocean
> dumping, acid rain, ozone layer destruction, global warming.
>
> Cities, perhaps, don't need a federal EPA; they could use local laws
> against leaf-burning (hey, they do) or car emissions.  (In the  
> interest
> of unified markets, states are forbidden from being stricter than the
> EPA, except for California which had special smog problems, and states
> are allowed to jump up to California levels.  So we don't have a full
> free 'market' in state laws.
>

A bunch of libertarians can sue ill-behaved neighbors just fine or  
simply shun them until they either become more reasonable or move  
elsewhere.



> But you seem to be saying people in polluted cities should move away
> rather than trying to regulate local pollution.  Why do polluters  
> have a
> right to pollute?  You think government regulations are more onerous
> than dumping toxins into the air?
>

No one has the right to harm others except in self-defense.  This  
flows straight out of the Non-Aggression Principle.  Poisoning a  
common resource we both depend on is most certainly a form of  
aggression and quite actionable by libertarians.


>> I think black people have suffered because of those laws. Sure,
>> you have some superficial hireings here and there, but often at the
>> cost of introducing underqualified workers. And now, even
>
> I don't want to get into affirmative action debate, but I'd note there
> are multiple levels:
> anti-discrimination
> affirmative action (adds making some sort of active effort to recruit
> the disadvantaged)
> quota (adds a hard requirement of such recruitment)
>

If some moron discriminates then others can discriminate against the  
moron and refuse to do business with him.  Discrimination of whom you  
associate with is part of freedom of association. Circumventing that  
was arguably a  mistake.

> Discrimination can at least sometimes be measured directly, such as  
> when
> companies respond to otherwise identical resumes differently based  
> on the
> perceived race or gender of the name on the resume, let alone when  
> black
> and white couples are told different things about home availability in
> an area.

Why should I be able to tell someone they can't do business or not do  
business with whomever they please?   I may think they are ridiculous  
and shun them as rather benighted but I don't see why I or any group  
of people should be able to tell them they must do business with  
anyone they don't want to.    Much less that we should be able by  
force or arms to make them do so.

I dare say that all people no matter how different from most others  
will find more room to live and let live in such a libertarian society  
than they do today where the State uses its legalized force to coerce  
everyone to whatever least common denominator standards with  
considerable twisting by special interests and pressure groups manage  
to make it into law.

- samantha



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Sep 26 09:09:38 2008
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:09:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Article From March on SubPrime
In-Reply-To: <20080925201140.GA26349@ofb.net>
References: <1222218812.21275.2088.camel@hayek>
	<0aeb01c91e4d$16ce8c80$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<43C1F092-2421-4ECB-9B57-34DD494CB211@mac.com>
	<20080925201140.GA26349@ofb.net>
Message-ID: <11C673FB-1D17-43D5-A1BB-32530E1D59CA@mac.com>


On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:48:18AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>> Is it not the Fed that control interest rates and the money  
>> supply?  I
>> confess I forget which agency, quasi-governmental private group (like
>> the Fed), does what these days.  But interest rates and inflation of
>> the money supply are critical enablers of major bubbles.
>
> Bubbles happened long before central banks like the Fed existed.  The
> Fed can make things worse -- probably the Great Depression, an
> extraordinary version of earlier 'panic' cycles -- but also better --
> the lack of panics and bank runs since then.


Hehehehe.  The Fed was all over the Great Depression.  There meddling  
and the actions of government to attempt to force prices to stay high  
are arguably what made the Great Depression "Great".   Other previous  
market hits as severe were recovered from much more quickly.

Do you read the news?  We are following nearly precisely the pattern  
of the Great Depression right now.   The government is pushing more  
and more finagling of the economy when government policies largely got  
us here in the first place.

- samantha



From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 11:56:57 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:56:57 +1000
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/26 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> At 09:29 PM 9/25/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
>> So if the universe suddenly disappeared, does that mean 17 would no
>> longer be prime?
>
> I should have thought it means 17 would no longer be.

How much of the universe would have to go in order to eliminate 17?
For example, would there be a 17 if there were only 16 electrons and
nothing else? One electron? Empty space?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 09:50:01 2008
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:50:01 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Gender Freedom Day in Digital Worlds,
	planned for October 25 in Second Life
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90809260250u4c08bd59ua33f9c8fe71045c3@mail.gmail.com>

Gender Freedom Day in Digital Worlds, planned for October 25 in Second
Life: a full day of speakers, multimedia and other creative efforts,
and host a fundraising party in Extropia for organizations promoting
freedom of expression of gender identity and sexual preference in
digital worlds.

I will support her initiative and wish to encourage you to support it too.

http://sophtopia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gender-freedom-day-in-digital-worlds.html

-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 09:51:52 2008
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:51:52 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Regular Cosmic Engineers Sunday meeting in Second Life
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90809260251n40beb645p6800347130b3d631@mail.gmail.com>

http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/regular_cosmic_engineers_sunday_meeting_in_second_life/

Cosmic Engineers will meet regularly in Second Life on Sundays at 10am
PST/SLT (1pm EST, 6pm UK, 7pm Continental EU). Sunday meetings will be
open to visitors. The Cosmic Engineers Second Life meeting point is on
the Extropia Core sim - you can use this SLURL to teleport. Depending
on those present, some Sunday meetings will be informal social or
organizational chats, and others will be mainly dedicated to
communicating our cosmic transhumanist vision to visitors. On
occasions the Sunday meeting will morph into a seminar with one or
more keynote speaker(s) and be announced in Current events on the
Cosmic Engineers website. The first regular meeting will take place on
Sunday September 28.

I wish to encourage those who are in Second Life to join the next
Sunday meeting on September 28 and bring friends interested in
transhumanism (not necessarily transhumanists). We will distribute the
shirt in the picture above and invite newcomers to the Cosmic
Engineers group. The first meeting will be very informal and cover
several ongoing initiatives. Our good friend Sophrosyne Stenvaag will
come to discuss her initiative Gender Freedom Day in Digital Worlds,
planned for October 25 in Second Life: a full day of speakers,
multimedia and other creative efforts, and host a fundraising party in
Extropia for organizations promoting freedom of expression of gender
identity and sexual preference in digital worlds. I will support her
initiative and wish to encourage you to support it too.

-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 12:28:43 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:28:43 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: My Answer to the President (from Ron Paul)
In-Reply-To: <CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com>
	<CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809260528p4d1797c6i9200e33f8b54f721@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/26 Samantha  Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Congresman Ron Paul <updates08 at ronpaulforcongress.com>
> Date: September 25, 2008 12:52:18 PM PDT
> To: sjatkins at mac.com
> Subject: My Answer to the President
> Reply-To: Congresman_Ron_Paul_bcpag_lnaqfb at cp20.com
>
> Dear Friends:
>
> The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has
> arrived.
>
> We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at
> the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More
> artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and
> malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only
> continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital
> misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to
> re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

The U.S. Federal Reserve screwed up. It should have *raised* interest
rates when it saw the flurry of activity in the housing market, or
otherwise tried to rein in the activity of the commercial banks it is
supposed to be supervising. That's what central banks did in most
other countries under similar circumstances, and the main problems
those non-U.S. banks now have is exposure to U.S. bad loans.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 12:41:02 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:41:02 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
In-Reply-To: <002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809260541k6b95cc99j4ae81bdce3b4c1d0@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/26 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> [2] Alan Guth explains in his book that the acronym
> GUT for "Grand Unified Theories" is not faithful to
> the  Greek roots of the word "theory", where "th" is
> represented by the single letter phi, i.e., that the proper
> acronym is really GUTH.

Theta, not phi.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 13:20:28 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:20:28 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
In-Reply-To: <00e301c91f9d$60e581b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809251944x444dd69al44023e678648613e@mail.gmail.com>
	<00e301c91f9d$60e581b0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <62c14240809260620m2ce8bff2q98efb90905b55e5e@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Ah. Yes. Now perhaps we supply the same (rather empty)
> answer. Platonia may consist of 10^20 identical snapshots
> of the apple making contact with Newton's head, and only
> two or three of each instant of it circling his head around and
> around. In other words, apply the "measure" answer.

Sounds like a statistician "normalizing" those few outlying data
points that would otherwise screw up a smooth curve.  :)

> Oh, Stathis had said what I'm saying already. Somehow it didn't
> connect until your post.

i'm happy to have contributed some clarity to the discussion - even if
it was someone else's point :)

> Yes, that's exactly right! Well, maybe the Platonians have
> an answer to that too, but it doesn't seem to affect my take
> on all this. For with me, physical law comes first, and then
> patterns emerge (in constrained ways) so that personal
> experience is way down (?) on the conceptual ladder.
> I mean, it's a consequence, not a basic tenat.

So where is the observer relative to Platonia to observe the "passage"
of time or the movement from moment to moment?


From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 13:34:20 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:34:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Nuclear Huns
In-Reply-To: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809260634u99c202fm16f574f8644cce4d@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:09 AM, The Avantguardian
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't see how the next president could be anything other than either a disappointment or a disaster. I will leave you to decide which is which but I know I certainly wouldn't want the job. Anyone want to bet that we discover Russian nuclear missiles in Venezuela before the completion of the first term of the next U.S. president?

To clarify, did you mean discover or "discover"? (snarky, sarcastic
air-quote analogues added for emphasis)


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 13:37:02 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:37:02 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
In-Reply-To: <007801c91f63$99424410$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<007801c91f63$99424410$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809260637k20c48d2dj402e9d0cb64a8581@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/26 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> Must personal identity get dragged into this? Personal Identity
> is very controversial in ways that I think have nothing to do
> with physical law---yet I do see below that perhaps Platonia
> is to you like Personal Identity is to me.

It's not personal identity per se but the role of the observer that
must be taken into account. Suppose there is some rule that determines
that for every one world in which physical laws continue as they have
always appeared to do, there are a million worlds in which these laws
completely break down in the next moment, as a result of which human
brains cease to function. Then due to anthropic considerations we will
only observe reality as orderly, even though it is anything but.

> But on my concept of identity, "I" is a pattern, and it happens
> to be present in both places equally. So it's simply not the case
> that "my" experiences are one of L1 or L2 but not the other.

I think you're pushing a semantic point here. We can agree that there
is only "one" you, but there are still two separate physical processes
manifesting the two components making up the whole, and I could in
theory shake the hand of each of these two components separately,
altering the experience of one component but not the other.

>> But we might be able to say
>> that you are twice as likely to experience L1'/L2' (which we said have
>> identical subjective content) rather than L3' as successor to L1/2,
>> since there are twice as many versions of L1'/L2' as of L3'.
>
> I only object to the form of the language here, not necessarily
> to what you are saying. To me, it is not true that "I am twice
> as likely to experience" one of these options rather than the
> other, since I must experience both (i.e., the LC pattern is
> executing in both spacetime locations).

This makes it difficult to talk about probability. If you buy a
lottery ticket, don't you say you are far more likely to lose than
win, rather than insisting that, in reality, you will certainly both
win and lose?

>> The upshot of all this is that in a multiverse, your consciousness can
>> flit about passing through all physical copies with the right sort of
>> subjective content.
>
> You guys (the everything crowd), when you talk about about consciousness
> flitting here and there, seem to me to be talking as you would of a soul.

On the contrary, I've deliberately put everything in very concrete
terms. Consciousness is due to activity in one, and only one,
collection of matter, as evidenced by the fact that if you give it a
kick, you will change its experience but not those of the other
similar collections of matter. The flitting about is due to the fact
that where there are multiple identical collections of matter it isn't
possible to know which one you are.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 13:53:34 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:53:34 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
In-Reply-To: <62c14240809251944x444dd69al44023e678648613e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809251944x444dd69al44023e678648613e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809260653u64f220d0ode5eac074948b755@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/26 Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com>:

> This sounds very similar to what I wrote on Sept 16 in QT & SR thread:
> [...] is there any difference in
> Platonia from our observation of moment t1 to moment t2?  is there a
> way to distinguish the moment t'2 ?  How do we know at t3 that some of
> our peers didn't actually experience t'2?  If that's a perfectly valid
> transition of states, why not observer t1, t'1, t3, t'3 ?  Maybe
> people who observe life this way (upconverted from a lower definition)
> have a difficult time understanding those who perceive t1, t2, t3, t4
> (non-interlaced)  Likewise there may be observers capable of
> comfortable perceiving t1, t2+t'2, t3 (even numbered moments
> simultaneously "in stereo" from two universes)  [...]

You need to specify what the content of t1, t'1, t2 etc. are. The
observer is not an entity persisting through time who observes
different states; rather, the observer *is* the different states. So
if t2 and t'2 are both potential successor states to t1, that will
create a branching so that there are two observers, t1-t2 and t1-t'2.
But there is no way t1-t2-t'2 could form unless t'2 contains a memory
of t2, in which case t1-t2-t'2 would *have* to form. The different
observer moments can be shuffled and thrown into the air, and will
naturally associate due to their subjective content.

> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
> <stathisp at gmail.com> continued:
>> The upshot of all this is that in a multiverse, your consciousness can
>> flit about passing through all physical copies with the right sort of
>> subjective content. The only thing that stops you experiencing
>> extremely weird shifts from moment to moment must be that such shifts
>> are of very low measure: there just aren't that many versions of you
>> in the multiverse where you observe a fire-breathing dragon where
>> previously your memory tells you there was a keyboard. If this
>> explanation fails, then I would take that as evidence in favour of a
>> single, finite universe.
>
> I ask why there need need be any detection of shifts at all.  If the
> state of your memory is included in these discrete moments, then you
> can't rely on your belief in a memory for continuity.  Suppose each
> frame of your favorite movie were scattered before you as an
> unsequenced collection.  You may be able to recognize a scene
> 'belonging' near the beginning or end of the movie.  There is no
> reason that collection had to be ordered the way you remember it.  I
> may have watched the whole thing in reverse order.  Perhaps it made
> very little sense to me, or perhaps that's how I always watch movies
> and the relationships between characters was refolding rather than
> unfolding.  Perhaps my attention is split with another project 50% of
> the time and that I only care about 15 of 30 frames per second such
> that I don't even notice their reorganization (or complete
> disappearance) within statistically insignificant series.  How much is
> significant?  If exactly every even frame is perfectly ordered, but
> every odd frame has a possibility of being either missing or swapped
> with it's nearest odd neighbor - do I notice?  Maybe not if the shift
> is equally proportioned throughout the film.  Is it the uniquely
> ordered disturbance that catches our attention, or the uniquely
> disordered disturbance that catches our attention?

If you saw the frames in jumbled up order that would change the
observer moments compared to watching the film in sequence, since you
would have a memory of a later frame when watching an earlier frame,
for example. But if your experience of the frames were shuffled, for
example if you were living in a simulation which is run in
non-sequential order, the observer moments would not change and would
naturally associate in order due to their subjective content, so you
wouldn't be able to notice that anything unusual had happened.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Sep 26 14:17:42 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:17:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2008/9/26 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> > At 09:29 PM 9/25/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
> >
> >> So if the universe suddenly disappeared, does that mean 17 would no
> >> longer be prime?
> >
> > I should have thought it means 17 would no longer be.
>
> How much of the universe would have to go in order to eliminate 17?
> For example, would there be a 17 if there were only 16 electrons and
> nothing else? One electron? Empty space?

This question is similar to "when did you stop beating your wife?"
The question presumes the ontological status of "17."  A valid
question would be one that can be modeled as a system providing a
defined output.  Otherwise, what can it ***mean***?

You carry the same sort of presumption, of a singularity of self, into
many of your other online discussions.

- Jef


From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Sep 26 15:00:02 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:00:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] "increasingly coherent over increasing context"
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809260800vbe281b2va9183f103c159bdd@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Jef writes
>
>> Can anyone here suggest a simple term meaning "increasingly coherent
>> over increasing context" with regard to this property corresponding
>> with the expected competence of an agent's model of effective
>> interaction with its environment?  It seems such a fundamental and
>> generally applicable concept, similarly appropriate to philosophy of
>> science, but I get a **lot** of email offlist from people saying they
>> tend to get lost after about the second "increasingly" whenever I try
>> to express lexically, concepts better expressed mathematically.
>
> I would suggest avoiding reliance on any staple phrase...

Thanks Lee for your advice on effective prose, and I have no doubt
that varying my wording, coming at the topic from various angles, and
above all -- examples -- would help.  On the other hand, consider the
vast literature surrounding the extremely simple core of Buddhist
enlightenment and how few persons make the necessary conceptual leap.
Or consider the sheer volume of Eliezer's near-daily essays, most of
which graze this conceptual space, chipping away but not yet fully
exposing the elegant synthesis of the subjective and objective
essential to a coherent metaethics. A few years ago I began to outline
a persuasively comprehensive text, and very quickly confronted an
explosion of possible backgrounds and points of view that would have
to be accommodated.  I came to realize that given available time and
bandwidth for online textual interaction, I would have to be content
with merely planting seeds and watching for the rare germination.

But back to my request to the list, my question was not so much about
rhetorical technique or devices, but to the question of whether we
already have a term for "increasingly coherent over increasing
context", and if not, why not?  Feel free to neologize.

- Jef


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 15:02:33 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:02:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: My Answer to the President (from Ron Paul)
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com>
	<CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>
Message-ID: <041501c91fe8$eeeb94e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Samantha writes

> [Ron Paul wrote back to the President of the U.S.]

Just a We Told You So from the Austrian Economists.
But as always, the directness of the language, the
completely logical picture adduced, are wonderful
to read.

    Dear Friends:

    The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has
    arrived.

    We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit
    at the hands of the Federal Reserve System.

Don't people at least here understand the basic mechanism
that Ron Paul is describing. Do you know what those words
mean? Suppose that I were able to create credit. Suddenly
Lee's IOUs were good all over town. Can't you see the 
inflationary effect? Can't you understand not only that harm
itself, but how it could encourage very unwise decisions from
people?

Someone who yesterday could not afford a new swimming pool
---well, he could afford it literally, but would he'd have to go into
more expensive debt---now quickly grabs a lot of Lee's IOUs
at *low* interest rates. (Lee has decided that the economy
needed a stimulant.) Being one of the first to get the new IOUs,
before the inflationary effects get very far, the moment he walks
out of my house with his new wad of cash---which everyone must
accept by law---the value of everyone else's money goes down.

Naturally the extremely imprudent benefit. Those with massive
credit card debt, those with mortgages way over their heads.
All these people are *rewarded*---and then the country moans
and screams because they got into too much debt. Well, the
system *encourages* that, and discourages prudence.

(But then who uses that old-fashioned word anymore anyway?)

    The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal
    Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be
    allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and
    intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation,
    all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to
    re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

You do see the mechanism in place, right? It's not rocket science.

    Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis.
    There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only
    be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past
    several days, but for years and even decades.

    Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

    The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress
    to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets."
    Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation
    spree were even mentioned?

Um, Mr. Paul, uh, "no"?

    We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we
    are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a
    deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low
    interest rates distort the market.

And who keeps screaming for more stimulants?

    Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make
    sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally
    remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand
    can support,

I can learn from this. He's a more articulate economist than I am. I hope
others re-read that paragraph the way I'm going to.

    and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been
    permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Interest rates do describe the cost of money. When they're artificially
suppressed, much more malinvestment occurs. New expansions or
new businesses suddenly appear to make economic sense, (and they
indeed may with the cheap new money suddenly available).

    Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then
    discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle.
    Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism"
    (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Yes. Let's just criticize human greed, and draft more laws to punish people
who try to create profit. More restrictions on business decisions not dictated,
(as they should be) by market conditions.

    Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because
    these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were
    guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous
    sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our
    financial system at risk."

    Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the
    first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may
    have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and
    Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed
    they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Humans respond to incentives. Why not take certain risks when it's fairly
likely that the government will bail you out? Oh, yes, the day of reckoning
will sometimes come, but not before tomorrow when I'll be able to find
"the greater fool" to unload my bad loans and unwise investing on.

    Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the
    Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would
    reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could
    plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the
    money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the
    value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the
    dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are
    obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if
    government insists on propping them up.

    It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great
    Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a
    decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the
    equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less
    than a year.

Of course, the much maligned Warren G. Harding was president. Any reason
why he and his successor are *so* maligned? (And the disdain for his presidency
goes far beyond the scandal. He was a "do nothing" president, unlike Hoover
and FDR, and he let the economy heal by itself. Gee, if we'd only had the
Hoover/Roosevelt team in 1921, we could have had the Depression last
two decades instead of one!

    The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at
    the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan
    bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if
    they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or
    whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

    F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation
    of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly
    familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the
    foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed,
    just as destructively, in our own:

    Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments
    brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable
    means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and
    one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success,
    from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this
    deliberate policy of credit expansion.

    To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure
    the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering
    from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection -
    a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the
    credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment,
    together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come,
    that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

    The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn
    from history.

    The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the
    economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the
    extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim
    to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly
    wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his
    expert status is called into question?

    Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue
    plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

    The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the
    spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing
    a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The
    very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in
    all this actually seems to annoy them.

    I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a
    piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the
    correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on
    these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to
    start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

    H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and
    catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our
    circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have. In
    liberty,

    Ron Paul

Nowadays, civilization is in a race between technological innovation and
other forms of wealth creation, and the socialization of the economy and
the draining of profits by government actions. Until a few days ago,
civilization had the upper hand, and was still gaining albeit much, much
more slowly than should have been the case.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 15:50:49 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:50:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] "increasingly coherent over increasing context"
References: <f7bfe5740809260800vbe281b2va9183f103c159bdd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <042701c91fef$f0eae320$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jef writes

> Lee wrote:
> 
>> Jef writes
>>
>>> Can anyone here suggest a simple term meaning "increasingly coherent
>>> over increasing context" with regard to this property corresponding
>>> with the expected competence of an agent's model of effective
>>> interaction with its environment?  It seems such a fundamental and
>>> generally applicable concept, similarly appropriate to philosophy of
>>> science, but I get a **lot** of email offlist from people saying they
>>> tend to get lost after about the second "increasingly" whenever I try
>>> to express lexically, concepts better expressed mathematically.
>>
>> I would suggest avoiding reliance on any staple phrase...
> 
> Thanks Lee for your advice on effective prose, and I have no doubt
> that varying my wording, coming at the topic from various angles, and
> above all -- examples -- would help.  On the other hand, consider the
> vast literature surrounding the extremely simple core of Buddhist
> enlightenment and how few persons make the necessary conceptual leap.

Yes, the value of what you say (and I'm far from being a total 
skeptic for reasons that appear below) may still be a stretch
for people just either due to their difficulty or their basic
unfamiliarity with certain ways of looking at it.

> Or consider the sheer volume of Eliezer's near-daily essays, most of
> which graze this conceptual space, chipping away but not yet fully
> exposing the elegant synthesis of the subjective and objective
> essential to a coherent metaethics. A few years ago I began to outline
> a persuasively comprehensive text, and very quickly confronted an
> explosion of possible backgrounds and points of view that would have
> to be accommodated.

That had to benefit you, quite apart from learning how difficult 
your aim may be.

> I came to realize that given available time and
> bandwidth for online textual interaction, I would have to be content
> with merely planting seeds and watching for the rare germination.

And hope.
 
> But back to my request to the list, my question was not so much about
> rhetorical technique or devices, but to the question of whether we
> already have a term for "increasingly coherent over increasing
> context", and if not, why not?  Feel free to neologize.

I did try hard, and didn't come up with anything better than what
others later said. I could see that what I was coming up with (and
what they came up with) didn't quite fill the bill[1]. 

Here goes again. [Lee in as near as he comes to deep thought
for about as long as he is able to concentrate on any particular
thing these days]. Well, after 45 seconds, I have this:

       "wider applicability" can replace the "increasing context" 
        or "wider reference".

The "increasingly coherent" can be replaced by

        "growing synthesis" or "expanding synthesis" 

The result: we get "improved synthesis over wider applicability",
or "expanding synthesis over increasing context", or "enhanced
synthesis over wider reference".  [Especially as systems interact
more, and the light cones of any one system become larger.]
If you switch back and forth between three or four phrases
that seem mostly equivalent to you, many fewer people will
be annoyed. Particular words stick in our brains, with both
good and bad effects and affects.

But still, extra practice explaining what you mean by using entirely
different words, analogies, and examples, will cause your prose
to become more effective, and to become clearer. Moreover,
while engaging in that activity, it's quite possible that you will
understand not only how your ideas may be explained more
simply and directly, but you may come to understand them
better too. I have benefited enormously by explaining what I
think to this list, aware of the vast and cool and sympathetic
minds liable to read and perhaps comment.

It may even be that as people here, including me, have tried to
suggest alternate phrasing, it became clear to you that they were
not really understanding the idea. For example, I'm only 80%
certain that my suggestions---whatever their literary merit or
lack of merit---actually capture what you mean.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 16:02:35 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:02:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: My Answer to the President (from Ron Paul)
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com><CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30809260528p4d1797c6i9200e33f8b54f721@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <042a01c91ff1$5882b430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> The U.S. Federal Reserve screwed up. It should have
> *raised* interest rates when it saw the flurry of activity
> in the housing market, 

And just don't create so goddam much extra money
all the time (which is the same thing, really, as you are
saying).

> or otherwise tried to rein in the activity of the commercial
> banks it is supposed to be supervising.

But that could cause a recession (as if that were a bad thing).
When you inhale, you have to exhale too.

It's politically too difficult to have recessions or slowdowns
any time, given people's obvious experiences: when there is
a slowdown or a recession, some people get laid off as its
clear to their companies that profits are not being made.
Also, people sell off suspicious looking stocks, and the
stock market falls a little (in accordance to how much it
really ought to go down).

No, better for people to enjoy "boom times" like the late
nineties, when everybody was happily destroying great
amounts of wealth. The analogy with intoxication is very
apt.

> That's what central banks did in most other countries
> under similar circumstances, and the main problems
> those non-U.S. banks now have is exposure to U.S.
> bad loans.

Well, then in that case, the other banks have contributed
to the problem as well, right? They invest their money
here because here is where the highest and safest interest
rates can be found---all backed by the government of the
world's greatest economy. 

Why was government backing introduced? For exactly
the same reason that permeates so many of our discussion.
A yearning for complete security.

Lee



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Sep 26 16:36:10 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:36:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
 Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080926113041.02308388@satx.rr.com>

At 07:17 AM 9/26/2008 -0700, Jef wrote:

> > How much of the universe would have to go in order to eliminate 17?
> > For example, would there be a 17 if there were only 16 electrons and
> > nothing else? One electron? Empty space?
>
>...The question presumes the ontological status of "17."  A valid
>question would be one that can be modeled as a system providing a
>defined output.  Otherwise, what can it ***mean***?

I'm inclined to think that "17" is the name of an operation, not of a 
thing. That interpretation might map onto Jef's and, I suspect, 
Lee's. This view has implications for incalculably large numbers and 
infinities, no doubt, but only if they really are incalculable. (But 
I am not a mathematician.)

Damien Broderick



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Sep 26 16:56:45 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:56:45 -0400
Subject: [ExI] miscommunication
References: <710b78fc0809182243k796328bekd870bcbe019453f4@mail.gmail.com><200809191458.m8JEvlkd024568@andromeda.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0809191820j76a29ed7g9ce86acf434c5ea7@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809192323u2f87a169o258f697bddd066c2@mail.gmail.com><1221931842.21275.506.camel@hayek><3D4657A3110147AC81EBB25A079BAB3C@MyComputer><ee50357e0809220856w27a0a934t2bf8d91b622a9d4@mail.gmail.com><2529D05F4FE94DCCA3D1BB3B9A3A2164@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080922163159.0230c2a8@satx.rr.com><0a7101c91dd0$f47a7940$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080923185129.023689c8@satx.rr.com><5FC9B51FC57844D8B64472BB4ABBE7B4@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20080924114510.0252a918@satx.rr.com><D513605D771E4013B4C763EAB486C8DB@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925140942.0235b040@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5B7EC30E71A3431A9FF408F584206606@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> I was  speaking of your repeated carelessness
> in reading what other people  write and
> consequently misrepresenting them

Please provide examples so I can learn from my mistakes and
strong in the power of Phi become. (or is it spelled "sigh"?)

  John K Clark





From dagonweb at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 16:59:51 2008
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:59:51 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: My Answer to the President (from Ron Paul)
In-Reply-To: <042a01c91ff1$5882b430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com>
	<CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30809260528p4d1797c6i9200e33f8b54f721@mail.gmail.com>
	<042a01c91ff1$5882b430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0809260959gdf1acb1r229099356a8789ff@mail.gmail.com>

The problem with the horrific lunacy the US has dug its way is the
delusional
idea the US is somehow fundamentally special, and the american system
somehow being immune, probably by divine blessing, to failure or critical
failure. I have been very vocal since as far back as 2003 as what was going
to
happen. I must be some kind of clairvoyant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080926/9b1f3f87/attachment.html>

From jef at jefallbright.net  Fri Sep 26 17:07:21 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:07:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080926113041.02308388@satx.rr.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926113041.02308388@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809261007j18cde526j77404e6ba4d018c7@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 07:17 AM 9/26/2008 -0700, Jef wrote:
>
>> > How much of the universe would have to go in order to eliminate 17?
>> > For example, would there be a 17 if there were only 16 electrons and
>> > nothing else? One electron? Empty space?
>>
>> ...The question presumes the ontological status of "17."  A valid
>> question would be one that can be modeled as a system providing a
>> defined output.  Otherwise, what can it ***mean***?
>
> I'm inclined to think that "17" is the name of an operation, not of a thing.
> That interpretation might map onto Jef's and, I suspect, Lee's. This view
> has implications for incalculably large numbers and infinities, no doubt,
> but only if they really are incalculable. (But I am not a mathematician.)

Yes, when the discussion tends toward scenarios outside our common
experience, then our thinking must become more rigorous.  Ultimately,
an object is  never known in terms of "what it is", but always only in
terms of its observed interactions.

It may helpful here to consider why people struggle with concepts such
as 0.999... == 1.0.

- Jef


From pjmanney at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 17:27:03 2008
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:27:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wizard of Oz and Capable Women in Power
In-Reply-To: <00c501c91f9a$91222b10$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <00c501c91f9a$91222b10$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <29666bf30809261027t2e1ffa67o92e34a0c01390c30@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Ever notice how Baum played with gender/sex differences
> in WoZ?
>
> It's a fairly common observation, I think. First, there was
> General Ginger and her army made up entirely of women.
> (Baum was actually satirizing the women suffragettes or
> some aspect of incipient feminism, and their overly strident
> attitudes (to him), but that was way over the head of this
> eight-year-old.)

Damn you, Lee.  It's like a freshly caught salmon placed at the mouth
of a hibernating grizzly's cave.  And it's spring.

The Oz books were the Bible in my household.  My father handed them
down to me, and I to my daughter.

Baum was a strong and active supporter of women's suffrage and his
wife was the daughter of one of the country's most famous
suffragettes.  He walked the talk.

Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Frank_Baum:
"Sally Roesch Wagner of The Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation has
published a pamphlet titled The Wonderful Mother of Oz describing how
Matilda's radical feminist politics were sympathetically channelled by
Baum into his Oz books. Much of the politics in the Republican
Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer [edited by Baum] dealt with trying to
convince the populace to vote for women's suffrage. Baum was the
secretary of Aberdeen's Woman's Suffrage Club. When Susan B. Anthony
visited Aberdeen, she stayed with the Baums. Nancy Tystad Koupal notes
an apparent loss of interest in editorializing after Aberdeen failed
to pass the bill for women's enfranchisement.

"Some of Baum's contacts with suffragists of his day seem to have
inspired much of his second Oz story, The Marvelous Land of Oz. In
this story, General Jinjur leads the girls and women of Oz in a revolt
by knitting needles, take over, and make the men do the household
chores. Jinjur proves to be an incompetent ruler, but a female
advocating gender equality is ultimately placed on the throne. His
Edith Van Dyne stories depict girls and young women engaging in
traditionally masculine activities, and his girl sleuth Josie O'Gorman
from The Bluebird Books is even less girly girl than Nancy Drew."

I think the metaphor he was going for with Jinjur was those who
inspire and lead the revolution are the least competent to run the
nation when peace is achieved.

Back to my cave.

PJ


From scerir at libero.it  Fri Sep 26 17:44:33 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:44:33 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com><f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926113041.02308388@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c91fff$89f053c0$44064797@archimede>

Damien Broderick
> I'm inclined to think that "17" is the name of an operation,
> not of a thing.

"17" can be many things at the same time.
A good paper about the "nature" of numbers
(within spacetime, or outside spacetime) 
might be this one:
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/mbalagu/Mathematical%20Platonism.pdf

s.

"The question of realism, as Kreisel long ago put it, 
is the question of the objectivity of mathematics 
and not the question of the existence of mathematical 
objects". - Putnam




From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 18:02:03 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:02:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Wizard of Oz and Capable Women in Power
References: <00c501c91f9a$91222b10$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<29666bf30809261027t2e1ffa67o92e34a0c01390c30@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <045401c92002$b08b6a80$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

PJ writes

> Lee wrote:
>> Ever notice how Baum played with gender/sex differences
>> in WoZ?
>>
>> It's a fairly common observation, I think. First, there was
>> General Ginger and her army made up entirely of women.
>> (Baum was actually satirizing the women suffragettes or
>> some aspect of incipient feminism, and their overly strident
>> attitudes (to him), but that was way over the head of this
>> eight-year-old.)
> 
> Damn you, Lee.  It's like a freshly caught salmon placed at the mouth
> of a hibernating grizzly's cave.  And it's spring.

Guten essen!

> Baum was a strong and active supporter of women's suffrage and his
> wife was the daughter of one of the country's most famous
> suffragettes.  He walked the talk.

Thanks for the info. As I recall, Martin Gardiner was saying
that Baum was satirizing some part of the women's movement.
Perhaps it is as you say below

> Baum was secretary of Aberdeen's Woman's Suffrage Club. When Susan B. Anthony
> visited Aberdeen, she stayed with the Baums.
> 
> "Some of Baum's contacts with suffragists of his day seem to have
> inspired much of his second Oz story, The Marvelous Land of Oz. In
> this story, General Jinjur leads the girls and women of Oz in a revolt
> by knitting needles, take over, and make the men do the household
> chores. Jinjur proves to be an incompetent ruler, but a female
> advocating gender equality is ultimately placed on the throne.

Well, I have to say that an army of women taking over with
knitting needles does sound like satire to me.

> I think the metaphor he was going for with Jinjur was those who
> inspire and lead the revolution are the least competent to run the
> nation when peace is achieved.

Could be, I suppose, but even I recall that the "General" was pretty
abrasive and overly bossy; are you sure that Baum wasn't criticizing
the "General Ginger" type from the outset, because that's what it
looks like to me.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 18:15:55 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:15:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: My Answer to the President (from Ron Paul)
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com>
	<CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30809260528p4d1797c6i9200e33f8b54f721@mail.gmail.com>
	<042a01c91ff1$5882b430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<bf3acbfc0809260959gdf1acb1r229099356a8789ff@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <045d01c92004$1844a640$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Dagon writes

> The problem with the horrific lunacy the US has dug its way is the delusional
> idea the US is somehow fundamentally special, and the american system 
> somehow being immune, probably by divine blessing, to failure or critical
> failure. I have been very vocal since as far back as 2003 as what was going to
> happen. I must be some kind of clairvoyant. 

You do a lot of name calling, but put forth no arguments.
Why should anyone pay attention to a post like this?

All the other posts on this subject have had *content*.

And you're dead wrong: no one has said anything about the US
is somehow special, or immune. Try quoting some text you
agree or disagree with next time, and put forth reasons.

Lee



From phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu  Fri Sep 26 20:06:35 2008
From: phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:06:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yet another health care debate
In-Reply-To: <27440756-1A0B-4708-BD02-AC7035009F5C@mac.com>
References: <f21c22e30809210211h6ee51199of4470553b08ab751@mail.gmail.com>
	<091d01c91c1f$8514b320$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080921200118.GB24066@ofb.net> <20080922014607.GA12873@ofb.net>
	<0bb801c91eac$123940c0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080925015340.GA1215@ofb.net> <20080925022534.GA3295@ofb.net>
	<0c2f01c91eeb$b93d4d00$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080925164501.GB23020@ofb.net>
	<27440756-1A0B-4708-BD02-AC7035009F5C@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20080926200635.GA5926@ofb.net>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 02:05:55AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> People can band together and have for common defense.  They band  
> together in many ways for various common needs and to smooth out the  

Yes, they can and have.  Then they run into free ride problems of those
who benefit without contributing, and may re-invent taxes to solve the
problem.

> >Why can't that be private?  Some of it could, but there's lots of free
> >rider problems.  Some of it can't be -- "what should the outdoor
> >temperature be?" is an inherently collective decision.
> 
> What for?  If you can control the weather then micro-climates should  
> not be that big a step.  

How on earth do you imagine that?

> And I think you will agree that is a pretty  trivial example.

Ummm... no?  Global warming is but one example, and hardly trivial by
itself.  Global and regional temperatures, sea levels, whether rainfall
is stimulated to fall here or there, and so many things can affect
these.

> There were many ways to address pollution and many were used, not just  
> government force.    Costs are never completely private.  This does  
> not mean they cannot be factored into market decisions instead of  
> being matters of State fiat.

How, then?  Especially efficiently.

> A bunch of libertarians can sue ill-behaved neighbors just fine or  
> simply shun them until they either become more reasonable or move  
> elsewhere.

So if A is polluting the air, someone should bear 100% of the cost of
suing them in order to decrease the 1/N pollution they themselves
suffer?  This is not efficient.  Especially when everyone is polluting
the air, as with leaf burning or cars, so you'd have everyone suing
everyone else.

> No one has the right to harm others except in self-defense.  This  
> flows straight out of the Non-Aggression Principle.  Poisoning a  
> common resource we both depend on is most certainly a form of  
> aggression and quite actionable by libertarians.

So we should *shoot* car owners.  Got it.

-xx- Damien X-) 


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 20:41:02 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:41:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<007801c91f63$99424410$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809260637k20c48d2dj402e9d0cb64a8581@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04a101c92018$9b9866d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> Lee wrote:
> 
>> Must personal identity get dragged into this? Personal Identity
>> is very controversial in ways that I think have nothing to do
>> with physical law---yet I do see below that perhaps Platonia
>> is to you like Personal Identity is to me.
> 
> It's not personal identity per se but the role of the observer that
> must be taken into account. Suppose there is some rule that determines
> that for every one world in which physical laws continue as they have
> always appeared to do, there are a million worlds in which these laws
> completely break down in the next moment, as a result of which human
> brains cease to function. Then due to anthropic considerations we will
> only observe reality as orderly, even though it is anything but.

Very helpful. Thanks very much. This is, however, an
extravagant hypothesis which puts MWI to shame :-)
(But I gather that Schmidhuber, Hal Finney, Wei Dai,
and you find some economy somewhere.)

>> But on my concept of identity, "I" is a pattern, and it happens
>> to be present in both places equally. So it's simply not the case
>> that "my" experiences are one of L1 or L2 but not the other.
> 
> I think you're pushing a semantic point here. We can agree that there
> is only "one" you, but there are still two separate physical processes
> manifesting the two components making up the whole, and I could in
> theory shake the hand of each of these two components separately,
> altering the experience of one component but not the other.

I agree with that, though here to me "semantic" would include
the conceptual.

Yes, I would undergo a very minor bifurcation. Tegmark by
the way, has a most excellent picture of branching in his immortal
http://it.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131 
which I advertised yesterday in another thread. Something happens
exactly along the lines you suggest here, but instead of a hand being
shaken, a gal turns down a guy for a date, and the worlds never match
up again.

>> To me, it is not true that "I am twice
>> as likely to experience" one of these options rather than the
>> other, since I must experience both (i.e., the LC pattern is
>> executing in both spacetime locations).
> 
> This makes it difficult to talk about probability. If you buy a
> lottery ticket, don't you say you are far more likely to lose than
> win, rather than insisting that, in reality, you will certainly both
> win and lose?

You're quite right, as usual. In fact, subjective probability
is *forced* upon the subject. If every day a million copies
of me are made and sent out yet again to a million new
planets, then the one who stays on the same planet he was
on yesterday is absolutely astonished. (After all, he has
memories of tens of thousands of days where he went
to a new planet each morning, and this would be the
first time in that copy's experience it didn't happen. So
even if he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt about the
process truly in action, he'd still be "surprised". And it
would be sophomoric of me to deny that this forbids
talk of probability. While he'll *know* that everything
is normal on the millions of new planets he went to today,
this particular one still experiences the emotion of surprise,
and on the usual meaning of terms, if someone came up
to him and said, "Did anything unusual happen to you today?",
he'd be forced to say that in the main sense it did, (although
in the deeper way, provided he agrees with me, he would
explain that it really didn't).

>>> The upshot of all this is that in a multiverse, your consciousness can
>>> flit about passing through all physical copies with the right sort of
>>> subjective content.
>>
>> You guys (the everything crowd), when you talk about about consciousness
>> flitting here and there, seem to me to be talking as you would of a soul.
> 
> On the contrary, I've deliberately put everything in very concrete
> terms. Consciousness is due to activity in one, and only one,
> collection of matter, as evidenced by the fact that if you give it a
> kick, you will change its experience but not those of the other
> similar collections of matter. The flitting about is due to the fact
> that where there are multiple identical collections of matter it isn't
> possible to know which one you are.

But if there are "multiple identical collections of matter", what 
is different about the one you are (in your manner of speaking)?
It's *that* awkwardness that drives me to my position.

So you see how to me it looks like you are saying that there
is something special about the one speaking, even though all
the rest are speaking in the same wise?

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Fri Sep 26 20:55:12 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:55:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Nuclear Huns
References: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <04a501c9201a$b626bb80$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stuart The Avantguardian est tr?s en avant yet again:


> Just in case people have been too distracted with the economic
> turmoil in the U.S. to pay attention to the international happenings
> that are buried on the back pages of the news, I would like to
> bring the following to light:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/24/nkorea.nuclear.plant/index.html#cnnSTCText
>
> The key passage therein is "Last week, a South Korean news
> agency reported that North Korea was restoring a reactor at
> Yongbyon nuclear complex and no longer wanted to be
> removed from a U.S. list of countries that sponsor terrorism."

>...
> "As soon as [Justinian] took over the rule from his uncle, his measure was to spend the public money without restraint, now that 
> he had control of it. He gave much of it to the Huns who, from time to time, entered the state; and in consequence the Roman 
> provinces were subject to constant incursions, for these barbarians, having once tasted Roman wealth, never forgot the road that 
> led to it." -Procopius, 'The Secret History'

> So with the U.S. military quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan
> while skirmishing with Pakistan, Russia invading Georgia,
> Iran proclaiming the end of American Empire, Venezuela
> kicking out all American ambassadors, and the U.S. tax
> payers being put on the hook for about $12 trillion in
> Republican deficit spending, do we really want to put a
> moose-hunting beauty queen who neither blinks nor
> thinks in charge of our destinies?

It all depends on her 'tude. Is she an "iron lady" or not?
Giving the devil her due, Mrs. Clinton was *scary*, and
if she wanted to, she could have made threats pretty
convincing.

> I don't see how the next president could be anything other
> than either a disappointment or a disaster.

Obama just wants to talk, but McCain may be made of sterner
stuff. Like Reagan or Eisenhower (who threatened atomic attack
if the NKs didn't call off the war), he might just tell North Korea
"NO" and mean it.

> I will leave you to decide which is which but I know I certainly
> wouldn't want the job.

On this issue?  I'll take the job. Stop producing nuclear bombs
and stop the large scale counterfeiting of American currency,
or it's war. Period.

> Anyone want to bet that we discover Russian nuclear missiles
> in Venezuela before the completion of the first term of the next
> U.S. president?

Now that one is nasty. I'll pass on that. Was Kennedy right or
wrong when that happened in 1962? (He traded bases in Europe
for the removal of Cuban missiles.) Of course, if the U.S. had
simply invaded Cuba in 1959, this would never have obtained.
We still outgunned the Russians by a lot back then.

People simply will take advantage of you if you are too nice
(which I learned yet again this morning which cost me $250.)
Whenever things are serious, money, international prestige,
or irresponsible countries coming into possessions of nuclear
weapons, you have to take a tough line and you have to mean it.

The problem most people on this list have is that they take
their daily "nice" behavior (which as I said betrayed me
this morning) and project it into a sphere where they should
know better.

Lee



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 00:29:13 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:29:13 +1000
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/27 Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>:

> This question is similar to "when did you stop beating your wife?"
> The question presumes the ontological status of "17."  A valid
> question would be one that can be modeled as a system providing a
> defined output.  Otherwise, what can it ***mean***?

I don't think mathematics is contingent on the existence of a material
world. If it were, then 17, or its primeness, would disappear if
enough of the universe disappeared. That would be an extreme form of
anti-platonism.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Sep 27 00:52:34 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:52:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/27 Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>:
>
>> This question is similar to "when did you stop beating your wife?"
>> The question presumes the ontological status of "17."  A valid
>> question would be one that can be modeled as a system providing a
>> defined output.  Otherwise, what can it ***mean***?
>
> I don't think mathematics is contingent on the existence of a material
> world.

Yes, you've already claimed that is your position.


> If it were, then 17, or its primeness, would disappear if
> enough of the universe disappeared.

Here aren't you simply affirming your consequent?


> That would be an extreme form of
> anti-platonism.

To deny the validity of Platonism is considered extreme anti-Platonism?


It seems you've failed to process my point about the systems-theoretic
nature of ***meaning***.   What possible meaning is there to X if X
isn't defined in terms of any observable interaction?  Of course this
is an ancient argument and I have nothing new to add.


- Jef


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 01:01:54 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:01:54 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: My Answer to the President (from Ron Paul)
In-Reply-To: <042a01c91ff1$5882b430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com>
	<CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30809260528p4d1797c6i9200e33f8b54f721@mail.gmail.com>
	<042a01c91ff1$5882b430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809261801u5c7782b6uc89309294876f785@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/27 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> It's politically too difficult to have recessions or slowdowns
> any time, given people's obvious experiences: when there is
> a slowdown or a recession, some people get laid off as its
> clear to their companies that profits are not being made.
> Also, people sell off suspicious looking stocks, and the
> stock market falls a little (in accordance to how much it
> really ought to go down).

The Federal Reserve is supposed to be immune to political expediency,
although I suppose that's like expecting the courts to be genuinely
independent from government.

> Why was government backing introduced? For exactly
> the same reason that permeates so many of our discussion.
> A yearning for complete security.

No, I think that's wrong. Central bank backing of commercial bank
deposits was introduced in order to facilitate business activity. The
central bank has a contract with the commercial bank: We'll guarantee
your customers' deposits if you can demonstrate that you can keep to
certain prudential standards. As a result, people will have confidence
in your institution and will leave their money with you for long
periods at low interest, helping you to make more profit and
facilitating business activity. If you fail, your shareholders' assets
will be mercilessly liquidated to pay the depositors, and we will make
up any shortfall - but we will watch you very closely to make sure you
don't fail. If you don't agree to these rules you can still function
as a financial institution, but you won't have our guarantee.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 02:08:33 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 12:08:33 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
In-Reply-To: <04a101c92018$9b9866d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<007801c91f63$99424410$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809260637k20c48d2dj402e9d0cb64a8581@mail.gmail.com>
	<04a101c92018$9b9866d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809261908s73505f69j28451e10929ac653@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/27 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> But if there are "multiple identical collections of matter", what is
> different about the one you are (in your manner of speaking)?
> It's *that* awkwardness that drives me to my position.
>
> So you see how to me it looks like you are saying that there
> is something special about the one speaking, even though all
> the rest are speaking in the same wise?

I would say that instantaneously, it is definitely the case that this
one is speaking here due to this collection of matter and that one is
speaking there due to that collection of matter. The same could be
said for two identical computer programs being implemented on two
identical, but numerically distinct, computers. This is so even though
we could say there is only one platonic object, multiply implemented.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 02:40:39 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 12:40:39 +1000
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/27 Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>:

> It seems you've failed to process my point about the systems-theoretic
> nature of ***meaning***.   What possible meaning is there to X if X
> isn't defined in terms of any observable interaction?

Is this position equivalent to positivism?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep 27 03:05:00 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:05:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
 Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080926215852.02443018@satx.rr.com>

At 12:40 PM 9/27/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:

> > nature of ***meaning***.   What possible meaning is there to X if X
> > isn't defined in terms of any observable interaction?
>
>Is this position equivalent to positivism?

Suppose one said instead "any conceivable interaction"? (This is 
thorny territory, but I suppose superstrings and brane bulks etc are 
not observable, but we account for what *is* observable by specifying 
certain interactions that calculation draws out as likely, or, better 
yet, impossible, from those postulated primitives.)

Damien Broderick




From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Sep 27 03:06:24 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:06:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/27 Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>:
>
>> It seems you've failed to process my point about the systems-theoretic
>> nature of ***meaning***.   What possible meaning is there to X if X
>> isn't defined in terms of any observable interaction?
>
> Is this position equivalent to positivism?

No.  Logical Positivism deals with an empirical basis for knowledge
considered to be authentic.  My point is to the incoherence of an
assertion intrinsically lacking any basis for its evaluation, whether
true, false, or otherwise.

- Jef


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Sep 27 03:08:48 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:08:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080926215852.02443018@satx.rr.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926215852.02443018@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809262008r36c9e63ybf332de4fb15ca1d@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 12:40 PM 9/27/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
>> > nature of ***meaning***.   What possible meaning is there to X if X
>> > isn't defined in terms of any observable interaction?
>>
>> Is this position equivalent to positivism?
>
> Suppose one said instead "any conceivable interaction"? (This is thorny
> territory, but I suppose superstrings and brane bulks etc are not
> observable, but we account for what *is* observable by specifying certain
> interactions that calculation draws out as likely, or, better yet,
> impossible, from those postulated primitives.)

Yes, "conceivable" as in conceivably observable, might have been more
palatable without detracting from my intended point.

- Jef


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 04:00:19 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:00:19 +1000
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/27 Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/9/27 Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net>:
>>
>>> It seems you've failed to process my point about the systems-theoretic
>>> nature of ***meaning***.   What possible meaning is there to X if X
>>> isn't defined in terms of any observable interaction?
>>
>> Is this position equivalent to positivism?
>
> No.  Logical Positivism deals with an empirical basis for knowledge
> considered to be authentic.  My point is to the incoherence of an
> assertion intrinsically lacking any basis for its evaluation, whether
> true, false, or otherwise.

Logical positivism also allows analytic truths as valid. It dismisses
metaphysics as nonsense - "not even wrong" - and discussions about the
ontological status of mathematics fall into this category.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Sep 27 04:15:17 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:15:17 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
 Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>

At 02:00 PM 9/27/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:

>Logical positivism also allows analytic truths as valid. It dismisses
>metaphysics as nonsense - "not even wrong"

And one of its basic errors was not grasping that it was itself a 
metaphysical position.

Damien Broderick




From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 07:00:07 2008
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Yves Rossy Rocket Man
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40809270000u6ebfd03n45690abdf8546254@mail.gmail.com>

In terms of cool, this is off the scale.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Yves+Rossy+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Best, Jeff Davis

     Aspiring Transhuman / Delusional Ape
           (Take your pick)
                 Nicq MacDonald


From dagonweb at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 07:06:51 2008
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:06:51 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Yves Rossy Rocket Man
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40809270000u6ebfd03n45690abdf8546254@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6a17bd40809270000u6ebfd03n45690abdf8546254@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0809270006g10f6d96fjdd94f10ef683fec9@mail.gmail.com>

Didn't william Gibson base the assumptions of Neuromancer on
this idea? "death from above" ?

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:

> In terms of cool, this is off the scale.
>
> http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Yves+Rossy+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080927/beed0a0e/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 07:22:01 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 07:22:01 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
In-Reply-To: <1222401143_19636@s1.cableone.net>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com>
	<1222401143_19636@s1.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809270022o3d19edacj5fafa4c5bab8fc5c@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:47 AM, hkhenson wrote:
> At 02:39 PM 9/25/2008, Damien wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting post from Lee. The part in the original claim that I
>> don't understand is how the gravitation of Vast amounts of clumped matter
>> spacelike separated from (outside the lightcone of) the visible universe
>> could possibly be affecting us?
>
> Other than observation, is it affecting us?
> While it is outside of our light cone, is the clumped matter outside the
> light cone of stuff at the edge of the observable universe?
>


I've been reading the original pdf file. Most of it is way over my
head, but I don't think they are claiming that these galaxies are
being affected *now*.

Their analysis shows far away galaxies streaming in the direction of
something outside of our visible universe. They speculate that this a
left-over effect from the brief inflationary period when something
outside our visible universe and possibly outside our inflation bubble
exerted a strong gravitational force on our inflationary bubble, which
caused a 'tilt' in our observable universe.

BillK


From scerir at libero.it  Sat Sep 27 09:53:09 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:53:09 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com><0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com><002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080925163742.024eb0e8@satx.rr.com><1222401143_19636@s1.cableone.net>
	<ee50357e0809270022o3d19edacj5fafa4c5bab8fc5c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c92086$d972b690$5e074797@archimede>

From: "BillK"
> Their analysis shows far away galaxies streaming in the direction of
> something outside of our visible universe. They speculate that this a
> left-over effect from the brief inflationary period when something
> outside our visible universe and possibly outside our inflation bubble
> exerted a strong gravitational force on our inflationary bubble, which
> caused a 'tilt' in our observable universe.

It is possible thst in the earliest moments of universe 'things'
were maximally entangled. It is also possible that such a non-local
causality has been lost in time, gradually, i.e. during the inflationary
expansions.

Antony Valentini is studying all that in the framework of Bohmian
mechanics. A feature of the pilot-wave theory of de Broglie and
Bohm is that signal-locality is true only under specific conditions
of equilibrium. In other words any deterministic (and hidden variable)
theory (such as Bohmian mechanics) that reproduces quantum theory must
predict the existence of instantaneous signals (at the statistical level)
in case of non-equilibrium conditions.

Valentini supports the hypothesis that the universe, in the remote past,
relaxed to a state of statistical equilibrium in which non-locality
happens to be masked by quantum noise. It is not clear (to me) whether
this quantum noise has been 'injected' during the inflationary era or
at the big-bang time.

Inflationary Cosmology as a Probe of Primordial Quantum Mechanics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0163
Abstract: We show that inflationary cosmology may be used to test
the statistical predictions of quantum theory at very short distances
and at very early times. Hidden-variables theories, such as the pilot-wave
theory of de Broglie and Bohm, allow the existence of vacuum states with
non-standard field fluctuations ('quantum nonequilibrium'). We show
that inflationary expansion can transfer microscopic nonequilibrium
to macroscopic scales, resulting in anomalous power spectra for the
cosmic microwave background. The conclusions depend only weakly on the
details of the de Broglie-Bohm dynamics. We discuss, in particular, the
nonequilibrium breaking of scale invariance for the primordial (scalar)
power spectrum. We also show how nonequilibrium can generate primordial
perturbations with non-random phases and inter-mode correlations (primordial
non-Gaussianity). We address the possibility of a low-power anomaly at
large angular scales, and show how it might arise from a nonequilibrium
suppression of quantum noise. Recent observations are used to set an
approximate bound on violations of quantum theory in the early universe.

De Broglie-Bohm Prediction of Quantum Violations for Cosmological
Super-Hubble Modes
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4656
Abstract: The hypothesis of quantum nonequilibrium at the big bang
is shown to have observable consequences. For a scalar field on
expanding space, we show that relaxation to quantum equilibrium
(in de Broglie-Bohm theory) is suppressed for field modes whose
quantum time evolution satisfies a certain inequality, resulting
in a 'freezing' of early quantum nonequilibrium for these particular
modes. For an early radiation-dominated expansion, the inequality
implies a corresponding physical wavelength that is larger than the
(instantaneous) Hubble radius. These results make it possible, for
the first time, to make quantitative predictions for nonequilibrium
deviations from quantum theory, in the context of specific cosmological
models. We discuss some possible consequences: corrections to
inflationary predictions for the cosmic microwave background,
non-inflationary super-Hubble field correlations, and relic
nonequilibrium particles.

Hidden Variables and the Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504011
Abstract: We discuss how to embed quantum nonlocality in an
approximately classical spacetime background, a question which
must be answered irrespective of any underlying microscopic
theory of spacetime. We argue that, in deterministic hidden-variables
theories, the choice of spacetime kinematics should be dictated
by the properties of generic non-equilibrium states, which allow
nonlocal signalling. Such signalling provides an operational
definition of absolute simultaneity, which may naturally be
associated with a preferred foliation of classical spacetime.
The argument applies to any deterministic hidden-variables theory,
and to both flat and curved spacetime backgrounds. We include
some critical discussion of Einstein's 1905 'operational' approach
to relativity, and compare it with that of Poincare.





From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sat Sep 27 10:14:46 2008
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:14:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ExI] Yves Rossy Rocket Man
In-Reply-To: <a6a17bd40809270000u6ebfd03n45690abdf8546254@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6a17bd40809270000u6ebfd03n45690abdf8546254@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <33374.12.77.169.59.1222510486.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

> In terms of cool, this is off the scale.
>
> http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Yves+Rossy+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
>
>

Ooooh, all the comic books are coming true! :) :) :)

Regards,
MB



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 15:14:04 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:14:04 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The Nuclear Huns
In-Reply-To: <04a501c9201a$b626bb80$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<04a501c9201a$b626bb80$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <580930c20809270814q12c17fc5w2b5fcb03f3695c24@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/26/08, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>  The problem most people on this list have is that they take
>  their daily "nice" behavior (which as I said betrayed me
>  this morning) and project it into a sphere where they should
>  know better.

The problem many people on this list have is that they take the US
point of view, even a nationalistic US point of view, for granted.

Now, I have no doubts that it may be in the best interest of the US to
limit, say, nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula, but I would
say that the North-Korean government has  made the most they could of
the not-so-trivial achievement (for what is ultimately a relatively
primitive country) of establishing a nuclear technology. In fact, this
is a win or win scenario for them: either North Korea becomes a
nuclear power, with the dividends automatically paid by the mere fact
of belonging to the club (such as becoming invulnerable to Iraqi-style
invasions), or the powers interested in having it to waive nuclear
weapons are bound to deliver equivalent or superior advantages.

Stefano Vaj


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sat Sep 27 15:22:32 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:22:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809270822o6387bc85s698722b58268f06f@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 02:00 PM 9/27/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
>> Logical positivism also allows analytic truths as valid. It dismisses
>> metaphysics as nonsense - "not even wrong"
>
> And one of its basic errors was not grasping that it was itself a
> metaphysical position.

An unavoidable trap for any who would persist in their expectation of
establishing "Truth", as if from some meta point of view outside the
system, rather than seeking to discover structures of increasing
coherence over increasing context, subject to selection by (assumed)
"reality."

- Jef


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 15:56:43 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:56:43 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/27/08, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 02:00 PM 9/27/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>
> > Logical positivism also allows analytic truths as valid. It dismisses
> > metaphysics as nonsense - "not even wrong"
>
>  And one of its basic errors was not grasping that it was itself a
> metaphysical position.

On the other hand, this is an inconsistency only if one does not
contemplate the option of consciously adhering to a
"logical-positivist metaphysic" rather than, say, to a Platonic one.

Or, to put it in other terms, if logical positivism claims to be
itself a metaphysical and universal "Truth" rather than simply a
legitimate, elegant and hygienic stance.

Stefano Vaj


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sat Sep 27 17:09:15 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:09:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com><f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04dd01c920c4$2fc1f910$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> I don't think mathematics is contingent on the existence of a material
> world. If it were, then 17, or its primeness, would disappear if
> enough of the universe disappeared. That would be an extreme form of
> anti-platonism.

I worry that you may be underestimating the incredibly drastic
counter-factual non-existence of practically everything that I
am reading into this.  No material world at all in this case would
not simply be one single vanishing set of six constants. This would
be *everything*. Nothing except the 17 electrons---no infinite
space, no electromechanical laws, no real numbers indicating their
separation---nothing. Just 17 things.

If I must be specific and guess at things we don't yet understand
about universes, then I can imagine a small topologically closed
one that is everything there is. It is not embedded in a larger space;
no observers; no concepts there; nothing.

I affirm, however, that if even 17 things were all that existed in this
way, an incredibly little bit of math would have formed as a result.
The evenness and the primeness of 17, and the other properties of
their subsets, say any 11 of them would have a very limited
extension (as we say in math, i.e. application or reference).
But we never have the concept of "how many subsets of the
seventeen particles exist", because no numbers of that
magnitude exist (in this extreme counterfactual world).

CLAIM:  The ancient riff/rift between mathematical platonists and formalists
(let's leave the logicists and the constructivist/intuitionists out of it for a moment
and let the big guys duke it out), is whether or not human beings or other
conscious entities have anything to do with the existence of numbers, shapes,
or math in general. 

TO WIT: The mathematical platonists say that intelligent minds have nothing
whatsoever to do with math; that math was preexisting long before intelligence
or subjectivity came into being (as most people take those terms), whereas
the formalists insist that math is the study of relationships and requires students
for its very existence. (Recall Jef's insistence on the importance of ***meaning***.)

Therefore, by asserting that math has only to do with the physical universe
it is completely  false to say that this is necessarily a non-math-platonic position.
(I agree that classical Platonism does see the physical world as mere shadows
of a higher abstract reality---but my guess is that even they may have divided
into factions over the question of whether or not not physical items brought
about those higher abstractions.)

I confess that I may be striking out into very new territory entirely on my own
here, i.e., that mine might be a minority position among the mathematical
platonists---indeed, most of them might concur with you that not the existence
of any physics, any universe, or any physical relationship is required for their
beautiful mathematical reality---their Platonia. But as for me, while agreeing
that mathematical relationships are timeless, they're still intimately tied up
with the existence of the physical universe and cannot be severed.

Moreover, although of course we PCR types hold that *all* conjectures
are tentative and provisional only, this is new enough for me that I may
have soon to admit error at your ruthlessly logical hands  ;-)

Lee



From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 18:17:06 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:17:06 +0000
Subject: [ExI] "increasingly coherent over increasing context"
In-Reply-To: <042701c91fef$f0eae320$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <f7bfe5740809260800vbe281b2va9183f103c159bdd@mail.gmail.com>
	<042701c91fef$f0eae320$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0809271117j39c7d0c9m586aae505a98c72b@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:
>      "wider applicability" can replace the "increasing context"       or
> "wider reference".
>
> The "increasingly coherent" can be replaced by
>       "growing synthesis" or "expanding synthesis"
> The result: we get "improved synthesis over wider applicability",
> or "expanding synthesis over increasing context", or "enhanced
> synthesis over wider reference".


I found 'more logically consistent' for 'increasingly coherent'.

"increasing context" puzzled the search engines. They seem to think
'context' is like 'environment' or 'frame of reference' and they don't
expect it to 'increase'. This may be a partial cause of the mental
blackout this phrase seems to generate in some people. So it might be
useful to avoid this phrase.

Perhaps 'a wider frame of reference' or ' a more all-encompassing
frame of reference' might be more understandable.

"more logically consistent" and "a wider frame of reference" are both
popular search results, so seem to be widely used and should not
frighten the horses.

In the Wikipedia article on the Philosophy of science I found a
sentence that seemed to be relevant.
"The most powerful statements in science are those with the widest
applicability".

So throwing that into the discussion as well might help
.

BillK


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Sep 28 00:56:24 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:56:24 +1000
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/28 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> On 9/27/08, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> At 02:00 PM 9/27/2008 +1000, Stathis wrote:
>>
>> > Logical positivism also allows analytic truths as valid. It dismisses
>> > metaphysics as nonsense - "not even wrong"
>>
>>  And one of its basic errors was not grasping that it was itself a
>> metaphysical position.
>
> On the other hand, this is an inconsistency only if one does not
> contemplate the option of consciously adhering to a
> "logical-positivist metaphysic" rather than, say, to a Platonic one.
>
> Or, to put it in other terms, if logical positivism claims to be
> itself a metaphysical and universal "Truth" rather than simply a
> legitimate, elegant and hygienic stance.

That's what working scientists do. They don't seek a metaphysical
justification for the scientific method; it's simply what works.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Sep 28 12:27:43 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:27:43 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
	Natural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's what working scientists do. They don't seek a metaphysical
> justification for the scientific method; it's simply what works.

Exactly. But there is also a more "philosophical" view of that:
admitting postmodernly that there is no Platonic ground on which to
assert the objective superiority of a worldview on another, what
remains is a pseudo-Darwinian competition of worldviews, where some
succeed and other simply get extinct when confronted to the former.
Accordingly, there is no real need at the end of the day whether
worldview A or worldview B is right if consistent advocates of
worldview B are going to become rarer and rarer...

Stefano Vaj


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 28 14:06:58 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:06:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: My Answer to the President (from Ron Paul)
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com>
	<CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30809260528p4d1797c6i9200e33f8b54f721@mail.gmail.com>
	<042a01c91ff1$5882b430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809261801u5c7782b6uc89309294876f785@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <050801c92173$f8bbc260$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
>> It's politically too difficult to have recessions or slowdowns
>> any time, given people's obvious experiences: when there is
>> a slowdown or a recession, some people get laid off as its
>> clear to their companies that profits are not being made.
>> Also, people sell off suspicious looking stocks, and the
>> stock market falls a little (in accordance to how much it
>> really ought to go down).
> 
> The Federal Reserve is supposed to be immune to
> political expediency, although I suppose that's like
> expecting the courts to be genuinely independent
> from government.

Right. Should they take unpopular measures, many in
Congress would have their heads. It's a very tough
position they're in.

>> Why was government backing introduced? For exactly
>> the same reason that permeates so many of our discussion.
>> A yearning for complete security.
> 
> No, I think that's wrong. Central bank backing of commercial bank
> deposits was introduced in order to facilitate business activity. The
> central bank has a contract with the commercial bank: We'll guarantee
> your customers' deposits if you can demonstrate that you can keep to
> certain prudential standards.

Your last statement, about the guarantee, arose from 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a United States
    government corporation created by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. It
    provides deposit insurance which guarantees the safety of checking and
    savings deposits in member banks, currently up to $100,000 per depositor
    per bank. The vast number of bank failures in the Great Depression spurred
    the United States Congress to create an institution to guarantee deposits
    held by commercial banks, inspired by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
    its Depositors Insurance Fund (DIF).

But the evils of fractional reserve banking---which do your former
function---to "facilitate business activity" was introduced long, long
before. Basically the system was set up so that the bankers and
their cronies got their hands first on new hot money and got to
do something with it, before its inflationary effects set in. In a
nutshell, the public is systematically soaked, defrauded that is,
by the unbridled introduction of new money. Now this isn't all
bad IMO, because an expanding economy needs more money,
and this function could (and should have) replaced taxation.

But the greed of governments is no different from the greed of
people. It's just that with their fiat currency and the power of
the state, the former is far worse than the latter.

> As a result, people will have confidence in your institution
> and will leave their money with you for long periods at low
> interest, helping you to make more profit and facilitating
> business activity. If you fail, your shareholders' assets will
> be mercilessly liquidated to pay the depositors, and we
> will make up any shortfall - but we will watch you very
> closely to make sure you don't fail. If you don't agree to
> these rules you can still function as a financial institution,
> but you won't have our guarantee.

All very noble and good sounding in theory. The reality is
quite different. They don't "mercilessly liquidate" failing
institutions (consider the current situations). The root
cause of the problem is fractional reserve banking, which
artificially creates wealth not backed by anything, where
I walk down the street confident that I have $10,000
and I pass someone else under the same illusion, when
it turns out the bank has just lent my money to him.

Lee



From eric at m056832107.syzygy.com  Sun Sep 28 17:07:41 2008
From: eric at m056832107.syzygy.com (Eric Messick)
Date: 28 Sep 2008 17:07:41 -0000
Subject: [ExI] Fractional reserve banking (was Ron Paul's letter)
In-Reply-To: <050801c92173$f8bbc260$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com>
	<CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30809260528p4d1797c6i9200e33f8b54f721@mail.gmail.com>
	<042a01c91ff1$5882b430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809261801u5c7782b6uc89309294876f785@mail.gmail.com>
	<050801c92173$f8bbc260$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <20080928170741.5.qmail@syzygy.com>

Lee Corbin wrote:

>[...] Now this isn't all
>bad IMO, because an expanding economy needs more money,
>and this function could (and should have) replaced taxation.

>[...] The root
>cause of the problem is fractional reserve banking, which
>artificially creates wealth not backed by anything, where
>I walk down the street confident that I have $10,000
>and I pass someone else under the same illusion, when
>it turns out the bank has just lent my money to him.

The way things work now, the reserve fraction is a slider that the
government gets to control via regulations.  If it were slid all the
way to 1:1, banks could loan no money, and we would be in a situation
with a constant money supply.

IIRC, the slider was set differently for normal banks, versus the "big
five" investment banks.

That slider could be determined as a policy decision by each bank, and
advertised as a way to attract customers.  Higher reserves means your
money is safer.  Pressure from people wanting loans would work to keep
the reserve amount lower, and banks would balance the amount they make
from loans with the need to attract money to loan.

For this to work, banks would have to guarantee a reserve rate, and be
willing to be audited so depositors could be confident that the
reserve rate was met.

I've always wondered if an expanding economy really needs an expanding
money supply.  What if money could be divided into arbitrarily small
denominations?  As the ability to produce more goods expanded, we
would see deflation, indicating (quite correctly) that we can now more
easily produce things.

Different players in the market want to see prices change in different
directions.  Big borrowers like inflation, as they get to pay off
loans with inflated currency.  Likewise, big lenders should prefer
deflation.

Strangely, banks (big lenders) create inflation with fractional
reserve lending.  I think this may be related to the root of the
problem that Lee mentioned above.  They're seduced by free money, and
they know they can get away with it because the government will bail
them out.

$700,000,000,000 says they're right. :-(

-eric


From jef at jefallbright.net  Sun Sep 28 19:40:13 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:40:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <04dd01c920c4$2fc1f910$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809250429m27c062e8w9cd639ccd144796a@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080925121142.02500bc8@satx.rr.com>
	<f21c22e30809260456i701862d3ha520a3fdbee58d9b@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<04dd01c920c4$2fc1f910$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809281240k733f6c39h2dd22d38e19c008@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> TO WIT: The mathematical platonists say that intelligent minds have nothing
> whatsoever to do with math; that math was preexisting long before
> intelligence
> or subjectivity came into being (as most people take those terms), whereas
> the formalists insist that math is the study of relationships and requires
> students
> for its very existence. (Recall Jef's insistence on the importance of
> ***meaning***.)

My point all along is not to the ontological status of a hypothetical
entity referred to as "math", nor to the meaning of "math", but to the
deeper epistemological incoherence of blithely talking about the
status of X while unconcerned about the obvious lack of (even to the
extent of explicitly ruling out) any conceivable context for the
evaluation of X.

This reminds me of Gordon's (gts's) impassioned insistence some time
ago that there is something profoundly wrong with our inability to
answer the question of the dimensions of an average box (given a
distribution of actual boxes), as if "average box" must have an
intrinsic meaning despite lacking specification of a function in terms
of length, area, volume, mass, or otherwise.

This same epistemological confusion is common whenever discussion
ranges outside the bounds of present shared context while remaining in
the special-case mode of "what it is" rather than the generally
founded "what it looks like from here."

My interest is not in arriving at Truth, nor even in reaching
agreement on pragmatic truth (that which appears to work over
increasing scope), but in improving our processes improving our
modeling.  Apply an increasingly effective instrumental model
promoting a /particular context/ of values and you get increasing
"good."  Apply it to an /increasing context/ of increasingly coherent
values and you get increasing "good" in principle, or increasingly
"right."

I don't know of any more important project (in the bigger picture) than that.

- Jef


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 28 21:57:36 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:57:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fractional reserve banking
References: <1222372254294.141125.367494.83616313@backend.cp20.com><CD5BD2A9-BC0A-453D-AB0C-E3A7993A98E6@mac.com><f21c22e30809260528p4d1797c6i9200e33f8b54f721@mail.gmail.com><042a01c91ff1$5882b430$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809261801u5c7782b6uc89309294876f785@mail.gmail.com><050801c92173$f8bbc260$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<20080928170741.5.qmail@syzygy.com>
Message-ID: <052e01c921b5$87ca9e90$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Eric writes

> Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
>>[...] Now this isn't all
>>bad IMO, because an expanding economy needs more money,
>>and this function could (and should have) replaced taxation.
> 
>>[...] The root
>>cause of the problem is fractional reserve banking, which
>>artificially creates wealth not backed by anything, where
>>I walk down the street confident that I have $10,000
>>and I pass someone else under the same illusion, when
>>it turns out the bank has just lent my money to him.
> 
> The way things work now, the reserve fraction is a slider that the
> government gets to control via regulations.  If it were slid all the
> way to 1:1, banks could loan no money, and we would be in a
> situation with a constant money supply.

First, Von Mieses made it clear that in each bank there should
be two lines, kept quite distinct by law. One line you stand in
goes to the "Deposit Window", where your deposits are held
absolutely inviolate, totally safe for you, but pay no interest.
(I.e., you may want to deposit some of your checks here,
those probably, on which you yourself want to write checks
or pay bills electronically with. No matter how it's stored---
electronically, physically, or in account books, the *deposit*
account of whoever wrote you the check is debited, and 
your account is credited. Totally on the up and up.)

The second line leads to the  "Investment Window", where you
give your money to the bank and they open an interest-bearing
account, but *with*---he emphasized over and over---a definite
time-stamp for when the funds would next be available to you.
(Sort of like a CD.) These funds the bank would be free to lend
out (and play their usual nice games, games that I do in fact
believe facilitate wealth creation). 

So you would know---because the banking system would be
even more stable than it is now---that under threat of criminal
penalty, the lending institution must have your money available
to you on the due date. But banks would, quite rightly, use
statistics to calculate that they could safely lend out a lot more
than they actually have, because there would be a certain
extremely high probability that the customer would either
roll over his funds, or transfer it into some other interest-bearing
investment on the due date.

The bank's lending managers would be prudently conservative,
however, because of the draconian criminal penalties, including
jail time, not to mention the destruction of their personal reputations.
But the statistics calculations are not too hard, (but as we learn
from The Black Swan and other recent books, not what people
have thought). So long-standing institutions of great probity would
flourish (e.g. as happened in New England for many decades in
the 19th  century until the post-Civil War government shut them
down).

If you wanted a higher interest rate, well, you could take
your chances on a bank that had a smaller reserve---there
may be good or bad reasons for investing there. But it's
up to you, and so are the risks thereby.

Now under the latter arrangement, I think that there is a place
for a Fed. They *could* print new money (remember, this is
always a good euphemism for lending out new money that
they simply create on the books of the U.S. Treasury).  And
if  "bank runs" did break out on a number of these institutions,
perhaps the government should return some fraction of the
money people had invested---but only after the directors of the 
investment branches of the banks that failed  had served their
jail time.

Meanwhile, the bank, noticing the lower interest rate from the
Fed, can realize that it can make a profit by cutting its own
rate to customers. Thus new money comes into the system,
although the bank still owes the Fed (or U.S. Treasury), the
way it would work in practice is that by the time it had to
pay the money back---remember, there is a *due date*
on all these things---it would probably have borrowed yet
more money from the Fed, and meanwhile have received
from its debtors money to cover it. It's all quite honest this
way.

> IIRC, the slider was set differently for normal banks, versus the "big
> five" investment banks.
> 
> That slider could be determined as a policy decision by each bank, and
> advertised as a way to attract customers.  Higher reserves means your
> money is safer.  Pressure from people wanting loans would work to keep
> the reserve amount lower, and banks would balance the amount they make
> from loans with the need to attract money to loan.

Yes, I think that's correct. But the key part is that when the
government is printing new money (i.e. lending out to banks
at a certain interest rate so that the money supply grows at
the same rate as the economy), the *government* officials must
themselves be held in check by law, including personal penalties,
to keep the rate at no more than a fixed percentage.

Experience over many, many decades suggests that this rate
should be 3%. Thus, the Fed (and the U.S. Treasury) would
raise interest rates if too much borrowing from banks were
going on, and lower them if too little was going on. But the
target---come hell or high water, good times or bad---must
be held to 3%, or whatever the most objective and judicially
minded economists say is the actual growth of wealth in the
country. In this way, a rate of zero inflation can be attained.

At least that's how I'd do it. Criticism VERY welcome on this
most difficult subject.

Thanks Eric, I'll respond to the rest of your post and your
conjectures later today.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Sun Sep 28 22:15:39 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:15:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Size of the Universe
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com><0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <052f01c921b8$579c7420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

I Just thought I'd follow up my exposition of Guth's marvelous
presentation (see below)  with some of Tegmark's remarks
from his great http://it.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131 :

    "The farthest you can observe is the distance that light
    has been able to travel during the 14 billion years since
    the big bang expansion began. The most distant visible
    objects are about 4x10^26 meters away."

Remember this handy trick:  there are 10^16 meters per lightyear.

    [Tegmark adds the following in a footnote at this point]
    "After emitting the light that is now reaching us, the
    most distant things we can see have receded because
    of the cosmic expansion, and are now about 46 billion
    light years away."

(I corrected his figure slightly to agree with the most recent
sources.) Therefore the *diameter* of our visible universe
is 92 billion lightyears.

Still---the unwashed (all over the web) continue through their
benightedness to insist on the simplistic figure of 13.7 lightyears
for the radius---as if no expansion were taking place. Beware!

The central truths here 

   1. We see things that are 46 billion light years away.

   2. They were about 45 million light years away when,
      at 300,000 AB, they sent out photons that are
      finally arriving here today. [See Guths figures 
      and explanations in the addendum to this post]

That's a factor of about 1000! Those objects are about one
thousand times further away now than when they sent their light
to us 13.4 billion years ago (i.e., when the universe became
transparent .3 billion years after the big bang). So the usual
size given by people for the visible universe is way off.

The first four pages of Tegmark's article are fairly easy to
follow (if you remember the trick above for converting
meters to lightyears).

The first page is mostly what I said above, but with more detail

The second page is a gorgeous depiction of the four levels.
Print it out and tape it to your refrigerator.

Level One: our own infinite universe (i.e., our bubble, both
of which I have christened "Bruno", after the first modern man,
or "Lucretius Bruno" to give them both credit. They claimed
that space was infinite and had infinitely many suns, and
Bruno was burned at the stake for so saying so.[note A]

Page three describes the uniformity of structures bigger than
about 300,000,000 million lightyears, a small fraction of 
our Hubble volume (i.e. visible universe). After that, it looks
uniform. Therefore since 300,000,000 goes into 46 billion
about 150 times, there are about 150x150x150, or about
four million homogeneous volumes that we can see inside
our Hubble Volume (our visible universe). So it's pretty absurd
to think that we are sitting in the middle of all that there is.
(Picture our *visible* universe being tiled by millions of 
homogeneous patches, to say nothing of what lies beyond.)

Writes Tegmark at the bottom of page 3:

     Barring conspiracy theories where the universe is
     designed to fool us, the observations thus speak
     loud and clear: space as we know it continues far
     beyond the edge of our observable universe,
     teeming with galaxies, stars, and planets.

Lee

[A] For a good essay on Bruno please see
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Giordano-Bruno.htm

Also there you will find

    http://members.aol.com/pantheism0/brunphil.htm

    "Fantastic site on Giordano Bruno pantheist philosophy.
    From the great Roman poet Lucretius, Bruno took two of
    his central ideas: an infinite Space with infinite worlds,
    and matter that was made up of discrete atoms combining
    in different ways to make up all the diversity we see."

So Lucretius and Bruno saw the truth first. I now put forth
the suggestion publicly, that the official name of our universe,
our Level One infinite universe, our Level Two bubble be
henceforth "Lucretius Bruno".

Lee


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Who's stealing our universe?


> BillK points to the interesting
> 
>> Another article interviewed the scientists involved in
>> this discovery and apparently they were quite surprised
>> by theses unexpected findings.
>> <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html>
> 
> The "science writer" responsible for this outrage should
> be prosecuted. Thanks for bringing this thought-criminal
> to the attention of the committee, Bill.
> 
> Some excerpts:
> 
>    When scientists talk about the observable universe, they don't
>    just mean as far out as the eye, or even the most powerful
>    telescope, can see. In fact there's a fundamental limit to how
>    much of the universe we could ever observe, no matter how
>    advanced our visual instruments. The universe is thought to have
>    formed about 13.7 billion years ago.
> 
> Yes, I'm sure he read that somewhere, or someone mentioned it to him.
> Okay. But then
>                                       So even if light started
>    traveling toward us immediately after the Big Bang, the farthest
>    it could ever get is 13.7 billion light-years in distance. There
>    may be parts of the universe that are farther away (we can't know
>    how big the whole universe is), but we can't see farther than
>    light could travel over the entire age of the universe.
> 
> The writer has no understanding whatsoever how the expansion of
> the universe plays into this. At 300,000 AB [1], photons got free
> when the universe became transparent to light, and some of them
> started heading right at us, but got yanked further away from us
> by inflation.  The poor photons knew where they were headed,
> but to them the space between them and their target really blew up.
> 
> The best explanation is to be found in the book written
> by the originator of inflation, Mr. Alan H. Guth [1]
> himself, "The Inflationary Universe". On pages 182 - 184
> he describes what went on.
> 
> That number, 300,000, is very important in what
> follows.
> 
>    "At 300,000 years, the horizon distance was about
>    900,000 light years. [Here Guth means that two
>    photons starting out "nearby", i.e. within a tiny
>    fraction of an inch at the Big Bang and aimed
>    right at us but coming from opposite directions,
>    would already have each been yanked back 900,000
>    ly because of the stupendous inflation expansion.]
> 
>    "If the universe were static, the horizon distance
>    would have been about 300,000 light years [since
>    in *that* case we would have had only time to get
>    ones aimed at us from that distance, since that
>    was the age of the universe]. In an expanding
>    universe, however, photons can make extra progress
>    during the early period, when the universe was
>    small, so the horizon distance is larger than one
>    would expect."
>    
> Note that what Guth is saying is very tricky. Read the
> above at least as much as to understand what scientists
> mean by the terms, and how they use them, as to try
> to understand what is being said. Guth goes on:
> 
>    "If we consider two photons arriving *today* [italics
>    added] from opposite directions in the sky, then we
>    can use the mathematics of the Big Bang theory to 
>    trace back the trajectories to 300,000 AB. The 
>    calculation, which takes into account the expansion
>    of the universe, shows that the photons were emitted
>    from two points [at the time] about 90,000,000 ly
>    apart. Let A and B label the two points at which
>    these two photons were emitted [one to the left of
>    us 45,000,000 ly and the other to the right of us
>    45,000,000 ly]. The uniformity of the cosmic background
>    radiation temperature implies that the temperature
>    was the same at points A and B (to an accuracy of
>    one part in 100,000), yet they were separated from
>    each other by  about 100 times the horizon difference
>    [at the time]."
>    
> So he's saying, in effect, "now how the hell could that be? There
> is no goddam way that they could be at the same temperature
> unless something weird is going on---because ninety *million*
> light years at only 300,000 AB makes that look impossible.
> How could their temperatures have been reconciled? How 
> could they have "known" each other thermodynamically?"
> 
>    "Since nothing travels faster than light, in the
>    context of the standard big bang theory [get ready
>    for his inflation!] there is no physical process
>    that can bring these two points to the same 
>    temperature by 300,000 years after the big bang."
>    
> So, he says in a footnote here, "The rate of separation,
> therefore, was much larger than the speed of light", and
> explains why your mind should not be blown by this.
> 
> In a caption to the diagram, he then goes on like
> this (thank God for a little redundancy!).
> 
>     "The Horizon Problem of the Standard Big Bang Theory".
>     [paraphrased by me, since you cannot see the diagram]
>     The diagram shows a picture of the universe at 300,000
>     years after the big bang, when the cosmic background 
>     radiation was released. At the center of the diagram is
>     the matter that will eventually become the Earth. At the
>     left is point A, where one is headed towards us from the
>     left. At point B on the right is where the leftward moving
>     photon is coming at us from the right. They are only at
>     90,000,000 light years away from each other!
> 
>     "The "horizon distance", however, was only 900,000 ly.
>     The points A and B were separated from each other by
>     about 100 times the distance that light could have traveled
>     since the Big Bang."
> 
> So that science writer is clueless about how the terms are
> used, and how inflation actually provided for a far, far
> vaster universe than the little thing that we can see. Our
> "horizon distance" of course, has never caught up to
> what was propelled away so long ago.
> 
> Now, of course, it *could* be that we are exactly at
> the center of all there is, and that indeed our "bubble"
> only goes out as far as we can see. What is the $&%$!
> chance of that? Can you just picture some aliens 10
> billion light years from here saying, "Oh, gee, there must
> be something special about that point off yonder at the
> center, since we are so close to the edge of the bubble."
> 
> The writer and one scientist go on:
> 
>    They discovered that the clusters were moving nearly 2 million
>    mph (3.2 million kph) toward a region in the sky between the
>    constellations of Centaurus and Vela. This motion is different
>    from the outward expansion of the universe (which is accelerated
>    by the force called dark energy).
> 
>    "We found a very significant velocity, and furthermore, this
>    velocity does not decrease with distance, as far as we can
>    measure," Kashlinsky told SPACE.com. "The matter in the
>    observable universe just cannot produce the flow we measure."
> 
> Well, duh! Do these guys think that the observable universe is
> all that there is? Or that maybe just beyond the edge of what
> we see, it all becomes Very Different? What a coincidence
> that we are at the exact center of normalcy. Yes, I understand
> that they have evidence of something outside our visible 
> universe, but it is *not* outside our bubble, which is probably
> infinite.
> 
> The inexperienced science writer now tries his own hand at
> explaining:
> 
>    A theory called inflation posits that the universe we see is just
>    a small bubble of space-time that got rapidly expanded after the
>    Big Bang. There could be other parts of the cosmos beyond this
>    bubble that we cannot see.
> 
> No, the universe that we can see is not any "bubble" as the term
> is commonly used. Again, if it were, wouldn't that be a fantastic
> coincidence that we're right at the center of it. Perhaps the ancient
> anthropomorphism and mankind needing to be at the center of the
> universe is sneaking back into his thinking.
> 
>    In these regions, space-time might be very different, and likely
>    doesn't contain stars and galaxies (which only formed because of
>    the particular density pattern of mass in our bubble). It could
>    include giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our
>    own observable universe. These structures are what researchers
>    suspect are tugging on the galaxy clusters, causing the dark flow.
> 
> I *hope* that the science writer has just consulted his own imagination
> here. OF COURSE the universe just contains stars and galaxies right
> outside our visible universe. It may be that some of it is grouped
> weirdly, and that's what they've found. But the *uniformity* of our
> universe begins at only about 300,000,000 light years, much, much
> smaller than the visible universe. Tegmark said *specifically* that
> all the small scale variations wash out when you get up to about
> 300,000,000 light years, and then it's uniform after that (or at least
> that was what was thought until now). But that does not change
> the fact that the very little patch we live in, some 300,000,000
> light years in diameter, is more or less regularly repeated right up
> to the edge of the visible universe, i.e., picture the visible universe
> (at which we are indeed at the center of) as being tiled by very,
> very similar patches all the way out to 42 billion light years away,
> i.e., more than 42x3 = 120 similar patches in each of the three
> directions. 
> 
> And because of inflation, the radius of the observable universe
> turns out to be, when they did all the calculations, about three
> times the 13.4 billion years that light has been in straight line
> motion (i.e., 300,000 AB), or 42 billion light years. Hence
> our visible universe has a diameter of 84 billion light years.
> 
> Yet in one direction, well, they've seen something odd. Could be,
> I suppose.
> 
> The science writer then actually quotes this person Kashlinsky
> (I dare not say guy, because "Alexander" could be a woman's
> name these days.)
> 
>    "The structures responsible for this motion have been pushed so
>    far away by inflation, I would guesstimate they may be hundreds of
>    billions of light years away, that we cannot see even with the
>    deepest telescopes because the light emitted there could not have
>    reached us in the age of the universe," Kashlinsky said in a
>    telephone interview. "Most likely to create such a coherent flow
>    they would have to be some very strange structures, maybe some
>    warped space time. But this is just pure speculation."
> 
> Dr. K. is giving one a bad idea of how inflation works, and is
> contributing to the incredibly antiquated notion that we are
> at the center. Nothing was pushed away!  Or, if you must speak
> that way, we were just as pushed away as was it. Instead, 
> the *space* between galaxies was expanded, nothing got
> pushed. And then he ends with "But this is just pure speculation".
> Science writing, I fear at it's worst.
> 
> I just hope that they don't have an affirmative action program for
> Poles or Russians or whatever the hell he or she is, and that we
> can depend on his or her words---so long as we understand that
> he or she is still in the process here of explaining what the speed
> of light is to that inexperienced science writer.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> [1] "At 300,000 years AB", (i.e. After Bruno, the
> name of our universe, which, so far as I know, I was
> the first person to have named, as I was notified in
> a couple of emails from people I had never heard
> of back a few years ago, or, if you wish, After Bang,
> or After Beginning)
> 
> [2] Alan Guth explains in his book that the acronym
> GUT for "Grand Unified Theories" is not faithful to
> the  Greek roots of the word "theory", where "th" is
> represented by the single letter [theta], i.e., that the
> proper acronym is really GUTH.



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Sep 28 23:22:07 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:22:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians
In-Reply-To: <052f01c921b8$579c7420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<052f01c921b8$579c7420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928181617.024f9260@satx.rr.com>

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)?

Damien Broderick
[a stranger in a strange land]



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sun Sep 28 23:50:11 2008
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:50:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928181617.024f9260@satx.rr.com>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<052f01c921b8$579c7420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080928181617.024f9260@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670809281650p6ce3173egecb7edfd66ff208b@mail.gmail.com>

How many people here would say she is the female equivalent of Dan Quayle
(or much worse...)?  I'm going to eat a potatoe, while I wait for replies.

John  : )

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>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)?
>
> Damien Broderick
> [a stranger in a strange land]
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080928/c997ffd5/attachment.html>

From fauxever at sprynet.com  Mon Sep 29 00:00:24 2008
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:00:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com><0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com><002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><052f01c921b8$579c7420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080928181617.024f9260@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670809281650p6ce3173egecb7edfd66ff208b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA0B4E43201F47DAA16B95DE13ACF6D4@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: John Grigg
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians

> How many people here would say she is the female equivalent of Dan Quayle 
> (or much worse...)?  I'm going to eat a potatoe, while I wait for replies.

Ha!  When I saw the Palin interview with Katie Couric, I _immediately_ 
thought of this infamous one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

This is the Tina Fey version of that Couric interview (and the writers at 
SNL didn't have to do too much editing ... the real one was just as 
strange):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/13/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-o_n_126249.html 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 29 00:52:41 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:52:41 -0500
Subject: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians
In-Reply-To: <CA0B4E43201F47DAA16B95DE13ACF6D4@patrick4ezsk6z>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<052f01c921b8$579c7420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080928181617.024f9260@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670809281650p6ce3173egecb7edfd66ff208b@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA0B4E43201F47DAA16B95DE13ACF6D4@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928194800.022e8fa8@satx.rr.com>

At 05:00 PM 9/28/2008 -0700, Olga wrote:

>This is the Tina Fey version of that Couric interview (and the 
>writers at SNL didn't have to do too much editing ... the real one 
>was just as strange):
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/13/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-o_n_126249.html 
>

I think you mean:

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/27/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-k_n_129956.html>

And here's another belated answer to Lee's "Do you ever laugh when 
you're alone?" Walking along an empty street by myself this 
afternoon, I replayed the following in my head, and was reduced to 
helpless, envious laughter:


POEHLER AS COURIC: "But again, and not to belabor the point. One 
specific thing."

(several seconds of FEY and POEHLER staring at each other)

FEY AS PALIN: "Katie, I'd like to use one of my lifelines."

POEHLER AS COURIC: "I'm sorry?"

FEY AS PALIN: "I want to phone a friend."

POEHLER AS COURIC: "You don't have any lifelines."

FEY AS PALIN: "Well in that case... I'm gonna just hafta get back t'ya!"


Damien Broderick 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 29 00:59:18 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:59:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians
In-Reply-To: <CA0B4E43201F47DAA16B95DE13ACF6D4@patrick4ezsk6z>
References: <ee50357e0809240322r58944b92s2ea47f1d7f5792bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<0ad501c91e4a$fba2e660$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<ee50357e0809240919h63152aeoa1813b810c6f4986@mail.gmail.com>
	<002501c91f4e$768b7190$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<052f01c921b8$579c7420$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080928181617.024f9260@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670809281650p6ce3173egecb7edfd66ff208b@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA0B4E43201F47DAA16B95DE13ACF6D4@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928195648.02315610@satx.rr.com>

Australians on the list might be reminded of Pauline Hanson, who ran 
a "Fish 'n' Chips" shop before deciding she might be Prime 
Ministerial material. But she was never actually nominated for the 
post of Deputy PM by one of the two major parties.

Damien Broderick 



From santostasigio at yahoo.com  Mon Sep 29 01:46:10 2008
From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians
In-Reply-To: <CA0B4E43201F47DAA16B95DE13ACF6D4@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <690402.84569.qm@web31301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

worse, much worse............
but?all the?xstian fanatics?are the same?c....p
I think US can handle?only one clever president?per?decade so hopefully Obama has some chance.........?

--- On Sun, 9/28/08, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:

From: Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Date: Sunday, September 28, 2008, 7:00 PM

From: John Grigg
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians

> How many people here would say she is the female equivalent of Dan Quayle 
> (or much worse...)?  I'm going to eat a potatoe, while I wait for
replies.

Ha!  When I saw the Palin interview with Katie Couric, I _immediately_ 
thought of this infamous one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

This is the Tina Fey version of that Couric interview (and the writers at 
SNL didn't have to do too much editing ... the real one was just as 
strange):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/13/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-o_n_126249.html


_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080928/254d6324/attachment.html>

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 29 02:49:51 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:49:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Problems with Platonia again
References: <774865.5584.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><0c1801c91ee4$24fa4cd0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809250550w746825eeo339aca74b6b134a5@mail.gmail.com><007801c91f63$99424410$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809260637k20c48d2dj402e9d0cb64a8581@mail.gmail.com><04a101c92018$9b9866d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809261908s73505f69j28451e10929ac653@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <055c01c921de$50589a10$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stathis writes

> Lee Corbin :
> 
>> But if there are "multiple identical collections of matter", what is
>> different about the one you are (in your manner of speaking)?
>> It's *that* awkwardness that drives me to my position.
>>
>> So you see how to me it looks like you are saying that there
>> is something special about the one speaking, even though all
>> the rest are speaking in the same wise?
> 
> I would say that instantaneously, it is definitely the case that this
> one is speaking here due to this collection of matter and that one is
> speaking there due to that collection of matter.

A *very* important point about causality. Thanks for reminding me.

> The same could be said for two identical computer programs being
> implemented on two identical, but numerically distinct, computers.
> This is so even though we could say there is only one platonic object,
> multiply implemented.

Yes. I absolutely believe in patterns, i.e., so-called platonic objects,
though with my new view, they are brought about (or caused) only
by the physical universe.

I haven't quite decided, but my views *may* be enough, as you
earlier suggested, to disqualify me as a mathematical platonist. Yet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Platonism [1]
does say these words of encouragement to me:

" Is there a world, completely separate from our physical one,
which is occupied by the mathematical entities?". Since I still
give a resounding "No!" to that question, and since so far as
I can tell, I'm still a realist, then I must be a mathematical
platonist still. Perhaps only an unusual kind.

Lee

P.S. An exact quote from the very informative wikipedia article ref'ed above:

    Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities
    are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal
    and unchanging. This is often claimed to be the view most people have of
    numbers. The term Platonism is used because such a view is seen to parallel
    Plato's belief in a "World of Ideas" (typified by Plato's cave): the
    everyday world can only imperfectly approximate of an unchanging, ultimate
    reality. Both Plato's cave and Platonism have meaningful, not just a
    superficial connections, because Plato's ideas were preceded and probably
    influenced by the hugely popular Pythagoreans of ancient Greece, who
    believed that the world was, quite literally, generated by numbers.

    The major problem of mathematical platonism is this: precisely where and
    how do the mathematical entities exist, and how do we know about them? Is
    there a world, completely separate from our physical one, which is occupied
    by the mathematical entities? How can we gain access to this separate world
    and discover truths about the entities? One answer might be Ultimate
    ensemble, which is a theory that postulates all structures that exist
    mathematically also exist physically in their own universe.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 29 03:00:23 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:00:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com><580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stefano writes

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 
>> That's what working scientists do. They don't seek a metaphysical
>> justification for the scientific method; it's simply what works.
> 
> Exactly. But there is also a more "philosophical" view of that:
> admitting postmodernly that there is no Platonic ground on which to
> assert the objective superiority of a worldview on another, what
> remains is a pseudo-Darwinian competition of worldviews, where some
> succeed and other simply get extinct when confronted to the former.
> Accordingly, there is no real need at the end of the day whether
> worldview A or worldview B is right if consistent advocates of
> worldview B are going to become rarer and rarer...

As much as I am appreciating (and learning from) the views that you
and Stathis have enunciated, I might add this one quibble to your
statement above.

The logic above seems to be to be of wide (too wide) applicability.
One might apply it, for example, to baby-eating. Whereas I very
strongly and adamantly disapprove of the murder of innocents,
(to remain in a non-emotive analytical vein), I do see a "real need
at the end of  the day whether worldview A (we can sanction
murder of innocents) or worldview B (we should not sanction it).

The same holds true for whether it is the Earth that goes around
the sun, or vice-versa. To me, it is *not* a matter of whose views
become rarer. If the Church had prevailed in the 1600s and 
successfully suppressed all over the world the view that the
Earth goes around the sun, then the Church would still be 
wrong.

Lee



From neptune at superlink.net  Mon Sep 29 03:24:20 2008
From: neptune at superlink.net (Techno)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:24:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] SpaceX makes it to orbit!
Message-ID: <3F16BD2243BD48C5ABD9740CA0D4FE43@technotr9881e5>

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080928-spacex-falcon1-fourthtest.html

Comments?

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080928/fff315c0/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 29 03:27:10 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:27:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
 theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com>

At 08:00 PM 9/28/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>The same holds true for whether it is the Earth that goes around
>the sun, or vice-versa. To me, it is *not* a matter of whose views
>become rarer. If the Church had prevailed in the 1600s and 
>successfully suppressed all over the world the view that the Earth 
>goes around the sun, then the Church would still be wrong.

Are you quite sure that's unequivocally true? What does a Special 
Relativist say about that? (And for extra marks--I don't have the 
answer to this on the tip of my tongue, due to my problems with 
visualization--once you grasp that the Earth is rotating once a day, 
how obvious is it which body is orbiting the other? In the deep 
future when Earth is tidally locked, how self-evident will any of this appear?)

Damien Broderick




From spike66 at att.net  Mon Sep 29 04:21:58 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:21:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of 
> Mathematics in theNatural Sciences
> 
> ...In the deep future when Earth is tidally 
> locked, how self-evident will any of this appear?)
> 
> Damien Broderick

Damien, let me pick of just this one point and leave the other for the more
astute physicists among us.  The Earth is not heading towards becoming tide
locked with the sun, not even in the deep future.  It will eventually tide
lock with the moon, but not the sun.  I did the calcs on this a bunch of
years ago, and I might be able to find those or reproduce it.  But the sun
goes into helium burning, swells and boils away the oceans long before the
Earth would become tide locked.  The helium burning phase comes an order of
magnitude sooner.

spike



 



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 29 04:50:26 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:50:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Relativity in Linearly Moving and Rotating Frames
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com><580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com><580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com><056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <057401c921ef$061687d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien B. writes


> At 08:00 PM 9/28/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:
> 
>>The same holds true for whether it is the Earth that goes around
>>the sun, or vice-versa. To me, it is *not* a matter of whose views
>>become rarer. If the Church had prevailed in the 1600s and 
>>successfully suppressed all over the world the view that the Earth 
>>goes around the sun, then the Church would still be wrong.
> 
> Are you quite sure that's unequivocally true?

Yes, for all unaccelerated frames (though perhaps, to be on the safe
side, I should say "nearby" unaccelerated frames, e.g., within a 
lightyear of Sol).

> What does a Special Relativist say about that?

He or she can't say much; it's as though they write off accelerating
frames in SR.  It's GR (which E managed to build on top of SR,
it seems to me, that can deal with rotating frames of reference---
rotation being another form of acceleration).

> (And for extra marks--I don't have the 
> answer to this on the tip of my tongue, due to my problems with 
> visualization--once you grasp that the Earth is rotating once a day, 
> how obvious is it which body is orbiting the other?

One is supposed to be able to shut oneself up in a laboratory
and confirm whether or not one is in an accelerated frame.
(Foucault managed to do this using the whole Earth, or at 
least the latitude of Europe, this way.)  If there are mysterious
forces that cause objects to descend towards one wall, i.e.
"fall", then by the Equivalence Principle of GR one is either
in an accelerating spaceship or elevator, or one is having
a force from the outside being applied to one's laboratory
(e.g., the ground exerting pressure on the bottom of the
laboratory, which prevents one from achieving free fall
towards the nearby gravitating source). 

Or the same thing said with spiffier language using the curvature
of space. Wheeler's immortal words: matter tells space how to
curve and space tells matter how to move, or something like that.

In GR (as opposed to SR), it is perfectly valid, however, to 
go about using accelerated frames of reference, (though because
of SR usage, I might be misspeaking slightly). Einstein was a
follower of Mach, who claimed that if you were on a merry-go-round
and felt a centrifugal force, theoretically it might be that you were
standing still and the entire universe was rotating about you.

The Lens-Thirring effect is believed in by practically everyone, even
though I don't think it has been measured. (The newer satellites are
trying to do just that, I think.)  The simplest idea is this: suppose that
you had a Foucault pendulum going at the exact center of the North Pole.
The pendulum, being the law-obeying prudent type, says to itself "well,
I see a conflict. I'm getting information from a lot of stars that is saying
that the Earth is rotating and they're not, but there is a huge, huge object
right next to me that says it's standing still and all those stars are 
rotating around it. Who to believe?"  

It's predicted that the pendulum is going to be affected by the Earth
in this mysterious manner, and with respect to the fixed stars, it would
very, very slowly rotate as though the Earth were "dragging" it along
ever so slightly. Still too small an effect to measure today, though.

> In the deep 
> future when Earth is tidally locked, how self-evident will any of this appear?)

A Foucault pendulum would no longer rotate slowly depending on
latitude (at present, it doesn't rotate at the equator and *does*
rotate once every 24 hours at the north pole). Yet if the Earth
were tidally locked to the sun, then the Foucault pendulum would
still have far more "faith" in the fixed stars than it does in the sun,
and would keep aligned with the former (except for a very, very,
very tiny "frame-dragging" effect from Lens-Thirring). 

Exactly what messages the stars are sending is to me very exciting
stuff. Unlike ordinary gravitation, it falls off at 1/r instead of 1/r^2.
(At 1/r^2, I understand, the effect of all those stars would be too
weak, and the pendulum would "believe" the Earth.) Ciufolini and
Wheeler talk a lot about this, in damn near the most exciting
science prose I've ever read in their "Gravitation and Inertia"
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5635.html , which you might want
to check out of a library some time. (Unfortunately, about 90%
of the math is over my head, but 20 or so introductory pages
are great.)

Lee


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 29 05:04:51 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:04:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
 theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com>
	<200809290449.m8T4nsZC027457@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080929000318.024f2f28@satx.rr.com>

At 09:21 PM 9/28/2008 -0700, Spike wrote:

> > ...In the deep future when Earth is tidally
> > locked, how self-evident will any of this appear?)
>
>let me pick of just this one point and leave the other for the more
>astute physicists among us.  The Earth is not heading towards becoming tide
>locked with the sun, not even in the deep future.

I knew I should have rephrased that as a counterfactual what-if. So: 
were it the case that we lived on a world that was tidally locked to its Sun...




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Sep 29 05:19:19 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:19:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Relativity in Linearly Moving and Rotating Frames
In-Reply-To: <057401c921ef$061687d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com>
	<057401c921ef$061687d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080929000641.0249f250@satx.rr.com>

At 09:50 PM 9/28/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>>once you grasp that the Earth is rotating once a day, how obvious 
>>is it which body is orbiting the other?
>
>One is supposed to be able to shut oneself up in a laboratory
>and confirm whether or not one is in an accelerated frame.
>(Foucault  pendulum

Yes, but I don't happen to have one about my person. Nobody does. We 
"know" naively that the sun spins around the earth because we *see* 
the bloody thing moving while *we're* plainly not moving. Which has 
nothing at all to do with which one orbits the other, but gave almost 
all humans the overwhelming impression that it does. Now, when we 
break free of that motionless flat earth illusion, but before we set 
up huge slow pendulums, I'm not sure it's all that obvious that the 
earth orbits the sun. I mean, the planets cavort back and forth, so 
they're special cases, break out the epicycles, Jim, but both sun and 
moon plod along in much the same way, yet we're meant to intuit that 
one orbits earth and the other doesn't. (Well, one's bright all the 
time and the other waxes and wanes, which is a clue--but what if we 
orbited Jupiter instead? Gets tricky, neh?) I suspect most of us 
non-scientists "know" the true answer only because we've been told 
repeatedly since childhood.

Damien Broderick



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 29 07:25:05 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:25:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Relativity in Linearly Moving and Rotating Frames
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com><580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com><580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com><056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com><057401c921ef$061687d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080929000641.0249f250@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <058401c92204$b73f6ad0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Damien B writes


>>>once you grasp that the Earth is rotating once a day,
>>>how obvious is it which body is orbiting the other?
>>
>>One is supposed to be able to shut oneself up in a laboratory
>>and confirm whether or not one is in an accelerated frame.
>>(Foucault  pendulum
> 
> Yes, but I don't happen to have one about my person. Nobody
> does. We "know" naively that the sun spins around the earth
> because we *see* the bloody thing moving while *we're* plainly
> not moving.

There is much that we have learned about the world that is
not evident to our senses. Does one also equally doubt that
the continents float? Has anyone ever seen a continent float?
Do you think that a proton is made of three qworks (well,
that's how it's supposed to be pronounced)? Etc.

The entire realist program rests on the assertion that it is
possible for us to have very little doubt about a lot of things
that we have deduced only very, very indirectly. And yet,
how is that possible? It's only because the alternatives are
worse.

And we do not forget that all knowledge is conjectural only,
that all hypotheses are provisional and tentative. Yet, still, we
believe. We must believe. You must allow a doctor to stick
a needle in your arm and complete a sort of magic ritual. Why? 
Because we have made many, many conjectures that have
withstood the test of time, and have never been successfully
criticized. So we find ourselves having no choice but to believe,
if we are going to be honest with ourselves.

> Which has nothing at all to do with which one orbits the other,
> but gave almost all humans the overwhelming impression that
> it does. Now, when we break free of that motionless flat earth
> illusion, but before we set up huge slow pendulums, I'm not
> sure it's all that obvious that the earth orbits the sun. I mean,
> the planets cavort back and forth, so they're special cases,
> break out the epicycles...

You are *so* right! Many, many honest and learned men refused
absolutely to believe anything so preposterous as that the Earth
moved, or that the stars did not circle the Earth every day. All
the evidence that it does move and they do not is indirect. 

Yet it survives criticism. It's the last theory standing among all the
others. The rest of them ran afoul sooner or later, of evidence or
experiment.

> , Jim, but both sun and moon plod along in much the same way,
> yet we're meant to intuit that one orbits earth and the other doesn't.

I don't think that we're meant to intuit it at all. On a dark night as I
look up towards Sagittarius, and then cast my eye to the left (since
I live in the northern hemisphere) about ninety degrees to Deneb,
I try as hard as I can to intuit what I know to be true: Deneb is only
1400 or so light years ahead of us, as we both circle around the center
of the vast visible Milky Way. Sometimes I can "see" it, but only for
a moment.

> (Well, one's bright all the time and the other waxes and wanes,
> which is a clue--but what if we orbited Jupiter instead? Gets tricky, neh?)

Yar. Haven't a lot of SF stories had intelligent races evolve on cloud
enshrouded planets, or on such primary-secondary-tertiary systems
which take their astronomers almost forever to figure out? I remember
that Coeurl's race http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeurl didn't have any
planets besides their own, and didn't never did have the idea of
space flight.

> I suspect most of us non-scientists "know" the true answer only
> because we've been told repeatedly since childhood.

Yes.

It's the whole "network of knowledge" thing. W. V. Quine and
J. S. Ullian wrote a book about it, I think, called "The Web of Belief "
though I have not read it. ("So many books, so little time" as my
friend's t-shirt says.)

We go with the lesser miracle, whether it's a Moon Hoax or the
Loch Ness Monster. And we must occasionally find that what
"everyone knew" turns out eventually to get shot down in flames.

Lee

P.S. Sorry for the preachy tone, but I'm pretty upset with some
people at work right now, and am planning grandiose speeches,
denunciations, and confrontations galore. Savonarola will have
nothing on me come Wednesday.



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Mon Sep 29 07:52:25 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:52:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Nuclear Huns
References: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<04a501c9201a$b626bb80$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<580930c20809270814q12c17fc5w2b5fcb03f3695c24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <058601c92208$ebc37db0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stefano writes

> The problem many people on this list have is that they take the US
> point of view, even a nationalistic US point of view, for granted.

That's your perception, eh? Not mine. I feel like I'm definitely
in a minority position if I speak up for the *relatively*-good 
guys (like the U.S. and Israel) against their enemies. (Or is it
untrue that these scoundrel nations actually have enemies?
Or perhaps just enemies of their own making?)

> Now, I have no doubts that it may be in the best interest of the US to
> limit, say, nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula,

No one else's? You think Japan likes the idea of "Beloved Leader"
having some nukes on hand? But the Japanese had their teeth pulled
in 1945, just as has been the fate of so many other countries. Sweden
is not the same Sweden as before Poltava. Germany is not forceful
about anything any longer, just a short 60 years after threatening the
whole world. Spirit dies, just as old people often become resigned
and fatalistic.

> but I would say that the North-Korean government has  made the
> most they could of the not-so-trivial achievement (for what is ultimately
> a relatively primitive country) of establishing a nuclear technology.

Yes, and if a few million people end up dying because of it,
well, I suppose the glory of their achievement will shine
continuously ever after anyway. Now, if we can just get
the Palestinians, the Kurds, the Serbs and Croatians to
have such a fine not-so-trivial achievement.

> In fact, this is a win or win scenario for them: either North Korea
> becomes a nuclear power, with the dividends automatically paid
> by the mere fact of belonging to the club (such as becoming
> invulnerable to Iraqi-style invasions),

Sure. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Instead of bribing
them (which has failed and was so stupid), in reality, they need
to be threatened. And a threat that *will* be acted upon. If
push came to shove, they would have to do what the U.S. told
them to do. 

But of course, people in the west are simply too weak, just as they
were against Hitler until it was almost too late.

> (such as becoming invulnerable to Iraqi-style invasions),

Well, they're not invulnerable now. But even if they did have
two or three nukes, "Beloved Leader" and his friends know
that they could all be killed in a single blow if a determined
U.S. chose to do it. They would back down, because as bad
as the cost would be to us, it would be infinitely worse to them.
(I mean, if we had backbone, that is.)

> with the dividends automatically paid by the mere fact of belonging
> to the club... or the powers interested in having it to waive nuclear
> weapons are bound to deliver equivalent or superior advantages.

Not sure what the last sentence meant: you mean "the powers
interested in them waiving nuclear weapons would be bound
(or likely) to deliver equivalent or superior advantages"? (i.e.,
bribes?).  Bribes don't work. I'm sure you read Stuart's post
that began this thread. Eisenhower was able to stop the Korean
War with such a threat; but America was a much more confident
and psychologically strong nation in those days. 

Of course, for most people on the list, it's probably not so clear
who was the aggressor nation in that case; was it the major threat
to world peace (i.e. the Americans) or the peace-loving Democratic
People's Republic of Korea? What really happened in June, 1950?
Probably some machinations by the CIA, eh? Perhaps we'll never know?

Lee



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 10:46:10 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:46:10 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809290346wf63e8f9t30f6374fcb33efb5@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:00 PM 9/28/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:
>
>> The same holds true for whether it is the Earth that goes around
>> the sun, or vice-versa. To me, it is *not* a matter of whose views
>> become rarer. If the Church had prevailed in the 1600s and successfully
>> suppressed all over the world the view that the Earth goes around the sun,
>> then the Church would still be wrong.
>
> Are you quite sure that's unequivocally true? What does a Special Relativist
> say about that?

Even not considering that angle, Lee reflexively considers "true" as
"scientifically true". I am very much in favour of giving preference
to scientific truth over "other kinds", or definition thereof - after
all, if everything is cultural, why should I be prevented to opt for
it as a matter of cultural choice? - but it is a scientific (historic)
truth that for many people and for centuries, the earth *did not*
orbit around the sun.

After all, science itself teaches us that we live in a world of
phenomena, not of noumena true essences inhabiting the mind of God,
and unperceived or misunderstood phenomena are not strictly speaking
part of the reality of the people concerned, not any more than
possible universes beyond our light cone would.

As for "eating babies", ethical, political or aesthetical principles
are certainly part of a worldview, but we are discussing here the
epistemological and gnoseological angle. "Eating babies" does not
belong to the area of "true or false", but to that of "right or
wrong", in other terms is a "ought" not a "be" issue. You may
disapprove it and yet realise that it happens, or approve it but deny
its reality, or any other combination thereof.

Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 11:07:09 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:07:09 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The Nuclear Huns
In-Reply-To: <058601c92208$ebc37db0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<04a501c9201a$b626bb80$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<580930c20809270814q12c17fc5w2b5fcb03f3695c24@mail.gmail.com>
	<058601c92208$ebc37db0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <580930c20809290407o772b1f01t106036141d107870@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Stefano writes
>
>> The problem many people on this list have is that they take the US
>> point of view, even a nationalistic US point of view, for granted.
>
> That's your perception, eh? Not mine. I feel like I'm definitely
> in a minority position if I speak up for the *relatively*-good guys.

Let me say that I am sympathetic with the position of an American
proud to be one and without qualms in furthering what he perceives as
the interests of his own country and community and people, perhaps
along to that of countries that he perceives as allies or cultural and
political cousins.

What I offered before is an exercise in perspective. It is by no means
necessary that what corresponds to the best interest of the US of A,
or supposedly of the "West", automatically corresponds to that of the
governments of the rest of the world, or even the peoples of the rest
of the world. And if America is conditioned to some extent - not
really a large extent, IMHO, in comparison, say, to Europe - by moral
weakness or scrupules or fear, the fact that other countries are
willing to play chicken can only be expected.

The USA themselves played chicken with success with the URSS during
the Cuban crisis. And of course, the ability to make the Russians
seriously believe that its leadership would have been crazy enough to
unleash a nuclear apocalypse  to protect its political interest and
long-term independence was key in that success (in fact, Rees goes as
far as maintaining that in hindsight it was a very crazy stunt, which
cannot be retrospectively justified only because of its positive
outcome, on the tune of "better red than dead").

Now, North Korea is a poor, desperate, politically marginalised
country. This may or may not be the responsibility of its leadership,
of the fate, or of evil capitalism, but at the end of the day this is
the reality. Realising that threatening to develop nuclear weapons,
rather than worsening its situation as the common wisdom would go, was
a way to play at best whatever weak cards it had was brilliant, IMHO.

Even if they really accepted a bribe and were honest in honouring a
commitment not to develop them in the future, they still would make
more out of it than by declaring bankrutpcy and throwing themselves to
the mercy of the international community.

Stefano Vaj


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 12:39:56 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:39:56 +1000
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809290539o3c319ae4ta6114a8ffbcb7fd2@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/29 Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com>:

> The same holds true for whether it is the Earth that goes around
> the sun, or vice-versa. To me, it is *not* a matter of whose views
> become rarer. If the Church had prevailed in the 1600s and successfully
> suppressed all over the world the view that the
> Earth goes around the sun, then the Church would still be wrong.

But the church would not have prevailed in the end because they would
have been beaten in any enterprise requiring an understanding of the
heliocentric view, such as colonising the solar system. The Ptolemaic
cosmology may have given the right answers up to a point, but beyond
this point it would either have failed or made the calculations too
cumbersome; so on the basis of utility (which subsumes Occam's Razor),
the Copernican theory is preferred. But arguing about metaphysical
concepts - is there really a concrete world out there or does it just
look that way? - adds nothing to science, and if anything detracts
from the serious business of getting things done.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Sep 29 15:01:16 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:01:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809290801pff7732kcd5692574f3a392@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> The logic above seems to be to be of wide (too wide) applicability.
> One might apply it, for example, to baby-eating. Whereas I very
> strongly and adamantly disapprove of the murder of innocents,
> (to remain in a non-emotive analytical vein), I do see a "real need
> at the end of  the day whether worldview A (we can sanction
> murder of innocents) or worldview B (we should not sanction it).
>
> The same holds true for whether it is the Earth that goes around
> the sun, or vice-versa. To me, it is *not* a matter of whose views
> become rarer. If the Church had prevailed in the 1600s and successfully
> suppressed all over the world the view that the
> Earth goes around the sun, then the Church would still be wrong.

Fascinating that even with the recent and repeated talk of
"increasingly coherent over increasing context", there appears an
absence of appreciation (or apprehension) that with regard to
baby-eating or heliocentrism or ..., the tendency still applies; for
adaptive agents to progressively make sense of their umwelt (whatever
its nature, and whatever the nature of their necessarily subjective
priors), integrating and mutually aligning an increasing context of
observations in terms of what appears to work over increasing scope of
increasingly objective consequences.

Yes, this thinking is *very broadly* applicable -- and inescapable --
very close cousin to entropy and its sibling, synergy.

Tell me, Human, how can any system, functioning exactly according to
its nature within its environment, be "wrong", other than with respect
to a particular (necessarily subjective) context from which to make
such an assessment?  Does it seem to you that "Truth" is somehow
diminished, when it is accepted as "merely" the best truth presently
known?

- Jef
- Jef


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Sep 29 15:50:29 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:50:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Relativity in Linearly Moving and Rotating Frames.
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f7bfe5740809260717n446f7f1fq7c2f67b040659ff6@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809261729g259a54e8m55e1dffce18a3152@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809261752p4b29ff5fi3eaead0b1962f322@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com><580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com><580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com><056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20080928221829.02391618@satx.rr.com><057401c921ef$061687d0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080929000641.0249f250@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <9E8930A503614A28B502F67B64268B82@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

> I'm not sure it's all that obvious that the earth orbits the sun.

I agree it is not obvious at all that the earth orbits the sun,
and in fact it seems pretty obvious that Newton's first law of
motion is untrue; in the real world a particle will NOT continue
at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force,
or at least that's what seems to be. Such is the disadvantage
in living in an atmosphere, if we lived in a vacuum I think it
would be much more intuitive. And yet Newton was such a
huge genius that he was able to figure it out despite the
existence of that nasty gas. Intelligent beings that lived in
the ocean would have an even harder time than we did in figuring
out the true nature of things, and they wouldn't even have the
motion of the moon and planets to help them. I think even an 
aquatic Newton would be at a loss.

 John K Clark





From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 18:35:33 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:35:33 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809290801pff7732kcd5692574f3a392@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809290801pff7732kcd5692574f3a392@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> Tell me, Human, how can any system, functioning exactly according to
> its nature within its environment, be "wrong", other than with respect
> to a particular (necessarily subjective) context from which to make
> such an assessment?  Does it seem to you that "Truth" is somehow
> diminished, when it is accepted as "merely" the best truth presently
> known?

Perhaps you have a much larger point in mind, but I'll add this
response to the above;

Within a particular context, the best approximation of truth may be
verified as good enough.  If the same principle is applicable to a
different context, I believe that principle has a greater measure of
this property defined as truth.  If this principle can be used to
correctly predict the situation in new contexts, this further measures
the principle's approach to an ideal Truth.  Since it is arguably
impossible to have verified truth in absolutely every context, we must
accept that "best presently known truth" may only continue to approach
the absolute (until disproved?).  I attempt to minimize confusion by
treating "Truth" as an asymptotic limit to the maximum measurable
'truth'.  In that case, the absolute is not minimized because it is an
ideal that may never be reached.

It's a difficult topic because it's self-referential (either the
subject is referring to itself, or Truth is somehow reflective of its
it's own value)


From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Sep 29 20:17:38 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:17:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809290801pff7732kcd5692574f3a392@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809291317if5b709at513cfb1f99858299@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
>> Tell me, Human, how can any system, functioning exactly according to
>> its nature within its environment, be "wrong", other than with respect
>> to a particular (necessarily subjective) context from which to make
>> such an assessment?  Does it seem to you that "Truth" is somehow
>> diminished, when it is accepted as "merely" the best truth presently
>> known?
>
> Perhaps you have a much larger point in mind, but I'll add this
> response to the above;

I think you've roughly grokked an aspect of the simple something I've
been trying to say.  Frankly, I'm repeatedly boggled by how this
concept is so apparently alien to so many, but then, I've always felt
quite alien.


> Within a particular context, the best approximation of truth may be
> verified as good enough.

Well, you're still displaying the presumption of a point of view
somehow outside the system from which to distinguish "best
approximation" from "good enough" approximation, and your use of
"verified" seems again to imply some reference standard outside the
system.  But further down, you seem to have captured at least part,
which is why I said you've (only) roughly grokked my point.

It's like the (oversimplified) difference between Positivism and
Pragmatism:  For the Positivist, beliefs are expressions about
reality.  For the Pragmatist, beliefs are expressions of reality. The
distinction is the functional relationship of the observer to the
observed.


> If the same principle is applicable to a
> different context, I believe that principle has a greater measure of
> this property defined as truth.

So to paraphrase, if the same model appears to apply also to a
different context (i.e. to an increasing context), then we are
justified in increasing our estimation of the model's correspondence
to reality.

So then yes, this is a simple variation on the principle of Maximum
Entropy, closely related to Occam's Razor and Bayes Theorem.


> If this principle can be used to
> correctly predict the situation in new contexts, this further measures
> the principle's approach to an ideal Truth.  Since it is arguably
> impossible to have verified truth in absolutely every context,

Why do you say "arguably"?  How might it not be impossible (unless one
were to argue from Providence)?


> we must
> accept that "best presently known truth" may only continue to approach
> the absolute (until disproved?).  I attempt to minimize confusion by
> treating "Truth" as an asymptotic limit to the maximum measurable
> 'truth'.

Here we go again, speaking of the "asymptotic limit to the maximum
measurable 'truth'"
 as if it were meaningful (could be functionally modeled with its
effective interactions.)


> In that case, the absolute is not minimized because it is an
> ideal that may never be reached.
>
> It's a difficult topic because it's self-referential (either the
> subject is referring to itself, or Truth is somehow reflective of its
> it's own value)

Stop trying to model "Truth" in your statements about truth and the
problem disappears, with nothing (actual) lost.


- Jef


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 20:50:10 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:50:10 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30809290539o3c319ae4ta6114a8ffbcb7fd2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809290539o3c319ae4ta6114a8ffbcb7fd2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> But the church would not have prevailed in the end because they would
> have been beaten in any enterprise requiring an understanding of the
> heliocentric view, such as colonising the solar system. The Ptolemaic
> cosmology may have given the right answers up to a point, but beyond
> this point it would either have failed or made the calculations too
> cumbersome; so on the basis of utility (which subsumes Occam's Razor),
> the Copernican theory is preferred. But arguing about metaphysical
> concepts - is there really a concrete world out there or does it just
> look that way? - adds nothing to science, and if anything detracts
> from the serious business of getting things done.

Very well put.

But speaking of the merits, from a strict contemporary-science angle,
is there any reason to consider a "geocentric" perspective as
intrinsically flawed or inconsistent with some experimental data? It
is not a rhetorical question, I have never given it much thought, and
since after all we recognise nowadays that the Sun is not in any kind
of "objectively fixed" position, and that the motion of a rocket can
be equally well described as a rocket moving away from earth or the
earth moving away from the rocket I simply assume that the
"heliocentric" view is simply a much simpler, more elegant and more
Occam-compliant way to describe our portion of the universe.

Stefano Vaj


From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Sep 29 21:06:16 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:06:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809290539o3c319ae4ta6114a8ffbcb7fd2@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809291406n2b501b5an63dcaaeca8302130@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> ... I simply assume that the
> "heliocentric" view is simply a much simpler, more elegant and more
> Occam-compliant way to describe our portion of the universe.

Isn't the "more Occam-compliant way", simpler and more elegant, the
now common scientific view that there is /no/ such privileged position
or portion of the universe?

-  Jef


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Sep 29 21:38:05 2008
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:38:05 -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>
Message-ID: <0E439BC6D0944F808E0C904CD30463BC@MyComputer>

I see that the House has rejected the 700 billion bailout of Wall
Street. 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. 
I was wondering about an alternative idea that I've had, 
a massive 700 billion tax cut with 90% aimed at the middle class. 
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.

 John K Clark




From jef at jefallbright.net  Mon Sep 29 21:12:19 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:12:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809291406n2b501b5an63dcaaeca8302130@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809290539o3c319ae4ta6114a8ffbcb7fd2@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809291406n2b501b5an63dcaaeca8302130@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809291412t60fd5949vcaf810a5f87ccd42@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ... I simply assume that the
>> "heliocentric" view is simply a much simpler, more elegant and more
>> Occam-compliant way to describe our portion of the universe.
>
> Isn't the "more Occam-compliant way", simpler and more elegant, the
> now common scientific view that there is /no/ such privileged position
> or portion of the universe?

I should added that the heuristic is not in favor of the "simplest"
theory in terms of, for example, description length, but roughly put,
in favor of the theory which explains more while assuming less in the
way of ontological infrastructure.

- Jef


From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 00:14:09 2008
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:14:09 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809291317if5b709at513cfb1f99858299@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809290801pff7732kcd5692574f3a392@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809291317if5b709at513cfb1f99858299@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240809291714y7cbffbbat6f5473f0dbf5d390@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> I think you've roughly grokked an aspect of the simple something I've
> been trying to say.  Frankly, I'm repeatedly boggled by how this
> concept is so apparently alien to so many, but then, I've always felt
> quite alien.

Perhaps that's the best one can hope for?

>> Within a particular context, the best approximation of truth may be
>> verified as good enough.
>
> Well, you're still displaying the presumption of a point of view
> somehow outside the system from which to distinguish "best
> approximation" from "good enough" approximation, and your use of
> "verified" seems again to imply some reference standard outside the
> system.  But further down, you seem to have captured at least part,
> which is why I said you've (only) roughly grokked my point.

I presume those viewpoints due to a lack of rigorous definition.
"Best" could either mean the highest achievable or highest yet
achieved.  I used verified within the scope of a single context in the
manner that "people like chocolate" can be verified by specifying a
sample group of people and asking them to confirm their satisfaction
with chocolate.  A more rigorous definition of 'people' may be
required (are children considered people?  are cannibals considered
people?  I meant "normal" people, so define another adjective, etc.)
Clearly that's a ridiculous perversion of the question; we should
focus on "like" to the extent that we are probing the preference of
the aforementioned collection of individual persons.  It's amazing we
can communicate despite all the ways communication can fail.

> It's like the (oversimplified) difference between Positivism and
> Pragmatism:  For the Positivist, beliefs are expressions about
> reality.  For the Pragmatist, beliefs are expressions of reality. The
> distinction is the functional relationship of the observer to the
> observed.

fwiw - I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but I'm completely
lost by that analogy.  I was thinking of mis-applying Heisenberg
Uncertainty:  the more succinctly you try to define the words, the
greater the potential for misunderstanding the message.  If you agree,
then it probably proves this point.  If you disagree, then it also
probably proves this point.

>> If this principle can be used to
>> correctly predict the situation in new contexts, this further measures
>> the principle's approach to an ideal Truth.  Since it is arguably
>> impossible to have verified truth in absolutely every context,
>
> Why do you say "arguably"?  How might it not be impossible (unless one
> were to argue from Providence)?

You got me.  I admit to superfluous language.  I believe
it["arguably"] was intended to provide an escape route when (for
example) Lee called me out on using "impossible" when I am not in a
position to defend the absolute.  You correctly followed my thinking
though, it is impossible to exhaustively verify a transcendental form.
 The tools available for mathmeticians to deal with this kind of
problem do not have standard analogues in philosophy.  [I freely admit
my ignorance of the completeness of tools employed by philosophy]  *

> Here we go again, speaking of the "asymptotic limit to the maximum
> measurable 'truth'" as if it were meaningful (could be functionally modeled with its
> effective interactions.)

Agreed.  Cross-domain use of terms magnifies their ambiguity.
Eventually words lose their meaning altogether, no?

> Stop trying to model "Truth" in your statements about truth and the
> problem disappears, with nothing (actual) lost.

How Zen.  If you can remove the thing from its description, can that
thing be properly described?

"stop trying to eff the ineffable"



* Intentionally stripping adjectives from this paragraph forward gave
me a better appreciation of your form of argument.  Sentences may lose
nuance, but gain simplicity.  A subject/verb/object primitive can be
accepted or rejected.  It can be difficult to force natural language
into simplistic constructs.  I would agree that doing so is a
worthwhile exercise.  ... as would 'dereferencing'(?) ambiguous
pronouns such as "it" and "they"


From neptune at superlink.net  Tue Sep 30 02:25:33 2008
From: neptune at superlink.net (Techno)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:25:33 -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: <10B0DDD2BEF04B388AB1775680C76346@technotr9881e5>

On Monday, September 29, 2008 5:38 PM John K Clark jonkc at bellsouth.net 
wrote:
>I see that the House has rejected the 700 billion bailout of Wall
> Street. 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. I was wondering about an alternative idea 
> that I've had, a massive 700 billion tax cut with 90% aimed at the middle 
> class. 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.

These are the same guys who told us there were weapons of mass destruction 
in Iraq.  Why let fear, especially fear they're fomenting, cloud your 
judgment?

Regards,

Dan 



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 04:14:56 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:14:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] A Serious Question For USians
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670809281650p6ce3173egecb7edfd66ff208b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200809300441.m8U4fiEu003728@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
	On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:22 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?...
		
		Damien Broderick
		[a stranger in a strange land]
		
	
	How many people here would say she is the female equivalent of Dan
Quayle (or much worse...)?  I'm going to eat a potatoe, while I wait for
replies.  John  : )



John, some have tried to make the comparison, struggled to Quaylize Palin,
but I see a much better comparison between Dan Quayle and Joe Biden.  Some
of the things that Joe Biden says on a regular basis are off the charts dumb
compared to any comment ever uttered by Quayle.  The press laughs it off,
nothing new here, Joe has always done this sorta thing.  Can you imagine
what would have happened had Palin said FDR went on TV in 1929?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Glrnb_G34E4

We have nothing to fear but Biden himself.  

To answer Damien's question, I don't think Sarah Palin is suitable VP
material either, with that icky church thing.  Senator Obama had that too,
but he renounced his, after his pastor called him a liar.  

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 04:20:35 2008
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:20:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] FW: SpaceX achieves orbit!
Message-ID: <200809300447.m8U4lOaw027985@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 
Subject: SpaceX achieves orbit!

Paypal founder Elon Musk's SpaceX has achieved orbit yesterday with a
privately developed vehicle.  This video gives a good idea of what it takes
to get up to orbit velocity:
 
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/space-x-did-it.html
 
This with only 550 employees.    Hearty congratulations, this is long
overdue. 
 
spike   
	



From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 09:54:56 2008
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:54:56 +0000
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: <ee50357e0809300254y2908c5bdv299c66076b5c02@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:38 PM, John K Clark wrote:
> I see that the House has rejected the 700 billion bailout of Wall
> Street. 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. I was wondering about an alternative idea
> that I've had, a massive 700 billion tax cut with 90% aimed at the middle
> class. 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.


Too little, too late.

<http://www.butler.edu/absolutenm/templates/?a=824&z=0>
A new book "The End of the American Century"
(Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., $34.95, release date Oct. 1)
by Butler University Political Science Professor David Mason.

Quote from an interview:
The United States is at the end of the period of global leadership and
domination that we've enjoyed for the last 50 years or so. The country
is bankrupt economically. We've lost our edge in terms of politics,
economics, socially. We no longer compare well with other countries
around the world, and we're not admired as we once were by countries
around the world. And we're not viewed as a model for economic and
political development, as we once were. So this really marks a global
shift in world history, both for the United States and the rest of the
world.


The author has a blog here, with lots of additional comments.
<http://endoftheamericancentury.blogspot.com/2008/09/this-sucker-could-go-down.html>

Quote:
The root of the problem is this: the U.S. has been living on borrowed
money for an entire generation; this debt has been serviced internally
by a mushrooming but shaky financial services sector, and externally
by foreign governments (especially the Chinese); and now both of these
sources are evaporating. Whether or not the bailout package is
approved, the U.S. economy and American consumers are going to take a
bit hit.

First--the borrowed money. Both government and consumers have been
spending beyond their means, almost continuously, for two decades. The
federal government has had huge budget deficits every year since 1980,
except for a few years during the Clinton presidency. The deficits
have built the federal debt up to some $10 trillion, accounting for
two-thirds of GDP, compared to only one-third in the 1970s. Next
year's budget deficit will add almost $500 billion to that debt. The
bailout package will probably add another trillion dollars. Just the
interest on the federal debt is one of the largest items in the
federal budget, draining over $400 billion annually.

Government profligacy is matched by consumers: the household savings
rate in the U.S. has been declining for two decades, is the lowest
among all developed countries, and in 2005 fell below zero for the
first time ever. Credit card and mortgage debt are both at record
levels, as are bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures. Most Americans,
even those near retirement age, have almost no retirement savings. The
Social Security and Medicare "trust funds" are actually unfunded, to
the tune of some $41 trillion. The government is unlikely to find
resources to meet these liabilities, which will put further strains on
seniors.

Consumer spending now accounts for two-thirds of all economic activity
in the U.S. This growth in spending has been possible only by
borrowing. The consumer spending and borrowing binge has been fueled
by the growth of the financial services industry, which has
increasingly replaced manufacturing as the mainstay of the U.S.
economy. Banks, mortgage companies, loan agencies and credit card
companies make their money by making loans, and they are constantly
seeking new customers and encouraging existing ones to borrow more. It
is this symbiotic relationship between binging consumers and profit
seeking financial companies that has created the piles of consumer
debt and subprime mortgages.

All of this is starting to unravel now. People borrowed more than they
could afford; the mortgage crisis undercut their ability to repay
loans and mortgages; the banks and loan agencies faced mounting
defaults and declining profits and stock prices. Banks are
increasingly unable or unwilling to extend loans to businesses or
individuals, which will crimp both consumer spending and economic
growth, accelerating the economic downturn.

The U.S. government is not really in a position to rescue bankrupt
companies, because it is itself bankrupt. And just as the financial
industry has been an enabler of consumer deficit spending, foreign
governments have enabled the U.S. government to spend more than it
brings in, by buying up U.S. debt. Over half of U.S. debt is now owned
by foreigners?compared to just 5 percent that was owned by foreigners
twenty years ago. The biggest outside holder of U.S. debt is the
government of China. Holding such debt only makes sense if you are
sure you can redeem the funds when you need to. As you can imagine,
foreign governments and banks are increasingly worried about this, and
have already started shifting such investments to other countries, and
other currencies, especially the euro. This is one of the reasons for
the sharp drop in the value of the dollar, to record low levels
against the euro and other currencies.

So this $700 billion bailout, as large as it is, will only scratch the
surface of these multiple dimensions of debt and economic weakness. We
cannot continue to grow, based on borrowing against the future. The
domestic financial pot is empty, and our foreign enablers are wising
up. The economy will contract, our standard of living will decline,
and more people will join the ranks of the poor and unemployed. This
sucker could go down. The U.S. is in for tough times.


BillK


From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 12:27:16 2008
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:27:16 +1000
Subject: [ExI] FW: SpaceX achieves orbit!
In-Reply-To: <200809300447.m8U4lOaw027985@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200809300447.m8U4lOaw027985@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30809300527m494552fawf5a580ae4fd7c785@mail.gmail.com>

2008/9/30 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
>
> Subject: SpaceX achieves orbit!
>
> Paypal founder Elon Musk's SpaceX has achieved orbit yesterday with a
> privately developed vehicle.  This video gives a good idea of what it takes
> to get up to orbit velocity:
>
> http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/space-x-did-it.html
>
> This with only 550 employees.    Hearty congratulations, this is long
> overdue.

This is of course encouraging but I wonder at the ability of any
private organisation to achieve real advances in space exploration,
when even a great nation like China is so cautious in their claims:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE48T0TX20080930

'But Chinese experts stressed that their country's next big goals in
space face big technological hurdles.

Two "tougher and more complicated" skills still to be mastered are
docking craft in space and learning how to keep astronauts alive and
well in orbit for long periods, said Ma Xingrui, a deputy commander of
the manned space mission, according to Xinhua news agency.

Another senior engineer told state television that China was studying
space docking, but warned it was no easy feat.

"I think it's like launching a needle up there, then having a thread
on the ground, hundreds of kilometres below, and finally you have to
put the thread through the needle," said the engineer, Su Shuangning.

To send aloft the much larger, 20-tonne space station that China has
planned, it will also need a new generation of more powerful rockets.
Technological delays have held back the launch of those new rockets
until about midway through the next decade, officials have said.

"China is still quite far behind the United States and Russia (in
space technology)," Jiao Weixin, a space scientist at Peking
University, told Reuters. "It's unrealistic to speak of us catching
up. We're just doing our best to narrow the gap."



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 30 13:28:15 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:28:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics
	intheNatural Sciences
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com><580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com><580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com><056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809290539o3c319ae4ta6114a8ffbcb7fd2@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003701c92300$cf734520$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stefano writes

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 
>> But the church would not have prevailed in the end because they would
>> have been beaten in any enterprise requiring an understanding of the
>> heliocentric view, such as colonising the solar system. The Ptolemaic
>> cosmology may have given the right answers up to a point, but beyond
>> this point it would either have failed or made the calculations too
>> cumbersome; so on the basis of utility (which subsumes Occam's Razor),
>> the Copernican theory is preferred.

Yes, just as the "theory" that it's alternately light and dark
over very approximately 24 hour period, or the belief that
one must inhale and exhale (either naturally or artificially)
or perish. Literally tens of thousands of alternate beliefs
about our daily lives would not give what you call "the
right answers", which, indeed may ultimately be founded
upon Occam's razor. Yet we are vastly more certain of
ordinary "facts" of life, such as if you lift and object and
then let go of it, it will fall down than we are of all these
esoteric concepts such  as Occam's Razor, or cultural
differences.

I claim that all the latter are really based upon the former,
epistemologically. But I do *not*  want to get into another
realist/idealist/objectivist/ subjectivist debate, since they go
nowhere, as you (Stathis) say. So I agree with what you
write above, and confine my remarks only to those who
accept the ordinary, daily, practical realism of everyday
life.

>> But arguing about metaphysical concepts - is there really a
>> concrete world out there or does it just look that way? - adds
>> nothing to science, and if anything detracts from the serious
>> business of getting things done.

Stefano writes

> Very well put.

I could hardly agree more.

> But speaking of the merits, from a strict contemporary-science angle,
> is there any reason to consider a "geocentric" perspective as
> intrinsically flawed or inconsistent with some experimental data?

No, you can set up rotating coordinate systems that have great
utility. Even when I was in the 8th grade, I just knew that the
teacher was all wet when he said that there was no such thing
as centrifugal force. 

> It is not a rhetorical question, I have never given it much thought, and
> since after all we recognise nowadays that the Sun is not in any kind
> of "objectively fixed" position,

Yes, according to the best ideas we have---i.e. those ideas that
have successively survived criticism---there isn't really any such
thing as "objectively fixed position", although one may point out
that the CMB allows you to come to rest with respect to the Big
Bang. But then if you do, you must still consider someone else a
few light years away to be moving, and there is no objective notion
of one frame being absolutely fixed and the other not.

> and that the motion of a rocket can
> be equally well described as a rocket moving away from earth or the
> earth moving away from the rocket I simply assume that the
> "heliocentric" view is simply a much simpler, more elegant and more
> Occam-compliant way to describe our portion of the universe.

Just so. I only wonder why you probably would not often phrase
seasonal differences in temperature, or other accepted facts about
daily life as "a simply more elegant and more Occam-compliant way"
to describe our surroundings. (Sorry to throw in one more jab at all
the high falutin' talk about such things, but apparently I am channeling
the spirit of Feynman at the moment  :-)

On to Mike's statements about "Truth". I really think that his comments
and Jef's are more appropriate in a different thread.

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 30 14:10:23 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:10:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"?
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809261940j744b5a29m43552b683d5ec1ab@mail.gmail.com><f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com><580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com><580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com><056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><f7bfe5740809290801pff7732kcd5692574f3a392@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Mike wrote (in the thread about mathematics in the natural sciences)


> Jef wrote:
> 
>> Tell me, Human, how can any system, functioning exactly according to
>> its nature within its environment, be "wrong", other than with respect
>> to a particular (necessarily subjective) context from which to make
>> such an assessment?  Does it seem to you that "Truth" is somehow
>> diminished, when it is accepted as "merely" the best truth presently
>> known?

Yes, absolutely. Oops, er, I mean "provisionally accepted!"   :-)

We really should try to banish all sorts of capitalized "Truths"
and certainties from our discourse, not that Mike fails to make
an *extremely* valid point below, but simply because such
reifications too often give the wrong impression (IMO).

> Perhaps you have a much larger point in mind, but I'll add this
> response to the above;
> 
> Within a particular context, the best approximation of truth may be
> verified as good enough.  If the same principle is applicable to a
> different context, I believe that principle has a greater measure of
> this property defined as truth.

Yes. My only quibble would be that we want refrain from
ever "defining" truth (or anything else outside math, for that matter). 

> If this principle can be used to correctly predict the situation in
> new contexts, this further measures the principle's approach to
> an ideal Truth.

I know what you're saying (I think), and I completely agree.
We find, for example, that in science a far more general rule
(such as Boyle's law) to be real progress on the road towards
that idealization which can never be reached: absolute certainty.

As Stathis was saying, any attempts to take actions (e.g. 
colonizing the solar system) should proceed without a 
moment's thought as to the accuracy, utility, or, if you will,
the truth of the heliocentric assumption.

> Since it is arguably impossible to have verified truth in absolutely
> every context, 

I agree with Jef's criticism of this. Why say "arguably"?
(Unless we tiresomely fall back to trying to make every
sentence perfect, an impossible task as Eternal Truth No. 2
makes clear: "Every statement must be further modified.")

On the other hand, what if you had said "Since it is impossible
to have verified truth..." we could have picked on the word
"impossible" too, and then gone on to criticize "absolutely
every context"!  No single word is immune to deconstruction,
which is why we must dance lightly over as many different
words and different phrases as we can.

Perhaps "Since nothing can be known for absolutely certain,
especially in all contexts..." would be safer and better.
Korzybski  pointed out the advantages of words like "not"
and "nothing" in places like this.

> we must accept that "best presently known truth" may only
> continue to approach the absolute (until disproved?).

Yes---although that probably could be said without using 
the word "truth" a second time, which compel's the readers
attention towards a difficult and problematic issue. But enough
terminological quibbles, sorry.

> I attempt to minimize confusion by treating "Truth" as an asymptotic
> limit to the maximum measurable 'truth'.

A *very* important point, yes! Because I'm a philosophic
realist, I don't really have any problem with us acting provisionally
as if there were an asymptotic limit to what we can know. We 
*should* continue to look at Ptolemaic theory as a right step 
towards more knowledge, more accurate maps of our universe,
towards what is correct, and so forth, and then look at the
Copernican, Tychoean, and Keplerian versions as wonderful
steps towards even greater understanding of the solar system
and its dynamics. Along the same road, we must further celebrate
Newton's breakthrough followed by Einstein's. Those who work
with planetary data (e.g. Mercury's) often feel transported by
the incredible accuracy of their predictions and their knowledge.

And when people dig up the Mayan ruins and can assign dates
with amazing prediction to innumerable things that we should
best think of as having actually occurred a thousand years ago,
we must feel thrilled, and must think that we *really have gotten
somewhere*. 

So where have we got? It's just as you say: we have progressed
along some road towards a sort of asymptotic limit, just as we have
in daily life (except for those we call crazy, who hear voices, whose
beliefs are extraordinary at odds with what the rest of us "know").
And if this were not a thread on what is "wrong" and what is
"truth", then it would have been ill-advised of me to put "know"
in quotes there.

> In that case, the absolute is not minimized because it is an
> ideal that may never be reached.

Yeah, only I'd go even a bit further and say "can never be
reached". But the key point is the concept "reached" as
if we were going somewhere. Indeed we are!

Lee



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 30 14:25:15 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:25:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677><f7bfe5740809262006v5ad4ded5sd87c205fa066690c@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com><580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com><f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com><580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com><056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677><f21c22e30809290539o3c319ae4ta6114a8ffbcb7fd2@mail.gmail.com><580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809291406n2b501b5an63dcaaeca8302130@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Jef wrote in the thread on Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

> Stefano wrote:
> 
>> ... I simply assume that the "heliocentric" view is simply a much
>> simpler, more elegant and more Occam-compliant way to describe
>> our portion of the universe.
> 
> Isn't the "more Occam-compliant way", simpler and more elegant, the
> now common scientific view that there is /no/ such privileged position
> or portion of the universe?

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  :-)

More concretely, what are we to do but admit that certain
descriptions about daily life *are* privileged?  For example
"almost all cars require oil" is to be seen as highly preferred
or privileged over "cars run just as well without oil as with".
Another such privileged position might be the claim that there
are now but two viable candidates running for president of
the U.S.

Can't it also be the same in science? Why not conclude that
the heliocentric theory not only has the upper hand in terms
of widespread belief, but, so far as we have been able to
tell with our finest instruments and most concentrated
ratiocination, is simply a vastly superior view to the geocentric
one? That sounds like privilege to me!  :-)  It merits our almost
total endorsement, and, like Stathis said, it's kind of a waste of
time to wonder whether or not the heliocentric theory is correct.

Apologies for picking on one particular word, but I decided
to take the chance that maybe I was addressing genuine and
substantial disagreement.

Lee



From scerir at libero.it  Tue Sep 30 14:24:39 2008
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:24:39 +0200
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>
	<ee50357e0809300254y2908c5bdv299c66076b5c02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000901c92308$46714a30$680b4797@archimede>

From: "BillK"

Too little, too late.

# The total amount of derivatives is estimated 
to be around $350 trillion. That number is something 
like 10 times the economic output of the entire world.
There are different class of derivatives, and one of the 
problems seems to be the fast and global propagation 
of stress (illiquidity, devaluation) across the different 
classes of derivatives, and then across the different 
classes of non-derivative assets (i.e. bonds).
 
The U.S. is in for tough times.

# European economy is in danger too.
http://www.voxeu.com/index.php?q=node/1669
http://www.voxeu.com/index.php?q=node/1722


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue Sep 30 15:06:13 2008
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:06:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Nuclear Huns
References: <407846.95159.qm@web65607.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<04a501c9201a$b626bb80$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<580930c20809270814q12c17fc5w2b5fcb03f3695c24@mail.gmail.com>
	<058601c92208$ebc37db0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<580930c20809290407o772b1f01t106036141d107870@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005501c9230e$b2750ea0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Stefano writes

>>> The problem many people on this list have is that they take the US
>>> point of view, even a nationalistic US point of view, for granted.
>>
>> That's your perception, eh? Not mine. I feel like I'm definitely
>> in a minority position if I speak up for the *relatively*-good guys.
> 
> Let me say that I am sympathetic with the position of an American
> proud to be one

Actually, no. I've never been proud of any such thing. I have
never even been proud of being white  :-)   Why? Because those
things were accidents of birth. (I sheepishly confess to being 
proud, a bit, of living in Silicon Valley---but then, I studied 
computers and moved here.)

> and without qualms in furthering what he perceives as
> the interests of his own country and community and people, perhaps
> along to that of countries that he perceives as allies or cultural and
> political cousins.

Oh, yes, indeed I do think that if, say, France and Germany have to
undergo a financial meltdown or else the U.S., I'll prefer the former.
But I would never *argue* that from a biased perspective.
One must put forth objective reasons in a forum such as this.

(The most I might try to argue would be some problematic notion like,
maybe with America's larger economy, it would be better if it had
been France and Germany hurting rather than the U.S.)
 
> What I offered before is an exercise in perspective. It is by no means
> necessary that what corresponds to the best interest of the US of A,
> or supposedly of the "West", automatically corresponds to that of the
> governments of the rest of the world, or even the peoples of the rest
> of the world.

Right. I don't disagree with that at all. I merely think that what is
good for General Motors is good for the U.S.  Er, oops, I meant,
what is good for the West is good for the world.

> The USA themselves played chicken with success with the
> URSS [U.S.S.R.] during the Cuban crisis. And of course,
> the ability to make the Russians seriously believe that its
> leadership would have been crazy enough to unleash a nuclear
> apocalypse  to protect its political interest and long-term
> independence was key in that success (in fact, Rees goes as
> far as maintaining that in hindsight it was a very crazy stunt,
> which cannot be retrospectively justified only because of its
> positive outcome, on the tune of "better red than dead").

Well, the U.S. was going to blockade Cuba, and maybe invade
it. That is not exactly correctly described as "unleashing a nuclear
apocalypse". Yes---it is risky, because one thing can lead to
another. But to never be assertive is to risk being taken advantage
of at every turn. (Precisely the same principles apply in daily life.)
Wouldn't it have been the U.S.S.R. that would have had to 
"unleash" a nuclear war to stop the blockade or to stop an
invasion of Cuba? [2]

> Now, North Korea is a poor, desperate, politically marginalised
> country. This may or may not be the responsibility of its leadership,
> of the fate, or of evil capitalism, but at the end of the day this is
> the reality. Realising that threatening to develop nuclear weapons,
> rather than worsening its situation as the common wisdom would
> go, was a way to play at best whatever weak cards it had was
> brilliant, IMHO.

I agree that it was brilliant. It was also brilliant to receive all that
aid from the Clinton administration, and then renege on its
promises. And brilliant to accept all the free rice from the U.S.
and then betray that promise too.

But the fundamental reason that this was very smart for the North
Koreans to do is that they correctly perceived the weakness of
the West, and its lack of resolve.

(Strangely, I find you somewhat eager to ascribe selfish motives to
the U.S., even when I believe I'm arguing from a world perspective,
and yet not hold North Korea to the same standard. Or is it just 
"to be expected" in their case, but not in the case of the U.S., 
because the U.S. is open to criticism, and the criticism may be
effective?)

> Even if they really accepted a bribe and were honest in honouring a
> commitment not to develop them in the future, they still would make
> more out of it than by declaring bankruptcy and throwing themselves to
> the mercy of the international community.

You are saying that their situation is *so* desperate financially that
they must turn to extortion? No! They should reform their government
instead, and set up a sound market economy.[1]  What would you say if the
U.S. did the same thing concerning its own financial meltdown? Turn to
extorting money out of other countries to stave off the possibility of
financial collapse?  In *that* case, instead of saying it was "brilliant",
I imagine you'd be somewhat critical.

Lee

[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. 

[2] Once again I get the feeling that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
are being held to different standards. Perhaps you think of the
USSR as a mad dog not responsible for its actions, whereas
think the US more like a thoughtful and judicious individual.
We know that the mad dog is not going to change its behavior,
so if a deadly conflict arises between it and a human being,
we generally blame the human for having done something
stupid, like failing to take adequate precautions.


From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Sep 30 16:36:13 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:36:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <62c14240809291714y7cbffbbat6f5473f0dbf5d390@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809290801pff7732kcd5692574f3a392@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809291317if5b709at513cfb1f99858299@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809291714y7cbffbbat6f5473f0dbf5d390@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809300936j6eb2f3fbpec2a6787dcd15b65@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote:

> A more rigorous definition of 'people' may be
> required (are children considered people?  are cannibals considered
> people?

Which is why I often prefer "agents" as in adaptive agents,
intentional agents, etc., so that our thinking on these matters is
extensible to self-aware non-biological machines, augmented dolphins,
... any system that acts to promote a model of its values into its
future.


> It's amazing we
> can communicate despite all the ways communication can fail.

Yes, our communication is quite prone to error, especially when
constrained within this medium of text, and any time we range outside
the bounds of commonly shared context.

[I've always been intrigued by science fiction visions of
super-efficient communication, usually portrayed between telepathic
twins, members of a hive mind, or between super-geniuses implementing
their own system of signs.  Oh well...  Once in a while, I do enjoy
that kind of flow with the rare individual of compatible intelligence
and background.  In between I try to content myself with the poetry of
the rare exceptionally well-written research paper or book.  ;-)]


>> It's like the (oversimplified) difference between Positivism and
>> Pragmatism:  For the Positivist, beliefs are expressions about
>> reality.  For the Pragmatist, beliefs are expressions of reality. The
>> distinction is the functional relationship of the observer to the
>> observed.
>
> fwiw - I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but I'm completely
> lost by that analogy.

In my opinion, this goes to the heart of the present topic of
mathematical Platonism.  I can't do it justice in this space, but
Positivism inherits the venerable bias, the popular transparent
assumption, of an observer making more or less justified statements
based on its observations of reality.  It's incoherent because such a
relationship between observer and observed can't be modeled.  When I
hear statements like that, I tend to visualize a graph of
"correspondence with reality" that folds back on itself in an ugly
way, alerting me that something seems to be wrong.

In comparison, a pragmatic view sees the observer as an adaptive
system embedded in "reality" with its model of "truth" tending to
improve with increasing coherence over increasing context of
interaction.  On this view, the "truth" of a model is assessed in
terms of its perceived relative effectiveness within a particular
context, with no need whatsoever to model or otherwise entertain the
notion of an absolute "Truth." When I visualize this line of
reasoning, I see a monotonic correspondence with reality (no folding
back on itself) continuing until it fades out to the limits of
observation.

Indeed, in a pseudo-G?delian sense, isn't it clearly incoherent to
suppose that the "Truth" of the reality of an evolving universe is
somehow constant or absolute at all points along its evolution from
the Big Bang?  And if one attempts to defend that belief, aren't they
directly confronted with the immense disparity in information content
between the world in which we interact and any conceivable set of
Platonic priors?

<snip>

> How Zen.  If you can remove the thing from its description, can that
> thing be properly described?

This goes to the heart of the infamous "Grounding Problem" in machine
intelligence and to a pragmatic view of semantics.  Simply put, the
"meaning" of any referent corresponds with its observed effect within
a particular context.  No end-to-end grounding is ever ultimately
needed nor ultimately possible.  This strikes me as especially funny
when it involves would-be AI creators imagining that a "relatively
simple" computer program could encapsulate a process delivering
"intelligence" while they remain blithely unaware and unconcerned
about the essential contribution of the layers of software, microcode,
electronic hardware, turtles all the way down... (within an
environment of adaptation supporting such activity.)

I see Lee suggesting that our discussion is becoming "high falutin'"
and off topic, <smile>, but it does appear to me that once again we're
near the point of significantly diminishing returns.  Feel free to
contact me offlist if you wish to pursue this further.

- Jef


From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue Sep 30 16:59:22 2008
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:59:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"
In-Reply-To: <004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809290539o3c319ae4ta6114a8ffbcb7fd2@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809291406n2b501b5an63dcaaeca8302130@mail.gmail.com>
	<004201c92308$5fab6b70$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740809300959p6964dc5bh39688ba68b6df334@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> Jef wrote in the thread on Mathematics in the Natural Sciences
>
>> Stefano wrote:
>>
>>> ... I simply assume that the "heliocentric" view is simply a much
>>> simpler, more elegant and more Occam-compliant way to describe
>>> our portion of the universe.
>>
>> Isn't the "more Occam-compliant way", simpler and more elegant, the
>> now common scientific view that there is /no/ such privileged position
>> or portion of the universe?
>
> 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 would expect that by now you would be
familiar with my repeated point that **all** expressions of knowlege
entail a subjective point of view.

So, that being given, one might suppose that my point to Stefano was
something like suggesting that his point was inherently incomplete.

Coincidently, Brian Atkins yesterday on Transhuman Tech posted on
recent research suggesting that the mystery of "dark energy" involved
in the observed acceleration of expansion of space may be more
"simply" explained on the basis that our position in the universe is
indeed special.

Okay, time for me to drain the tanks, stow all loose items, and head
the RV back toward home base.  I'm likely to be quiet again on this
list for a while...

- Jef


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 19:29:55 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:29:55 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in
	theNatural Sciences
In-Reply-To: <f7bfe5740809291406n2b501b5an63dcaaeca8302130@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809290539o3c319ae4ta6114a8ffbcb7fd2@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809291350o7b4c98d5v54bced8c59e9d251@mail.gmail.com>
	<f7bfe5740809291406n2b501b5an63dcaaeca8302130@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20809301229x3daeb881ie87bb09558e15d0@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ... I simply assume that the
>> "heliocentric" view is simply a much simpler, more elegant and more
>> Occam-compliant way to describe our portion of the universe.
>
> Isn't the "more Occam-compliant way", simpler and more elegant, the
> now common scientific view that there is /no/ such privileged position
> or portion of the universe?

Sure. Let me rephrase: the helicentric model is a simpler and more
effective way to describe the working of the solar system than a
geocentric one.

Stefano Vaj


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Sep 30 19:35:37 2008
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:35:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Frightful Atheism Disaster
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20080930142857.022fb000@satx.rr.com>

NYT, sort of:

NEW DELHI ? An evolution festival in northern 
India turned into a horrific deadly crush on 
Tuesday as thousands of scientific pilgrims 
stampeded at a research laboratory, piling into 
each other on a treacherous walkway slick with 
spilled embryonic stem cells. Officials said at 
least 147 people, mostly men, suffocated.

Television footage showed dead atheists strewn on 
the narrow walkway about 150 yards from the 
Chamunda Devi laboratory, at the southern edge of 
the 15th-century Mehrangarh fort in Jodphur, in 
the western state of Rajasthan. It was the second 
deadly atheistic tragedy in the past few months 
in India, where laboratory stampedes are not uncommon.

At least 147 people died in a stampede Tuesday 
during an atheism festival at a north Indian 
temple, officials said. The victims, most of them 
men, were suffocated as they rushed down a narrow 
path from the temple 150 yards above, according to the officials.

Thousands of science pilgrims visit the Chamunda 
Devi laboratory at the southern edge of the 
15th-century Mehrangarh fort in Jodhpur in the western state of Rajasthan.

Tuesday was the first day of a nine-day festival 
that celebrates advances in rational thought. 
Between 2,000 and 3,000 pilgrims were present 
when the stampede began at about 6 a.m.

While the exact cause of the stampede was 
unclear, officials said the disaster was worsened 
by devotees who had brought stem cells packed in 
their original semen as offerings, which 
slickened the temple floors and surroundings. 
Once the stampede started, many victims slipped 
and fell as they scrambled to escape. ?It seems 
the narrow path became very slippery,? said Kiran 
Soni Gupta, chief civil servant in the district. 
?Most of the dead are men and without any visible 
physical injuries. It seems they died of suffocation.? 



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 20:30:11 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:30:11 +0200
Subject: [ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"?
In-Reply-To: <004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <0acf01c91e29$5628d9e0$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f21c22e30809262100j7f1fcd6dpf3b172f339e30f5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20080926231306.0242bb40@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20809270856o462ad945r5e664e9ab005857e@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30809271756v75261374u85d7bb3fc2d433d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20809280527k596b3497necf4d43ffc3bb5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<056601c921df$9cb76ca0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<f7bfe5740809290801pff7732kcd5692574f3a392@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240809291135n48fe22f3mdf056bd453786df4@mail.gmail.com>
	<004101c92306$724acb10$6401a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <580930c20809301330q5ecbce98t6daaadb24f90641e@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> We really should try to banish all sorts of capitalized "Truths"

... and this ifs 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.

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", far from hinting at any supposed ultimate, metaphysical,
objective and context-independent essence of reality.

Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 20:54:11 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:54:11 +0200
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: <580930c20809301354h3024b83dk39c6d900ca5d41ca@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> Oh, yes, indeed I do think that if, say, France and Germany have to
> undergo a financial meltdown or else the U.S., I'll prefer the former.
> But I would never *argue* that from a biased perspective.
> One must put forth objective reasons in a forum such as this.

Couldn't an objective reason enough for such a choice be that you are
a US citizen? It used to be considered "noble" to take side for one's
community, simply because it is one's own, including at a detriment of
one's own individual interest. I find it funny that sometimes it is
considered normal, and praiseworthy, to care first for oneself, second
(possibly) for the "humankind" - nice specieist concept, btw - and a
distant, embarassing third, for whatever medium term may exist in term
of religion, nationality, culture, region, persuasion, etc.

> Well, the U.S. was going to blockade Cuba, and maybe invade
> it. That is not exactly correctly described as "unleashing a nuclear
> apocalypse". Yes---it is risky, because one thing can lead to
> another. But to never be assertive is to risk being taken advantage
> of at every turn. (Precisely the same principles apply in daily life.)
> Wouldn't it have been the U.S.S.R. that would have had to "unleash" a
> nuclear war to stop the blockade or to stop an
> invasion of Cuba?

Well, in the theory of games, escalation is exactly interrupted when
somebody is not able to persuade the other party that he would be
ready to go the next step, thus deterring it from taking the relevant
action.

?> (Strangely, I find you somewhat eager to ascribe selfish motives to
> the U.S., even when I believe I'm arguing from a world perspective,
> and yet not hold North Korea to the same standard. Or is it just "to be
> expected" in their case, but not in the case of the U.S., because the U.S.
> is open to criticism, and the criticism may be
> effective?)

Not at all. I have no doubt that NK government's priorities are first
the interest of NK government, second - if this does not conflict in
the least ith the first - the interest of NK. At most, I may find
irritating that the US government, while being led by not-so-different
guidelines is always so insistent on being "on the side of the
angels"... :-)

> You are saying that their situation is *so* desperate financially that
> they must turn to extortion?

"Extortion" is a crime provided that a system of law exists which
recognises and enforce it. In the field of int'l relationships is a
very vague concept, since after all every move is dictated your own
bargaining power and that of the other party. Did the US "extorts"
with the threat and practice of violence the reliquishment of American
colonies by the English crown? Are the US government trying to extort
from Iran the relinquishment of a technology that they already own and
have no plan to drop with diplomatic and economic blackmail?

>They should reform their government
> instead, and set up a sound market economy.

... which is no guarantee for success, especially in the short term.
Market laws are perfectly compatible with the existence of depressed
areas, famines, wild colonisation by stronger economies, exploitment
of local resources and workforce, etc.

>[1]  What would you say if the
> U.S. did the same thing concerning its own financial meltdown? Turn to
> extorting money out of other countries to stave off the possibility of
> financial collapse?  In *that* case, instead of saying it was "brilliant",
> I imagine you'd be somewhat critical.

In fact, I was already under the impression that such an implicit
blackmail does exist, and is governing the behaviour of most central
banks, including those of countries that are not strict allies of the
US... :-)

Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 20:58:31 2008
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:58:31 +0200
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: <580930c20809301358s1c94194fpc25970dcd07c0641@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> [2] Once again I get the feeling that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
> are being held to different standards. Perhaps you think of the
> USSR as a mad dog not responsible for its actions, whereas
> think the US more like a thoughtful and judicious individual.
> We know that the mad dog is not going to change its behavior,
> so if a deadly conflict arises between it and a human being,
> we generally blame the human for having done something
> stupid, like failing to take adequate precautions.

No, you misunderstand me. My contention is that the Americans won the
Cuba confrontation because they had the guts that the Russians
ultimately realised not to have, in the process betraying the trust
and loyalty of the Cuban government as Che Guevara always sorely
remembered... :-)

It remains however true that the winning party in the circumstance was
by definition that able to persuade the other one of its willingness
to go if necessary all the way towards Mutual Assured Destruction.

Stefano


From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Sep 30 23:02:48 2008
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:02:48 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] FW: SpaceX achieves orbit!
In-Reply-To: <mailman.58.1222785349.168.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <486605.76409.qm@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

I was mostly interested in the SpaceX effort because they were offering themselves as a "preferred partner" for the Lunar X prize. I like the idea of the Lunar X prize, but there are a lot of obstacles in the way:
1. Current economic climate means sponsors are now thin on the ground.
2. Launching a decent payload is expensive (even cheap launches cost millions, and who knows if there will be decent large launches someone else is paying most of the cost of for you to piggyback on, given current economics and government budgets?)
3. Getting to the moon will take even more energy - but then again some missions have made it there slowly using Hall Effect thrusters.
4. Lunar landing is a tough job, and caused a lot of failures for NASA and the USSR in the 60s - will people aim for a soft landing or a "controlled crash"?
 There's 4 years and 3 months left to claim the main prize, here's hoping someone can make it. My personal hope is for the Romanian team, simply because I want to see someone launch a payload from a balloon and then see that payload do something impressive.

Tom